Libertine Seguros said:
Ultimately, the Tour Down Under is not a very good event. Its value is artificially inflated by the UCI, and it provides little of interest for the hardcore cycling fan outside of Australia. They don't need to make it harder, but they do need to shake it up a bit. Maybe a TT one year, so that the winner has to be more versatile. Maybe the same routes but in a different order. Maybe the same stage towns by different routes. Maybe place one of the smaller hills closer to the finish to make people like Vinokourov, Gilbert or their ilk have a go. That way you won't be alienating the sprinters - still plenty of chance for them to get their wins - but you will also be giving another group of riders motivation to show up and, more importantly, to try. Because if you watch the big names, but you notice that none of them are trying, it reflects badly on the event. It says "this event doesn't matter to me". And when the presence of those big names is one of the only things the race uses for self-promotion, that's quite a damning indictment.
Much agreed with LS too.
The event is also heavily supported by the government. I'm not complaining - as I whinge when my state government abandons cultural events, but without that support it wouldn't be able to hold its own. As a commercial event the stakeholders seem to be happy, the UCI seem to be happy with what they get out of it. Maybe things will be a little different post-Lance, maybe they have to think a bit outside the box, maybe they will spend that couple of million back into the race.
As a cycling fan I find it underwhelming - yet I still follow the race avidly. Mainly because it's the only race on in such a time zone where I can just wake up and follow in the morning. If I pump it up in my own mind then I can find it somewhat capturing.
But the TV coverage (or lack of) is a joke. I also thought the highlights were exceptionally poor. Random segments as different parts of the stage with little bearing on the race then all of a sudden you're at the finish and you see the winner before you've worked out how the trains are lining up the sprint. When you have a sprint stage the most important bit is watching the final 10km through, and the highlights failed in that regard.
Of course it's a joke that there is no live coverage (barring the final two stages) to begin with but I've said plenty on that topic already.
So the next biggest problem for me after the coverage, is the race design. I know the ideas behind having it easy, all from one location etc etc and I still think they can achieve that whilst livening up the race a little bit. I would scrap the Stage 0 on the Sunday and instead run the race of seven stages Sunday to Saturday. I don't see the problem doing a short TT on road bikes either.
Stage 1 (Sunday) - Adelaide (either an easy out and back road stage or a 7-8km TT)
Stage 2 (Monday) - A typical sprint finish
Stage 3 (Tuesday) - Some sort of finish with "bonus bumps" (or a categorised climb) near the end which give the puncheurs a good chance to beat the sprinters
Stage 4 (Wednesday) - Finish on the Stirling circuit
Stage 5 (Thursday) - Willunga circuit
Stage 6 (Friday) - Some relatively challenging climbing in the middle-latter part of the stage which could drop some heavier sprinters or encourage attacks (Think the Vuelta stages which Hushovd and Erviti won, obviously Adelaide probably wouldn't have similar climbs, but multiple smaller climbs do the same job).
Stage 7 (Saturday) - Adelaide
I have no idea about the geography, but I'm sure you get the theory. And the order could be anything, this is just an example. I don't see how something like this would violate the principle values of the race. In theory all seven stages could still be bunch sprints, but it's just that they would only get 2-3 "free" stages where they don't have to work hard. Plus it would give different types of sprinters a better chance to win the stage - although we did achieve this in 2011.