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

[Andy99]

Darren Lapthorne too if you believe twitter. Gosh he's been around Aussie Conti teams forever. Didn't he retire after Pegasus collapse too, only a month later accepting a place back at Drapac?

He was well thought of at Rapha Condor Sharp last year.

 

[JRanton]

So the ''big week of rider announcements'' ended up being Mouris, Clarke and Tuft?

Excellent. At this rate we'll just about know the full squad by the time the Tour Down Under is upon us again.

 

[auscyclefan94]

What are you talking about their depth is fine... its the abscence of a leader that is their problem. I mean atm they are effectively a just a worse version of HTC but honestly who cares its their first year. If they go about it with the right attitude and just get on the attack in their first year they will do fine... They will likely get a licence for 2 or 3 years anyway wont they? I dont really get the system though...

If they just bring in a Haussler or a Rogers type rider or two next year or a strong international leader they will be fine. Its not about being super competative in the first year anyway but they would like to be competative and visable across the calender. Its about having a foundation to build on.

Their depth is not fine. They don't many riders who can win races and they also have a lot of guys who aren't developed yet and/or will be doing track for most of the season. Rogers and Haussler are not really riders who are going to get you results.

 

[ingsve]

GreenEdge announced Baden Cooke and Matt Wilson on their twitter and facebook.

 

[PCutter]

Their depth is not fine. They don't many riders who can win races and they also have a lot of guys who aren't developed yet and/or will be doing track for most of the season. Rogers and Haussler are not really riders who are going to get you results.

They have more depth than BMC had last year.

And as for everyone saying how bad the line up is compared to Sky in their first year seem to forget how cr@p Sky were. Less than 6000 cq points for 2010. GE will have pretty similar points for their riders already this year (and I don't include any Martin points as I'd think he is a very long shot) and half their team have been sitting on the sidelines for the last month or two

 

[ingsve]

They have more depth than BMC had last year.

And as for everyone saying how bad the line up is compared to Sky in their first year seem to forget how cr@p Sky were. Less than 6000 cq points for 2010. GE will have pretty similar points for their riders already this year (and I don't include any Martin points as I'd think he is a very long shot) and half their team have been sitting on the sidelines for the last month or two

Well, when you compare the lineup with Sky you can't really look at the 2010 numbers since a lot of the Sky riders underperformed the first year because the team was so new and the routines were not the best. If you look at the palmares of the riders that Sky had their first year then the team looked better than GE is looking at the moment.

 

[PCutter]

Well, when you compare the lineup with Sky you can't really look at the 2010 numbers since a lot of the Sky riders underperformed the first year because the team was so new and the routines were not the best. If you look at the palmares of the riders that Sky had their first year then the team looked better than GE is looking at the moment.

Im not trying to say Sky don't deserve to be in PT or that they're a complete team of muppets, just that a few on this forum seem to think Sky in their first year will be significantly better than GE will be in their first year. I don't see it. And GE will face the same first year issues Sky faced, but Id be surprised if they didn't meet or get close to Sky's 6000pts in their first year. It (Sky/GE's relative strenghts) just shows that its not easy (unless you effectively steal a whole existing team a-la Leopard) to build a top team across classics and GTs in the first year of existence, which seems to be the expectation of many in this forum.

And not sure who in the first year Sky team you think has such better palmares than GE? GE has 2 monuments!!! (im including Goss as I think he's pretty certain), Tour Green jersey, a number of classics, number of Grand Tour road stages, a number of other smaller stage and one day races.

GE won't be contesting GT's, but I think GE's palmares stack up ok.

 

[ingsve]

Im not trying to say Sky don't deserve to be in PT or that they're a complete team of muppets, just that a few on this forum seem to think Sky in their first year will be significantly better than GE will be in their first year. I don't see it. And GE will face the same first year issues Sky faced, but Id be surprised if they didn't meet or get close to Sky's 6000pts in their first year. It (Sky/GE's relative strenghts) just shows that its not easy (unless you effectively steal a whole existing team a-la Leopard) to build a top team across classics and GTs in the first year of existence, which seems to be the expectation of many in this forum.

And not sure who in the first year Sky team you think has such better palmares than GE? GE has 2 monuments!!! (im including Goss as I think he's pretty certain), Tour Green jersey, a number of classics, number of Grand Tour road stages, a number of other smaller stage and one day races.

GE won't be contesting GT's, but I think GE's palmares stack up ok.

Well, when I say that Sky going into 2010 looked stronger than GE going into 2012 I also take into account their level at the time. O'Grady going into 2012 is for from the monument winner he once was and Cooke is far from the green jersey winner he once was. The Sky team was also more well rounded which I think counts for a lot.

Having said that I don't think GE will have the same type of underperformance that Sky had so they will probably be closer to their actual level than what Sky was. I'm merely talking about how things looked before they started racing.

 

[JRanton]

They have more depth than BMC had last year.

And as for everyone saying how bad the line up is compared to Sky in their first year seem to forget how cr@p Sky were. Less than 6000 cq points for 2010. GE will have pretty similar points for their riders already this year (and I don't include any Martin points as I'd think he is a very long shot) and half their team have been sitting on the sidelines for the last month or two

Based on the Sydney Herald list + Tuft, GreenEdge riders currently have a combined total of 5562 points in 2011 which would put them in 14th place, just ahead of FDJ and just behind Katusha. Not bad but not exactly great either.

 

[auscyclefan94]

They have more depth than BMC had last year.

And as for everyone saying how bad the line up is compared to Sky in their first year seem to forget how cr@p Sky were. Less than 6000 cq points for 2010. GE will have pretty similar points for their riders already this year (and I don't include any Martin points as I'd think he is a very long shot) and half their team have been sitting on the sidelines for the last month or two

GreenEdge have riders who are well past their best and they have too many sprinters. I'll support the project but I think they needed to throw some money at a bigger rider. The team is full of track riders as well who will not be road racing that much this season. I don't see it going that well next year.

 

[El Imbatido]

GreenEdge have riders who are well past their best and they have too many sprinters. I'll support the project but I think they needed to throw some money at a bigger rider. The team is full of track riders as well who will not be road racing that much this season. I don't see it going that well next year.

Agree +100000000

To me it just seems like they have tried to buy every man and his dog that is Australian. Yeah it is all good to have an Aus based team but they shouldn't let it go to their heads.

As i said earlier in the thread i really hope that at big races they don't go all nationalistic and field just Aus teams....as that would be as big a failure as katusha at the TdF this year. But the more and more i look at it...it seems as exactly as what they are doing

 

[PCutter]

GreenEdge have riders who are well past their best and they have too many sprinters. I'll support the project but I think they needed to throw some money at a bigger rider. The team is full of track riders as well who will not be road racing that much this season. I don't see it going that well next year.

BMC were full of US pro's and guys who'll never have a prime. Hence their spending spree this year.

'Throwing money" at some riders is the BMC way. GE are trying to build a team providing a development path for Australian riders, not just buy 1st spot on the WT.

2012 will be compromised by the Olympic ambitions of a number of track riders, but the project isn't being set up just for 2012, they (Gerry Ryan) have committed to a longer plan to have a team reflecting Australia's status in world cycling.

Their final team will be ranked about 11-12th on the PT for their application. Given what may be compromised schedules for some riders going to the Olympics, I would suspect at the end of 2012, they'll be ranked similarly (10th - 12th) before moving up in 2013.

Most teams would prefer a stage win in a GT than having a "GC" rider who can finish 10th without ever being seen in the race, and I think GE were correct in going down this line given they have very little chance of signing a rider guaranteed of a podium GC finish next year, especially since very few were free of contracts. Is it really that crucial that you sign a second or third tier stage racer who might get a GT top 10 - after being given some space by the true contenders - and a few top 5s in lesser stage racers? Do you think Garmin got more value out of having Ryder on their team this year than they did from Thor?

 

[auscyclefan94]

BMC were full of US pro's and guys who'll never have a prime. Hence their spending spree this year.

'Throwing money" at some riders is the BMC way. GE are trying to build a team providing a development path for Australian riders, not just buy 1st spot on the WT.

2012 will be compromised by the Olympic ambitions of a number of track riders, but the project isn't being set up just for 2012, they (Gerry Ryan) have committed to a longer plan to have a team reflecting Australia's status in world cycling.

Their final team will be ranked about 11-12th on the PT for their application. Given what may be compromised schedules for some riders going to the Olympics, I would suspect at the end of 2012, they'll be ranked similarly (10th - 12th) before moving up in 2013.

Most teams would prefer a stage win in a GT than having a "GC" rider who can finish 10th without ever being seen in the race, and I think GE were correct in going down this line given they have very little chance of signing a rider guaranteed of a podium GC finish next year, especially since very few were free of contracts. Is it really that crucial that you sign a second or third tier stage racer who might get a GT top 10 - after being given some space by the true contenders - and a few top 5s in lesser stage racers? Do you think Garmin got more value out of having Ryder on their team this year than they did from Thor?

BMC got Evans, Ballan, Burghardt and Hincapie in 2009 for 2010. BMC developed young swiss and american riders as well. They bought but still developed. riders. I don't see their sprinters getting stage wins unless Goss joins and even then their are a few quicker than Goss. They are going to need more than him to be successfull.

I think a stage racer would be handy but they need a big marquee rider. Doesn't have to be a gc rider. Even then I think they have got a lot of old has been's. I like O'Grady but he isn't what he use to be.

In saying that, signing Clarke and Langeveld are good signings. That is a positive.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

If you can guarantee that you'll get those stage wins and the likes to pick up the points, then sure. But if you can't guarantee that, it's probably a good idea to have at least somebody who can place in stage races, in order to get the sufficient amount of ranking points to stay in the top 18 after the first season (especially given that many of the riders will be involved with the track for at least part of the season and thus not scoring any points for GE). Maybe by correctly targeting races like the Tour de Pologne, Simon Gerrans can be that guy. But I don't know.

Unless poor Matt Goss starts finding himself being sent to all the races Greipel used to do at HTC, to pad GE's points tally, I'm not sure really where the big points are going to come from in their current lineup.

 

[JRanton]

Well, when I say that Sky going into 2010 looked stronger than GE going into 2012 I also take into account their level at the time. O'Grady going into 2012 is for from the monument winner he once was and Cooke is far from the green jersey winner he once was. The Sky team was also more well rounded which I think counts for a lot.

Having said that I don't think GE will have the same type of underperformance that Sky had so they will probably be closer to their actual level than what Sky was. I'm merely talking about how things looked before they started racing.

Yeah. Sky's roster in 2010 had a combined points total of 8160 coming off 2009 which would have been the 6th highest in '09 (ahead of that Contador/Armstrong Astana squad for example) and had those riders repeated that number of points in 2010 then they would also have finished 6th (ahead of Garmin for instance). Of course in reality Sky under-performed by over 2300 points in 2010 with Geraint Thomas really the only rider on the whole roster to make a substantial improvement (Flecha and Henderson also performed well). 20 of the 26 riders finished with less points in 2010 than they'd managed in 2009. It's hard to imagine that GreenEdge will match that level of under-performance (they'll seemingly start from a lower points base than Sky which obviously helps) .

 

[luckyboy]

Unless poor Matt Goss starts finding himself being sent to all the races Greipel used to do at HTC, to pad GE's points tally, I'm not sure really where the big points are going to come from in their current lineup.

Me neither, this team is looking pretty weak.

 

[PCutter]

BMC got Evans, Ballan, Burghardt and Hincapie in 2009 for 2010.

You questioned GE's depth, not their 'top 4'. BMC had riders of the quality of Beyer, Barton, Butler, Frei, Moos, Stadler, Stewart, Murphy, Nydam, Wyss, Zaner, House, Schar filling out their "depth".

And Stuart O'Grady still finished 10th at MSR and 9th at E3 this year, both while carrying water bottles for Fabian, so the old dog may still have a few tricks left in him yet.

Lib Seg - I can't double quote

The Olympics commitments more harms GE's chances to improve their ranking rather than to hold their ranking, as the track guys really don't bring many points to the team this year (except for Cameron Meyer's TdU points - and he could still easily perform there and re-set for the Olympics in August). GE's points come from riders - who while they once rode track - no longer target the Olympics and will be riding a full road programme.

 

[Sydney21]

Maybe if greenedge aopted the same recruitment tactics as sky they would have a big rider or two. With the points system determining who teams have to recruit this the real value of riders becomes distorted from their reslults in the last two years. Riders are chosen on their points rather than on their abilities. And points only reflect their abilities to some extent. I think we all find it hard to believe that winning the TDU or the tour of Beijing carries the same weighting as winning PN or the Dauphine.

The team is not going to win that many races... THEY ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING AS GOOD AS HTC and it is naive to expect that a team would win any where near the amount of races as the team with the fastest man in the world...simple physics.

ACF I do understand what you mean when you say there is a lack of depth in leadership... but I think it is a strong squad at that second level of riders and that that fact could actually prove to be their advantage in the end. The strongest rider leads on the day sort of thing. And if they can get the team dynamics right there is no reason why that sort of system cannot happen. Its not like Garmin with Hushovd Haussler and Farrar where there are 3 guys who should really be able to lead at MSR in their own right.

The team will not set the world on fire in their first year. It is tough to bill yourself as a sprint team without having the fastest man in the world. But there is only one of them... I think by the standards people are putting up in this forum the team will over achieve in their first year.

 

[auscyclefan94]

You questioned GE's depth, not their 'top 4'. BMC had riders of the quality of Beyer, Barton, Butler, Frei, Moos, Stadler, Stewart, Murphy, Nydam, Wyss, Zaner, House, Schar filling out their "depth".

And Stuart O'Grady still finished 10th at MSR and 9th at E3 this year, both while carrying water bottles for Fabian, so the old dog may still have a few tricks left in him yet.

Lib Seg - I can't double quote

The Olympics commitments more harms GE's chances to improve their ranking rather than to hold their ranking, as the track guys really don't bring many points to the team this year (except for Cameron Meyer's TdU points - and he could still easily perform there and re-set for the Olympics in August). GE's points come from riders - who while they once rode track - no longer target the Olympics and will be riding a full road programme.

Yes but my point was that BMC had some marquee riders - other riders who could get results. Yes they didn't win too much but that was because all their good riders had various different problems.

 

[PCutter]

1. Yes but my point was that BMC had some marquee riders - other riders who could get results.

2. Yes they didn't win too much but that was because all their good riders had various different problems.

1. Look back at your own posts, what you said was "Their depth is not fine"

2. The main problem they had was they were $h1t.

 

[auscyclefan94]

yes but this thread is about GreenEdge not BMC. GreenEdge are looking to become a ProTour team. BMC were only a pro conti team and I don't necessarily agree with point two.

 

[Michele]

Me neither, this team is looking pretty weak.

And they pretend to aim at World Tour license?

 

[Tuarts]

 

[gerrans for the win]

The team will not set the world on fire in their first year. It is tough to bill yourself as a sprint team without having the fastest man in the world. But there is only one of them... I think by the standards people are putting up in this forum the team will over achieve in their first year.

funny how we can all chat about weak teams/rosters.. but how offen do we see teams come out an do way more then we think (eurocar,fdj) so i wouldn't be surpise if GE do really well an crack the top 10

 

[AussieGoddess]

to be honest, while I would like them to get a name rider .... I am ok with what they are doing.

Building a team is about more than just buying in a ready-made group. They dont have to be super successful in their first year. We are now getting used to the Sky/Leopard Trek kind of thing where we expect a new team to be immediately the best. But we shouldnt. New teams with a long term outlook SHOULD be looking at developing over time.