Is UAE Over the Top?

[magliaroz]

I think we can make some further conclusions by now.

They should send Pogi on Mars to climb the Olympus Mons. Pretty sure he doesn't really need oxigen anymore at this point.

 

[Slavique Nuke]

I think you may be right. Nils the new Wout?

Except that he doesn't win a sprint stage/green jersey, he doesn't win the queen stage and he doesn't win the ITT

https://twitter.com/x/status/1814276153638568281

View: https://x.com/daniellloyd1/status/1814276153638568281

A team with strong riders wins a lot, a team with weak riders wins little

 

[Krzysztof_O]

I think we can make some further conclusions by now.

UAE is over the top indeed. Thanks God that it's only porridge.

 

[fenns]

seems increible that the peloton can be reduced to about 15 and 5 of them are from the same team

 

[Mayomaniac]

I've always liked Politt as q classics rider, but an 80kg guy climbing like that after pulling on the flats is peak van Aert levels of radioactive.

 

[Brullnux]

seems increible that the peloton can be reduced to about 15 and 5 of them are from the same team

It does but Yates and Almeida are top 5 GC riders, and Sivakov and Soler are top 15 GC riders in their own right (and we're pre UAE, too). I don't think that element is all doping, it is also just the fact they've signed infinite number of good riders bc of the budget they have.

 

[Mayomaniac]

At some point the climbing speeds will stop improving because human physiology will become a limiting factor. How many more years until we hit that point?

 

[E_F_]

At some point the climbing speeds will stop improving because human physiology will become a limiting factor. How many more years until we hit that point?

When will e-bikes stop increasing in speed?

 

[MikeS369]

Except that he doesn't win a sprint stage/green jersey, he doesn't win the queen stage and he doesn't win the ITT

Okay. Frankie Andreu.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Except that he doesn't win a sprint stage/green jersey, he doesn't win the queen stage and he doesn't win the ITT



A team with strong riders wins a lot, a team with weak riders wins little

It's amazing how often riders get stronger when in the team with the biggest budget and get weaker when in the teams with less budget, though.

Plus of course, the concentration of all the strongest riders into the same small number of teams is a very severe blow to the sport, because it becomes stale and predictable. The spectacle in the last few years has been better than it was in the Sky or USPS days because there's more than one team strong enough, but we have arrived at a point where 18 or 19 of the teams - including some of the highest budget and most dominant teams of recent times - may as well not turn up.

 

[Monoxidator]

Doctors Championship.

 

[Slavique Nuke]

It's amazing how often riders get stronger when in the team with the biggest budget and get weaker when in the teams with less budget, though.

Plus of course, the concentration of all the strongest riders into the same small number of teams is a very severe blow to the sport, because it becomes stale and predictable. The spectacle in the last few years has been better than it was in the Sky or USPS days because there's more than one team strong enough, but we have arrived at a point where 18 or 19 of the teams - including some of the highest budget and most dominant teams of recent times - may as well not turn up.

There is nothing amazing about it. A big team with a big budget creates a quality professional environment for riders. Which leads to increased performance.

The most recent example is Jorgenson, who even paid for his high-altitude training camps at Movistar out of his own pocket. At Visma the opportunities are much higher quality at all levels.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There is nothing amazing about it. A big team with a big budget creates a quality professional environment for riders. Which leads to increased performance.

The most recent example is Jorgenson, who even paid for his high-altitude training camps at Movistar out of his own pocket. At Visma the opportunities are much higher quality at all levels.

Evidently we need sarcasm tags.

 

[Slavique Nuke]

Evidently we need sarcasm tags.

I don't see which part of your post is sarcastic. Especially since your post contains contradictions.

If you're being sarcastic, you're saying in the first part: Big budgets make riders stronger. In the second part you claim that all the strong guys are all racing in big budget teams. So do big budgets make riders stronger, or do strong riders choose teams with big budgets?

The argument that the others don't stand a chance and that 18-19 teams shouldn't even be there is pretty weak when you look at recent results where teams with the smallest budgets have achieved great results in cycling's most famous event. DSM, Arkea, Intermarche 3x, Astana, Total, Lotto, EF all won stages in the Tour de France. Including the green and polka dot jersey.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't see which part of your post is sarcastic. Especially since your post contains contradictions.

If you're being sarcastic, you're saying in the first part: Big budgets make riders stronger. In the second part you claim that all the strong guys are all racing in big budget teams. So do big budgets make riders stronger, or do strong riders choose teams with big budgets?

The argument that the others don't stand a chance and that 18-19 teams shouldn't even be there is pretty weak when you look at recent results where teams with the smallest budgets have achieved great results in cycling's most famous event. DSM, Arkea, Intermarche 3x, Astana, Total, Lotto, EF all won stages in the Tour de France. Including the green and polka dot jersey.

Calling it "amazing" when it's been clear we're watching a budgetary competition rather than a sporting one for years, it's just gone full Spanish football lately. Hell, approaching Scottish football levels of disparity in all honesty.

 

[Slavique Nuke]

Calling it "amazing" when it's been clear we're watching a budgetary competition rather than a sporting one for years, it's just gone full Spanish football lately. Hell, approaching Scottish football levels of disparity in all honesty.

It is still the most annoying thing on the internet when people try to explain everything in football terms. In the Giro 10 teams won stages, in the Tour 12 teams including Conti teams. Team with a modest budget won three Monuments this year. Money isn't everything, teams can win big with modest funding.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It is still the most annoying thing on the internet when people try to explain everything in football terms. In the Giro 10 teams won stages, in the Tour 12 teams including Conti teams. Team with a modest budget won three Monuments this year. Money isn't everything, teams can win big with modest funding.

7 of the top 8 riders came from the same 3 teams, without there even being a TTT (at least you can blame the TTT and the dreadful course for 2009's 9 from 4).

Nobody outside that top 3 teams finished within 25 minutes of the winner.

Add in a fourth team that has won 3/4 of the monuments (with the one remaining going to one of the three that filled the top 10 of the Tour).

Yea, cool, there's still options to win a stage from a breakaway (if Pogačar doesn't chase down GT winners and podium riders - who are an hour down and world class climbers who just happen to not be on the moneyed teams - on a whim), but there's not really any opportunity to be relevant as anything other than pack fodder.

You say you hate comparing to football, so let's try another mainstream sport. Cycling currently has a situation analogous to F1 a few years ago, only most of the grid has been turned into Haas or Williams.

Or better, let's just use cycling. Back about 15 years ago in the "péloton à deux vitesses" era, we had 3-4 French teams that were there to do nothing but stagehunt because they knew they couldn't compete. Now we have 3-4 teams that aren't there for that reason.

 

[Valv.Piti]

It's amazing how often riders get stronger when in the team with the biggest budget and get weaker when in the teams with less budget, though.

Plus of course, the concentration of all the strongest riders into the same small number of teams is a very severe blow to the sport, because it becomes stale and predictable. The spectacle in the last few years has been better than it was in the Sky or USPS days because there's more than one team strong enough, but we have arrived at a point where 18 or 19 of the teams - including some of the highest budget and most dominant teams of recent times - may as well not turn up.

This era of the Tour de France has been the best I can ever remember. 22-23-24 were all good to great races, especially the first one. Which Tour has realistically been better the last 20 years? None better than 22, thats for sure. None better for me than 23 as well. 2007 and 2019 had the potential to be better than this year, but I honestly don't think it was. 2004 had a horrible route and no suspense. 2005 was a bit better, but still much of the same compared to 2004 - at least you had Rasmussen doing Rasmussen things, and then you had Valverde announcing himself into DNS, and Armstrong wasn't super overpowered compared to Basso no more. 2006 and 2008 were close races, but not good ones, even though 2006 had a legendary stage, but 2008 was watered down and was too mediocre. 2010 you could make an argument for, but still kinda meh in hindsight. 2011 was close and had a great last week, nothing more. 2012 was horrible. 2013 was exciting because you had Quintana trying to fight, but it wasn't a fight, even though the MTFs were good. 2014? No. 2015 was the best of the Sky-Movistar-Tinkoff era, and you could argue that was better, but I wouldnt. 2016 and 2017 were putrid. 2018 was a bit better, but still bad. 2020 was close, but never a great race. 2021 was over after Romme-Colombiere, but you kinda had Vingegaard put up a bit of a fight and at least announcing that next year wouldn't just be a Pogacar procession.

This is just off the top of my head. You might not agree with everything here, but I don't find an edition in the same vicinity as 2022, and I honestly think all of the races from 22, 23 and 24 were better than anything else the last 20 years had to offer. That said, I follow your argument with overpowered teams, but it really hasn't made the spectacle worse. What has made it worse this year (even though the hard stages were raced incredibly hard, and thats all I ask for) was ASO introducing 8 sprinter stages again like it was 2006, so every team decided to bring a sprinter and do nothing. That was bad, but the mountain stages and even the medium mountain stages were raced like they were supposed to.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

This era of the Tour de France has been the best I can ever remember. 22-23-24 were all good to great races, especially the first one. Which Tour has realistically been better the last 20 years? None better than 22, thats for sure. None better for me than 23 as well. 2007 and 2019 had the potential to be better than this year, but I honestly don't think it was. 2004 had a horrible route and no suspense. 2005 was a bit better, but still much of the same compared to 2004 - at least you had Rasmussen doing Rasmussen things, and then you had Valverde announcing himself into DNS, and Armstrong wasn't super overpowered compared to Basso no more. 2006 and 2008 were close races, but not good ones, even though 2006 had a legendary stage, but 2008 was watered down and was too mediocre. 2010 you could make an argument for, but still kinda meh in hindsight. 2011 was close and had a great last week, nothing more. 2012 was horrible. 2013 was exciting because you had Quintana trying to fight, but it wasn't a fight, even though the MTFs were good. 2014? No. 2015 was the best of the Sky-Movistar-Tinkoff era, and you could argue that was better, but I wouldnt. 2016 and 2017 were putrid. 2018 was a bit better, but still bad. 2020 was close, but never a great race. 2021 was over after Romme-Colombiere, but you kinda had Vingegaard put up a bit of a fight and at least announcing that next year wouldn't just be a Pogacar procession.

This is just off the top of my head. You might not agree with everything here, but I don't find an edition in the same vicinity as 2022, and I honestly think all of the races from 22, 23 and 24 were better than anything else the last 20 years had to offer. That said, I follow your argument with overpowered teams, but it really hasn't made the spectacle worse. What has made it worse this year (even though the hard stages were raced incredibly hard, and thats all I ask for) was ASO introducing 8 sprinter stages again like it was 2006, so every team decided to bring a sprinter and do nothing. That was bad, but the mountain stages and even the medium mountain stages were raced like they were supposed to.

The problem is, while the racing is good, it's hard to feel invested in the outcome unless you specifically support one of the big few teams or riders, because everybody else is reduced to meaninglessness. It's a bit like that F1 analysis video where the guy counts up and points out there were more overtakes in a season where Mercedes waltzed away with the title than the average during the mid-late 80s era that was so highly revered. Yet back in the 80s, they only gave points down to 6th and more teams could score because there were more ways for action to take place, many of which have been marginalised or minimised by subsequent changes in the sport. There was plenty of action going on, but almost none of it was action that made me care about it, because it was either between people and teams I care little for, or it was inevitably going to be rendered pointless because the big guns could pick them off whenever they wanted. I never got invested in Carapaz and Mas fighting for the stage even though that should be, on paper, a great fight, because I knew Pogačar could take that time back any time he liked, and they were just fighting over who got to get the combativity prize. Richard Carapaz, a Giro winner, and Enric Mas, a three-time Grand Tour podium and 7-time top 6 rider, were squabbling over the combativity prize when an hour down on GC, because they were irrelevant and their teams are only there to provide a bit of a sideshow attraction before the three teams that comprise the "real" péloton turn up to do their bit.

To go back to the football analogy that Slavique Nuke hates, I have frequently made the comparison that some people would rather watch a 0-0 between Barcelona and Real Madrid than a 3-3 between Espanyol and Getafe because they want to see the very best and are more invested in the higher quality players, while others would rather watch the game with more chances, goals and action regardless of if it's by lower quality players. 2024 era cycling is a slightly different story, however, because not every Barcelona and Real Madrid match is going to be bad, and in fact sometimes they are very good matches, even though I don't really like or care for each team and won't watch El Clásico out of choice. However, with football, you can just watch another match in the same division and get good quality competition between other people with a 2/3 chance that one of those teams will experience a victory. With cycling, because it's a pack sport, that's not really possible, either you watch through the prism of anybody you care for fighting for scraps and probably being denied those, and what wins they get are usually about as relevant as that time CFR Cluj beat Roma in the UCL only to get knocked out by the same team because of the group system.

And if a rider in a smaller team is really lucky, they get a win impressive enough to get signed to one of those big teams and become part of the machine you previously cheered them against.

 

[Slavique Nuke]

7 of the top 8 riders came from the same 3 teams, without there even being a TTT (at least you can blame the TTT and the dreadful course for 2009's 9 from 4).

Nobody outside that top 3 teams finished within 25 minutes of the winner.

Add in a fourth team that has won 3/4 of the monuments (with the one remaining going to one of the three that filled the top 10 of the Tour).

Yea, cool, there's still options to win a stage from a breakaway (if Pogačar doesn't chase down GT winners and podium riders - who are an hour down and world class climbers who just happen to not be on the moneyed teams - on a whim), but there's not really any opportunity to be relevant as anything other than pack fodder.

You say you hate comparing to football, so let's try another mainstream sport. Cycling currently has a situation analogous to F1 a few years ago, only most of the grid has been turned into Haas or Williams.

Or better, let's just use cycling. Back about 15 years ago in the "péloton à deux vitesses" era, we had 3-4 French teams that were there to do nothing but stagehunt because they knew they couldn't compete. Now we have 3-4 teams that aren't there for that reason.

The top 14 places in the Giro were taken by 13 teams, which didn't make the race very exciting, did it?

The podiums at the Tour were taken by three different teams, which is not as bad as you make it out to be. Two strong riders from one team crashed, otherwise they would have been in the top places. That means there are 5 teams fighting for the podium. I think that's pretty good.

Realistically, there are two guys fighting for the win. Such a rivalry between two stars gives cycling a lot more interest and popularity, imo, than if the races were won by always some random. Casual fans want stars, stars are born when they win a lot, and the rivalry between two stars will keep the fans engaged. Pogacar vs Vingegaard is probably the best thing that could happen to the cycling.

Btw, it's boring that you always compare cycling to other sports. It will always fail. I don't know how long you've been watching F1, but when the hybrid era started, for many years only Mercedes won. It was as dominant as if Pog was entering the junior races. Then Red Bull/Max domination....

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The top 14 places in the Giro were taken by 13 teams, which didn't make the race very exciting, did it?

The podiums at the Tour were taken by three different teams, which is not as bad as you make it out to be. Two strong riders from one team crashed, otherwise they would have been in the top places. That means there are 5 teams fighting for the podium. I think that's pretty good.

Realistically, there are two guys fighting for the win. Such a rivalry between two stars gives cycling a lot more interest and popularity, imo, than if the races were won by always some random. Casual fans want stars, stars are born when they win a lot, and the rivalry between two stars will keep the fans engaged. Pogacar vs Vingegaard is probably the best thing that could happen to the cycling.

Btw, it's boring that you always compare cycling to other sports. It will always fail. I don't know how long you've been watching F1, but when the hybrid era started, for many years only Mercedes won. It was as dominant as if Pog was entering the junior races. Then Red Bull/Max domination....

I loved F1 as a kid, but I stopped watching F1 as closely during the Schumacher days. Because I have a long history of rejecting domination.

Given you state "such a rivalry between two stars gives cycling a lot more interest and popularity", I think it's worth pointing out that it's very much a case that it attracts more casual interest; the cast of thousands and the complicated calendar of cycling makes it a maze for the novice, so having a smaller number of major name competitors is a good thing for them in that respect. But it's not necessarily a good thing for the pre-existing fanbase - as you can see from the threads of disillusionment where many long-term and long-standing cycling fans express their disinterest in a spectacle where the same riders win everything. Because for a lot of us, the cast of thousands and the multiple race-within-a-race storylines are one of the things that we like about cycling, and taking it away harms our interest.

Also, can I ask... how does 3+1 = 5? You've said three teams (i.e. Visma, UAE and Soudal), then 2 riders for 1 team crashed (assuming you're meaning Roglič and Vlasov for Red Bull)... so that's 4 teams, not 5?

Even then, 9 riders from 4 teams (plus also somebody from the most dominant team crashing out, in Ayuso) would only mean it's exactly the same as the 2009 Tour, one of the worst editions ever devised by man, if not the absolute dirt worst... and this without a TTT, which was the biggest reason the 2009 disasterpiece was like it was.

 

[Slavique Nuke]

as you can see from the threads of disillusionment where many long-term and long-standing cycling fans express their disinterest in a spectacle where the same riders win everything.

Weird people are always complaining about everything on the message boards. It's always been that way since the internet was invented. But the cycling fan base is much deeper than that. Maybe 10 people won't post on message boards anymore, but probably thousands of new cycling fans are created on other platforms.

Also, can I ask... how does 3+1 = 5? You've said three teams (i.e. Visma, UAE and Soudal), then 2 riders for 1 team crashed (assuming you're meaning Roglič and Vlasov for Red Bull)... so that's 4 teams, not 5?

INEOS may be turning into a meme team, but I still think they're still going to the GT with a podium finish in their sights.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

INEOS may be turning into a meme team, but I still think they're still going to the GT with a podium finish in their sights.

Just because they're going to the Tour with a podium finish in mind doesn't mean that they aren't second class citizens at the moment. I mean, there's half a dozen teams who are going there with GC aspirations in mind, but when the top 10 best contenders are all in the same 3 teams (because clearly now the likes of Almeida, Jorgenson and Ayuso are showing themselves currently superior to the likes of Carapaz, Mas and Simon Yates, whatever that may imply), aspirations are kinda meaningless. FDJ sent a bunch of capable GC riders and prospects that I'm sure they may have aspired to a strong GC placement with too.

 

[Slavique Nuke]

Just because they're going to the Tour with a podium finish in mind doesn't mean that they aren't second class citizens at the moment. I mean, there's half a dozen teams who are going there with GC aspirations in mind, but when the top 10 best contenders are all in the same 3 teams (because clearly now the likes of Almeida, Jorgenson and Ayuso are showing themselves currently superior to the likes of Carapaz, Mas and Simon Yates, whatever that may imply), aspirations are kinda meaningless. FDJ sent a bunch of capable GC riders and prospects that I'm sure they may have aspired to a strong GC placement with too.

There are GTs other than the Tour. Rodriguez has now underperformed. But he was close last year. And INEOS has two Tour podiums from the Pog/Vingegaard era. And they've always been podium finishers at the Giro since 2020, including two overall wins.

 

[Valv.Piti]

The question is then, would you rather be invested in worse racing in the name of equality or at least a more level playing field? I know I would not. At one point it was US Postal and Telekom, then it was CSC and Astana, then it was Sky and Movistar, and now its UAE and Jumbo. I don't really care that much about that, I care about good racing and this era has produced the best (by a countrymile) racing I have ever seen in this race (apart from 2003 which was a one-off in that time).