[Green Edge] Shayne Bannan, Gerry Ryan and an Aussie Pro Team for 2012?

Page 22 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 14, 2010
727
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
I don't understand? Having teams closely aligned to the Olympics cos they're borderline national teams helps the UCI control things?

But the thing is - what was wrong with the current method? It's not like Australians weren't being supported in their professional ambitions. LOTS of Australians in the pro péloton.

And how many of these Jayco-AIS youngsters are you expecting to see on the squad?
Lots of valid points, but I would note some established/long standing ProConti teams wouldn't have the commitment from sponsors needed for the step up to PT (and we've seen from HTC that finding big sponsors in cycling isn't necessarily easy).

Responding to the 3 quotes above (sorry, Im a muppet so don't know how to split quotes)

It would be my view the borderline national teams are closely aligned to Olympic ambitions of the nation (not just TdF), and with gold medal dreams, the UCI is the link between the national squads and the IOC as the recognised administrator of the sport. The politics of IOC/UCI/National teams may even be more entangled than the UCI/PT!

There are lots of Australian pro's in the peloton, but its not always the case that their ambitions are being supported. There's a long history of this, (and its not just Australian's who suffer from it) but an example would be Cadel at Lotto where he noted when VdB was rising up that he felt the team/sponsor would prefer to have a Belgian win a stage than have him finish on the podium. A rider like Wes Sulzberger probably deserves a few more chances then he's currently getting (and this predates his being linked to GE), I'm not suggesting he should have been on the TdF roster, but he deserves a bit more support than some of the riders in his team who seem to proceed him. Ditto Simon Clarke.

I would only expect probably 3 (4 most) riders to come up from the AIS team in the first year (for as you say, too many would weaken the squad), and probably be Durbridge (U23 TT runner up), Hepburn and maybe Dyball or Lang. There's been a number of riders who've stepped straight from AIS to PT (without GE forcing it) including Bobridge and the Meyer brothers (all of who's road results have been held back by track ambitions, but have all claimed road wins since the jump), Matthews (as you pointed out) and goes back as far as Jens Voight and Stuey coming out of the fore-runner of the Jayco squad many many years ago (Jens first team was ZVVZ-AIS after T-Mobile showed no interest).
 
Apr 9, 2011
3,034
1
0
This whole dribs and drab announcements is just getting stupid.

Anyone who is into cycling spends time on forums ie muppets like us probably know a lot of the team. Where as those with a July interest will not know who this guys are anyway.

Announce the team already.
 
Aug 26, 2010
364
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
How many of the riders that come from Jayco-AIS are ready to go straight to the ProTour? The occasional exceptional ones, certainly (Matthews springs to mind). Others will either have to go by a circuitous route (eg McEwen) or just blindly hope somebody picks them up.

And how many of these Jayco-AIS youngsters are you expecting to see on the squad? If they're going to be an élite team justifying a WT contract, I'd expect 5 at the most, with a view to picking a few up as stagiares and into years 2 and 3. If we're talking a significant proportion of the team being unproven Australian youngsters, I feel they'd be better served with a year at ProContinental to adapt, not having the needs of a long and arduous ProTour season forced upon them, unless we want them to end up like Remmert Wielinga.
I think they'll just take Durbridge and Hepburn both who are top quality young riders. Durbridge rode a better TT then Phinney at Geelong last yr and he was 19 at the time. If they just take the cream of the NRS there will be one or two riders pushing into the team each year which would be great for healthy competition. That means a higher standard for GE and more riders in other pro tour teams.

I never think it will be at a point where the young talent coming through is soo good that practically the whole team could be Australian but if it does eventuate so be it. I like the way Euskatel and the French teams are anyway

It's a system that's far too easy to exploit with money, in my opinion.
100% Correct. There is a problem with the system not the teams with lots of money...
 
Apr 9, 2011
3,034
1
0
How the help do you ride a better ITT but finish slower ?

Ride from point a to point b in the least amount of time. Person who did this rode the best ITT
 
just some guy said:
How the help do you ride a better ITT but finish slower ?

Ride from point a to point b in the least amount of time. Person who did this rode the best ITT
Probably by being 0.035kmh slower in conditions which were suggested to have a greater negative effect than 0.035kmh.
 
Aug 26, 2010
364
0
0
How the help do you ride a better ITT but finish slower ?

Ride from point a to point b in the least amount of time. Person who did this rode the best ITT
Yeah Phinney rode in the dry and LD rode in the wet and drizzle. Its proven that it takes longer to ride a given distance in the wet with an identical power output than in the dry. Durbridge also was very strong at the TDU this year
 
Apr 9, 2011
3,034
1
0
While you can see it both ways - I just don´t buy the who would have could have arguments when it comes to cycling analysis, too much of in imo.
 
May 25, 2010
3,371
0
0
In a Time Trial you are always at the mercy of the variables. 2 equally skilled timetriallers ride a TT at different times but because one rode in the wet and one rode in the dry, their times were 20 seconds different. Since then people claim that TT Dry is a greater TT than TT Wet. At the end of the day, yes results matter and that's what we all use to flout our favourites but you always need to look at them with perspective.

Saying he (Durbo) rode a better time trial is subjective. We don't know how well he'd have done in the dry and we conversely we don't know how Phinney would have done if raced in the wet. All we have to go is the times they post and also the knowledge that riding in the wet slows you down.
 
Aug 26, 2010
364
0
0
just some guy said:
While you can see it both ways - I just don´t buy the who would have could have arguments when it comes to cycling analysis, too much of in imo.
Saying he (Durbo) rode a better time trial is subjective. We don't know how well he'd have done in the dry and we conversely we don't know how Phinney would have done if raced in the wet. All we have to go is the times they post and also the knowledge that riding in the wet slows you down
I'm not so sure it is that subjective. Same time - one with better conditions than the other. There is not big secret in cycling that times are slower on courses which are wet.

And it's not just some fixation that Aussies are better than everyone else. I like Phinney anyway. Thats just how it is. I was there... It was wet for one, it was dry for the other. And one is not going to be riding faster in the wet... regardless of power outputs...remember they have to corner too - you certainly don't corner faster in the wet either.

But anyway it is besides the point whether he would have been on Phinney's time of a couple of seconds faster. 20km is a little bit long to call it Phinney's pet event but he would be one of the better TTers in the world over the distance and by looking at Durbo's performance, isolated it may be, one can see his potential in the discipline. thats why I think what Liberty is saying was not quite right because he doesn't exactly stand out head and shoulders above the rest at Jayco AIS or in the track program either - he's just a good strong rider who in a few years could be a force at WT level - in the TT if nothing else.
 
PCutter said:
Lots of valid points, but I would note some established/long standing ProConti teams wouldn't have the commitment from sponsors needed for the step up to PT (and we've seen from HTC that finding big sponsors in cycling isn't necessarily easy).
Which is why teams are having to retreat back to regional bases. An Australian moneyed backer is a good starting point, but it seems that the big multinationals are the hardest to sway. When Caisse d'Epargne were in trouble, and that's a big, traditional team (of the teams in the current péloton it can trace its direct lineage back the furthest), their identity being primarily Spanish helped them persuade Telefonica to step in. HTC didn't have that benefit because they didn't have a sufficient 'local' interest, so had to look at multinational companies which will not feel the pull of the heartstrings the way, say, Europcar or Telefonica did.

Plus, of course, a lot of ProContinental teams don't actually aspire to be World Tour. Teams like Androni Giocattoli have never had the money, but they get to do all the races they feel they need to because their results justify it (and those results are also better for the roster not being overstretched). When we see the final GreenEdge roster we can debate whether they would be better served as a ProConti team or not. Personally, I see no harm in them being ProConti at all. I like the idea of all teams having to start off that way, because too many teams have come straight in and bought licences in the last few years, and it's casting traditional and long-standing teams to the wayside.

Yes, the sport wants dynamism and to attract new teams and sponsors - but it shouldn't do that at the cost of alienating those long-standing sponsors. Because ultimately, this 'new quasi-national team starts up, buys big names, gets licence' epoch can't last forever. It's like the big manufacturer era in F1, or the Rock/Austin years of the WWF; there's only so much room at the top, and when those sponsors end, those teams cost more to keep going than the smaller, regional concerns, which makes finding sponsors willing to stump up the right amount of money harder. And who will likely be the ones to pick up the pieces? The traditional nations and their teams.

I'm not saying GreenEdge shouldn't come into the sport. We need turnover and dynamism. But the UCI has bent over backwards and admitted a number of new teams to the ProTour in the last couple of years, whilst teams with a lot of history are being cast aside to make room; I feel that considering the money and talent levels mean that these new big money teams will get plenty of organisers falling over themselves to have them around anyway, the UCI is not doing enough to safeguard the teams that have kept the sport afloat through harder times. Again, this isn't GreenEdge's fault. I welcome new teams and new exposures. But I feel like; if their roster is good enough to be ProTour, then they would probably get the invites to the races they wanted to anyway (like Cervélo did in 2009); if their roster is not good enough to be ProTour, then they shouldn't be ProTour.

I favour the promotion/relegation system, but I feel points should stay with the team, not the rider. What if somebody waves a bunch of money under Voeckler and Rolland's noses and they go? Europcar have invested their year in those guys, just had an amazing year, and then the UCI punish them by relegating their status further for it? If you sign for a team with no proven record, you know what you're getting. Does anybody really think that Radioshack needed to be ProTour in 2010? They would have got to do all their season's goals anyway. Does anybody think that Leopard needed to be ProTour in 2011? With the roster they had, they could have gone to any race they wanted.

If a team comes in and acquires enough points to rank up in the top 15 (for I would have just 15 guaranteed invite teams in my top tier), then fine, make them ProTour.

In fact, in my mind, I would have three tiers.

The top 15 ranked teams in the world would be the top tier. These teams are not forced to go to any race, but must be invited to any race of .1 status or above that they ask for an invite to.

The next 25 ranked teams would be second tier. They can be invited to any race, if it be the organiser's will. Any major new teams will be automatically installed at this rank (though all new teams will start with 0 points, the points accumulated by their riders will determine whether they enter at the second tier - if their rider points are greater than those of the 40th-ranked team the previous year - or third - if their rider points are less than those of the 40th-ranked team the previous year).

Any teams below this will be third tier. They can ride .HC races in their own country, .1 and .2 races, as per Continental teams now.

Responding to the 3 quotes above (sorry, Im a muppet so don't know how to split quotes)

It would be my view the borderline national teams are closely aligned to Olympic ambitions of the nation (not just TdF), and with gold medal dreams, the UCI is the link between the national squads and the IOC as the recognised administrator of the sport. The politics of IOC/UCI/National teams may even be more entangled than the UCI/PT!
Yes, perhaps - but what does this have to do with ASO/RCS/Unipublic? Those are the people that it really matters to be in with. And I don't see why pseudo-national teams is a good thing, personally. Especially if a country produces more good riders. Should Spain or France be disadvantaged because they produce too many good riders and have to split them between teams, compared to the powerhouse of resources that Australian/British cycling can offer?

There are lots of Australian pro's in the peloton, but its not always the case that their ambitions are being supported. There's a long history of this, (and its not just Australian's who suffer from it) but an example would be Cadel at Lotto where he noted when VdB was rising up that he felt the team/sponsor would prefer to have a Belgian win a stage than have him finish on the podium. A rider like Wes Sulzberger probably deserves a few more chances then he's currently getting (and this predates his being linked to GE), I'm not suggesting he should have been on the TdF roster, but he deserves a bit more support than some of the riders in his team who seem to proceed him. Ditto Simon Clarke.
Simon Clarke has only really broken through this year though. I'm sure after his year he deserves more chances for sure, but I'm also not sure Astana's the best fit for him. And these riders... if they moved to GreenEdge, would they really get more team support? Or would they, more likely, still be support riders, only support riders for Australian teammates instead of French/Kazakh ones?

I would only expect probably 3 (4 most) riders to come up from the AIS team in the first year (for as you say, too many would weaken the squad), and probably be Durbridge (U23 TT runner up), Hepburn and maybe Dyball or Lang. There's been a number of riders who've stepped straight from AIS to PT (without GE forcing it) including Bobridge and the Meyer brothers (all of who's road results have been held back by track ambitions, but have all claimed road wins since the jump), Matthews (as you pointed out) and goes back as far as Jens Voight and Stuey coming out of the fore-runner of the Jayco squad many many years ago (Jens first team was ZVVZ-AIS after T-Mobile showed no interest).
Ah yes, but people like Bobridge and the Meyers were by no means the finished article. In a squad as big and as strong as Garmin they were able to take time to adjust; again it really depends on the strength of the rest of the squad whether these riders are able to be molly-coddled. Sky are doing the molly-coddling job on Peter Kennaugh, but if they had 3 or 4 riders they had to do that with, it may prove problematic when it comes to spreading the talent across multiple races at hectic times of the year.

Matthews has been a spectacular talent for a long time and has really acquitted himself well at the top level, albeit he has had a quiet few months now, but that's to be expected in your rookie season. Even Peter Sagan disappeared mostly after May. But the thing is, not everybody can be as talented as Michael Matthews, and riders take different time to develop. Some riders have completely different skillsets and would be better off learning their trade elsewhere.

I bet Ian Stannard learned more from a year at Colnago and a year at ISD than he could ever have learned in the UK Academy or domestic scene. Then, when he finally got to Sky, he was a more rounded rider than many of his British peers at the same age.

The other thing, of course, is that Australian cyclists cover the whole gamut of talent. You have great sprinters and time triallists. Fewer GC men and climbers, granted, but you do have the current Tour de France winner. What will the team's aims be? Will they go for sprints? Classics? When it comes to the GTs, will they be a sprint team? A GC team? If you've got lots of competing aims it can hurt the chances of competing because you don't commit wholly to them. See Robbie McEwen wanting more flat power engines in Lotto's team at the same time as Evans wanting more mountain goats, and then the team having to balance that with Hoste's goals in April. In the end Lotto tried not to annoy any of them, and ended up annoying all three by trying to accommodate all three, and ending up with a bit short on all three fronts. This is Sky's problem; sprints are a good way to bolster your win count but it runs counter to their aim of providing a GC challenge. Would it not be better for climbing Aussies to go to climbing teams, sprinting Aussies to go to sprinting teams and time trialling Aussies to go to time trialling teams, perhaps?
 
Apr 8, 2009
131
0
0
GE should be a classics/sprint team. makes so much sense. we have so many talented sprinters. That way we can develop our mountain and GC riders for maybe 3years down the track whilst getting enough wins to keep the team going.

The way Bannan has been talking about who and how they will ride, im starting to think they might not get many wins next year.
 
Apr 14, 2010
727
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
1. The top 15 ranked teams in the world would be the top tier. These teams are not forced to go to any race, but must be invited to any race of .1 status or above that they ask for an invite to.


2. Yes, perhaps - but what does this have to do with ASO/RCS/Unipublic? Those are the people that it really matters to be in with. And I don't see why pseudo-national teams is a good thing, personally. Especially if a country produces more good riders. Should Spain or France be disadvantaged because they produce too many good riders and have to split them between teams, compared to the powerhouse of resources that Australian/British cycling can offer?
Sorry, still can't split quotes

1. I actually like this idea

2. ASO are obviously extremely important, but UCI still picks the ProTour teams (in some very complicated and secretive manner). That said, I think GE have not been short in cultivating the ASO/RCS relationships either (including sponsoring a couple of small Italian races this year). And I realise you're far away from Oz and the Oz cycling scene, but LOL the 'powerhouse of resources' comment, Australia have a strong track tradition, but we don't have 'Sky money'.
 
May 25, 2010
3,371
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
I favour the promotion/relegation system, but I feel points should stay with the team, not the rider. What if somebody waves a bunch of money under Voeckler and Rolland's noses and they go? Europcar have invested their year in those guys, just had an amazing year, and then the UCI punish them by relegating their status further for it? If you sign for a team with no proven record, you know what you're getting. Does anybody really think that Radioshack needed to be ProTour in 2010? They would have got to do all their season's goals anyway. Does anybody think that Leopard needed to be ProTour in 2011? With the roster they had, they could have gone to any race they wanted.
Rankings take into account the Team's collective score for that year. So Europcar will still have points collected from Voeckler + Rolland for that year, even if they were too leave.

(Top 15 Riders (Score 2010 + Score 2011)) + Team's Collective Score 2011 = 2012 Rank

Any*****s, another rider being announced today. Wonder if this one will surprise us. :D
 
Tuarts said:
Rankings take into account the Team's collective score for that year. So Europcar will still have points collected from Voeckler + Rolland for that year, even if they were too leave.

(Top 15 Riders (Score 2010 + Score 2011)) + Team's Collective Score 2011 = 2012 Rank

Any*****s, another rider being announced today. Wonder if this one will surprise us. :D
Team's Collective Score is only points gained in team competitions, team time trials and defending jerseys etc. It's no real compensation for a rider that leaves a team.
 
May 25, 2010
3,371
0
0
:D

I was lucky. That's 2 days in a row now that when I've done my daily twit check its been around the same time. :D
 
Jul 8, 2009
501
0
0
Sydney21 said:
No Surprise again but a geat signiture for the team. Leader for the Ardenne and the hilly classics. Does anyone else think that Simon Clarke could do a top 10 in an Ardenne race. He seems to do well all of the smaller italian races who still have big name riders in it. And even at Poland he proved he's super strong.
Yes, with his continued improvement, a top 10 is not out of the question for him IMO.
 
Jul 25, 2011
32
0
0
the_kman said:
GE should be a classics/sprint team. makes so much sense. we have so many talented sprinters. That way we can develop our mountain and GC riders for maybe 3years down the track whilst getting enough wins to keep the team going.

The way Bannan has been talking about who and how they will ride, im starting to think they might not get many wins next year.
Bannan has pretty much stated that the Classics are going to be the focus. The riders that they've acquired is in line with this. Nice to see that he's not talking about the Tour GC in the next year or so.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY