Giro d'Italia 2016 stage 2 - Arnhem – Nijmegen 190 km

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 26, 2012
3,216
0
0
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
I'm just speaking from the perspective of someone who enjoys the sport, but hates to see how it's marketed in a non-cycling-mad country.
Seriously, I have zero experience in tv production, but I swear I could do a better job attracting people to the sport than those who buy the tv rights and do nothing with it other than filling dead air in non-prime-time hours.
don't worry. you are not alone.

These guys dont know how to sell cycling.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
HelloDolly said:
pity there were no crosswinds as that was a bore fest and I doubt attracted many new fans to the Giro
Agreed.
I can't begin to grasp how anyone finds watching any more than ten km's of a bunch sprint stage interesting.
I remember becoming fascinated with cycling by watching the *cough* John Tesh *cough* hour-long productions back in the 80's.
I dunno--whenever I mistakenly tune into a flat gt stage with 100 km's to go, the first thought that comes to mind is "How in hell would a cycling newbie be into watching this?"
There's absolutely no drama; it's just a bunch of guys riding along until it comes time to organize the sprint chain.
No wonder the sports networks in Canada have dropped the coverage altogether.
Best do a half-hour hi-light package that contains some drama and excitement rather than spend hours watching a travel tourism ad.
We we talking over in the Clinic the other day (well, mostly I was talking) about the need to re-think Grand Tours altogether, an idea which didn't win me many friends there, so I know it won't here.

But anyway, it got me thinking about the business end of cycling, and Grand Tours, and about how much of Grand Tour broadcast is really an extended travelogue, complete with script, shown to the masses of middle and working class people who make up cycling fans. The racing is there just to keep your eyes glued.

These long, flat opening stages are probably more boring than they need to be, however. More eyes would be glued faster if the race planners took more care to make them a bit more interesting, more often.
 
Re:

pedromiguelmartins said:
What a stupid pathetic stage. I hope the organization burns to the ground. 0 chance of action.

So the useless organization found suitable to start the weekend with a stage that gives 0 chance to attackers, 0 chance to even write a word on the outcome of the race, etc?

Pathetic. Simply pathetic. I feel sorry for everybody that is trying to spread knowledge about how cycling can be great instead of a borefest. If a casual turned on their TVs, they changed the channel in less than 5min. Pathetic.
I do not understand such stupid comment like this, every year on every GT there are several stages like that, in TDF usually more, luckily last years were better
but what did you exactly expected from stage for sprinters?
 
May 4, 2016
37
0
0
Re: Re:

bassano said:
pedromiguelmartins said:
What a stupid pathetic stage. I hope the organization burns to the ground. 0 chance of action.

So the useless organization found suitable to start the weekend with a stage that gives 0 chance to attackers, 0 chance to even write a word on the outcome of the race, etc?

Pathetic. Simply pathetic. I feel sorry for everybody that is trying to spread knowledge about how cycling can be great instead of a borefest. If a casual turned on their TVs, they changed the channel in less than 5min. Pathetic.
I do not understand such stupid comment like this, every year on every GT there are several stages like that, in TDF usually more, luckily last years were better
but what did you exactly expected from stage for sprinters?

I agree with you
A GT must have stages for climbers, stages for punchers, stages for TT riders, stages for attackers, but also for sprinters
The important thing is to find a good balance, and I think the Giro gives chances for every type of rider to win a stage
 
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
That's cool.
Some people like watching others throw darts; some like watching others hurl giants rocks down a sheet of ice.
Whatever floats yer boat, ya know what I mean?
I'm just speaking from the perspective of someone who enjoys the sport, but hates to see how it's marketed in a non-cycling-mad country.
Seriously, I have zero experience in tv production, but I swear I could do a better job attracting people to the sport than those who buy the tv rights and do nothing with it other than filling dead air in non-prime-time hours.
Totally understand and respect that. Actually, I'm in different timezone so daytime weekend TV didn't even occur to me, my bad. I even forgot it was a weekend (I'm freelance so work for me can be any day of the week/weekend)... You've just reminded me that the majority of viewers are watching during the daytime, where you could be out doing other things.
For me most European races usually end somewhere around 12am-12.30am. If I'm working I might get home in time to see the last 5-15 mins.
Whereas for those who work during the weekdays and look forward to a weekend of TV sport that's a different story. And I'll assume the majority of TV viewers will be watching during the day, unlike me on nighttime pirate feeds!

Point taken. When I posted it was in response to complaints about 'boring' sprint stages in general, rather than the point of putting them on prime viewing days.
 
Re: Re:

HelloDolly said:
More Strides than Rides said:
HelloDolly said:
pity there were no crosswinds as that was a bore fest and I doubt attracted many new fans to the Giro
This is a ridiculous opinion to have. For the casual fan, what was boring about it? It was simple: a slow crescendo to a brilliant climax. For the casual fan, a sprint finish is easy. You'd rather that they have to keep track of 5 groups on the road up a mountain, while maintaining knowledge of who is fighting for the stage and the overall? Watching as foreign names blend together, and the jumps between camera bikes force the loss of all hope of giving coherence to their positions on the road?

I'm an invested fan, and I enjoyed it. I can't tell you to stop being sour, but I can say that echoing the opinion of "sprint stages are useless and boring" is bad for the sport.
What you can do is have some respect for others opinions and not say they are ridiculous . Is this not a forum for varied opinion...And also calling me sour ..WTF ? If I would prefer cross winds that is my perogative and not for you to ridicule ...Many sprint stages are not boring but that was and I didn't say they were useless only I prefer cross winds ..Excuse me for having a preference ;)
This is a forum, and you expose your opinions to criticism. If a poster preferred the 3 hours of coverage filmed from riders' bike-cameras only, other posters could criticize. Do you actually want to comment on the substance of my post, that this stage could in fact attract interest, or just lament that someone disagrees with you?

the delgados said:
dusty red roads said:
Action is great, but I also enjoy slow lazy days, seeing a bunch of bright colors riding thru the countryside.... and if I don't feel like watching I only watch the end or a few bits here and there. These kind of days also give a bit of rest/breathing space to the GC guys so they can go even more intensely on the stages they need to. I'm into ebb and flow not everyone is of course, but since I'm probably a more casual viewer than most people here I can speak from that point of view.
That's cool.
Some people like watching others throw darts; some like watching others hurl giants rocks down a sheet of ice.
Whatever floats yer boat, ya know what I mean?
I'm just speaking from the perspective of someone who enjoys the sport, but hates to see how it's marketed in a non-cycling-mad country.
Seriously, I have zero experience in tv production, but I swear I could do a better job attracting people to the sport than those who buy the tv rights and do nothing with it other than filling dead air in non-prime-time hours.
I'm quoting these posts not to respond to the poster, but the ideas in general that are echoed in this thread.

There is a lot of talk about casual fans, and almost all of it is uninformed. It is much easier to define what a fan, or potential fan isn't, than what it is.

You cannot say potential fans only want action, or only want travel shots. You cannot say potential fans will be won over by compressed action of 20 minute broadcasts. You cannot say that if a person tunes in with 80k to go and doesn't see anything exciting, that they will then never watch again, avoiding any support of the sport in the future. A fan doesn't even necessarily want to be excited.

They just need to be engaged. Engagement is what we want from fans. Tuning in with 80k to go and listening to the banter while folding laundry is engaging with the sport. Tuning in with 80k to go getting bored but, checking-in in 90 minutes after watching snooker in between is still engagement. Looking at previews, startlists, and the race profile the night before, predicting exactly when they will be 2k from the line, and picking up a pirated internet stream to watch the finish is engaging with the sport.

Days like today aren't not going to turn off anyone who wasn't already engaged; there is no loss to the fan base. But it does offer up different kinds of opportunities than just action-action-action, to engage all kinds of potential fans.

What else can you expect from fans other than a variety of ways to participate in consuming the sport? Because that's the same expectation any other sport has from everyone that isn't paying for a seat in a venue.
 
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
the delgados said:
HelloDolly said:
pity there were no crosswinds as that was a bore fest and I doubt attracted many new fans to the Giro
Agreed.
I can't begin to grasp how anyone finds watching any more than ten km's of a bunch sprint stage interesting.
I remember becoming fascinated with cycling by watching the *cough* John Tesh *cough* hour-long productions back in the 80's.
I dunno--whenever I mistakenly tune into a flat gt stage with 100 km's to go, the first thought that comes to mind is "How in hell would a cycling newbie be into watching this?"
There's absolutely no drama; it's just a bunch of guys riding along until it comes time to organize the sprint chain.
No wonder the sports networks in Canada have dropped the coverage altogether.
Best do a half-hour hi-light package that contains some drama and excitement rather than spend hours watching a travel tourism ad.
We we talking over in the Clinic the other day (well, mostly I was talking) about the need to re-think Grand Tours altogether, an idea which didn't win me many friends there, so I know it won't here.

But anyway, it got me thinking about the business end of cycling, and Grand Tours, and about how much of Grand Tour broadcast is really an extended travelogue, complete with script, shown to the masses of middle and working class people who make up cycling fans. The racing is there just to keep your eyes glued.

These long, flat opening stages are probably more boring than they need to be, however. More eyes would be glued faster if the race planners took more care to make them a bit more interesting, more often.
So cycling should get with the times? Look, part of watching the race is enjoying the countryside.

But we don't do that anymore. We don't even see that anymore, everything having been debased by the so-called architects. The only guys that get to watch the races are those retired old roadies. A race takes 4, 5, 6 hours in the middle of the working day. How archaic.
 
In the 80's when broadcasting was limited and there were not as many fans, at the Tour you could find 9 flat stages in sequence. Unbelievable. You usually had to wait until stage 10. That was usually the key stage.

The only thing that I would change is putting the better or more action packed stages on the weekend. Do not miss on the opportunity of more public watching.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Maxiton said:
the delgados said:
HelloDolly said:
pity there were no crosswinds as that was a bore fest and I doubt attracted many new fans to the Giro
Agreed.
I can't begin to grasp how anyone finds watching any more than ten km's of a bunch sprint stage interesting.
I remember becoming fascinated with cycling by watching the *cough* John Tesh *cough* hour-long productions back in the 80's.
I dunno--whenever I mistakenly tune into a flat gt stage with 100 km's to go, the first thought that comes to mind is "How in hell would a cycling newbie be into watching this?"
There's absolutely no drama; it's just a bunch of guys riding along until it comes time to organize the sprint chain.
No wonder the sports networks in Canada have dropped the coverage altogether.
Best do a half-hour hi-light package that contains some drama and excitement rather than spend hours watching a travel tourism ad.
We we talking over in the Clinic the other day (well, mostly I was talking) about the need to re-think Grand Tours altogether, an idea which didn't win me many friends there, so I know it won't here.

But anyway, it got me thinking about the business end of cycling, and Grand Tours, and about how much of Grand Tour broadcast is really an extended travelogue, complete with script, shown to the masses of middle and working class people who make up cycling fans. The racing is there just to keep your eyes glued.

These long, flat opening stages are probably more boring than they need to be, however. More eyes would be glued faster if the race planners took more care to make them a bit more interesting, more often.
So cycling should get with the times? Look, part of watching the race is enjoying the countryside.

But we don't do that anymore. We don't even see that anymore, everything having been debased by the so-called architects. The only guys that get to watch the races are those retired old roadies. A race takes 4, 5, 6 hours in the middle of the working day. How archaic.
You could be on to something. I can never be wrong to experiment. Make a stage race with no stages over 100km, all stages in the early evening. All stages designed to take less than 3 hours. Put in some weird classifications, and it could be fun
 
Re:

Escarabajo said:
In the 80's with broadcasting was limited and there were not as many fans, at the Tour you could find 9 flat stages in sequence. Unbelievable. You usually had to wait until stage 10. That was usually the key stage.

The only thing that I would change is putting the better or more action packed stages on the weekend. Do not miss on the opportunity of more public watching.
Back in the days, quality journalists wrote about the race in the daily newspaper. They would find an angle, a story etc even if the actual stage was dull race wise.

Now we have trash journalists incapable of finding the story and hence we are left with the dull race on the the telly.
 
Re: Re:

Maxiton said:
the delgados said:
HelloDolly said:
pity there were no crosswinds as that was a bore fest and I doubt attracted many new fans to the Giro
Agreed.
I can't begin to grasp how anyone finds watching any more than ten km's of a bunch sprint stage interesting.
I remember becoming fascinated with cycling by watching the *cough* John Tesh *cough* hour-long productions back in the 80's.
I dunno--whenever I mistakenly tune into a flat gt stage with 100 km's to go, the first thought that comes to mind is "How in hell would a cycling newbie be into watching this?"
There's absolutely no drama; it's just a bunch of guys riding along until it comes time to organize the sprint chain.
No wonder the sports networks in Canada have dropped the coverage altogether.
Best do a half-hour hi-light package that contains some drama and excitement rather than spend hours watching a travel tourism ad.
We we talking over in the Clinic the other day (well, mostly I was talking) about the need to re-think Grand Tours altogether, an idea which didn't win me many friends there, so I know it won't here.

But anyway, it got me thinking about the business end of cycling, and Grand Tours, and about how much of Grand Tour broadcast is really an extended travelogue, complete with script, shown to the masses of middle and working class people who make up cycling fans. The racing is there just to keep your eyes glued.

These long, flat opening stages are probably more boring than they need to be, however. More eyes would be glued faster if the race planners took more care to make them a bit more interesting, more often.
Maxiton:
I'm genuinely curious to hear any ideas you have to make bunch sprint stages more interesting.
I absolutely love watching the developments that occur during the last 10 km's of a sprint stage; there's a lot of drama happening and sometimes a lot of questions that come to mind during the chaotic lead-up to a frantic bunch gallop.
Riveting stuff. I mean, I could write at least two paragraphs about my thoughts about what happened during the last 10 km, but I don't wish to bore anyone more than i already am.
At risk of sounding repetitive, I appreciate flat stages in the larger context of a grand tour. my only criticism is how the coverage is presented in, say, Canada.
I've basically given up trying to explain to friends why watching a moving peloton for hours on end is interesting. Reason being is when it comes to flat stages, I cannot come up with a single argument about why my buddy should be watching.
i like the idea of maintaining the integrity (I can't believe I just used that word to describe cycling; but I'll just leave it at that. Let's move on, shall we?) of the sport without spicing up sprint stages.
It's just how they're shown is my beef.
Rather than filling up dead air on 24 hour sports channels, why not condense it and provide some perspective for someone who is two seconds away from reaching for the video game control?
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re: Re:

Dazed and Confused said:
Escarabajo said:
In the 80's with broadcasting was limited and there were not as many fans, at the Tour you could find 9 flat stages in sequence. Unbelievable. You usually had to wait until stage 10. That was usually the key stage.

The only thing that I would change is putting the better or more action packed stages on the weekend. Do not miss on the opportunity of more public watching.
Back in the days, quality journalists wrote about the race in the daily newspaper. They would find an angle, a story etc even if the actual stage was dull race wise.

Now we have trash journalists incapable of finding the story and hence we are left with the dull race on the the telly.
 
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
Dazed and Confused said:
Escarabajo said:
In the 80's with broadcasting was limited and there were not as many fans, at the Tour you could find 9 flat stages in sequence. Unbelievable. You usually had to wait until stage 10. That was usually the key stage.

The only thing that I would change is putting the better or more action packed stages on the weekend. Do not miss on the opportunity of more public watching.
Back in the days, quality journalists wrote about the race in the daily newspaper. They would find an angle, a story etc even if the actual stage was dull race wise.

Now we have trash journalists incapable of finding the story and hence we are left with the dull race on the the telly.
Naturally, you're the one coming up with this. I can appreciate the irony
 
This is a forum, and you expose your opinions to criticism. If a poster preferred the 3 hours of coverage filmed from riders' bike-cameras only, other posters could criticize. Do you actually want to comment on the substance of my post, that this stage could in fact attract interest, or just lament that someone disagrees with you?
There is nothing wrong with criticism of opinions or disagreement.. I am questioning your language and lack of respect for others which has little to do with disagreement . As this is something you can't or don;t understand there is little point conversing with you.
 
Sep 17, 2014
917
0
0
Re:

Escarabajo said:
The only thing that I would change is putting the better or more action packed stages on the weekend. Do not miss on the opportunity of more public watching.
Absolutely. If a GT must have a bunch of sprint stages to start, have them during the week.

Rest days on the weekends are even worse.....
 
Re: Re:

SlickMongoose said:
Escarabajo said:
The only thing that I would change is putting the better or more action packed stages on the weekend. Do not miss on the opportunity of more public watching.
Absolutely. If a GT must have a bunch of sprint stages to start, have them during the week.

Rest days on the weekends are even worse.....
Agreed, most weekends should be reserved for at least medium mountain stages. On the other hand though, sprint stages tend to be closer to large towns and cities, so you can get loads of people out on the route at the weekend - like we had today (and presumably tomorrow) in the Netherlands. So there are benefits to that as well. And you can be pretty confident that towns in the Netherlands are paying a lot of money to host stages at the weekend - more than a small ski resort in the Alps can probably pay to sponsor the race.
 
Re: Re:

SlickMongoose said:
Escarabajo said:
The only thing that I would change is putting the better or more action packed stages on the weekend. Do not miss on the opportunity of more public watching.
Absolutely. If a GT must have a bunch of sprint stages to start, have them during the week.

Rest days on the weekends are even worse.....
When has there ever been a rest day on a weekend?
Generally I agree though, just don't make stages like this on weekends. I wouldnt even say sprint stages are always that bad, but at least put in some obstacles which can make the finale more interesting and maybe even cause some gaps between gt contenders.
 
If you want to see better designs, please visit the excellent thread on this forum :cool: . You'll see plenty of GTs that aren't dull. Where potential boring stages are kept to a minimum.

Seriously, when the course came out, what did you expect from this stage? A solo attack from Valverde? Couldn't you see it coming?

BTW, I don't mind the tourism part, on the contrary. When a country spends a lot of resources with police security and traffic control, a little advertising is more than fair. Plus, it can make the race appeal to an entire family: the "Travel Chanel loving" wife may watch at first for the scenery and later decide to follow the exploits of Cute Marcel :D .
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
SlickMongoose said:
Escarabajo said:
The only thing that I would change is putting the better or more action packed stages on the weekend. Do not miss on the opportunity of more public watching.
Absolutely. If a GT must have a bunch of sprint stages to start, have them during the week.

Rest days on the weekends are even worse.....
When has there ever been a rest day on a weekend?
Generally I agree though, just don't make stages like this on weekends. I wouldnt even say sprint stages are always that bad, but at least put in some obstacles which can make the finale more interesting and maybe even cause some gaps between gt contenders.
Then Kittel and Greipel wouldn't bother coming. And rather than seeing an incredible display of sprinting, the sole highlight of the day would be watching to see which one of Nizzolo, Modolo or Hofland manages to mess up their sprint the least :cry:
 
Re: Re:

Dazed and Confused said:
Escarabajo said:
In the 80's with broadcasting was limited and there were not as many fans, at the Tour you could find 9 flat stages in sequence. Unbelievable. You usually had to wait until stage 10. That was usually the key stage.

The only thing that I would change is putting the better or more action packed stages on the weekend. Do not miss on the opportunity of more public watching.
Back in the days, quality journalists wrote about the race in the daily newspaper. They would find an angle, a story etc even if the actual stage was dull race wise.

Now we have trash journalists incapable of finding the story and hence we are left with the dull race on the the telly.
I think internet is a problem as well. Pre-internet TV commentary was one of the few sources of actual news from the race which made dull stages more tolerable for the viewer.
 
There have been lots of 'sprint' stages in GT that have not been boring . But if you think today was boring some people on here think its heresy . and as for no loss to the fan base. I won't be tuning in tomorrow except in the last 15 minutes and I am a die hard cycling fan....No point in trying to attract new fans based on these stages. I agree they should be on during the week and at least one of these flat stages could have been a rouler stage.
Today was terrible as I said for attracting fans even Rob Hatch was struggling to fill the gaps and unfortunately tomorrow looks to be the same
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Maxiton said:
the delgados said:
HelloDolly said:
pity there were no crosswinds as that was a bore fest and I doubt attracted many new fans to the Giro
Agreed.
I can't begin to grasp how anyone finds watching any more than ten km's of a bunch sprint stage interesting.
I remember becoming fascinated with cycling by watching the *cough* John Tesh *cough* hour-long productions back in the 80's.
I dunno--whenever I mistakenly tune into a flat gt stage with 100 km's to go, the first thought that comes to mind is "How in hell would a cycling newbie be into watching this?"
There's absolutely no drama; it's just a bunch of guys riding along until it comes time to organize the sprint chain.
No wonder the sports networks in Canada have dropped the coverage altogether.
Best do a half-hour hi-light package that contains some drama and excitement rather than spend hours watching a travel tourism ad.
We we talking over in the Clinic the other day (well, mostly I was talking) about the need to re-think Grand Tours altogether, an idea which didn't win me many friends there, so I know it won't here.

But anyway, it got me thinking about the business end of cycling, and Grand Tours, and about how much of Grand Tour broadcast is really an extended travelogue, complete with script, shown to the masses of middle and working class people who make up cycling fans. The racing is there just to keep your eyes glued.

These long, flat opening stages are probably more boring than they need to be, however. More eyes would be glued faster if the race planners took more care to make them a bit more interesting, more often.
You could be on to something. I can never be wrong to experiment. Make a stage race with no stages over 100km, all stages in the early evening. All stages designed to take less than 3 hours. Put in some weird classifications, and it could be fun
I agree. It could totally be fun.

the delgados said:
Maxiton:
I'm genuinely curious to hear any ideas you have to make bunch sprint stages more interesting.
I absolutely love watching the developments that occur during the last 10 km's of a sprint stage; there's a lot of drama happening and sometimes a lot of questions that come to mind during the chaotic lead-up to a frantic bunch gallop.
Riveting stuff. I mean, I could write at least two paragraphs about my thoughts about what happened during the last 10 km, but I don't wish to bore anyone more than i already am.
At risk of sounding repetitive, I appreciate flat stages in the larger context of a grand tour. my only criticism is how the coverage is presented in, say, Canada.
I've basically given up trying to explain to friends why watching a moving peloton for hours on end is interesting. Reason being is when it comes to flat stages, I cannot come up with a single argument about why my buddy should be watching.
i like the idea of maintaining the integrity (I can't believe I just used that word to describe cycling; but I'll just leave it at that. Let's move on, shall we?) of the sport without spicing up sprint stages.
It's just how they're shown is my beef.
Rather than filling up dead air on 24 hour sports channels, why not condense it and provide some perspective for someone who is two seconds away from reaching for the video game control?
I'm thinking greater integrity rather than less. The way cycling is televised is definitely at issue. Not to mention the way teams are compensated. But for me the most interesting thing is the nature of the Grand Tours themselves, and how that plays into the whole history of the sport.

I'm thinking about putting together a thread in the Clinic. I may do it in the next few days, if I get time. Should be fun.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS