Modern Day Racing tactics and lack of excitement

[rhubroma]

I think the art of racing has gotten more precise. Leaving the science out of it for a moment, just look at the sprinter's train. The idea of it!

Buy the best number of guys to do one job. Lead the spriner out; or ride up the first part of the final climb all out in sequence. No one can attack. The art of cycing these days is to calculate the gains my top rider can make in a given discipline after a concerted effort to enable him to do what he potentially does best.

Too much knowledge, discourages the romantic aspect of sport. Sport has become economized.

 

[180mmCrank]

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that cycling is hard?

I am saying it's intense - yes hard - it's a struggle with yourself, the parcours and the competition ... I find watching this compelling.

I struggle a bit with us all looking at this struggle from our arm chairs and make statements about the guys not 'racing' - as if they are some how taking it easy (or even being lazy) or are misguided in their tactics. They all are working their @ssses off to play their part.

AND I amy be missin the point you are trying to make.

T

 

[ultimobici]

I think the art of racing has gotten more precise. Leaving the science out of it for a moment, just look at the sprinter's train. The idea of it!

Buy the best number of guys to do one job. Lead the spriner out; or ride up the first part of the final climb all out in sequence. No one can attack. The art of cycing these days is to calculate the gains my top rider can make in a given discipline after a concerted effort to enable him to do what he potentially does best.

Too much knowledge, discourages the romantic aspect of sport. Sport has become economized.

This is what I was getting at!

 

[Sleimas]

It's kind a hard to believe that the likes of Scarponi or Basso could attack earlier, but choose not to. Where is the logic? That Basso wanted to keep his current place? Two times Giro winner concerned about TOP10 place is not very likely. There must be more reasons, mentality cannot be the only one.

 

[Don Johnson]

This.

Courses + drugs allow riders to seldom--sometimes never--have a bad day.

The Tour courses have sucked since 2009. Now the Giro is going the same way.

There is something seriously wrong when Ryder H can win a GT and Wigans is considered a serious contender for the Tour.

The only reasons Wiggins will win the Tour is because he is talented, and the course suits him, and Contador is banned.

I would not have banned Contador. Ryder Hyserdal is a deserving winner of the GIRO. The course was to hard. But the riders make the race, not the course.
15 GT wins by North Americans in 21 years, not to shabby, GABBA GABBA HEY HEY!

 

[Benotti69]

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that cycling is hard?

I enjoyed the racing.

Hesjedal made the comment on RAI that his legs were burning from stage 1. Purito said it was a hard race.

I think the doping is down to the 5% (performance enhancement)that riders get from doping in training, hence so many appear to be missing out of competition testing and nothing that is detectable is being used in racing.

The riders race a very selective calendar so favourites dont want to risk all or their DSs dont want to risk all with big attacks where a rider can blow. In the 80s ridrs raced every week during the season is they were not injured. Now they are very selective, probably due to PED trianing, so to twin has to be calculated and again no one wanting to risk losing.

Most GC contenders would have contended 2 GTs but now they use 1 as prep if they even appear at 2. The Vuelta seems to be the GT for those who missed out on the Giro or TdF, whether they didn't perform or crashed!

Remember all the DSs are old school and this is probably new to them when a rider cant perform like the 90's/00's because he would be 'fixed' that night for his efforts and able to 'perform' the next day.

I thought the green train made everyone suffer, mostly Basso, but as everyone knew the tactic not many sat in and then launched when the green train has parked.

Most were on a similar level. Hesjedal, 16 secs after 3 weeks ahead of Purito, is less than 0% better.

 

[Parera]

No offense to the type of talent and dedication it takes to win a professional race, but using this latest edition of the Giro as a template, I find cycling so boring and the characters so lackluster that I barely watch anymore.

I love when people use pathetic qualifiers to excuse the very thing they are about to say, as if it makes it suddenly OK. "I'm not a racist but you know, those black people, damn!" What you just said is very demeaning to what professional cyclists do. Like I have said elsewhere, sounds like you need to find something else to watch, cycling isn't for you.

 

[jsem94]

That was not a pathetic qualifier. It's like, it may take tremendous talent and dedication to be a top level archer, but that doesn't mean it's exciting to watch.

 

[Berzin]

That was not a pathetic qualifier. It's like, it may take tremendous talent and dedication to be a top level archer, but that doesn't mean it's exciting to watch.

Thank you. That's EXACTLY what I said.

Some people need to find better things to do than to start crap on the internet.

 

[180mmCrank]

That was not a pathetic qualifier. It's like, it may take tremendous talent and dedication to be a top level archer, but that doesn't mean it's exciting to watch.

Have you ever watched archery? I have and it can pretty exciting depending what is on the line.

Seriously - it's all about what you pay attention to. AND I get that not everyone is going to find every race compelling. However I notice that often people will describe a race, that I have been fascinated by, as boring! I suspect this says something about them, the race and me! But not sure what.

All good

T

 

[rzombie1988]

The riders make the race. I loved last years Giro, but I think it might have sucked without Contador. I could totally see the guys being content going for top 10 placings instead of wins. Thats the real problem. You shouldn't need extra convincing to win a GT. I have more respect for riders who atleast try and fail then don't try at all. Take De Gent or Nieve from last year. I never knew much about either guy, but I remembered what they did after. Hearing JRod say he was more worried about getting in the top 10 then lose made me lose respect for him.

I'm starting to think a less is more approach may work. Do one or two big MTF's and cut it there. Make the real contenders put it all on the line and give the breakaway artists a chance to win something. MTF's are useless if no one is going to do anything until the end. It would be more boring but would one super stage be equal to 4+ so so stages?

I also think taking a few riders off each team so that more teams could get in would be helpful. It would get riders to be on their own sooner and could lead to better racing. Even doing some kind of all-star/freelance team where some big names who aren't in it are selected, might work. Then you could get some big names but wouldn't have to bring their not as desirable team mates along.

Also, a note to riders: The later you attack, the less time you are going to get on someone.

 

[gerundium]

Why is racing less spectacular today than it has been before? There's a couple of reasons in my opinion. but i put one forth that i don't see named often but to me is the most important.



POWER METERS

This is the most important development in cycling in a while that has forever changed the sport. You have to realize that Cycling is a unique sport, there is no other sport that i am aware of that has real time monitoring of power output during competition.
The power of a power meter is not to be underestimated (pun intended.). Because of power meters the rider and the DS have accurate and objective measures of the power output of a rider, They know how hard they are going at all times throughout the race.
Cycling has always been a sport of feel and HR monitors, HR monitors these days are mainly used to measure fatigue while PM rule the training load. (for proof check out this giro stage 20 preview where this subject is touched upon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLoi9NK_0d4 )

This is a huge change in how the races play out. before PMs a rider who felt good attacked but they might go off slightly too hard and pay for it later. Despite 'cracking' that rider might have still managed to gain time on his competitors because they didn't really KNOW how hard they needed to go either and blew up a bit as well, or didn't go hard enough in the end. With a PM the attacker knows he needs to hold 800 watt for 20 seconds to get a decent gap to stop them from drafting you, and then time trials up the climb at XXX Watts. The guy following knows that this is a hard MTF and needs to limit his losses. tHe knows it's about xx minutes to reach the end, and thus he knows how much power he needs put out to limit his time losses. This also explains why you will see riders clinging together, they know that going off the front would require a Wattage output they might be capable of producing but it would cut into their recovery for the rest of the GT too much. Or they know that the wattages the domestique is producing they can't sustain until the end either and he won't make it to the top alone.
Of course these same type of arguments can be made that pro riders know how hard they are going and have very, very finetuned senses in terms of perceived extertion but the point remains imo. Basically what happens is that nearly all race moves these days, that are based on pure rider fitness and power, are optimized to a far higher degree. This makes riding to the fans calculating and dare i say clinical. *


* of course this entire argument is detached from tactics with which some of these problems can be overcome, but that is a whole seperate argument that i don't wish to mix up in this little point.

 

[Frosty]

No, that Liquigas was setting up a fast pace is a myth. They were bluffing, and no one called them out on it because no one wanted to move a finger. But consider this: every time things got serious, Basso was alone, or only had Caruso. Very large groups made it over extremely hard mountains. The gaps between the first 15 or so riders in insanely tough stages were minimal (1:20-2:00). The breakaways invariably held their own even when they were comprised of a single rider.

The race was simply not raced hard.

The stage Pozzovivo won where the finish consisted of a steep climb followed by a flat few kilometres comes to mind. People said that the high speed set by Szmyd was discouraging attacks yet Pozzovivo went over the top 45 seconds ahead and Intxausti also pulled out quite a bit of time. Surely others could have attacked - some were struggling at the back but someone could have given it a go. Was followed by a flat stage so no need to worry excessively about what the next day would bring. This is especially relavant as one guy struggling at the back was Hesjedal; back then he wouldnt have been regarded as the favourite but im sure that a former 6th place in the tour could have been regarded as a top player, maybe they werent that fussed as they might have hoped him being in the jersey would be a distraction for him, etc.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/giro-ditalia/stage-8/results

 

[usedtobefast]

well with that has been said so far, i thought the Giro was pretty good this year and last too. very different races, both exciting in their own way. drugs, power meters, light stuff, aero stuff,radios...and lots of pasta.

 

[hfer07]

Why is racing less spectacular today than it has been before? There's a couple of reasons in my opinion. but i put one forth that i don't see named often but to me is the most important. POWER METERS

While I agree with you on how these new tools have morphed cycling & the Sport has become more technical & scientific orientated-I do believe the data isn't relevant when a rider's mentality is aggressive & the will to attack from afar is there-De Gendt proved it & we witness what can be achieved beyond numbers or calculations-it's the risk that pays off- neither Basso nor J-Rod got the glory because they played the "safe game".....

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The problem with the Giro and recent Tour editions is back ending the course with a load of mountains in the final week. The organizers do this as it keeps the time gaps tight until the end. But what ultimately occurs is the riders "wait". They dont't risk too much in the first 2 weeks as there's little to gain. Then in the final week there's so much climbing they're always thinking about tomorrow today. Riders can't risk massive efforts because you pay the next day. Doping would help as you recover better.

In short I blame the course. 80's racing was great because every rider had their bad day and the 3 weeks wasn't 2011 Giro-like but their were challenges throughout the 3 weeks. You also didn't have super-teams setting manic pace up the climbs so no one could attack. By the last climb each team was down to one rider. These days you get 4-5 guys from one team at the base of the final climb.

I wish the organizers would stop trying to make it exciting in terms of time gaps and let the race unfold of its own volition. The riders will make the race exciting.

So would your rivals and their teammates.

There weren't any super-teams at this Giro, and they set up no manic pace. Whenever things got serious, Liquigas disappeared. If there were 4-5 guys from one team at the base of the final climb, that's because 40 guys made it together to the base of the final climb, because the stage wasn't being raced. And that's what we saw pretty much every single stage this Giro.

Even if it seems you are contradicting, i agree with both of your opinions.

My view of what´s happening:
Several factors play a role. DS´s control their riders b/c of all the computerized racing of nowadays. That leads to conservative racing. Give the race back to the riders and there will be more excitement.
Because of the PR designed routes ("backend"), which give the fanboys the long-looked-for decision on the last day, racing becomes dull. The organizers exchanged racing for tiny time gaps.
Fignon had already enough before he was gone. He (rightfully) complained before his death that the grand tours get shorter and shorter, thus preventing natural separation. That leads to obscure trains going into the last mountain, preventing any riding "man against man", because it is a better choice for the contenders to ride with drafting than attacking. Would there be separation before, it would be an advantage to "attack than wheelsuck". BTW, other than pleasing mainstream journalists, the shortening leads to nothing. Clinic issues were never higher than in the time when the GT´s got "easier"...
If cycling can gets rid of all that supportive stuff (powermeters during race, race radio) which only helps the DS´s controlling the race, the tours would become more fascinating again.

 

[thehog]

Even if it seems you are contradicting, i agree with both of your opinions.

My view of what´s happening:
Several factors play a role. DS´s control their riders b/c of all the computerized racing of nowadays. That leads to conservative racing. Give the race back to the riders and there will be more excitement.
Because of the PR designed routes ("backend"), which give the fanboys the long-looked-for decision on the last day, racing becomes dull. The organizers exchanged racing for tiny time gaps.
Fignon had already enough before he was gone. He (rightfully) complained before his death that the grand tours get shorter and shorter, thus preventing natural separation. That leads to obscure trains going into the last mountain, preventing any riding "man against man", because it is a better choice for the contenders to ride with drafting than attacking. Would there be separation before, it would be an advantage to "attack than wheelsuck". BTW, other than pleasing mainstream journalists, the shortening leads to nothing. Clinic issues were never higher than in the time when the GT´s got "easier"...
If cycling can gets rid of all that supportive stuff (powermeters during race, race radio) which only helps the DS´s controlling the race, the tours would become more fascinating again.

My suggestion is get rid of the TV in the car. That's what's causing the dull tactics. Because the DS can see the entire race from 17 different cameras and has all the time gaps he makes decisions then relays this to the riders. Keep the radios, ban the TV in the car then the rider has to tell the DS what is going on from their point of view only.

 

[Ferminal]

Glad someone finally made this thread.

Yeah, this has been refuted countless times already. Cycling became much more conservative and controlled when EPO spread throughout the peloton, raising the average level of the field a lot and unnaturally leveling the playing field among the middle of the pack, allowing doped teams to control even the toughest mountain stages. The kind of conservative racing we've seen this Giro has nothing to do with the peloton being cleaner.

If I ride with my mates, you can expect attacks, counterattacks and gaps. That our level is abysmal doesn't factor into it, provided none of us gets an unnatural boost. A clean peloton will be slower, nothing else.

Also I can't believe anyone (save for Hesjedal's relatives and Garmin employees) can think this Giro was exciting.

The problem with the Giro and recent Tour editions is back ending the course with a load of mountains in the final week. The organizers do this as it keeps the time gaps tight until the end. But what ultimately occurs is the riders "wait". They dont't risk too much in the first 2 weeks as there's little to gain. Then in the final week there's so much climbing they're always thinking about tomorrow today. Riders can't risk massive efforts because you pay the next day. Doping would help as you recover better.

In short I blame the course. 80's racing was great because every rider had their bad day and the 3 weeks wasn't 2011 Giro-like but their were challenges throughout the 3 weeks. You also didn't have super-teams setting manic pace up the climbs so no one could attack. By the last climb each team was down to one rider. These days you get 4-5 guys from one team at the base of the final climb.

I wish the organizers would stop trying to make it exciting in terms of time gaps and let the race unfold of its own volition. The riders will make the race exciting.

Well said.

If things are cleaner, the only attacks which we can't see anymore are the blatant ones by say Ricco and Sella. I don't think anyone "complaining" is actually asking for that kind of comedy again.

Conservative racing is just that, and whether your "level" is 100% or artificially pushed beyond that doesn't matter, as the relative level stays the same (assuming most GC riders are on similar programs). I think the link between conservative racing and doping is very weak, thus it irritates me that people seem to think you want more doping when you call for aggressive racing.

I believe there are other changes in the sport which have had greater influence. Hoggy raises the main problem with this year's Giro. I never liked the course, but I'm still very surprised at how much the backending held the race down until Stage 20. My main problem with the course is that there wasn't going to be enough action in the first two weeks, but I still expected those stages with potential to be raced well, as it turns out nothing was really full gas until the valley to Stelvio.

Teams are too strong, I haven't seen it being called for lately, but only seven or eight per team with a few more teams would be better. I don't think this was a problem in the Giro, as Liquigas weren't that strong and mainly bluffing. But in general there will be less disincentive to attacks if you know that a rampant train isn't going to chase you down. I'm not sure anyone will get a look in at the Tour this year between the Sky and RNT trains. Much safer to sit on Sky until the last 5km than try and break them from the bottom, or preceeding Cols.

The importance of a podium, top5, or a top10 on GC also means those lower down the order aren't willing to spice things up. Such a result is too important to one's career progression, or to the team ranking.

Overall there just seems to be a lack of any tactics by the top riders. We need to see more like Schleck last year. He was no chance of putting two minutes into Evans (on Galibier) if they rode from the same group, so he took the chance and attacked early, gaining time outside the "powermeter zone". Two even riders can be separated by tactical moves, provided the teams aren't too strong.

I'm not sure what the solution is. A lot I think comes down to route design. Along with an even balance of difficult stages across the three weeks, maybe there needs to be a greater number of selective stages. Or at least a move away from the "one big queen stage" towards a greater number of relatively equal stages, the race should be defined over three weeks, not 200km. More time trialing and maybe seven or eight days where something could happen. Not necessarily mountains every day, but longer stages with obstacles well placed towards the end.

 

[Caruut]

I think the WT format hurts the sport a lot.

The problem is, I believe, twofold. Firstly, there is a big incentive from the UCI points system to place moderately well on GC. I think that 1st place should give far more UCI points (relative to the other placings) than it already does. The points system should make taking risks more rewarding.

With stage wins, points for first should also be increased on mountains stages. In the Giro, Kreuziger gained 16 points for his stage win, and 14 for placing 15th on GC. That is simply wrong in my book. If a rider had won every major mountain stage of this Giro, he would have the same number of points as the guy finishing 5th. That is just absurd. That number of points is justifiable for a flat stage that is winnable by Cavendish - I would say winning 5 Cav stages probably counts less than coming 5th on GC - but it is silly for the high mountains.

Perhaps the way to solve this is for the UCI to overhaul their points system to reward people in this way, but I think there might be a better way. Hand the points over to the race organiser, and tell them "Allocate these to riders in your race however you please", with the only condition being that any rider must be able to win them. The Giro, for example, could not have a "best Italian" prize and give away a truckload of points.

The UCI points table is here

The other problem is that it kind of encourages concentration of talent. Stronger teams means that it's harder for individuals to prosper.

 

[Ripper]

No, that Liquigas was setting up a fast pace is a myth. They were bluffing, and no one called them out on it because no one wanted to move a finger. But consider this: every time things got serious, Basso was alone, or only had Caruso. Very large groups made it over extremely hard mountains. The gaps between the first 15 or so riders in insanely tough stages were minimal (1:20-2:00). The breakaways invariably held their own even when they were comprised of a single rider.

The race was simply not raced hard.

Or perhaps the racers in this race are just, more or less, at a very similar level. Certainly people were not looking fresh like daisies at the finish line.

I think some folks will just complain. Different results/racing styles will bring out different complainers.

I would not say the racing is boring. In fact, it seems to me to be like a well matched pro race. Club rides don't cut it 'cause the difference in abilities makes for really big differences on the road.

 

[ElChingon]

First off I think now I should of put this thread in the Racing section as only hiero2 seems to be reading those comments I mention. I only put it here because I think the doping angle would pop its ugly head due to talking about the past.

Then some of you go off on how a device is determining how riders race? Those devices and even a jug of beet root won't dictate race tactics. Are you telling me somebody is looking at the plot of the data in real time and determining what to do? I highly doubt it and even if a rider starts to look at the PM display all the time he has no idea how much effort he has left other than his feelings. Any race takes on a unique characteristic as it is played out there is no robot pattern other than don't do anything till its my last option (which is where I was going).

If anyone here has raced you know no matter how many devices you have none of them will determine somebody will take a crazy attack at the worse possible moment for your racing style/capabilities, even if its a crazy attack that goes no-where but gets everyone to follow it. If you know the racer maybe you know what his capabilities are and gauge what to do based on past history if you have that. Nothing says said racer has been training his rear off and now has some extra power/stamina he didn't have last time you raced against him.

The boring angle comes from (I think) the fact that there are not that many crazy attacks from the riders capable of winning or rated as contender. I do think this because of the new era of non-doping racing. They're human and want to win, you can't not dope and ride at your max for as long as you could doped, now can you. So everyone is racing the old way (I'm talking back in the 30's 40's 50's, gezze everyone here was born in the 80's?) where the winner was the last one standing pretty much, basically a race of attrition. Doping pretty much started in the 60's, I mean if you read the clinic and racing history you know that to be true.

The racing during the big doping 80's 90's and 00's was very exciting, sure we all hate some of those winners (including me) but at the moment the racing was going on it was pretty freaking exciting! Or was I the only one watching it live at the edge of my seat? If you watch some youtube clip now its not like you really are in the action of a GT by watching one clip. You don't have the pre-race hype, the news headlines, the build up races and the trash talking that occurred or you are totally ignoring it. I do think some of you have that sour puss due to what happened and that is fine but you can't just ignore the racing you watched at the time and not say it was not exciting or do you hate racing in general?

Part of this new age racing also has a factor that didn't exist, all the buddies on the rival teams and not to mention the hugging of riders on rival teams. That never happened before, maybe a handshake and a photo opp for a newspaper photo. The rivalries are pretty much gone, even if one starts to come up they are quickly squished with a hug or hand holding over the line incident! Am I the only one who sees this as lame? Or do you guys all hug the racers at your local race? Maybe a congrats for the winner and a handshake and then you go diss them with your teammates.

I'm really baffled by most of your responses, maybe you are the new age fans that want the hugs, hand holding and buddy rivals?

 

[DirtyWorks]

My suggestion is get rid of the TV in the car. That's what's causing the dull tactics. Because the DS can see the entire race from 17 different cameras and has all the time gaps he makes decisions then relays this to the riders. Keep the radios, ban the TV in the car then the rider has to tell the DS what is going on from their point of view only.

In principal, I agree. But in practice, let's say the "no TV in the car" rule happens. An enterprising DS will have the race situation texted to him. Carrier pigeons might work too.. If they could enforce limited telemetry back to the car, then it's a compromise I don't love, but would be better.

This coming from a fan whose first inclination is having the two-way team radio banned. One way race radio is okay. Any safety issues can be passed to riders from the race organizer.

MTF's should probably get UCI points on their own. Good thinking Caruut!

 

[Ferminal]

First off I think now I should of put this thread in the Racing section as only hiero2 seems to be reading those comments I mention. I only put it here because I think the doping angle would pop its ugly head due to talking about the past.

I don't quite see the point you're making.

Attrition is just as exciting as attacking, but unless races become as hard (or probably harder) as they were in earlier decades we will not get that attrition.

 

[Stravoski]

Every Grand Tour should include one mountain TT. Not only would that add to the excitement factor. It may also give balance to the results obtained in TT'S by the best climbers and the TT specialists. Thus it may give equal opportunity for those riders that are in a position for a place on the podium and the final overall general classification.

 

[fatsprintking]

Part of this new age racing also has a factor that didn't exist, all the buddies on the rival teams and not to mention the hugging of riders on rival teams. That never happened before, maybe a handshake and a photo opp for a newspaper photo. The rivalries are pretty much gone, even if one starts to come up they are quickly squished with a hug or hand holding over the line incident! Am I the only one who sees this as lame? Or do you guys all hug the racers at your local race? Maybe a congrats for the winner and a handshake and then you go diss them with your teammates.

I'm really baffled by most of your responses, maybe you are the new age fans that want the hugs, hand holding and buddy rivals?[/QUOTE]


mmmmm...

The socio-ecconomic background of cyclists has changed a lot in the last 50 years. Originally a very working class sport, the reality is that most english speaking riders come from a different type of background to riders of the past. Me thinks that this has had an effect on what is acceptable behaviour a little. So has the fact that comments/behaviour of sports people is under a lot of scrutiny. I dont think that many teams in the 80's and before would have had a PR manager on staff. Maybe also riders are a bit softer - fans certainly are.

Now back to your original question. One of the main reason for what is percieved as negative racing is the fact that riders dont actually race that much anymore. In the past you were racing the classics, short stage races and maybe two grand tours a year and ending up with well over 100+ racing days. You could take more risks in races because you also had more opportunities to win. You also had the reality that you did not have such a specific "peak" worked into your program. You might aim to be in form at a certain time of the year, but now riders are picking a set of a couple of stages to be in peak form.

This means that riders have more to lose in that they may only have 1 or 2 major goals for the season, and so the temptation to defend a position becomes much greater, particularly when combined with the points system.

Unfortunatlly the sport has become very professional and professionals will look to take care of the 1 percenters and if everyone is doing that (both riders and teams), it is natural that the racing will become more conservative as riders and teams are now looking at very specific goals as they seek consistent progression from year to year.