RDV4ROUBAIX said:
That is just simply untrue. If anything, it's the exact opposite. Even the most athletically gifted and tactically minded athletes get feedback from the coach while in the game. .
Two comments. First, the biggest sport in the world Soccer (Futbol) has very little communication between coach and players during the game. If a player is pulled, he's pulled, so it's not like basketball or hockey where guys run in and out with info. And there are no time outs in soccer. The coach gives them info, yells what he can from the sidelines, but guys just play. Tennis is another sport along those lines.
Second, some sports it doesn't matter a whole lot if the coach can talk to them or not. For example, Tennis again. The coach could tell the player something between plays, but there a zillions of variables that won't matter a whole lot when the ball is in play.
Baseball at bats are often controlled down to the pitch. However, the pitcher still has to use tremendously refined skills to make it, and the batter to hit it.
NFL Football is somewhere between, where the coach sends in plays and the players execute them, but there are a lot of variables there.
To me, cycling is like NFL football. However, if the plays happened much slower, and the coach could yell into the quarterback's helmet to which guys were open. This is my big problem with cycling. There is almost no requirement on the actual riders to make any judgment or decisions on their own. Very little need for the skills of evaluation. This is what leads to no breaks, breaks caught 3k from the finish all the time, and stages where guys are almost always within second of each other.
I'd like someone to look into the 1983 Tour as an example. Stages were determined by minutes, back and forth, not all the riders riding to the final 5k together, then a war of attrition takes over, with seconds shaved off. Back then, there were breaks every day involving leaders, which made for a very fascinating Tour.