Critérium du Dauphiné 2012 Stage 7 Sunday, June 10 125 km Morzine → Châtel

[Libertine Seguros]

Yes, I understand your views, but look what happened to First Class Cricket when Mr. Packer thought it needed to be made "more entertaining".

One-Day matches, limited overs, 20:20, coloured clothes, and dancing girls.

Now we have the Indian "Premiere League" version of Cricket, and the Indians lap it up.

But for any real Cricket lover, NONE of the above are cricket.

I have been know to literally cross the world to view a genuine cricket match in the distant past. But today I wouldn't cross the road to be handed a free ticket to a modern "First Class Match". It's been de-valued that much.

Your logic, will ensure cycling follows the same fate.

Except in your example (I don't really know much about it) it seems like "Mr. Packer" attempting to make it more mainstream came about through pandering to mass market at the expense of the tradition of the sport.

I am acting as a traditionalist for cycling; it sounds like cricket wasn't changing, but was then forcibly changed for mass media consumption. Cycling IS changing, and in a way I don't like, so I want that change to stop.

I am not asking for cycling to be all about fireworks, explosions and be as shallow as a Michael Bay film. I'm asking it to stop devaluing traditional races and chasing dollars that may or may not be there in the long run, and remember what it was about the sport that made us all fans in the first place.

 

[Trunnions]

Except in your example (I don't really know much about it) it seems like "Mr. Packer" attempting to make it more mainstream came about through pandering to mass market at the expense of the tradition of the sport.

I am acting as a traditionalist for cycling; it sounds like cricket wasn't changing, but was then forcibly changed for mass media consumption. Cycling IS changing, and in a way I don't like, so I want that change to stop.

I am not asking for cycling to be all about fireworks, explosions and be as shallow as a Michael Bay film. I'm asking it to stop devaluing traditional races and chasing dollars that may or may not be there in the long run, and remember what it was about the sport that made us all fans in the first place.

Sorry to throw the Cricket example at you, if you're not familiar with it.

Yes, I can see your heart is for cycling, but I still think the aim should be to lift the viewers cycling IQ, not drop cycling's IQ.

The way to do that is by educating them (me included) on the finer points, the nuances, the history, technology and so on.

It's dangerous to pander to jingoism, and calling for fireworks on the climbs.

Just let the riders race how they want to and get quality production and commentators to educate us on what is going on.

Old style First Class Cricket often had me on the edge of my seat bubbling inside, when hardly anything visible was occurring in the square. Because I understood what was happening in the bowler's and batsman's heads.

The same with sailing:

I watched most of the America's Cup live when Bond beat Conner's, with a room full of Rugby players, and you could have heard a pin-drop. Everyone was gripped by the tension, yet the two yachts were moving at walking speed most of the time. It was more exciting than many Formula One motor races. The point: The viewers understood what was happening, and became enthralled by it.

That's what Pro cycling needs today.

 

[spalco]

Like Timmy said this race is just a training session.
Evans lost 1 minute 20seconds to tony in the dauphine and then lost 7 seconds in le tour on the exact same TT even though he toquestiomok it safe in the last few parts.
Do you really think evans will lose that much time to wiggins in the tdf TTs??
Yeah for the hill top finishes like today the gap between wiggins and evans will be small.
But its the MTF which are more important.

Well, despite Bavarianrider's hope Martin isn't a gc rider, but I honestly don't know the answer to the question, but I don't think it's out of the question.

 

[dlwssonic]

Well, despite Bavarianrider's hope Martin isn't a gc rider, but I honestly don't know the answer to the question, but I don't think it's out of the question.

Its not about Martin.
I'm just showing how much better Cadel's TT will be at le tour and that you should not take his performance at the dauphine that seriously.

 

[Arnout]

Sorry to throw the Cricket example at you, if you're not familiar with it.

Yes, I can see your heart is for cycling, but I still think the aim should be to lift the viewers cycling IQ, not drop cycling's IQ.

The way to do that is by educating them (me included) on the finer points, the nuances, the history, technology and so on.

It's dangerous to pander to jingoism, and calling for fireworks on the climbs.

Just let the riders race how they want to and get quality production and commentators to educate us on what is going on.

Old style First Class Cricket often had me on the edge of my seat bubbling inside, when hardly anything visible was occurring in the square. Because I understood what was happening in the bowler's and batsman's heads.

The same with sailing:

I watched most of the America's Cup live when Bond beat Conner's, with a room full of Rugby players, and you could have heard a pin-drop. Everyone was gripped by the tension, yet the two yachts were moving at walking speed most of the time. It was more exciting than many Formula One motor races. The point: The viewers understood what was happening, and became enthralled by it.

That's what Pro cycling needs today.

Cycling has the same problem as Formula 1 though. Due to whatever reason, whether it's UCI points, type of cyclist in top form at the moment, course characteristics or I don't know what, cyclists aren't pushing at the moment. Racing can be close and exciting: everyone is still waxing lyrically about the 1989 battle in the Tour, where the winner finished 8 seconds in front of the number 2. This year we had a Giro where the top 2 was separated by some 20 seconds and it was horrible. It was close because there were no changes.

I'm watching sport to be amazed, partly. Sports is forgetting that, going for the lowest common denominator: as long as it's close and they can keep telling that in the commentary box, everything is fine and dandy.

Just look at Formula 1. The cars are very close together, unbelievably so in Monaco. It isn't proper racing though, as the drivers aren't able to push. Close racing when pushing is great, close racing because of preservation is the worst thing that can happen to a sport. I'd much rather have dominance of a team or driver (as long as it's not Vettel) than artificial DRS overtakes and close racing because of stupid tyres.

In cycling, the racing is close too, in the mountains. No-one dares to do anything, the people that attack in the mountains are in a battle against superteams and badly designed courses without much difficulty before the final 20 kilometers or without much difficulty in the last 50 kilometers. It brings us close racing, because everyone is staying in one group. It's the opposite of racing on the edge or excitement though.

 

[spalco]

Its not about Martin.
I'm just showing how much better Cadel's TT will be at le tour and that you should not take his performance at the dauphine that seriously.

I know it's at best an indication, but my point was that a TT after three weeks of le Tour is different from a TT after three days of Dauphiné - of course Evans does better in comparison to Martin in the former than the latter, because that's the kind of athlete he is.

 

[Froome19]

Yes, I understand your views, but look what happened to First Class Cricket when Mr. Packer thought it needed to be made "more entertaining".

One-Day matches, limited overs, 20:20, coloured clothes, and dancing girls.

Now we have the Indian "Premiere League" version of Cricket, and the Indians lap it up.

But for any real Cricket lover, NONE of the above are cricket.

I have been know to literally cross the world to view a genuine cricket match in the distant past. But today I wouldn't cross the road to be handed a free ticket to a modern "First Class Match". It's been de-valued that much.

Your logic, will ensure cycling follows the same fate.

Its all a bit of topic..
But your comparison is totally wrong as in fact there are indeed people like you who do not appreciate 2020 cricket etc yet there are many more people who love the new forms of cricket and these people are certainly outnumbering the ones who are being driven away by these new forms of cricket.
And of course the world is changing, if you watch test series in the subcontinent or even first class county games in England there are not many fans at all with the stadium being essentially empty. Whilst in the IPL or even normal international limited over games or in the 2020 english competition there are many more fans.

This was implemented to save the game of cricket and it is certainly doing its job if you look at the bigger picture. Just because you dont like it doesnt mean it was a bad move and likewise with cycling, which has the ability to exploit the western market yet is slowly falling behing.
Personally I would like to have Libertine remain a cycling fan and if that is what required then so be it.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Sorry to throw the Cricket example at you, if you're not familiar with it.

Yes, I can see your heart is for cycling, but I still think the aim should be to lift the viewers cycling IQ, not drop cycling's IQ.

The way to do that is by educating them (me included) on the finer points, the nuances, the history, technology and so on.

It's dangerous to pander to jingoism, and calling for fireworks on the climbs.

Just let the riders race how they want to and get quality production and commentators to educate us on what is going on.

But why would cycling's IQ be dropped by simply designing a parcours that induces the riders to race better? Sometimes it isn't even about making the race harder, it's about using what you already have better. I'm not asking them to change cycling. I'm asking them to stop dumbing it down and making it so easy to control. Teams want there to be control, fans want there to be none.

You mentioned Formula 1. Nearly everybody who watches motorsports would like there to be more wheel-to-wheel racing. You know who doesn't? The teams. They'd like their cars to be sat at the front at no risk, and everybody ELSE be duking it out.

It's also not about raising people's cycling IQ. People who know lots about cycling are being bored by this year's events. It's not that they don't know how the race is being raced, it's that they're disappointed by what they see, because they're used to seeing better.

25 years ago, F1 teams had unreliable tyres, cars that would break down because they were perennially on the ragged edge, innovative designs, manual gear shifts, a range of turbo and normally aspirated cars, and a range of tracks from flat out power shows like Monza and Silverstone, high downforce, high altitude smogfests like Mexico City, tight and twisty circuits like Monaco, fast street circuits like Adelaide and epic challenges like Spa.

Now, F1 teams have cars with near bulletproof reliability, similar designs, a range of driver aids, and the courses are almost all designed by one man along similar lines. It's no longer as varied a sport. The drivers no longer have to think on the fly about the car, the team do most of that looking at the telemetry. For nearly 20 years the whole work was done with calculators and computers by the guys on the fuel tactics team. The result? A less interesting spectacle. Yes, there are still interesting races to be had, and the fans can find interest. But there are still a great many who long for the days of Prost, Senna, Mansell and Piquet.

Cycling is similar. We have been accused of harking back to the EPO days, but it isn't that. Cycling was far more exciting in the 70s and 80s, when the differences between the flat powerhouses and the pure climbers was more pronounced. The problem is, much like F1, we have these problems:
- increased communication and understanding of positions on the road and in the race has meant that the guys in the team car control the race far more than the guys on the bikes
- shoddy, repetitive parcours design is, like Hermann Tilke's repetitive F1 tracks, resulting in a number of races either losing their identity, their value, or becoming inherently interchangeable; all of the races are suiting the riders with the same characteristics, leading to highly controlled and repetitive racing.

I'm not asking for cycling's IQ to be lowered. I also resent the implication that, if I just stopped to think about how hard it is and why the tactics are how they are, I'll find it more entertaining. I know how hard it is and why the tactics are how they are, and I understand why the riders are riding how they are, even if I may not always agree it's the most sensible option; but if I can see that riders are racing more defensively, and other fans can see it, is it too much to ask that race organisers are able to see it too?

 

[Ferminal]

I hear ya, this season has been a very disappointing affair, it is difficult to not complain and lose interest. And the tactics and style of riding the last year has been most disappointing (I call it the non-contador racing style).

And then looking at the tour route is just depressing really

Season was quite good up until AGR. Other than the Catalunya and Passo Lanciano problems.

But I don't understand why stage races are fighting for some LCD (edit: Arnout beat me to this one), "which race can be decided by the fewest minutes of exertion". Funny that Pais Vasco is looking like the #1 race of the season so far. I'd take a Boonen/Voeckler performance for three weeks running over a stage race which is decided only by a 30' climb or TT.

Yes, I understand your views, but look what happened to First Class Cricket when Mr. Packer thought it needed to be made "more entertaining".

One-Day matches, limited overs, 20:20, coloured clothes, and dancing girls.

Now we have the Indian "Premiere League" version of Cricket, and the Indians lap it up.

But for any real Cricket lover, NONE of the above are cricket.

I have been know to literally cross the world to view a genuine cricket match in the distant past. But today I wouldn't cross the road to be handed a free ticket to a modern "First Class Match". It's been de-valued that much.

Your logic, will ensure cycling follows the same fate.

I would say that cycling itself is moving in the direction of mainstream "cricket", and what LS argues more from a "purist" perspective.

These days all that matters is an "epic finale", a GT being decided on the final day, a stage decided in a 1000m run for the line. It's all about "the" moment which can grab the attention of the mainstream. No one is interested in ten individuals going at it for two hours own their own - they just want the biggest result on the line in the shortest possible time frame (thus the most "drama").

 

[Trunnions]

Cycling has the same problem as Formula 1 though. Due to whatever reason, whether it's UCI points, type of cyclist in top form at the moment, course characteristics or I don't know what, cyclists aren't pushing at the moment. Racing can be close and exciting: everyone is still waxing lyrically about the 1989 battle in the Tour, where the winner finished 8 seconds in front of the number 2. This year we had a Giro where the top 2 was separated by some 20 seconds and it was horrible. It was close because there were no changes.

I'm watching sport to be amazed, partly. Sports is forgetting that, going for the lowest common denominator: as long as it's close and they can keep telling that in the commentary box, everything is fine and dandy.

Just look at Formula 1. The cars are very close together, unbelievably so in Monaco. It isn't proper racing though, as the drivers aren't able to push. Close racing when pushing is great, close racing because of preservation is the worst thing that can happen to a sport. I'd much rather have dominance of a team or driver (as long as it's not Vettel) than artificial DRS overtakes and close racing because of stupid tyres.

In cycling, the racing is close too, in the mountains. No-one dares to do anything, the people that attack in the mountains are in a battle against superteams and badly designed courses without much difficulty before the final 20 kilometers or without much difficulty in the last 50 kilometers. It brings us close racing, because everyone is staying in one group. It's the opposite of racing on the edge or excitement though.

Good points, and good comparison.

Though I don't agree.

Schumacher moans because he can't wellie it like he used to.

The answer is to learn Prost-like (Button-like) delicacy with the throttle and steering yoke.

JYS was the least spectacular driver in a race, but he usually won.

What is more entertaining; Panache or Finesse?

You want constant panache, whereas I'm content to let the racers decide how to ride the course, and I'll adapt my viewing thoughts to what they are doing, so that I get "entertained" whatever they choose to do.

If people cannot get excited watching a chess match then there's no hope they will enjoy any real sports, they should only watch darts and wrestling.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Good points, and good comparison.

Though I don't agree.

Schumacher moans because he can't wellie it like he used to.

The answer is to learn Prost-like (Button-like) delicacy with the throttle and steering yoke.

JYS was the least spectacular driver in a race, but he usually won.

What is more entertaining; Panache or Finesse?

You want constant panache, whereas I'm content to let the racers decide how to ride the course, and I'll adapt my viewing thoughts to what they are doing, so that I get "entertained" whatever they choose to do.

If people cannot get excited watching a chess match then there's no hope they will enjoy any real sports, they should only watch darts and wrestling.

But the joy of Prost was watching him racing against people like Senna - naturally gifted talents but with a temper that could lose him the race; Mansell - blindingly quick but not racing smart, often broke the car or had to nurse it to the line; Piquet - fast, but conniving and intense.

If every driver had been like Prost, it would have been boring - we'd have been watching everybody holding station and waiting for the race to come to them. The fun is in the variety. Not just of driving styles, but in the tracks - some tracks were flat out and enabled the likes of Mansell to hammer it; other tracks suited Prost more. I respected Prost, but I preferred to watch Senna.

That's all we're asking from cycling. Variety. At the moment all the races are being effectively controlled by teams who are all using the same style of racing and neutralising all else. And the races are all designed along similar lines, meaning that it works everywhere. And I get bored very quickly by domination. I don't like Barcelona, I don't like Michael Schumacher, I didn't like Armstrong. Some sort-of dominant athletes are entertaining; usually ones with some kind of flaw that makes them seem more human. Magdalena Neuner, for example, I'm a big fan of. She was always so good, but because of her inconsistency in the standing shoot, you never felt the victory was safe until the last lap. When every route is a long ITT and a bunch of nondescript flat or intermediate stages, and all the mountains are relegated to afterthoughts (the nothing-in-the-last-50km stages) or treated as an end unto themselves rather than a means unto one (the nothing-until-the-final-climb stages), you don't have that, because the result is too easily predictable.

 

[roundabout]

Who wants constant panache?

I think people prefer panache to still be a viable option. Lesser margins between riders and courses mostly unable to adapt to the times (if anything they are worse than a few years ago) make races generally predictable.

 

[Arnout]

Good points, and good comparison.

Though I don't agree.

Schumacher moans because he can't wellie it like he used to.

The answer is to learn Prost-like (Button-like) delicacy with the throttle and steering yoke.

JYS was the least spectacular driver in a race, but he usually won.

What is more entertaining; Panache or Finesse?

You want constant panache, whereas I'm content to let the racers decide how to ride the course, and I'll adapt my viewing thoughts to what they are doing, so that I get "entertained" whatever they choose to do.

If people cannot get excited watching a chess match then there's no hope they will enjoy any real sports, they should only watch darts and wrestling.

I'm not looking for constant panache. Schumacher complained, Alonso complained, so did Rosberg, Webber and a few others. The times they are setting the race are seconds slower than years before. If they want finesse, that's not the way to get it because finesse is only admirable when the conditions are challenging. A major reason of the equality in racing is that any difference is punished. It means the racing is close, still the usual suspects are at the front, but without the hard work. I'm not looking for overtakes or excitement, like I said, I'd rather have 5 overtakes than 55 if those 5 are genuine. I'd rather see a game of chess played in the pit stop than the economy run between pit stops we see now. It is not close or for the Button-like (poor example though, as no-one is struggling more than him), it is holding back.

We see that in cycling too. I don't need to see gaps, if the racing is good. There was a mountain stage in the Giro of this year without attacks, but with driving to the limit (I forgot which). It meant still a group arrived closely together, without attacks, but crucially with racing. I don't mind close racing then. I don't need to see exciting attacks, as long as the racing is genuine.

We are moving to a preservationist race in cycling: with long time trials and little other opportunity to create gaps, the riders that can time trial benefit by killing of any movement without problem, as they are not challenged enough, as there is no opportunity to do so. That means small gaps, but no close racing.

Thatcher already understood it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw&feature=player_detailpage#t=113s

 

[Trunnions]

That's all we're asking from cycling. Variety. At the moment all the races are being effectively controlled by teams who are all using the same style of racing and neutralising all else. And the races are all designed along similar lines, meaning that it works everywhere.

I see; but GPs in the 30's were dominated by Silver Bullets, often four of them in a race! Those who watched live have forgotten them, but they are now regarded as Classic battles by aficionados.

Point: Natural racing goes in "cycles", and real supporters enjoy all the cycle, because they know, just around the corner, somebody will break the cycle.

(Excuse the painful metaphor.)

Of course it was Ferrari, and later Vanwall, and them BRM who broke the GP domination.

My knowledge of cycling history is poor, but I suspect, similar examples could be cited from road racing.

Point: Stick with the current Team trend, but don't expect it to last.

 

[goggalor]

Fränk looks good. No reaction from the rest.

 

[Trunnions]

I don't need to see gaps, if the racing is good. There was a mountain stage in the Giro of this year without attacks, but with driving to the limit (I forgot which). It meant still a group arrived closely together, without attacks, but crucially with racing. I don't mind close racing then. I don't need to see exciting attacks, as long as the racing is genuine.

We are moving to a preservationist race in cycling: with long time trials and little other opportunity to create gaps, the riders that can time trial benefit by killing of any movement without problem, as they are not challenged enough, as there is no opportunity to do so. That means small gaps, but no close racing.

Panache v Finesse:
I'm sure, like me you appreciate both, at the same time in the same event. They don't exclude each other with varying conditions. Some drivers, like Fittipaldi, and Giles Villeneuve always raced with panache, GV didn't know any other way to drive. (like MS today). Other drivers could do both panache and finesse in the same race. Point: They don't have to mutually exclusive.
Surely the same applies to the Pro riders too.

Conservative riding:
I see your point; well made. But I feel your anxiety is premature. Let the event organisers "smooth out" the wrinkles. Don't forget they have top choose the parcours a long time in advance. I'm sure they are more aware than us of what constitutes a good event, and will be eager to make up for perceived "errors".

I'm trying hard to avoiod using cycling cliches here, and failing so I think I'll have a lie down, and get up to follow the Canadian GP soon.

Enjoyed your insightful thoughts. Makes a change from the usual playground chatter here.

I'm off, Tara!

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Point: Stick with the current Team trend, but don't expect it to last.

The teams aren't the problem. The past is littered with superteams, from Molteni and KAS to Mapei. The problem is that the courses right now are making it easy for these teams to control.

The racing is becoming progressively more timid, but rather than trying to coax excitement out of them, the courses seem to be becoming more easy to control. It's as if riders have lost all sense of faith that they can get away from these super-teams, and this belief is reinforced by the organisers, who are designing parcours which reward the conservative racing and discourage attacks by rendering them mostly pointless.

I'd say, sure, parcours design will catch up with the racing style soon, but if anything it's going in the wrong direction by creating parcours that make it even easier to control and even harder to justify attacking. The ASO have quite consciously and deliberately killed the Dauphiné. They haven't been content for it to be a standalone event where Tour contenders can test themselves out; it MUST be THE Tour warmup event. So therefore it is being completely neutered and all sense of individuality is being removed from it, until it is little more than a Tour de France training ride with UCI points available. They have consciously gone out there to make a parcours unsuitable to aggressive racing.

 

[Normandy]

But why would cycling's IQ be dropped by simply designing a parcours that induces the riders to race better? Sometimes it isn't even about making the race harder, it's about using what you already have better. I'm not asking them to change cycling. I'm asking them to stop dumbing it down and making it so easy to control. Teams want there to be control, fans want there to be none.

You mentioned Formula 1. Nearly everybody who watches motorsports would like there to be more wheel-to-wheel racing. You know who doesn't? The teams. They'd like their cars to be sat at the front at no risk, and everybody ELSE be duking it out.

It's also not about raising people's cycling IQ. People who know lots about cycling are being bored by this year's events. It's not that they don't know how the race is being raced, it's that they're disappointed by what they see, because they're used to seeing better.

25 years ago, F1 teams had unreliable tyres, cars that would break down because they were perennially on the ragged edge, innovative designs, manual gear shifts, a range of turbo and normally aspirated cars, and a range of tracks from flat out power shows like Monza and Silverstone, high downforce, high altitude smogfests like Mexico City, tight and twisty circuits like Monaco, fast street circuits like Adelaide and epic challenges like Spa.

Now, F1 teams have cars with near bulletproof reliability, similar designs, a range of driver aids, and the courses are almost all designed by one man along similar lines. It's no longer as varied a sport. The drivers no longer have to think on the fly about the car, the team do most of that looking at the telemetry. For nearly 20 years the whole work was done with calculators and computers by the guys on the fuel tactics team. The result? A less interesting spectacle. Yes, there are still interesting races to be had, and the fans can find interest. But there are still a great many who long for the days of Prost, Senna, Mansell and Piquet.

Cycling is similar. We have been accused of harking back to the EPO days, but it isn't that. Cycling was far more exciting in the 70s and 80s, when the differences between the flat powerhouses and the pure climbers was more pronounced. The problem is, much like F1, we have these problems:
- increased communication and understanding of positions on the road and in the race has meant that the guys in the team car control the race far more than the guys on the bikes
- shoddy, repetitive parcours design is, like Hermann Tilke's repetitive F1 tracks, resulting in a number of races either losing their identity, their value, or becoming inherently interchangeable; all of the races are suiting the riders with the same characteristics, leading to highly controlled and repetitive racing.

I'm not asking for cycling's IQ to be lowered. I also resent the implication that, if I just stopped to think about how hard it is and why the tactics are how they are, I'll find it more entertaining. I know how hard it is and why the tactics are how they are, and I understand why the riders are riding how they are, even if I may not always agree it's the most sensible option; but if I can see that riders are racing more defensively, and other fans can see it, is it too much to ask that race organisers are able to see it too?

+10

I have been so disappointed by the quality of of the racing this year, I was thinking of starting a new thread on the subject this week.

Last year I kept recordings of Oman, some Paris Nice stages, some Tirreno stages, most classics, about 8 Giro stages(mountains/hilly), someTdSuisse, some Daupine, 15 stages TdF (no totaly flat stages kept). The recodrings I kept where ones which entertained, some produced an unpredictable result, some produced an inspirational ride, some where wins by an underdog, some where spectacular, while one or 2 produced a significant link in a stage race but where not interesting enough to be kept in their own right. (Away Aug-Oct). The previous year was similar.

This year I have kept Stage 7 TdTurkey, Paris Roubaix and Thomas de Gendt on the last but one day of the Giro and stgae 6 California. The rest has been so boring, and predictableand only raced for a few Km at the end.

I think Cricket is a good example of what cycling needs to do if it wants to grow. There should still be room for the traditional races similar to the 5 day test matches for the purists, but new formats need to be looked at to bring the sport to the bigger audience and hence the money. Winter sports is a sport that has addressed the issue but still has some way to go. Cycling in the meantime just looks inward, carrying on like it has for the last 50 years or so, debating doping, and complaining about a lack of funds. The marginal gains approach has turned the sport into a numbers game which produces results like a production line for a mass produced product i.e lots of results but of low quality and uninteresting.

It would be great if someone could come up with a format that rewards skill, individual flair, produces interesting racing, reduces the need and hence temptation to dope, and brings in the audiences and hence the money.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Like Timmy said this race is just a training session.
Evans lost 1 minute 20seconds to tony in the dauphine and then lost 7 seconds in le tour on the exact same TT even though he took it safe in the last few parts.
Do you really think evans will lose that much time to wiggins in the tdf TTs??
Yeah for the hill top finishes like today the gap between wiggins and evans will be small.
But its the MTF which are more important.

I think denis menchov is a serious contender for le tour.
Nibali has been disappointing.
Schlecks will be there too somehow.

Impressive Daupine win for Wiggins. He is ready for the TDF. Now if he can just not have any bad luck like last year.

Cadel will be ready and in form for the TDF. I am not so sure about Menchov. Agree Nibs has been disappointing. But when it comes to Mench, Nibs, and Schlecks, I put them in the same category... underachievers with glimpses of glory and hope. I really like Samu's chances for the TDF.

 

[mb2612]

Impressive Daupine win for Wiggins. He is ready for the TDF. Now if he can just not have any bad luck like last year.

Cadel will be ready and in form for the TDF. I am not so sure about Menchov. Agree Nibs has been disappointing. But when it comes to Mench, Nibs, and Schlecks, I put them in the same category... underachievers with glimpses of glory and hope. I really like Samu's chances for the TDF.

That's pretty harsh. I would say Menchov has achieved plenty, while my opinion of Nibali is that he has matched his potential very well in stage race. A 1st, 2nd and a 3rd at the age of 27 is an excellent return for a rider like him, who can time trial and climb pretty well, but not with the best.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

That's pretty harsh. .

your are right. I just had higher expectations for those two.

 

[mb2612]

your are right. I just had higher expectations for those two.

Nibali has never struck me as a talent in the same way that Gesink or Schleck or Sagan has, so for him to have a GT and multiple podiums in both grand tours and monuments is an excellent return for him so far. I think this is why I like him, because he seems to do much better than he should.

Menchov has messed up in the tour a few times, but 3 GTs is nothing to be sniffed at. This route should really suit him, so I am excited to see what he can do.

 

[richwagmn]

What a performance by Sky. Given the TDF course profile, Wiggins has to be the favorite. Reminds one of the old US Postal/Discovery days (draw your own conclusions).

BMC looked a little shaky in the mountains. Given that mountains are the only way Cadel can beat Wiggins this year and the fact that Cadel isn't a fearsome climber it's not looking great for a repeat.

Looks like it might be a bit of a dull tour if it all comes down to TTs though.

Oh well, for my money the real excitement will be at the Vuelta.

 

[cycladianpirate]

What a performance by Sky. Given the TDF course profile, Wiggins has to be the favorite. Reminds one of the old US Postal/Discovery days (draw your own conclusions).

BMC looked a little shaky in the mountains. Given that mountains are the only way Cadel can beat Wiggins this year and the fact that Cadel isn't a fearsome climber it's not looking great for a repeat.

Looks like it might be a bit of a dull tour if it all comes down to TTs though.

Oh well, for my money the real excitement will be at the Vuelta.

Two words - "Third Week".

 

[hrotha]

The courses are not the problem, Libertine, except inasmuch as they don't take the current attitude of the peloton into account. The course of the Tour is not very different from what has been the historical norm, and we've seen some of the toughest Giros of all time in the past few years.

Ultimately, it's up to the riders and DS's.