Best and the Worst Teams at Developing Riders?

[Dazed and Confused]

I can't help but think we're being a little bit facetious...

Saxo doesn't take in that many youngsters, and despite an occasional bias towards limited homeland talent they are way up there amoung the best at developing them through the pro ranks. A little reasearch and you would have spoted the relatively high retention rates of young riders despite limited budgets, with GT champions and multiple WC medalists and future stars amoung them.

Yep, there has been some major hits, but most of them belongs to a timeframe where BMC didn't operate, hence my comment.

So if comparing BMC and Saxo directly, we would need to do over the last three or four years imo. I don't see much difference here:

BMC with Phinney and TJVG

Saxo with Majka and Boaro (?)

Note: Trying to look at some major movers only. Can't see how retaining riders who doesn't get solid results can be used to gauge development effort.

It could be Saxo has been operating in a transition period for last last few years hence the rather limited number of movers, but I stand by my assessment of recent talent developing skills.

 

[theyoungest]

Garmin are good at developing talent. Unless this talent happens to be Dutch.

 

[Pentacycle]

Garmin are good at developing talent. Unless this talent happens to be Dutch.

Says more about Dutch talent development under 23 than about Garmin's approach.

 

[The Amateur]

So if comparing BMC and Saxo directly, we would need to do over the last three or four years imo. I don't see much difference here:

BMC with Phinney and TJVG

Saxo with Majka and Boaro (?)

Note: Trying to look at some major movers only. Can't see how retaining riders who doesn't get solid results can be used to gauge development.

Comparing the development of two of the biggest talents of their generation with Majka and Boaro and this concluding that the team with the biggest talents are the best at developing talents sounds somewhat odds to me. As I see it it is more a question of
1) money: BMC can buy the talents they need (to a higher degree than Saxo),
2) emphasis: Saxo haven't contracted a big talent for quite some years. McCarthy is the first since Goss (2007) and Steensen (2008) (I rate him on his junior years) and to some entent Bellis (2008). They have had succes with some talents outside the super talent group if you ask me eg. Porte and Majka. To me BMC sina mess when it comes to talent development. It doesn't look Line there are the needed structure to develop the young riders.
3) Security: BMC has a solid financial foundation where Saxo has been strugling to survive. Saxo still have short sponsor contracts and it seems the budget is still quite low compared to the top tier teams.

To sum it up I think Saxo does ok. They spot a few very interesting talents but it seems that Riis has been reluctant to sign super talents (or not been able to attract them). BMC well... They have been mediocre at best.

 

[theyoungest]

Says more about Dutch talent development under 23 than about Garmin's approach.

Yes, I know you think so. Everything boils down to Dutch suckage

But if you look at it, what riders have made massive strides at Garmin? Dan Martin, and Hesjedal (at age 30-something).

 

[notrolfsorensen]

Yes, I know you think so. Everything boils down to Dutch suckage

But if you look at it, what riders have made massive strides at Garmin? Dan Martin, and Hesjedal (at age 30-something).

And Peter Stetina, Steele von Hoff, Andrew talansky to name a few

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Comparing the development of two of the biggest talents of their generation with Majka and Boaro and this concluding that the team with the biggest talents are the best at developing talents sounds somewhat odds to me. As I see it it is more a question of
1) money: BMC can buy the talents they need (to a higher degree than Saxo),
2) emphasis: Saxo haven't contracted a big talent for quite some years. McCarthy is the first since Goss (2007) and Steensen (2008) (I rate him on his junior years) and to some entent Bellis (2008). They have had succes with some talents outside the super talent group if you ask me eg. Porte and Majka. To me BMC sina mess when it comes to talent development. It doesn't look Line there are the needed structure to develop the young riders.
3) Security: BMC has a solid financial foundation where Saxo has been strugling to survive. Saxo still have short sponsor contracts and it seems the budget is still quite low compared to the top tier teams.

To sum it up I think Saxo does ok. They spot a few very interesting talents but it seems that Riis has been reluctant to sign super talents (or not been able to attract them). BMC well... They have been mediocre at best.

Why is it odd to compare development of talents on a relative basis? Surely an assessment can (and should) focus on whether a team moves its talent base forward. Whether the talent is huge (like Phinney) or smaller (Boaro) is irrelevant imo.

So lets see what Saxo can do with McCarthy over the next few years.

 

[theyoungest]

And Peter Stetina, Steele von Hoff, Andrew talansky to name a few

I didn't mean 'name all their talents', I meant 'name all their talents that have made progression'. Talansky could be one, still too early to tell.

 

[notrolfsorensen]

I didn't mean 'name all their talents', I meant 'name all their talents that have made progression'. Talansky could be one, still too early to tell.

Talansky is one. He top-10'ed in the Vuelta last year and followed that up with podium in PN and good rides in general through this spring. That's great progression. And one the reasons they have a good talent development is the fact that they (tha talents) get to race for themselves instead of only being domestiques.

 

[theyoungest]

Talansky is one. He top-10'ed in the Vuelta last year and followed that up with podium in PN and good rides in general through this spring. That's great progression. And one the reasons they have a good talent development is the fact that they (tha talents) get to race for themselves instead of only being domestiques.

Yes, Talansky is doing very well. But he's just a third year pro. Can he make that final step, or will he plateau, that's the crux in talent development.

But Stetina and Von Hoff? Seriously?

 

[notrolfsorensen]

Yes, Talansky is doing very well. But he's just a third year pro. Can he make that final step, or will he plateau, that's the crux in talent development.

But Stetina and Von Hoff? Seriously?

Yeah ok about Stetina... He was a great talent a couple of years ago but seems to have stagnated a bit. But von Hoff looks to be developing just fine. He was never shouted out to be the next big thing in sprints but he gets a lot of good placements. Isn't he a first- or second year pro?

 

[dirkprovin]

It's only early days but I'm not sure about Orica as a place for developing riders. Neil Stephens does have experience but the team structure doesn't seem too organised overall. Bobridge and Goss stagnated, Meyer is inconsistent and Howard seemed to have more promise when he was at HTC.

Will wait and see how the likes of Matthews, Hepburn, Keukeleire and Teklehaimanot go before passing judgement.

Agree that Movistar and Garmin seem solid at developing talent as was HTC. The old Credit Agricole setup seemed ok as well.

How much is necessarily the entire fault of the team management/structure and how much may be due to the attitude of the rider upon joining the team ? With some (but certainly far from all) of the AUS riders at OGE; has there been an attitude that "hey we're Aussies on an Aussie team, we haven't got to prove ourselves as much as at other teams"; ie an attitude of complacency. In this regard maybe the management has NOT been nearly hard enough !

With some that you've mentioned involvement with track programs has impacted progress; others can plead illness at various points but others DO need to be hauled over the coals and show due cause as to why they should not be shown the door.

Letting O'Grady go on till TdF next year IS a retrograde step. It is great that they've been able to tap into his experience as a road captain but he's frankly at a physical state where he's struggling to even "be there" then needed.

One hopes there will be a major overhaul at the end of this season, maybe including management. There are some foreign names who can hardly justify retention (and a number who certainly DO) but a number of AUS riders of varying ages may be served well with the reality check of "unemployment" because lets face it, which WTour or even topline ProCont teams would be interested given their performances

 

[Le Baroudeur]

Yep, there has been some major hits, but most of them belongs to a timeframe where BMC didn't operate, hence my comment.

So if comparing BMC and Saxo directly, we would need to do over the last three or four years imo. I don't see much difference here:

BMC with Phinney and TJVG

Saxo with Majka and Boaro (?)

Note: Trying to look at some major movers only. Can't see how retaining riders who doesn't get solid results can be used to gauge development effort.

It could be Saxo has been operating in a transition period for last last few years hence the rather limited number of movers, but I stand by my assessment of recent talent developing skills.

No you don't. Track record and experience in developing riders to their potential with the results to show for it are huge factors. Your caveat is like saying you can only compare Oxford University with a Two year old polytechnic conversion, based on the last two years because all of oxfords historical success is irrelevant. No track record is very relevant. However, Andy Rihs does have a history in cycling...

 

[Dazed and Confused]

No you don't. Track record and experience in developing riders to their potential with the results to show for it are huge factors. Your caveat is like saying you can only compare Oxford University with a Two year old polytechnic conversion, based on the last two years because all of oxfords historical success is irrelevant. No track record is very relevant. However, Andy Rihs does have a history in cycling...

well, I do.
I don't care so much about what Saxo did years ago.
Just like any other business, recent times and performances are more important when judging capabilities moving forward. Especially when it comes to businesses as fragile as cycling teams.

As for Rhis, we are not judging sponsors and investors. We are judging management's skills in the talent development department within the current outfit.

In any case I will be looking forward to see some of Saxo's talents being moved forward in the next few years.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

well, I do.
I don't care so much about what Saxo did years ago.
Just like any other business, recent times and performances are more important when judging capabilities moving forward. Especially when it comes to businesses as fragile as cycling teams.

As for Rhis, we are not judging sponsors and investors. We are judging management's skills in the talent development department within the current outfit.

In any case I will be looking forward to see some of Saxo's talents being moved forward in the next few years.

In business, a track record is hugely significant. Tried and tested is nearly always a sounder proposition than a start up that comes, goes, comes...

Undervaluing the part owners and investors play is folly imho. Both team owners invested relatively significantly in their respective teams. Backing, structure, and sponsor relationships say a lot about a team, it's goals, methodology and raison d'être, both in developement and results.

The future will be interesting, especialy with a lot of both the restriction of young rider numbers, and heavy burden placed upon them when steping up to the WT level now in part offloaded to the new development team of Ceramica Flaminia Fondriest, as well as the exixting close but unofficial ties to it's traditional feeder teams. Following the team has always been to a greater part about watching the young arrivals move up through it's ranks. Alas many young riders seem dazzled by the fast cash, PR, and glamour of the newer 'super teams' to the cost of traditional development teams and possibly their own careers in the longterm. The UCI has done very little to compensate and encourage teams to invest in young riders when they can be paoched with ease, and probibly take for granted the passion for the sport in the smaller teams to continue their work.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

snipped lots...

The UCI has done very little to compensate and encourage teams to invest in young riders when they can be paoched with ease, and probibly take for granted the passion for the sport in the smaller teams to continue their work.

Agree with this. Points hunting (or selling) at the end of the season is one of the main issues driving the problem imo.

 

[ElChingon]

Can the title be updated to be:

Luckiest and UnLuckiest teams at picking riders.

 

[The Amateur]

Why is it odd to compare development of talents on a relative basis? Surely an assessment can (and should) focus on whether a team moves its talent base forward. Whether the talent is huge (like Phinney) or smaller (Boaro) is irrelevant imo.

So lets see what Saxo can do with McCarthy over the next few years.

I agree to some extent. Driving you talent base forward is part of it. To me it is more impressive to find a talent that nobody else saw and develop that rider than takning somethng that is clearly a hughe big talent (like TJVG and Phinney). Unless you make that Big talent do somethng extraordinary.

I find BMC lagging - especially if you look at the track record. Historically Riis has been a whole lot better at developing talents than Rihs.

That being said: it will be interesting to see if Saxo still Got it when McCarthy develops. I sure hope so because talent development has been left missing on the team for some time now.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

I agree to some extent. Driving you talent base forward is part of it. To me it is more impressive to find a talent that nobody else saw and develop that rider than takning somethng that is clearly a hughe big talent (like TJVG and Phinney). Unless you make that Big talent do somethng extraordinary.

I find BMC lagging - especially if you look at the track record. Historically Riis has been a whole lot better at developing talents than Rihs.

That being said: it will be interesting to see if Saxo still Got it when McCarthy develops. I sure hope so because talent development has been left missing on the team for some time now.

Talent spotting (early) is clearly part of any serious team's job. Development of said talent is a another serious task.

If BMC manages to get TJVG on multiple TdF podiums and perhaps even win the race once (like Sastre and Evans), I would say the team have done a good job.

If Saxo manages to get Boaro into the top 5 in many of the TTs he starts and win a couple each year along with a "soft" 1 week race, I would say the team has done very well.

Somebody has to do develop the "big" talents and I think everyone can see if that talent is moving forward or not. Is Phinney moving forward? Lets give him a couple more years and then judge BMC.

Buying big established names (Gilbert, Contador etc) and getting them to continue to perform is somewhat different from talent development imo.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Dombrowski was climbing with the top pros already last year, this year we haven't seen anything like that. He probably trained a bit harder than he can handle in Mallorca, where he was producing great numbers (only Henao was better in the climbs).

Hopefully they know what they're doing though and when Dombro eventually gets accustomed to the extreme training regime, he'll have the energy to climb with the best again.

No, it's not that. From what I've heard Sky forces Dombrowski and Boswell to be water carriers, so they can learn how to move through a pro peloton. Later in the year when they are a bit more used to moving through a pro peloton, they get some free role in smaller races. And the coming years they'll be able to grow that way.

Actually quite smart. I know a few guys at Blanco/Belkin who could've used some 'move through peloton' training when they were younger, catching water bottles. But no...they are always leader or free role straight from the start (just look at Kelderman now again, same thing as with Gesink/Dekker and all others, instant leader)

 

[Kwibus]

No, it's not that. From what I've heard Sky forces Dombrowski and Boswell to be water carriers, so they can learn how to move through a pro peloton. Later in the year when they are a bit more used to moving through a pro peloton, they get some free role in smaller races. And the coming years they'll be able to grow that way.

Actually quite smart. I know a few guys at Blanco/Belkin who could've used some 'move through peloton' training when they were younger, catching water bottles. But no...they are always leader or free role straight from the start (just look at Kelderman now again, same thing as with Gesink/Dekker and all others, instant leader)

That's because they are instantly the best rider of the team when they join the pro ranks. At Sky they got lots of good riders anyways.

 

[toolittle]

BMC is definitely worst to develop young pro.

Just see, young Samtanbrogio droped his ex-captain just months after released by BMC

BMC is good only for developing old Pro.
Evidence? OLD Evans won his first ever tour till 35 with BMC

 

[richard_91]

BMC is definitely worst to develop young pro.

Just see, young Samtanbrogio droped his ex-captain just months after released by BMC

And then budge for drugs..(not a defense of bmc)