Later on tonight, a second rate Australian rider

[theyoungest]

"other PT stage race Champions"? I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting Meyer is in that top bracket of riders yet. Then again, no race is won solely by the individual rider is it. Meyer largely got the lead through the smarts of Wilson who knew just how to string the peloton along, tho Meyer had the strength to finish it off after that.

Laurens ten Dam said that the Garmin boys wanted to go full gas all the way to the finish, and that he told them that's not the way to do it. That doesn't really compute with the story I read on Cyclingnews, but did they actually ask Wilson about it, or just assume that he was the tactical genius?

 

[auscyclefan94]

That was great. I didn't understand half of it, but still great.

/edit: Please tell me you're actually Russian or something like that.

Can we leave the spelling out of it? Is it really necessary to mock someone like that?

Hey Aus94, wasn't referring to you, sorry if you took it that way. It's the OP that has the problem.

No probs, I can be a bit sensitive sometimes!

 

[The Hitch]

but if you look at the field - he beat Cavendish, Farrar, Mckewen, Greipel ..... he beat the best sprinters in the world. So for mine, that makes his race top class.

No he didnt. Cav and Farrar were there in name only. THe fact that Contador was there at the Criterium International doesnt make winner Pierick Fedrigo a GT contender, nor does the fact that Andy Schleck was there for a week make the VUelta 2010 or 2009 fields any stronger.

But the weakness of the field can very often be overlooked, as in the tour of turkey, when the parcors provides quality racing, and many good riders have a go, try for a win, try something.

Here it was just Goss Greipel, Matthews and Meyer that cared.

I stick by the, what seems to me to be very selfevident comment, that Meyer is not in the same league as the other reigning PT stage race winners.

 

[movingtarget]

will get as many ranking points as the 5th place rider in the Tour.

What a wonderful system we have.

Whilst i'm on the general topic of UCI idiocy, who designs their website? It's like they're actively trying to hide the fatuous rankings they produce.

I think you mean, a promising young rider takes advantage of some second rate UCI rules.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The problem comes down to what you want, quality of field vs. quality of racing.

The TDU offers WT points and base training miles in good weather. It attracts the opportunity for the sprinters to get some easy wins, with only a couple of stages being ones where they really need to work for their victories (and therein lies my criticism - I don't mind a bunch sprint if the sprinters' teams have been made to work for their achievement. It's when you look at the day's parcours and know exactly what will happen ahead of time that it frustrates me, and the TDU is terrible for that because it's the same parcours every year so you can just look at previous years. And frankly, crits have no place in a World Tour race). But Cavendish and Farrar were no more present than Armstrong; they're there to have a bit of training, sign some autographs and get some base training done.

The idea is that Australian cycling will get the boost from the increase of interest because of having the stars rolling into town. I get that. But I'm not Australian, and the race does not present a very good impression to the rest of the world, which is somewhere I'm from. There's no live coverage for 2/3 of the race, the coverage itself is shoddy and poorly selected, the parcours is not exciting and repetitive, and while you get plenty of big stars showing, they aren't really involving themselves in the racing, of which there is little. Part of that is something that the TDU can't help (that it's in January). Over in San Luís right now there are lesser names racing, but the racing has been far more interesting.

But this is where the debate lies - it's just like a modified form of the interminable Giro/California debate. Bigger names racing ≠ prestige. Bigger names racing ≠ better racing. But in countries where the sport isn't ingrained as part of the sporting culture, bigger names racing = more fans willing to turn up and support the event, which helps it survive.

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.

 

[auscyclefan94]

The problem comes down to what you want, quality of field vs. quality of racing.

The TDU offers WT points and base training miles in good weather. It attracts the opportunity for the sprinters to get some easy wins, with only a couple of stages being ones where they really need to work for their victories (and therein lies my criticism - I don't mind a bunch sprint if the sprinters' teams have been made to work for their achievement. It's when you look at the day's parcours and know exactly what will happen ahead of time that it frustrates me, and the TDU is terrible for that because it's the same parcours every year so you can just look at previous years. And frankly, crits have no place in a World Tour race). But Cavendish and Farrar were no more present than Armstrong; they're there to have a bit of training, sign some autographs and get some base training done.

The idea is that Australian cycling will get the boost from the increase of interest because of having the stars rolling into town. I get that. But I'm not Australian, and the race does not present a very good impression to the rest of the world, which is somewhere I'm from. There's no live coverage for 2/3 of the race, the coverage itself is shoddy and poorly selected, the parcours is not exciting and repetitive, and while you get plenty of big stars showing, they aren't really involving themselves in the racing, of which there is little. Part of that is something that the TDU can't help (that it's in January). Over in San Luís right now there are lesser names racing, but the racing has been far more interesting.

But this is where the debate lies - it's just like a modified form of the interminable Giro/California debate. Bigger names racing ≠ prestige. Bigger names racing ≠ better racing. But in countries where the sport isn't ingrained as part of the sporting culture, bigger names racing = more fans willing to turn up and support the event, which helps it survive.

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.

Could not of said it better myself! You are spot on. Though I must say that location and timing of the event does not help the cause of putting out a better parcours.

 

[Mambo95]

I stick by the, what seems to me to be very selfevident comment, that Meyer is not in the same league as the other reigning PT stage race winners.

Simon Spilak and Dan Martin are not really any different than Meyer - youngsters with potential. Only time will tell what league any of them are in.

 

[Ferminal]

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.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

To be fair though, Špilak was 2nd originally, the race was taken from Valverde (no need to debate the fairness of the 2010 results removal again), and he is definitely in a different league from Cam Meyer. Špilak is a youngster with potential, like Meyer, but at that race he did beat a tougher field of people who were trying, including Menchov, Antón, Brajkovic, Rogers, Karpets and Sagan (even once you remove Valverde from the results).

Cam Meyer has a lot of potential, but he didn't have to show that much of it to win the TDU.

 

[Dewulf]

Laurens ten Dam said that the Garmin boys wanted to go full gas all the way to the finish, and that he told them that's not the way to do it. That doesn't really compute with the story I read on Cyclingnews, but did they actually ask Wilson about it, or just assume that he was the tactical genius?

Think I saw a a post race interview with Meyer who credited the leadership of the breakaway to Wilson.

 

[theyoungest]

Simon Spilak and Dan Martin are not really any different than Meyer - youngsters with potential. Only time will tell what league any of them are in.

Spilak and Martin sure have shown a lot more than Meyer on the road, at this stage. In any other race, Meyer couldn't get over a hill with the best. Here he finds himself in the group of elite "climbers".

 

[Mambo95]

Spilak and Martin sure have shown a lot more than Meyer on the road, at this stage. In any other race, Meyer couldn't get over a hill with the best. Here he finds himself in the group of elite "climbers".

There's more to cycling than climbing, you know.

 

[theyoungest]

There's more to cycling than climbing, you know.

I was just comparing them at Protour stage race level, which does involve climbing, generally. Except for the TDU and Eneco, although last year Eneco was in fact won by someone who got away on a climb.

 

[The Hitch]

There's more to cycling than climbing, you know.

Yes. Theres also sprinting and cobblestones, punchyhills. So you would have an argument if Meyer was as good at one of those, as Daniel Martin is at climbing. But Meyer hasnt shown anything in either.

theres tt ing which Meyer has shown to be better in, but winning the tdf prologue or even going for worlds tt, is not quite the same as going for monuments and gts.

Daniel Martin came 10th on the greatest mountain in cycling. To say that there isnt much difference between Martin and Meyer is an insult to Monte Zoncolan.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There's more to cycling than climbing, you know.

Yea, there's descending too

 

[Ferminal]

I'm not sure what the difference is, if Ballan (the most "first-rate" non-sprinter in the race?) won it he still would have bashed the 2-3 serious sprinters, doesn't make him any moreorless deserving of the points than Meyer. If Greipel/Goss/Swift (another 2nd-rater in his 3rd season as a pro) won it we would still be complaining that they don't deserve the points.

Whoever won would still have their final points tally (and thus ranking) which one could say is generous to their historical level of ability. But why should it matter if it's Madrazo on one hand, or Cavendish on the other? If Gilbert came and won we would still be having the same discussion (or at least should be).

 

[shouldawouldacoulda]

very interesting the other night to see dave brailsford go on about how much time he spends looking at cq ranking, and even giving the link out for it.

If 1 team boss follows cq, youve got to imagine a fair few otheres do as well. Obviously cq counts for nothing as far as invites go, but its clearly a better representation

All DS's use CQ. Extensively. Its the best rider research tool. Its even used in real time from the team car to asses riders in break aways.

Not sure the ranking means much to a DS - sure its way better than the UCI's. But it doesn't 'mean' anything - but its a crucial tool for individual rider research.

Some teams are even interested in doing 'data' deals with CQ so they can keep their own websites up to date easier.

 

[taiwan]

All DS's use CQ. Extensively. Its the best rider research tool. Its even used in real time from the team car to asses riders in break aways.

Not sure the ranking means much to a DS - sure its way better than the UCI's. But it doesn't 'mean' anything - but its a crucial tool for individual rider research.

Some teams are even interested in doing 'data' deals with CQ so they can keep their own websites up to date easier.

That's really interesting.

 

[washedup]

How exactly is Belgium like Australia? I can't think of a Western country more different in about anything.

I wouldn't call Meyer a stellar road cyclist just yet by the way.

In terms of consistantly producing cyclists. Seems to as if the sport is much more common than any other non-euro country.

Of course, everything else is different. Last I checked the weather is better down there and they have the ability to maintain a functional government.

 

[Hmmmmm]

Compared to all the other PT stage race champions, Meyer just isnt in ther league. Its as simple as that.

And races dont need to be for climbers. Canc won Oman last year, and TDS and Tirreno in 08.

But the idea of stage races is that you have some stages for sprinters, some stages for climbers. Prefferably a tt as well. Best all round rider wins.

You dont have any stage races with 7 mtfs, why should there be a race with 7 sprints.

The problem with stage race formulas is that if climbs are involved, sprinters are required to "climb", but climbers are not required to "sprint" at the end of flat or "sprinters" stages. A climber can give max effort on a climb one day and take a time advantage and then sit on in the bunch and maintain his lead without having to sprint at the end of any other stages.

In regards to the original topic, it is a race and if the person won via opportunity or not, that is, whether they were actually the best that day or over the course of the event, then that is the nature of sport. Bad teams beat good teams at times. Lesser riders beat better riders at times. This is not a perfect world and there will not be a perfect race in every nation.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The problem with stage race formulas is that if climbs are involved, sprinters are required to "climb", but climbers are not required to "sprint" at the end of flat or "sprinters" stages.

Not all stage races are mountainous. However, they need to have some kind of obstacle, whether it be hills, cobbles, strade bianche, ITT mileage or large exposed sections that threaten crosswinds, so that it doesn't become a bonus second feast. Riders like Giovanni Visconti are capable of getting up there in sprints if they need to when they've been fighting for the GC in a hilly - but not mountainous - race. There is a continuum of riders from pure sprinters who can't get over a speedbump like Napolitano through to pure climbers-and-nothing-else like Igor Antón and David Moncoutié. It's not just a clear divide into 'climbers' and 'sprinters'. José Joaquín Rojas is a sprinter, but he was one of the strongest in the breakaway on an intermediate stage of the Tour de Suisse last year. We saw Danilo Hondo getting in the breaks - and showing well - in both the Giro and Tour in intermediate stages. Alejandro Valverde is a climber and all-rounder, and he got mixed up in the bunch sprints in the Vuelta al País Vasco, as did Cadel Evans in the Giro in defending his points jersey. Philippe Gilbert likewise in the Vuelta.

 

[Hmmmmm]

Not all stage races are mountainous. However, they need to have some kind of obstacle, whether it be hills, cobbles, strade bianche, ITT mileage or large exposed sections that threaten crosswinds, so that it doesn't become a bonus second feast. Riders like Giovanni Visconti are capable of getting up there in sprints if they need to when they've been fighting for the GC in a hilly - but not mountainous - race. There is a continuum of riders from pure sprinters who can't get over a speedbump like Napolitano through to pure climbers-and-nothing-else like Igor Antón and David Moncoutié. It's not just a clear divide into 'climbers' and 'sprinters'. José Joaquín Rojas is a sprinter, but he was one of the strongest in the breakaway on an intermediate stage of the Tour de Suisse last year. We saw Danilo Hondo getting in the breaks - and showing well - in both the Giro and Tour in intermediate stages. Alejandro Valverde is a climber and all-rounder, and he got mixed up in the bunch sprints in the Vuelta al País Vasco, as did Cadel Evans in the Giro in defending his points jersey. Philippe Gilbert likewise in the Vuelta.

I agree with your points and do believe a stage race should be varied in its terrain/obstacles to challenge the riders so that the "best man/woman/rider wins". Jens Voigt comes to mind when thinking of someone who can mix it up and does not fit into the sprinter or climber category. I wish more riders would take each stage more seriously. The days when a tour contender or a stage race leader in the overall contended the last stage as though it mattered are very rare these days. Calculated risks very much seem to be the norm IMO.

Regarding original topic, as far as the points on offer for the TDU, I don't know what a workable solution should be. Some riders target the TdF and if you win that race, does that make you the best rider of the year? Giving larger amounts of points to races like the TDU can spread the points out across the season and encourages riders to compete and allows riders who compete all year to garner points towards an overall. No doubt some races are bigger than others, have more history, blah blah blah, but look at Formula 1 for example. All the races have the same number of points on offer regardless of the history, difficulty, quality of track, desire to race there among drivers, etc, etc. Just my 2 cents and my opinion. I do not claim to have definite answers, do not claim to know everything, have not posted as much as some people on this forum, but I have followed, educated myself, and participated in this sport for many years and believe it is indeed the most beautiful sport in the world and want to see it flourish on the pro level for many years to come.

 

[ScottyMuser]

I agree with your points and do believe a stage race should be varied in its terrain/obstacles to challenge the riders so that the "best man/woman/rider wins". Jens Voigt comes to mind when thinking of someone who can mix it up and does not fit into the sprinter or climber category. I wish more riders would take each stage more seriously. The days when a tour contender or a stage race leader in the overall contended the last stage as though it mattered are very rare these days. Calculated risks very much seem to be the norm IMO.

Regarding original topic, as far as the points on offer for the TDU, I don't know what a workable solution should be. Some riders target the TdF and if you win that race, does that make you the best rider of the year? Giving larger amounts of points to races like the TDU can spread the points out across the season and encourages riders to compete and allows riders who compete all year to garner points towards an overall. No doubt some races are bigger than others, have more history, blah blah blah, but look at Formula 1 for example. All the races have the same number of points on offer regardless of the history, difficulty, quality of track, desire to race there among drivers, etc, etc. Just my 2 cents and my opinion. I do not claim to have definite answers, do not claim to know everything, have not posted as much as some people on this forum, but I have followed, educated myself, and participated in this sport for many years and believe it is indeed the most beautiful sport in the world and want to see it flourish on the pro level for many years to come.

few points to raise:
1) in fact there are plenty of races where the winner still contests the last stage - just because the TDF has the champs snore-fest doesn't mean others are the same. Hack, the Giro had an ITT that, although didn't change the winner, could have and the racers were racing flat out, and nibali clung onto 3rd thanks to his performance.
2) the thing is, giving the points to the TDU hasn't and will not influence who goes and tries - apart from the 2-nd tier sprinters who want to get some early wins to boost their standings before the likes of greipel, cav, farrar et al start coming into form. It will simply help the Aussies who want to boost their ranking, because they have their national champs the week previously, so will be in form and not jet lagged.
3) Bringing up formula 1 I don't think is particularly relevant, as the races don't requires specific preparation meaning you can't race through the year, its not as physically demanding etc. The key to note about cycling which makes it quite unique is the fact that, even a short flat 1 week stage race, like TDU, still requires a fairly large amount of training and prep to peak for to be competitive, which means you naturally will not be as strong for other races (which are more important). And note how the likes of Contador don't always top the rankings etc as he doesn't do the spring classics (but does do, say, the D-L) but will usually come near, as befitting the winner of the TDF/any GT.

My solution? Because of the timings etc., demote TDU from the PT/WT standings, and therefore take points away from it. Why? 2 reasons mainly:
1) It would mean that other, smaller teams, from Australia would be allowed to compete, meaning more interest and better racing.
2) It would mean that the likes of Euskatel don't have to send a team halfway across the world when they have no interest in it, purely to keep their PT status (which they want to keep to keep going to all the other races they do want to). This may remove some of the bigger "names" from the peloton going, but these weren't there anyway for the racing, but would improve the racing by a MILE and this surely is in the mid to long term, better for both the profile of the race (as people would be interested in actually watching it) and the state of cycling in Australia in general

 

[Hmmmmm]

few points to raise:
1) in fact there are plenty of races where the winner still contests the last stage - just because the TDF has the champs snore-fest doesn't mean others are the same. Hack, the Giro had an ITT that, although didn't change the winner, could have and the racers were racing flat out, and nibali clung onto 3rd thanks to his performance.
2) the thing is, giving the points to the TDU hasn't and will not influence who goes and tries - apart from the 2-nd tier sprinters who want to get some early wins to boost their standings before the likes of greipel, cav, farrar et al start coming into form. It will simply help the Aussies who want to boost their ranking, because they have their national champs the week previously, so will be in form and not jet lagged.
3) Bringing up formula 1 I don't think is particularly relevant, as the races don't requires specific preparation meaning you can't race through the year, its not as physically demanding etc. The key to note about cycling which makes it quite unique is the fact that, even a short flat 1 week stage race, like TDU, still requires a fairly large amount of training and prep to peak for to be competitive, which means you naturally will not be as strong for other races (which are more important). And note how the likes of Contador don't always top the rankings etc as he doesn't do the spring classics (but does do, say, the D-L) but will usually come near, as befitting the winner of the TDF/any GT.

My solution? Because of the timings etc., demote TDU from the PT/WT standings, and therefore take points away from it. Why? 2 reasons mainly:
1) It would mean that other, smaller teams, from Australia would be allowed to compete, meaning more interest and better racing.
2) It would mean that the likes of Euskatel don't have to send a team halfway across the world when they have no interest in it, purely to keep their PT status (which they want to keep to keep going to all the other races they do want to). This may remove some of the bigger "names" from the peloton going, but these weren't there anyway for the racing, but would improve the racing by a MILE and this surely is in the mid to long term, better for both the profile of the race (as people would be interested in actually watching it) and the state of cycling in Australia in general

Your solution sounds reasonable and yes, I'm well aware of how events unfolded in other races on the cycling calendar. I for one am a huge fan of the one day classics, especially the like of LBL, PR, and RVV. I do think my F1 point is relevant and many people underestimate the fitness of a F1 driver and the amount of preparation and season long stress their bodies go through. Thus, their governing body has a system in place to encourage year long competition, the prize at the end is desired by the driver's, and big money and smaller money teams compete together.

Oh well, until cycling changes the TDU will award large amounts of point to what some people think is an undeserving competitor. More money is in the sport these days and the world in general has woken up to cycling. The system in place does not encourage year long competition, and it seems any attempt to change the system is met with backlash.

 

[roundabout]

IMO a closer analogy with F1 would be awarding full race points for a first testing session where not everyone has their new cars ready.