Are you frustrated with the fame sprinters have?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I admire guys like Boonen, Freire, Hushovd (hated him as a rider but admired his skill set) and more recently Sagan, Degenkolb and Kristoff.

They are top sprinters but have a much wider range of skills. Cobbles, hills, long distances and riding in cross winds. All those guys can do several of those things very well.

Pure sprinters like Kittel and Cav are indifferent to me because i have never seen them do anything that captivated me like i have those other guys do.

The only pure sprinter i like is Greipel because of his work ethics. Who can forget him pushing into the poggio for gilbert in 2011? Or working for VdB on a mountain stage just a few days ago? The guy knows when it's not his day and has no problem working for his team mates.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Not really bothered by the 'fame' sprinters have. I do like it when Cavendish loses and throws his toys out of the stroller, that makes flat stages bearable.
 
SeriousSam said:
What? Has Sagan done something I'm not aware of? Plenty of riders who may not be the nicest of guys. What makes Sagan possibly worse than Lance ****ing Armstrong?
I missed a lot of Armstrong's heyday, and so a lot of his most heinous behaviours I've only really picked up through retrospect. Armstrong is now banished to the past as well. I'm sure if we went through the laundry list, I'd be forced to admit that Armstrong is a far more repulsive character than Sagan will ever be... but he's gone. I've discarded my memories of Lance. He isn't a threat to win anything. Nobody wants to give him a platform anymore or talk about him, because he's been finally outed and cast onto the scrapheap where he belongs. But I switch on the TV to watch a race and Sagan is always there. Always pulling his "look at me, I'm Peter Sagan! Give me attention!" crap at every given opportunity. And because of his versatility, unlike a few years ago when the HTC train took that position in my vitriol, it isn't limited to a few flat and rolling stages. You're hardly ever safe from switching on and hearing the commentators go on and on about the great Peter Sagan, and seeing his stupid smug face with its permanent "oh look, I'm so cheeky. I'm the best, hell yeah, I'm Peter Sagan baby!" expression. And that somehow this behaviour makes him popular is absolutely inexplicable to me. I just can't get it. It's been explained to me several times, but I cannot comprehend it.
 
Nov 16, 2011
426
0
0
Me thinks it's all about camera work. Sprints go by fast so bad camera positioning and quality can totally ruin the visual aspect. When there's good shots, it's amazing to see how fast these guys are motoring on.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Hello everybody. This looks like a thread for me. Create your own Libertine Seguros post with a selection of punctuation, conjunctions and the following stock phrases:

- USPS are evil
- Climbers get more chances to win than any other type of rider, by far....except sprinters;)
- Climbers don't deserve to compete for victory unless the route has made them fight for it
- Sarcastic comparison of Schleck's descending ability to something exaggeratedly bad at it (e.g. "Andy Schleck descends like a helium filled pig shaped balloon")
- The Official Worst Race In The World®
- Something interesting could have happened, but the race designers wouldn't let it
- Team Sky are a horrible team that bring nothing to races
- johan bruyneel killed cycling
- The only good thing about a MTF is that people faster than Sagan will make it to the end so he will lose
- [insert rider on leadout duty] is too good to be wasted riding for scum like [insert climber]
- Seriously, this race sucked. Really sucked
- We're 85km from the finish, the péloton has the break on a 2 minute leash, wake me when we're done
- Nothing happens in Unipublic stages you may as well watch a 10-second clip of the sprint and use the time for something more productive, like crochet or learning Klingon
Sadly many of the same criticisms can be made of pure climbers. The only thing that makes them less dull is the final 3km matters instead of 300m. Another difference may be that pure sprinters will never be able to win anything else, climbers on a good route and with more even teams could race differently, but the situation as it stands, almost as boring as sprinters.
 
Jul 15, 2010
420
0
0
Jeepers - Surely one of the great strengths of the sport is that it manages to accommodate many shapes and sizes and that there are races that suit almost everyone. Surely the tour is as popular s it is because of the contrast that is created by the variation of terrain from stage to stage.

The evolution of the sport is what has created the specialisation that we see today and this will continue to develop but this will create opportunities for people. Don't get caught up on the "good old days".

The tactics in the sprints now are fascinating if you open your mind up to it. I think all the sprint stages this tour have been fantastic as various teams fight to control the bunch, but ultimately fail to do so. The combination of luck and skill is what makes the sprints great - the level of skill displayed by Sagan moving through the bunch at speed is astounding.

I like all elements of cycling and can appreciate what is on display no matter what type of rider. I do hold the riders who can win PR, Flanders and Liege in particularly high esteem however....
 
Apr 2, 2014
277
0
0
I think the technical aspect of being able to win sprints is something you appreciate more the longer you watch pro cycling

I enjoy it more now than I did years ago
 
I don't mind letting the sprinters have their glory in a Grand Tour, a 3-week race should accommodate as many of the best possible riders they can which means keeping a balanced route.

Ok some of the pure flat stages can be a little tedious but I find the Vueltas 15 uphill finishes exactly the same. I really like watching the sprint closing stages and watching teams jockey for position and launch their sprinter, it can be chaos and sorts the men from the boys.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
I missed a lot of Armstrong's heyday, and so a lot of his most heinous behaviours I've only really picked up through retrospect. Armstrong is now banished to the past as well. I'm sure if we went through the laundry list, I'd be forced to admit that Armstrong is a far more repulsive character than Sagan will ever be... but he's gone. I've discarded my memories of Lance. He isn't a threat to win anything. Nobody wants to give him a platform anymore or talk about him, because he's been finally outed and cast onto the scrapheap where he belongs. But I switch on the TV to watch a race and Sagan is always there. Always pulling his "look at me, I'm Peter Sagan! Give me attention!" crap at every given opportunity. And because of his versatility, unlike a few years ago when the HTC train took that position in my vitriol, it isn't limited to a few flat and rolling stages. You're hardly ever safe from switching on and hearing the commentators go on and on about the great Peter Sagan, and seeing his stupid smug face with its permanent "oh look, I'm so cheeky. I'm the best, hell yeah, I'm Peter Sagan baby!" expression. And that somehow this behaviour makes him popular is absolutely inexplicable to me. I just can't get it. It's been explained to me several times, but I cannot comprehend it.
Have to agree with most of this re Sagan, I just can't warm to the guy at all. I find it funny how some like to hate Tommy V and Jens for being a showman for the cameras yet adore Sagan who goes even further with the cringe stuff.
 
The sprinters are not the problem, the sprinting team around them are.

They bring nothing to cycling just killing and controll of the stages that could bring us some attacs and breakways.

Sprinters teams are best domestiques for climber teams and too offen takes pressure from the yellow jersey teams in their job in chasing and controlling the race.


Apart from Froome and Contador I love this year Tour, tour profile and stage design.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Pricey_sky said:
Have to agree with most of this re Sagan, I just can't warm to the guy at all. I find it funny how some like to hate Tommy V and Jens for being a showman for the cameras yet adore Sagan who goes even further with the cringe stuff.
Take a breath, sprinter analyst! Tommy V feigns fatigue and drama and isn't very good at it.
Sagan actually creates fatigue, drama and comedy! That's one more marketable element and he does a good job poking fun at the Sanctity of cycling tradition.
I never liked being around Sprinters at a finish but loved them on uphill grades...they blow like fireworks when they're overextended. On flat ground it is a different sport and surely more of a spectacle than dramatic orgy of suffering. Depends what sort of masochism you favor, doesn't it?
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
Netserk said:
Imo sprints were better in the pre-Cav period with no clear top-dog (McEwen was the best, but not unbeatable) and often more chaotic sprints with only one lead-out man per sprinter.
Cipo had a full lead out train, and won four TdF stages in a row in 1999.
 
karlboss said:
Sadly many of the same criticisms can be made of pure climbers. The only thing that makes them less dull is the final 3km matters instead of 300m. Another difference may be that pure sprinters will never be able to win anything else, climbers on a good route and with more even teams could race differently, but the situation as it stands, almost as boring as sprinters.
Agree, the lack of action and risky moves from so called versatile riders/climbers on tougher parcours simply enhances the armchair ride bunch sprinters do. Sprinters talks about being delivered with 150m to go. Crazy development. But a bunch sprint can be almost as exciting/frustrating as a bog standard MTF where everybody have wheelsucked each other until the last 2km.


Netserk:
Imo sprints were better in the pre-Cav period with no clear top-dog (McEwen was the best, but not unbeatable) and often more chaotic sprints with only one lead-out man per sprinter.
Cipo probably developed and perfected the train model, which I agree kills lots of race action.

Nobody wants to race against 2-3 sprinter trains and hence many flattish stages are doomed before we even start (race action wise)
 
Apr 2, 2014
277
0
0
I think some expect all riders (and sportspeople for that matter) to be expressionless, polite, courteous, humble, apolitical, quiet and non controversial

what a boring world that would be
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Lupi33 said:
I think some expect all riders (and sportspeople for that matter) to be expressionless, polite, courteous, humble, apolitical, quiet and non controversial

what a boring world that would be
Totally agree. Did I say I don't especially favor sprinters? I don't.
 
Oldman said:
Take a breath, sprinter analyst! Tommy V feigns fatigue and drama and isn't very good at it.
Sagan actually creates fatigue, drama and comedy! That's one more marketable element and he does a good job poking fun at the Sanctity of cycling tradition.
I never liked being around Sprinters at a finish but loved them on uphill grades...they blow like fireworks when they're overextended. On flat ground it is a different sport and surely more of a spectacle than dramatic orgy of suffering. Depends what sort of masochism you favor, doesn't it?
I can live with the theater, if these riders creates something in the race. A reaction somewhere. Other riders getting inspired and perhaps follows etc. We don't have many riders who takes risks in the modern peloton. Most prefers to hide and save themselves until the very last few kms.
 
I am frustrated with stupid threads like this one. :rolleyes:

Fortunately in the real world out there guys like Marcel Kittel, Mark Cavendish, André Greipel etc. always reign supreme over the likes of Txurukka, Pirazzi or whatever always-losing little-talented wannabe climber gets the praise of the sprinter-haters here currently.

There's nothing more exciting in professional cycling then the last 20, 30 seconds of a pure sprint stage. And fortunately sponsors, race designers, team leaders and the majority of cycling fans see it exactly the same.
 
Not being able to climb is a false and stupid argument against sprinters for if you are 70+kg, there's a pretty good chance that you won't be able to climb along with the featherweight pocket climbers, right?

The Walloon Arrow is very hilly but is the most boring of all classics and always finishes in an uphill bunch sprint.


The problem with sprinters is that they are sucking wheels for 99.9% of a race, and pop up with 200m to go, domestique doing all the dirty job...

I'm not frustrated with their fame, though, because most of the time, I don't see them win. They have fame because stupid cycling fans only care about GT's and they win a bunch of GT stages today. That's all.

I didn't like it when pure sprinters managed to win Milan-Sanremo but that belongs to a bygone era now, when the peloton was heavy on *ibracadabra* (coded message). Now Milan-Sanremo is a genuine classic again.

A flat race does not necessarily always end in a sprint. Teams simply should be smarter in the chase behind breakaway. Why would Fdjeux chase for Démare while Démare knows he can't outsprint Cavendish or Kittel. Same for Sagan and Canondale... The top favourite's team should be the only one chasing. Then they would be exhausted in the final kilometer and that would open the finale for last attack, à la Jelle Nijdam... But how can you make them understand that ...

In the early nineties, you still had a lot of flat races that ended in breakaways or in late Nijdam attacks. In the seventies, that was a whole lot different for sprinters took part in the chase behind breakaways (I think?)... The route is not the problem !
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
SHAD0W93 Professional Road Racing 42

ASK THE COMMUNITY