Cutting GT Teams to Size? Pros and Cons:Debate

[Mellow Velo]

IMO, we have seen three of the poorest Grand Tours, this year. I am sure that, in itself is debateable.
However, if this is a product of the B Passport, as many suspect, we cannot complain. So what is the solution to liven up these show case events?

It's been brought up before, but what are the positive/negative/unrealistic possible outcomes, of cutting down the size of teams from the magical 9?

For the sake of this debate, may I suggest these "new" groundrules.
All GT's to have 25 teams (20PT + 5 wildcards) of 7....yes SEVEN riders.

Is it workable?
What would change?

I have a number of thoughts on this, but rather than hog the thread, I let someone else (hopefully) start the ball rolling.

 

[Anonymous]

ive long been an advocate of smaller teams.. with the number of pro tour teams next year and also the number of pro continental teams that are bridging the performance gap, reducing the teams to 8 and allowing 2 more teams in i think is a must..

7... no.. too small for some teams, but also, squads should be invited to the tours because they deserve it, because of performance, not simply because there is room for them..

id almost like to see a situation where the top 10 teams each tour automatically qualify for the following years tour, the remained have to fight it out based on rankings and performance with the rest to get the remaining places..

 

[ak-zaaf]

I've been thinking this for a long time.
6 or 7 riders would be best imo.
Teams wouldn't be able to look at just 1 or 2 teams to do all the work (like this years tour: columbia on the flats, Astana in the mountains).

The pressure on riders not to just quit when they feel like it (hi Freire) would be higher.
I do feel that race-organizers should have total freedom with the invitations.
You can't force the Dauphine to just pick Italian and Spanish wildcard teams because they are ranked better.
Small teams can be useful to animate the race. (Skil was definitely not good enough for the tour was the main thought before the tour.)

I honestly can't think of a good argument why 9 riders would be better. It's just the perfect number for teams with a good sprinter.


Teams will never agree on this however. Sponsors didn't agree to ship money to a team with only 7 riders in the tour. The ASO and UCI have to work together if they want this. Something that will probably never happen.

 

[al_pacino]

It could end up with teams just specializing(more so than now).

Cav plus six lead out men at Columbia without even thinking about anyone getting near the GC. How many flat stages with the same team at the front could you take?

Strong GC teams wouldn't change to much, a couple of strong TTT riders (if there is one) and some strong guys for going uphill. I'm sure ther would be no split leadership s though, you'd probably be supporting one man.

 

[karlboss]

I don't think team size is the problem, just distribution of talent. Making a team smaller wouldn't have changed this the top 7 guys from astana are still going to kill everyone else.

 

[ingsve]

I think reducing it to 8 is the only viable change. Anything less than that would have alot more consequences. Teams would bring more specialized teams for specific goals which would mean a less competition in the sprints and less competition for the GC. There would be more teams in the race but the best riders would still be in the best teams so these other teams that get a wild card would not compensaet for the better teams not bringing both their GC rider and a sprinter for example.

 

[SergeDeM]

6 or 7 would be great. I think it would help the unpredictability of the GTs because once a team loses one or two riders (sickness, falls) then it stops looking dominant with only 4 guys around to work for a team leader.

The implications would be huge though because team rosters would shrink, so would sponsorship money and we'd end up with more teams that can't field proper GT teams (Think SIL ) . It would change pro cycling as we know it and it's not going to happen.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

7 would be epic.
However it would mean a lot of big names missing out. ah well...
More wild cards would be fun too...

 

[ak-zaaf]

7 would be epic.
However it would mean a lot of big names missing out. ah well...

Not entirely true.
Looking at the '09 Toour startlists and taking out 2 weaker/tactically less useful members of each squad won't take out any real big names.

We would probably have missed guys like: Gustov, Lancaster (cer), Scheirlinckx, Delage (sil), Rast, Muravyev (ast), Sorensen, Larsson (sax), Niermann, Posthuma (rab), Maaskant, Pate (gar)...I'm gonna stop there, you get my point
Trade in riders like that for say: Vacansoleil, Aqua & Sapone, Xacobea...
I think it would be an improvement.

 

[auscyclefan94]

keep it at 9. 21 teams is enough. with 9, if your team has a 1 or 2 falls you still have 7 riders which is a decent amount!

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Not entirely true.
Looking at the '09 Toour startlists and taking out 2 weaker/tactically less useful members of each squad won't take out any real big names.

We would probably have missed guys like: Gustov, Lancaster (cer), Scheirlinckx, Delage (sil), Rast, Muravyev (ast), Sorensen, Larsson (sax), Niermann, Posthuma (rab), Maaskant, Pate (gar)...I'm gonna stop there, you get my point
Trade in riders like that for say: Vacansoleil, Aqua & Sapone, Xacobea...
I think it would be an improvement.

I agree with the replacements, but still some teams would be leaving some quality home... i.e Astana this year.. Caisse next year.
A more accurate way of putting it might be saying the DS will have a pretty hard job

But obviously as you said, it would mean a better standard of riders on a whole.

however would make a TTT very hard... probably couldn't include one... extra bonus imo

 

[ak-zaaf]

however would make a TTT very hard... probably couldn't include one... extra bonus imo

Why?
They used to have a TTT at the worlds of 100km for only 4 riders.
Now that is a couple of decades ago I think, but a TTT with 7 should not be a problem. Just don't make them over 60km or as technical as this year

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

well a prolouge or short TTT would be ok, but i think a lot of teams would struggle to ride a good TTT and bring the minimal number of riders needed to stop the clock if the course was too demanding. i hate the TTT

 

[Cobber]

I've been thinking this for a long time.
6 or 7 riders would be best imo.
Teams wouldn't be able to look at just 1 or 2 teams to do all the work (like this years tour: columbia on the flats, Astana in the mountains).

The pressure on riders not to just quit when they feel like it (hi Freire) would be higher.
I do feel that race-organizers should have total freedom with the invitations.
You can't force the Dauphine to just pick Italian and Spanish wildcard teams because they are ranked better.
Small teams can be useful to animate the race. (Skil was definitely not good enough for the tour was the main thought before the tour.)

I honestly can't think of a good argument why 9 riders would be better. It's just the perfect number for teams with a good sprinter.


Teams will never agree on this however. Sponsors didn't agree to ship money to a team with only 7 riders in the tour. The ASO and UCI have to work together if they want this. Something that will probably never happen.

+1.... completely agree. My vote is for teams to be reduced to 7 riders.

The big problem with this year's races was very strong teams controlling the GC (Astana, Caisse - though I thought the Giro was pretty exciting), and not enough competition in the sprints.

For GC, I think Astana would still have been tough to beat with only 7 riders, but less riders means it would be a lot easier to isolate GC hopes in the mountains. Though in this years Tour, I think the parcours had more to do with the boring racing than team size!

For the sprints, I think smaller team size would definitely liven things up. Plus, there would be more teams trying to get into the mix and screw up the Columbia train. If Columbia lost 2 riders, their train would be down to 4 and that would be really hard to control from 5k out.

 

[Cerberus]

Not entirely true.
Looking at the '09 Toour startlists and taking out 2 weaker/tactically less useful members of each squad won't take out any real big names.

We would probably have missed guys like: Gustov, Lancaster (cer), Scheirlinckx, Delage (sil), Rast, Muravyev (ast), Sorensen, Larsson (sax), Niermann, Posthuma (rab), Maaskant, Pate (gar)...I'm gonna stop there, you get my point
Trade in riders like that for say: Vacansoleil, Aqua & Sapone, Xacobea...
I think it would be an improvement.

You might be right that most teams could cut 2 riders with no major loss, but I have to take issue with you picking Sørensen as one who wouldn't have been missed. I'm not actually sure who you mean, since there were two guys on Saxo Bank named Sørensen, but they both did important work minimizing the front group in preparation for Andy Shleck's attacks and Nicki Sørensen won a stage. Arvesen or O'Grady would have been missed far less.

 

[Bala Verde]

If time differences between contenders are becoming smaller, because they are more equal to one another, that in it self already produces more interesting racing. If you have a Merkx who escapes in stage 1 to take 3m out of the peloton, the GT is over before it really started. Now at least you know that each stage could be a tie breaker.

The flip side is, for now, it has made riders more defensive, instead of aggressive. The motto is 'hang on for dear life, because at least I will remain in competition'. No one wants to take a minute today, to lose 4 tomorrow. Other factors are that when one is #1, #2, #3, #4 with small time gaps, mechanical problems could become decisive, similarly to one single missed stroke on the 100m freestyle. Or a head wind on a mountain top finish, has become like a head wind when one is running to break a 100m sprint record. Minor issues and details matter much more, over 21 days of intense riding.

The question thus is, how can you stimulate more aggressive riding?

-smaller teams, so that they cannot control the pace? For sprints, more teams will work together, less people will go on the attack given their more specific roles? For mountain stages, if the elite remains without aidees, they still have to make the decision to attack. Will they do that knowing their teams are weaker due to size reduction? How will team size make one more aggressive? Why will team size make a rider decide to attack at 8km before the finish? IMO, he still doesn't want to burn the match he needs tomorrow...

-time bonusses at the finish? Time bonusses at mountain tops in the middle of the stage, like intermediate sprints?

-more rest days?

- 'softer' stages, so the dosed efforts can be concentrated on one stage, while allowing for enough recovery to peak another day. Stimulate classics riding, 'one day peaked efforts'. How much does team size decide classics racing? Hard stages alternated by softer stages or transition stages (Mountain top, soft, soft, Mountaintop)

Some other observations:

-This year RAB rode the ToB with only 5 riders and managed to win the team classification. The competition however was pretty low, while the stages were not very challenging. That partly explains why the team could still perform so well.

-L'Avenir has been done with teams of 6 riders every year. Young riders, different tactics, less stages and km. Does it make for more exciting racing?

 

[ingsve]

Arvesen or O'Grady would have been missed far less.

Arvesen and O'Grady are typical road captains that coordinate things. Their contribution isn't as noticeable but still very appreciated by DSs. It's not as obvious that they are less usefull that the Sörensens even if it may seem like it at first glance.

 

[Cerberus]

Arvesen and O'Grady are typical road captains that coordinate things. Their contribution isn't as noticeable but still very appreciated by DSs. It's not as obvious that they are less usefull that the Sörensens even if it may seem like it at first glance.

I know that, but I also know that Arvesen and O'grady, along with Gustavson and Matti Breschel were contending for the last 3 spots while both Sørensens were considered safe so it's not just my opinion here, it's apperently Bjarne Riis opinion to. In any case my point remains that either of the Sørensens would have been missed.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Well, for what its worth, here's what I think.
25 teams of 7 would mean, with a full PT compliment 5 wildcards up for grabs.
Would make the organisers happy and allow more invites outside the country of origin. Teams like BMC, those from Belgium and so on, should get at least one shout a season.

25 teams should actally improve sponsorship.

PT teams should benefit. Current squads of 25 are spread too thin. While their main riders would still do as they pleased, more domestiques would get some time off to recover.
Fresher riders throughout the season, should make for better riding.

Teams having to race with only one or two leaders. should lead to better fields in the lesser events and stop a couple of big team signing all the big names.

Again, this should please prospective sponsors.

More rewards for the smaller breakaways. Teams would have to be more selective about running trains.
It has seemed to me, that only groups of 10+ riders, stand a chance.
Controlling attacks more difficult.
Controlling tempo on climbs becomes more difficult.
Races become harder to read.
Attacking riding more likely to be rewarded etc etc.

 

[taiwan]

My reaction is that there wouldn't be much visible difference to the racing at the sharp end, because obviously the most dangerous riders would retain their places. What reducing team numbers would do is increase the riders' workload. It might even inhibit agressive riding because riders who might be free to attack could be getting used, say, to protect the GC man. Also, no, the teams wouldn't go for it because it just makes it harder for them. It's the rider's job, you can't just heap demands on them until the work becomes intolerable. Something else is the practical matter of allowing riders to gain experience in a 3 week race, which some of teams' places are used for. Sponsors wouldn't be having it either, because the exposure would be divided between more teams, and there would be less of their jerseys around. The more I think about it, the less likely it seems. The current number, for me, is probably a delicate comprimise between interested parties, and couldn't be changed at all easily.

Edit: I would concede that breakaways would stand a better chance, which really would be a big benefit. And Evans lack of support would put him at less of a disadvantage, but thats not valid.

 

[benpounder]

As has been mentioned upthread, a smaller squad would necessarily force teams to limit their aims. This would hurt many pro teams, perhaps most notably Columbia. It would not affect the Bruyneel style team that is mypoically focused upon GC. In fact, it might even help the later. For example, if Columbia is forced to field a team built around Cav, that means no Mick Rodgers. Without Mick (or Valjavek or Krueziger), Saxo Bank (or Radio Shack or Caisse D'Epargne) wouldnt have to mark as many riders.

I'm not sold on the idea, yet I think it would be a much wiser experiment to conduct than eliminating team radios.

 

[hektoren]

IMO, we have seen three of the poorest Grand Tours, this year. I am sure that, in itself is debateable.
However, if this is a product of the B Passport, as many suspect, we cannot complain. So what is the solution to liven up these show case events?

Even though sex is more fun than logic (Sex is more fun than logic -- one cannot prove this, but it "is" in the same sense that Mount Everest "is", or that Alma Cogan "isn't") I'd recommend at least a basic course in logic for most people.

You start by stating that WE'VE seen three of the poorest GT's ever this year, yet you say that it is YOUR opinion. You are quite right when you state that your observation is debatable, but rather than making a survey of this forum's participant's view of the three big GT's this year, in comparison to earlier years, you go yet one further by making your debatable conclusion the hypothetical result of the introduction of Blood Passports! And if the Blood Passports are the reason for the perceived "dullification", "we can't complain", yet you obviously complain, and we're then asked whether reducing the no. of riders per team would be an effective antidote against the effect the BP's have had. Say what?

I suggest that swift and merciless execution of the last three riders in every stage would "liven" things up no end.

 

[ak-zaaf]

Even though sex is more fun than logic (Sex is more fun than logic -- one cannot prove this, but it "is" in the same sense that Mount Everest "is", or that Alma Cogan "isn't") I'd recommend at least a basic course in logic for most people.

You start by stating that WE'VE seen three of the poorest GT's ever this year, yet you say that it is YOUR opinion. You are quite right when you state that your observation is debatable, but rather than making a survey of this forum's participant's view of the three big GT's this year, in comparison to earlier years, you go yet one further by making your debatable conclusion the hypothetical result of the introduction of Blood Passports! And if the Blood Passports are the reason for the perceived "dullification", "we can't complain", yet you obviously complain, and we're then asked whether reducing the no. of riders per team would be an effective antidote against the effect the BP's have had. Say what?

I suggest that swift and merciless execution of the last three riders in every stage would "liven" things up no end.

hehehe, please stay

 

[egtalbot]

I'd love to see it reduced to 8 as a trial. It wouldn't hurt things enough for any complaints to be legitimate and I do think it would add more uncertainty.

That said, I thought the Giro was tremendous this year. One of the best GT's in a long time from a fan standpoint IMO. Although I could point to several others in the past decade where the leader changed on the last "real" day of racing, to me it's the day in day out battles that make it exciting. And it doesn't always have to be unexpected - watching Cav dominate has its interest.

The Tour was definitely a bit less compelling than at other times, though Lance's return added interesting twists to ponder and it was hard not to enjoy Andy Schleck's relentless, if ultimately fruitless, attempts to drop Contador.

The Vuelta wasn't too bad. We definitely had a lot of potential contenders, with the podium changing on the second to last day. And I thought the sprints in the first week were great, with no one dominating.

So, I disagree with a lot of the main premise. I am curious what a really good grand tour would look like to some of you who thought the ones this year were bad. This year's Vuelta and Giro had just about everything I'd look for.

 

[Mellow Velo]

You start by stating that WE'VE seen three of the poorest GT's ever this year, yet you say that it is YOUR opinion. You are quite right when you state that your observation is debatable, but rather than making a survey of this forum's participant's view of the three big GT's this year, in comparison to earlier years, you go yet one further by making your debatable conclusion the hypothetical result of the introduction of Blood Passports! And if the Blood Passports are the reason for the perceived "dullification", "we can't complain", yet you obviously complain, and we're then asked whether reducing the no. of riders per team would be an effective antidote against the effect the BP's have had. Say what?

No, I don't. I start with "In my opinion". Makes all the difference, in my opinion.
If you want to poll people's views of this year's GT's I suggest you set up the appropriate thread. It's quite easy.
Come to think of it, you post here, telling me that this thread should be about people's views of what the GT's were like, but haven't posted your view of the Vuelta.
Odd that.....must be something I said, earlier.

I am curious what a really good grand tour would look like to some of you who thought the ones this year were bad. This year's Vuelta and Giro had just about everything I'd look for.

There is a thread on here, somewhere, with people's favourite Grand Tours.
Lots of the "ingredients" are posted, there.
It's perfectly fine to think: "It's not broken, so need to fix it."