Does Multiple Team Leaders work?

[mountainrman]

With old man Evans demanding leadership of the tour for BMC- it is building up to deprive Van Garderen at a shot at the big prize which he deserves on his form over the last couple of the years. It was very distasteful watching him hang back for an Evans who clearly could not cut it.

Froomey clearly deserves his chance too - he must rank as one of the top handful of big tour riders for the last couple of years.

So my question is whether multiple team leaders can work as a concept.

Disregarding any claims over "preparation" which do not belong here, it seems to me the master stroke pulled by Sastre a couple of years ago was that the other riders were focussing on Schlecks so missed the decisive move. It worked precisely because the other teams had assumed team leadership elsewhere.

Deliberately not announcing a team leader clearly has advantages, since on the old "one two" - other teams cannot ignore a move by either rider and can then tire themselves having to follow every attack.

What do you think? Should Sky and BMC formerly declare no specific leader for the tour so that the other teams are left guessing? Can it work?

It is also a killer to play your cards in public. The olympic road race proved it.The fact that the press and the team had said "cav to win the road race" s, left the other teams watching and waiting. If GB had played multiple options - take froome off in a breakaway, so hedging their bets over whether to go for the breakway or sprint, the other teams would have to had work harder and so bringing it back together for an ultimate sprint.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Unless one of the riders is clearly a standout in comparison to the other leader(s), then it rarely works.

 

[Pentacycle]

On a serious note: Wiggins and Evans will be the leaders only to keep the pressure off TJVG's and Froome's shoulders. Froome rode so well last year because he didn't have the pressure to perform. He was allowed to have a bad day while Wiggo couldn't afford that. That takes a lot of mental strength for a leader, so making Froome leader is not necessary if Wiggins is at the start in good shape, and with a pink jersey in the bag presumably.

 

[Ferminal]

It works fine provided no one is a genuine chance for the win.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Ferminal's post and the picture in Pentacycle's picture seemed to go quite well together.

 

[BlenJones2]

It works fine provided no one is a genuine chance for the win.

Henao and Uran in the Giro last year are a good example of that.

I think it can work provided there is no indecision or contradictory team orders. The schlecks have spent waaay too much time looking for one another in stead of putting in decisive attacks (Andy on the Galibier aside).

 

[mountainrman]

That takes a lot of mental strength for a leader

True - but a couple of issues in there.

- Leadership takes learning, so surely the teams should give such as TJVG and Froome some top stage race leadership experience and palmares. (Froome was knackered by the Vuelta, so not sure it counts for that much) and Evans is not likely to be around for more than 1-2 years from now.

- Whilst one option may be the best "short term for the team" : I think the teams owe it to their riders to give them the best careers they can have. So Froome or van Garderen having to play super domestique forever is unfair to those riders whether or not it is good for the team. I actually thought it was wrong for Sky to take Cav because it might work out for the team with deep pockets to give them a few extra stage wins. It could never work out to best advantage for Cav unless they focussed on him.

- I think Brad won last year because of two factors. The field was weaker than it has been for some years, and the course with long time trials was set up for him as a dream. Would he have won so easily on a less friendly parcours? I think Brad has a shock coming. The Giro it seems to me is far more undulating. Rather than flat then climb. Different kind of course.

But finally I guess it is the spectator in me. I want to see these new boys attacking the old guard. See who really is best! And also if the team kept silent on who was leading the teams, then it would keep everyone guessing which would make it interesting for spectators

 

[The Hitch]

Froome rode so well last year because he didn't have the pressure to perform. He was allowed to have a bad day while Wiggo couldn't afford that. That takes a lot of mental strength for a leader, so making Froome leader is not necessary if Wiggins is at the start in good shape, and with a pink jersey in the bag presumably.

Based on what

What bad day did froome have? The way you post puts it one would think we were talking about szmyd 2010 or something where the rider is immense in the mountains but always ultimately drops before the end and ends up 50th on gc and we debate how far they could go if they focused on gc.

Froome came 2nd. Even with no team to support him, no team to shield him from losing a minute on a mechanical on the first weekend, having to slave for wiggins and having strict limitations placed on how fast he was allowed to ride, he still beat all the other riders.

That sound to you like someone who will struggle when not having to work with a significant handicap ?

 

[The Hitch]

With old man Evans demanding leadership of the tour for BMC- it is building up to deprive Van Garderen at a shot at the big prize which he deserves on his form over the last couple of the years. It was very distasteful watching him hang back for an Evans who clearly could not cut it.

Froomey clearly deserves his chance too - he must rank as one of the top handful of big tour riders for the last couple of years.

So my question is whether multiple team leaders can work as a concept.

Disregarding any claims over "preparation" which do not belong here, it seems to me the master stroke pulled by Sastre a couple of years ago was that the other riders were focussing on Schlecks so missed the decisive move. It worked precisely because the other teams had assumed team leadership elsewhere.

Deliberately not announcing a team leader clearly has advantages, since on the old "one two" - other teams cannot ignore a move by either rider and can then tire themselves having to follow every attack.

What do you think? Should Sky and BMC formerly declare no specific leader for the tour so that the other teams are left guessing? Can it work?

It is also a killer to play your cards in public. The olympic road race proved it.The fact that the press and the team had said "cav to win the road race" s, left the other teams watching and waiting. If GB had played multiple options - take froome off in a breakaway, so hedging their bets over whether to go for the breakway or sprint, the other teams would have to had work harder and so bringing it back together for an ultimate sprint.

If played right 2 team leaders is a good.idea. Or.keeping the second rider.close.on gc anyway. But they should both be able.to.attack. Depends on the course as well though because you want up and down stages and not 50k of valleys.

Doesn't really matter if you announce leaders or not. Everyone will generally know who the dangermen are.

 

[El Pistolero]

It has always worked out for Mapei and QS. Most of the time anyway.

 

[William H]

It works great in one day races. Some riders may not appreciate it if they feel their own chances are being sacrificed, but it gives tactical options which certainly increase the chance of a win for the team.

It usually isn't too much of a problem in grand tours. It only becomes an issue if the two leaders turn out to be well matched and capable of competing for the win, which is pretty rare. And even then it can work out well with the right personalities. But I don't necessarily think it has a huge advantage either - usually grand tours allow enough places for the stronger rider to come out on top to make tactics unlikely to really change the result.

 

[cineteq]

Didn't it work in 2009 TdF? 2 Astana riders on the podium.

 

[mountainrman]

Didn't it work in 2009 TdF? 2 Astana riders on the podium.

Hmmm....I can think of two riders who would say it did not. The two on the podium, judging by the awkward interviews.

I also remember the power struggle between evans and van den broeck, in that case I think it was managed badly. I think Cadel would have achieved more if he had moved on sooner.

I still wonder whether Sky might do well to say "both" in answer to who they are backing for this years tour and so leave everyone guessing. Give froome and brad leadership and full support for different lead up events like dauphine or paris nice and if both can win a couple of the key pretour events it gives the others a hard act to follow.

 

[Magnus]

Doesn't really matter if you announce leaders or not. Everyone will generally know who the dangermen are.

Perceived strength matters a lot in cycling and so it can make a difference if you announce leaders or not.

It makes a big difference though, if this question is addressed in relation to one-day races or GT's.

In GT's each rider's strength will be revealed before the race is over anyway.
Besides, in GT's the odds-on favourite usually wins. And if you have the odds-on favourite in your team you'll usually declare him sole leader. That's why the 'shared-leadership-strategy' rarely prevails: if you use it, it's most likely because you don't have the odds-on favourite. It's not because it's a poor strategy in itself.

 

[the asian]

Works really well in One day races.

For Grand Tours, if there is one rider who is capable of a podium finish, it is a hinderence. However it works well if there are no standout GC contenders.

They both can ride in to anonymous top 10 places or whatever and having a capable rider supporting another rider of similar capability(If he doesn't have a chance of a podium) is pointless.

Think Of Roche and Gadret at AG2R.

 

[will10]

Pulling it off in GTs is pretty rare - only recent wins I can think of are CSC in the Tour in 2008, Cunego & Simoni in 2004. It nearly won Andy the Tour in 2011 I suppose.

Having two leaders for one-day races is almost necessary, it works so often.

EDIT: I forgot the epic 1998 Vuelta battle between Olano and Jimenez, although it's easy to forget watching that race that those two were on the same team

 

[trevim]

Didn't it work in 2009 TdF? 2 Astana riders on the podium.

Kloden begs to differ

 

[roundabout]

Olano being paced up the climbs by both Beltran and Jimenez would have been ridiculous.

And I think Jimenez was primarily marking the Kelmes while Olano huffed and puffed behind.