Modern Day Racing tactics and lack of excitement

[Lanark]

Good topic.

I think there are a couple of things at play here.

First it's the shadow of the past. In the Armstrong days, long attacks and different tactics virtually always failed. Most riders are still programmed to think that way, and don't realize what's possible these days.

Second, the races have far too much mountains in the last couple of days, and very little before that. This creates the effect that riders are constantly thinking: let's save my strength for the next day. This Giro was a perfect example of that. Basso, Scarponi and Rodriguez did very little, the waited and waited, untill they were at the foot of the Stelvio and suddenly realized that the only way they could still beat Hesjedal was by hoping he would crack by chasing De Gendt. In other words, they gave control away, and in the end they were dependend on external events to control their fate.

Another problem of backloaded GT's is that the differences are very small for a long time. When the top-4 are within 1.5 minute with a couple of mountain stages to go, who is really going to do an all or nothing attack, when getting some small time gaps in a couple of stages is enough to win? Rodriguez almost succeeded this year with that strategy. With a long attack you can possibly gain a lot of time (that you would never get with a 2km sprint), but if you only need a little time, why would you risk it? Putting some real mountains early in the route (so the guys who peaked later have to make up time), or put a decent time trial in the first 1.5 week should solve this at least somewhat.

And third, even regardless of doping, improved training regimes and power meters have made cycling a lot more predictable. You don't really see guys have really bad days a lot anymore, and most riders are capable of having a pretty steady level during a three week tour without big rises and falls in shape. Again, this makes risky strategies less desirable.

 

[hrotha]

The thing with power meters is that they allow a cyclist to ride within his limits at all times, which minimizes the chances of blowing up drastically. The day Amador won, he said he had been constantly checking his power meter. GPS and race radios are a similar problem, since they minimize the variance of a race, what with DSs and riders knowing pretty well when they have to ride and at what pace to catch someone.

Backended routes are a problem, although a minor one compared to other things, of which WT points are the most recent one.

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.

I find it extremely hard to believe that the top 35 or 40 guys at the Giro are at such a similar level. Probabilistically, it doesn't make sense. It's also refuted by what we've seen in other GTs - not in the days of Coppi, but in the past few years. People were wrecked at the finish line simply because they raced the last 2-3 km hard. In track and field, 1500m runners are wrecked just like 10000m runners to the naked eye.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

I find it extremely hard to believe that the top 35 or 40 guys at the Giro are at such a similar level. Probabilistically, it doesn't make sense. It's also refuted by what we've seen in other GTs - not in the days of Coppi, but in the past few years.

But is it really? If you look at the Giro GC standings alone, you will see the time gap between 1st and 40th stays more or less the same throughout the years, with the exception of 2002. So that means the top 40 in this Giro was equally similar as previous years. Big groups arriving at the base of the final mountain together has happened for as long as I can remember. What makes this Giro look closer to the same level is the lack of a top rider.

What I think what makes the racing seem so boring is first of all a lack of memory. I don't buy the argument that racing was so much more exciting in the past. Most of the Armstrong and Indurain Tours were boring. That is at least 10 of the recent GTs. Vueltas are often boring and have been for years. The Giro has been a boring Italian affair for years too. Just because 2010 happened, doesn't mean the Giro has always been that exciting. And 2010 would have been another boring Italian affair if that break hadn't happened.

But what mostly kills the excitement is the lack of a great climber who can't do a good ITT. This Giro just lacked a strong climber. Rodriguez is great for short attacks, but you won't ever see him attack a mountain from the base, simply because he can't. Basso and Scarponi are old and know exactly what their limits are by now.
To get exciting attacks, you need riders capable of attacking. If someone finally gets Andy to grow up, he could be that kind of rider. Sadly Contador can do a great ITT. Rasmussen, Sella, Ricco were all dopers, but also great climbers who usually failed in the ITT. If the whole field knows ITTing up a mountain is the best way to limit their losses, you will never get exciting racing. Having more or less ITT kilometers is irrelevant if all mountains are raced as ITTs already.

 

[hrotha]

You can move around the point of reference to 20 guys with 5 km of a monster stage to go if you want. It's all the same.

To get exciting attacks you need someone with the will and guts to do it. Purito was wrecked, but so was everyone else, right? Then why would he necessarily lose if he made this a 50 km face-off between the contenders, who were just as wrecked as him? It was clear the 1 km attacks weren't working. He said he needed a miracle coming into the ITT.

I sincerely don't remember any other GT where all the contenders waited for the last 2-3 km to move. That's what we saw every single day of this Giro, except for the last one, where the a priori favourites still didn't move until 2-3 km to go, but where at least some long-range attackers promoted themselves to the contender category.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

I sincerely don't remember any other GT where all the contenders waited for the last 2-3 km to move.

Like any GT Armstrong won?

 

[hrotha]

Like any GT Armstrong won?

Not at all. Armstrong's Tours were usually boring, but mountain stages were more than an uphill sprint.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Sadly Contador can do a great ITT.

Why sadly?

 

[hrotha]

Why sadly?

Because he doesn't need to attack to make up that much time. Obviously.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

Not at all. Armstrong's Tours were usually boring, but mountain stages were more than an uphill sprint.

The way I remember Armstrong's mountain stages I remember a blue train dropping one by one and then Armstrong attacking around the 3 km mark.

And the Contador remark indeed has to do with the best climber not having to use his skills that often, because he can win it in the ITT just fine. Just think about how much more exciting it would be if he would be less good in ITTs. He would have to show his superior mountain skills far more often then, making far more exciting tv with most likely the same end result. Things just get boring when the best climber is also a great ITT rider.

 

[roundabout]

Hautacam 2000, no.

Alpe d'Huez 2001, no.

Luz Ardiden 2003, no.

 

[Nastyy]

Among other factors mentioned before I think riders' personalities contribute to conservative racing. We don't have personalities like Hinault or Merckx who wanted to win everything and do it in style. Gifting stages is lame and it sums up the situation. Riders aren't as ambitious and hungry for the win as they used to be. Riders are satisfied with good results opposed to only being satisfied with a win.

Here in Finland young athletes are taught that winning isn't the most important thing in sports, which makes them soft and they lack hunger to win every time they race. Every young athlete that is very competitive and gets angry after losing gets bad feedback and people telling him that winning isn't the most important thing. They learn this attitude and it shows when they race later when they've grown up. Also people who are good at sports get talked down by teachers/coaches so others, worse athletes, don't feel so bad about themselves. I say herald the winners and teach them that sport isn't about participating, but about winning and crushing the others.

 

[jsem94]

It's the same in Sweden. It's called jantelagen, you're not really supposed to show that you're better than anyone else.

No one up here ever gets taught how to be a winner.

 

[barn yard]

people dont take risks and go on huge attacks these days because there is too much at stake with the whole world tour points system

why would you go all out and risk a crazy attack with a very small chance of success when you can just sit in the bunch and get your points to secure your next contract?

the fans might love it but the world tour does not reward you for entertainment, they reward you for not being seen once in a 3 week tour while you collect your points for 18th place on GC...

 

[Boeing]

Some might argue the increased tempo from start to finish each stage at these GT's now is faster and more demanding than past years. One might suggest this is an exciting part of tactics now.

 

[ChrisE]

Among other factors mentioned before I think riders' personalities contribute to conservative racing. We don't have personalities like Hinault or Merckx who wanted to win everything and do it in style. Gifting stages is lame and it sums up the situation. Riders aren't as ambitious and hungry for the win as they used to be. Riders are satisfied with good results opposed to only being satisfied with a win.
.

This. I read thru this whole thread waiting to get to the end to write something similar, and you beat me to it.

The rest of you keep looking at this like a math problem....PM, UCI points, MTF's at the end, etc. "If only this was changed...." has no effect when the competitors are satisfied with losing.

Does anybody think Hinault, Merckx, LA, etc. would be dicking around until the last mountain of a GT? Of course not. Regardless of what people in here think of him and I don't want to turn this into an LA thread, but look at what LA did on Luz Arduden....he attacked JU 10 kms out while in yellow, twice after crashing the first time, and had shown in the past he was better in ITT's (except when he got dehydrated earlier in that tour) than JU. The "smart" thing would have been for him to sit in and try to take a little bit of time out of JU at the end of a MTF, and recover from his less than ideal form that year.

Now, extrapolate that onto Rodriguez who sux at ITT's and Basso and Scarponi, who all were known to be worse TT's than RH. They don't dare to win, because they don't have to and because they are not that type of people. They have their million euro salaries whether they win or lose. They don't have the desperation to win. These types of riders win by default in GT's, when there is no adversity.

The sport lacks a dominant ruthless rider ATM, who has cajones regardless of the perks and is never satisfied.

 

[MrRoboto]

What we want more is the more careless approach by Vino and Pantani. Not the extremely calculated Lance-approach. Lance attacked when he knew it would gain him. That's not much better than what we saw in this year's Giro.

 

[hrotha]

Merckx, Hinault and Armstrong were who they were because of the prevalent cycling culture at their times. If they were racing today, chances are many heroes from the past would be just as conservative as everyone else.

 

[ChrisE]

Merckx, Hinault and Armstrong were who they were because of the prevalent cycling culture at their times. If they were racing today, chances are many heroes from the past would be just as conservative as everyone else.

I don't agree though I am curious of your reasons.

The riders make the race. There is zero reason why Rodriguez for example didn't lay it all out and try to take significant time vs his better ITT rival. Why did Hincapie ride to the velodrome with Boonen? Why did Merckx and Hinault crush their rivals? Why did Fignon attack GL and go on a solo attack and take more time (though not enough) while in yellow the day after AdH I believe in 89? Why did AC attack in last years giro? It is the same reason, regardless of time period. These are all different people, and the peloton doesn't have these type of people in it right now. AS's attack last year being the recent exception, but he still lost and we were slagging him up until that point.

 

[Jeremiah]

This. I read thru this whole thread waiting to get to the end to write something similar, and you beat me to it.

The rest of you keep looking at this like a math problem....PM, UCI points, MTF's at the end, etc. "If only this was changed...." has no effect when the competitors are satisfied with losing.

Does anybody think Hinault, Merckx, LA, etc. would be dicking around until the last mountain of a GT? Of course not. Regardless of what people in here think of him and I don't want to turn this into an LA thread, but look at what LA did on Luz Arduden....he attacked JU 10 kms out while in yellow, twice after crashing the first time, and had shown in the past he was better in ITT's (except when he got dehydrated earlier in that tour) than JU. The "smart" thing would have been for him to sit in and try to take a little bit of time out of JU at the end of a MTF, and recover from his less than ideal form that year.

Now, extrapolate that onto Rodriguez who sux at ITT's and Basso and Scarponi, who all were known to be worse TT's than RH. They don't dare to win, because they don't have to and because they are not that type of people. They have their million euro salaries whether they win or lose. They don't have the desperation to win. These types of riders win by default in GT's, when there is no adversity.

The sport lacks a dominant ruthless rider ATM, who has cajones regardless of the perks and is never satisfied.

Maybe they're worried about the kind of thing that happened to Hinault on the Superbagneres stage in '86.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/images/pages/whatsnew/0509-races/t-de-f-rs.pdf

 

[Caruut]

Among other factors mentioned before I think riders' personalities contribute to conservative racing. We don't have personalities like Hinault or Merckx who wanted to win everything and do it in style. Gifting stages is lame and it sums up the situation. Riders aren't as ambitious and hungry for the win as they used to be. Riders are satisfied with good results opposed to only being satisfied with a win.

Here in Finland young athletes are taught that winning isn't the most important thing in sports, which makes them soft and they lack hunger to win every time they race. Every young athlete that is very competitive and gets angry after losing gets bad feedback and people telling him that winning isn't the most important thing. They learn this attitude and it shows when they race later when they've grown up. Also people who are good at sports get talked down by teachers/coaches so others, worse athletes, don't feel so bad about themselves. I say herald the winners and teach them that sport isn't about participating, but about winning and crushing the others.

I hated being told that winning didn't matter. If winning didn't matter, I would just go for a run, I wouldn't bother competing. Winning did matter to me, and always had done. After I had lost (when I knew I could have won) I was always furious with myself, then you get some fool saying "It's not all about winning" which made me madder.

 

[Race Radio]

Sitting behind a train of teammates all day then turning the final climb into a Hct/Vo2 contest is hardly "Heroic"

When riders rode the classics and GT's tactics mattered. It was a different breed of rider.

In the 90's a different breed of GT rider arrived. One who raced 40 days a year. They realized that a 3 week Tour comes down to 2 hours of racing. TT's and a couple of MTF. This turned GT's into a Vo2 Max contest.

I am not sure if it will ever go back to what it was. We now have Classics riders and GT riders like Schleck who have a huge Vo2 but cannot descend. The sport has grown large enough to have specialists.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Because he doesn't need to attack to make up that much time. Obviously.

And the Contador remark indeed has to do with the best climber not having to use his skills that often, because he can win it in the ITT just fine. Just think about how much more exciting it would be if he would be less good in ITTs. He would have to show his superior mountain skills far more often then, making far more exciting tv with most likely the same end result. Things just get boring when the best climber is also a great ITT rider.

Oh. Well, he wins lots of races because of his time trial skills so I don't mind.

 

[hrotha]

I don't agree though I am curious of your reasons.

The riders make the race. There is zero reason why Rodriguez for example didn't lay it all out and try to take significant time vs his better ITT rival. Why did Hincapie ride to the velodrome with Boonen? Why did Merckx and Hinault crush their rivals? Why did Fignon attack GL and go on a solo attack and take more time (though not enough) while in yellow the day after AdH I believe in 89? Why did AC attack in last years giro? It is the same reason, regardless of time period. These are all different people, and the peloton doesn't have these type of people in it right now. AS's attack last year being the recent exception, but he still lost and we were slagging him up until that point.

I said "if they were racing today", but I didn't just mean that. I also meant "if they had been brought up and developed as riders today". They would have had this conservative mentality drilled into their brains, so while some of them would still have been like Vinokourov or Cancellara, most would be undistinguishable from our current riders.

 

[thehog]

I remember a race a few years back. We were 40k's from the finish and I attacked with one other rider. We were out on our own for around 5km before we were caught. In the break I knew I was fried. No chance I could ride at the speed I was till the end. I did my share of work but no chance of keeping up the speed till the end. We were caught by 7 or 8 of the stronger riders and the pace slowed. I was cooked. As we were caught the by far strongest rider looked at me and said "good attack". There was spit all over his face and he obviously had to do most of the work to bring us back. I took one look at him and attacked again. I broke him. 3 guys followed and we rode to the end. I did minimum work as I too was on my knees but the key was we broke the champ. He was in pieces. I say more we mentally broke him. I was no way stronger but was much smarter and took a chance. For the record I got 2nd but I'll never forget that race. Taking a chance doesn't always pay but you'll never know unless you try.*

In saying all this if I had someone in my ear he'd say not to attack a 2nd time. He'd say sit back and wait. Impulse, emotion or reading another risers face/body tells you so much more than any DS could tell you from watching TV in his car.

Dope distorts as well. You can't break people like you used to. Riders performance don't fluctuate like they used to. You don't see the moments of weakness that you can take advantage of by attacking early.

If I was the race organisers I'd stuff up the transfusion routine by putting in one large climb in week 1, 2 in week 2 and 3 in week 3. They wouldn't have enough blood to break up the transfusions. Id also never put a mountain stage after a rest day to reduce the benefits of the intake.*

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

As i got trou the posts, i think the main problem comes from the technical support and wrong designed routes. That´s what i think too.

If "Amador ... (is) constantly checking his power meter" (thanks Hrotha to mention this), you guys all know where the problem comes from. It´s the computerized racing: You won´t see riders attacking early b/c they fear the cracking, and then of course you won´t see them cracking. No more variance = dull racing.

As Ferminal said, attrition can be as exciting as attacking. I see it the same way. Problem is, the GT´s get shorter and shorter (both the length of stages and the general length of tours), thus leading to big groups hitting the final mountain (as Fignon said; no more natural separation). And there you just save energy using the drafting instead of attacking (great articles on this theme at sportsscience). Only superior riders like Contador can afford to attack w/o risking a "suicide". And who knows if he is the same as before when he comes back.

I don´t think the problem comes from the WT points system. Just look at soccer, they play the same (defensive) way when rewarded 3 points for a win as they were when receiving 2 points. I absolutely don´t think riders and DS´s have the point system in the head in the heat of the battle. It just sounds too absurd.

The giro 2011 was exciting despite the dominance of Contador. Why? Because it was designed the old way: super hard.

Design GT´s the old way and get rid of the technical support. Then, and only then, you get the exciting racing of the 80s back.