• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Please UCI, let's try reduced teams.

Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Visit site
It wasn't by far the only factor in how great this olympic road race turned out to be, but it was a very important contributing factor : reduced number of riders. Give the 10 biggest nations 8 or 9 riders for that race, and you have France and Spain and Belgium locking it all up for Alaphilippe, Valverde or GVA... You have quality teammates in number for the main teams to either bring back the break or just set up a high enough tempo to deter most attacks until the very end. Give Spain and France and others more riders in this race and they burn through a pair of teammates to bring back the Nibali move before the last big climb.

We have seen over and over how team strength is a cancer for this sport be it in one day races or in stage races. Every year or so for the last 5 or 6 La Doyenne sees teams as strong as Orica, Movistar or Katusha ensure that it all stays together as far as possible and the decisive climb is now that ugly Ans ramp after 255kms or racing ! We have seen how Purito won his Lombardias we a team controlling everything until the last climb where he could just shoot up with his usual explosiveness.... On stage races and GTs we have seen how strong GC contender teams like Sky can just block a race by ensuring a high enough pace that no one can attack and everybody fears the boomerang effect. We have seen many times strong teams just block the race Liquigas Giro 2012 style even when their leader isn't that strong. The best GT or stage races have been when the strongest rider finds himself in a weak team having to work by himself (Contador in the 2015 Giro against the Astanas, SK in this year's third week of the Giro against the Astana's again).

Homogeneity has been a normal consequence of ever more professionalisation of this sport (and less magical doping with a more level playing field probabaly, but that's another subject). 20 or 30 years ago the top 5 riders in a category were miles ahead the 50st rider, but today on a GT like the Tour de France you have really strong guys being 40st or 50st on the GC + teammates for strong teams as strong as many leaders.

To fight agains the effect of this homogeneity, namely the fact that it all comes down to the very last kms and those marginal semi percentage points, reducing team sizes deserves at least a real try out. Team managers would oppose it because they crave control and big strong teams gives them exactly that : control over the race so that it all comes down to Ans.... But this is the opposite of what this sport needs. Disorder and unforeseen racing is what we want. Nowadays we have come to rest too much on daunting weather or unlucky crashes (hello SK), these are part of the race but shouldn't be the only way to get a good show. It's unfair on the riders that they either have to go throuhgh 120km/h gales like in Gand Wevelgem 2015 or crash on a snow bank for us to start vibrating about the race.

There were tryouts for reduced team races, such as the tour de Pologne in WT in previous years, but the same way there were tryouts for races without oreillettes (see the infamous riders strike on the Tour de France a few years back against it), the UCI has always folded against big teams and managers' pressure who see big teams with many strong teammates and oreillettes as ways of efficiently controling the race and the outcome of it. And they are right !!! If i am manager in a big team I want many riders because I can ensure my leader Froome or Quintana always gets brought safelty in a winning position to the middle of that last climb where he can do his thing, because I know I can pull my Gerrans or my Valverde all the way to Ans where he can work his magic, because I have my good teammates to control it all at the bottom of the Poggio and let my Kristoff or my Degenkolb win that sprint.

Anyway sorry for the long rant, but really reduced teams need to be tried out soon in big races. It is absurd to have teams of 8 guys on a one day classic for example.
 
I love races with small teams, but the problem is that it will lead to unemployment for many riders. Logistically, it's not as simple as making teams smaller but inviting more of them to a race.

I'm all for it but we must be aware of the serious drawbacks.
 
Re:

hrotha said:
I love races with small teams, but the problem is that it will lead to unemployment for many riders. Logistically, it's not as simple as making teams smaller but inviting more of them to a race.

I'm all for it but we must be aware of the serious drawbacks.
Have teams ride more races. It would allow more races in the calender to have a decent field.
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Visit site
Re:

hrotha said:
I love races with small teams, but the problem is that it will lead to unemployment for many riders. Logistically, it's not as simple as making teams smaller but inviting more of them to a race.

I'm all for it but we must be aware of the serious drawbacks.

True but at some point the question is what is best for the sport ? boring races with 200 riders that make the public and TV audience leak out and helps depress the economic structure of the whole sport leading to disappearing races all over the place or exciting top level races with 150 riders broadening the audience of the sports, bringing sponsors in and motivating local economic actors to back the .HC or .1 or .2 races that form for big batallions of races needed to support our sport's economy ?

The economic and employment question is a lot more complex than 150 riders instead of 200 on a races means 50 guys out of their job. (I am not infering this is what you said, just want to underline the point)
 
Re:

hrotha said:
I love races with small teams, but the problem is that it will lead to unemployment for many riders. Logistically, it's not as simple as making teams smaller but inviting more of them to a race.

I'm all for it but we must be aware of the serious drawbacks.
I expect more tiredness in the riders. So they would be as competitive in close by races therefore giving opportunities to other riders on the same team. Also more teams but some attrition is expected.
OP seconded
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
veji11 said:
True but at some point the question is what is best for the sport ?
You don't need to convince me that it'd be worth it, I already said I'm all for it.

No I know, my point was more that the immediate response some have "yes but you will create unemployment and hurt guys just trying to make a living" (which you voiced, not necessarily as your opinion but as a classic counter one keeps hearing) is a very short sighted one.

The key is rather can you get more money made out of races because more TVs want to buy the rights ? Because their ratings go up ? Because it makes more people dream and fantasize than what he keep seeing race after race ?

Tinkoff leaving, Astana downsizing are just further signs that the overall economic structure remains very unhealthy, and while top teams keep fielding very strong teams, many other teams actually have a hard time fielding teams of 8 or 9 competitive riders on many many occasion...
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Asero831 said:
With only km to go, every man is by himself..

For Grand Tours, you may field 9 riders per team but only 5 guys can ride per stage. Ofcourse GC contenders will ride every stage.

Imagine how thrilling the KOM competition is.

The problem with this is that it means resorting to gimmickry and rules' bending : teams of x but only y riders allowed to do z, etc... a blanket reduction of the number of riders per team gives you a simpler and clearer change of landscape.
 
Re:

gerundium said:
i'm all for it.

how many riders should there be in each team?

7 for GTs and 6 for classics?


For GT, still 9 but only 5 will be allowed to race per stage. So riders on going for GC can have a day off and participate only in stages that they can contribute a lot.

Imagine the carnage in every stage.
Say Team Sky, Froome, Poels, Thomas, Henao and Landa will line-up for the mountain stages while Froome, Stannard, Rowe, Thomas and Kiri line-up for flat stages.
 
Re: Re:

Asero831 said:
gerundium said:
i'm all for it.

how many riders should there be in each team?

7 for GTs and 6 for classics?


For GT, still 9 but only 5 will be allowed to race per stage. So riders on going for GC can have a day off and participate only in stages that they can contribute a lot.

Imagine the carnage in every stage.
Say Team Sky, Froome, Poels, Thomas, Henao and Landa will line-up for the mountain stages while Froome, Stannard, Rowe, Thomas and Kiri line-up for flat stages.

Don't think this is a good idea. It competely changes the endurance aspect of GT's. It's fun to see someone like Peter Sagan challenging Greipel for the win on Champs Elysees while not getting nearly as close earlier in the race. If you allow the flatlanders to sit out the mountain stages and vice versa it completely changes the game. Now a sprinter like Sagan with decent climbing abilities loses his edge against the other sprinters like Kittel who are much worse uphill.

GT racing is about being good on all terrain and is even more so a battle of recovery and stanima.
 
Re: Re:

gerundium said:
Asero831 said:
gerundium said:
i'm all for it.

how many riders should there be in each team?

7 for GTs and 6 for classics?


For GT, still 9 but only 5 will be allowed to race per stage. So riders on going for GC can have a day off and participate only in stages that they can contribute a lot.

Imagine the carnage in every stage.
Say Team Sky, Froome, Poels, Thomas, Henao and Landa will line-up for the mountain stages while Froome, Stannard, Rowe, Thomas and Kiri line-up for flat stages.

Don't think this is a good idea. It competely changes the endurance aspect of GT's. It's fun to see someone like Peter Sagan challenging Greipel for the win on Champs Elysees while not getting nearly as close earlier in the race. If you allow the flatlanders to sit out the mountain stages and vice versa it completely changes the game. Now a sprinter like Sagan with decent climbing abilities loses his edge against the other sprinters like Kittel who are much worse uphill.

GT racing is about being good on all terrain and is even more so a battle of recovery and stanima.


Racing 10 stages in a 5 man team maybe even be harder than to race 21 stages with a lot of give-away stages and having 8 other guys protecting you.
 
Re: Re:

Asero831 said:
gerundium said:
i'm all for it.

how many riders should there be in each team?

7 for GTs and 6 for classics?


For GT, still 9 but only 5 will be allowed to race per stage. So riders on going for GC can have a day off and participate only in stages that they can contribute a lot.

Imagine the carnage in every stage.
Say Team Sky, Froome, Poels, Thomas, Henao and Landa will line-up for the mountain stages while Froome, Stannard, Rowe, Thomas and Kiri line-up for flat stages.

That's just a terrible idea
 
Re: Re:

Asero831 said:
gerundium said:
i'm all for it.

how many riders should there be in each team?

7 for GTs and 6 for classics?


For GT, still 9 but only 5 will be allowed to race per stage. So riders on going for GC can have a day off and participate only in stages that they can contribute a lot.

Imagine the carnage in every stage.
Say Team Sky, Froome, Poels, Thomas, Henao and Landa will line-up for the mountain stages while Froome, Stannard, Rowe, Thomas and Kiri line-up for flat stages.
I don't really like that idea. It takes away the idea of riders really making a tour and suddenly the race isn't really a race about persistency anymore. The gc guys ofc still have to ride every stage but the sprinters would just skip every mountain stage and be completely fresh for the sprints, domestiques would also always be rested, and stage hunters could also target specific stages where they are then suddenly stronger than a gc rider because they haven't raced for half a week. It basically takes away half of the fascination of a grand tour.

I definitely prefer the idea of 7 rider teams.
 
Re: Re:

Asero831 said:
gerundium said:
Asero831 said:
gerundium said:
i'm all for it.

how many riders should there be in each team?

7 for GTs and 6 for classics?


For GT, still 9 but only 5 will be allowed to race per stage. So riders on going for GC can have a day off and participate only in stages that they can contribute a lot.

Imagine the carnage in every stage.
Say Team Sky, Froome, Poels, Thomas, Henao and Landa will line-up for the mountain stages while Froome, Stannard, Rowe, Thomas and Kiri line-up for flat stages.

Don't think this is a good idea. It competely changes the endurance aspect of GT's. It's fun to see someone like Peter Sagan challenging Greipel for the win on Champs Elysees while not getting nearly as close earlier in the race. If you allow the flatlanders to sit out the mountain stages and vice versa it completely changes the game. Now a sprinter like Sagan with decent climbing abilities loses his edge against the other sprinters like Kittel who are much worse uphill.

GT racing is about being good on all terrain and is even more so a battle of recovery and stanima.


Racing 10 stages in a 5 man team maybe even be harder than to race 21 stages with a lot of give-away stages and having 8 other guys protecting you.
1) It's also about the domestiques who should have to get through 21 stages, not only about team leaders
2.) A rider like Kittel would have ridden: stage 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 14, 21. Do you really think thats harder than 21 stages?
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
Asero831 said:
gerundium said:
Asero831 said:
gerundium said:
i'm all for it.

how many riders should there be in each team?

7 for GTs and 6 for classics?


For GT, still 9 but only 5 will be allowed to race per stage. So riders on going for GC can have a day off and participate only in stages that they can contribute a lot.

Imagine the carnage in every stage.
Say Team Sky, Froome, Poels, Thomas, Henao and Landa will line-up for the mountain stages while Froome, Stannard, Rowe, Thomas and Kiri line-up for flat stages.

Don't think this is a good idea. It competely changes the endurance aspect of GT's. It's fun to see someone like Peter Sagan challenging Greipel for the win on Champs Elysees while not getting nearly as close earlier in the race. If you allow the flatlanders to sit out the mountain stages and vice versa it completely changes the game. Now a sprinter like Sagan with decent climbing abilities loses his edge against the other sprinters like Kittel who are much worse uphill.

GT racing is about being good on all terrain and is even more so a battle of recovery and stanima.


Racing 10 stages in a 5 man team maybe even be harder than to race 21 stages with a lot of give-away stages and having 8 other guys protecting you.
1) It's also about the domestiques who should have to get through 21 stages, not only about team leaders
2.) A rider like Kittel would have ridden: stage 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 14, 21. Do you really think thats harder than 21 stages?

Do you think Etixx, Lotto and DD can control these stages with 5 man teams? Stages 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 14 and 21 is not a guarantee of a bunch sprint. Just look at London Olympics
 
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
hrotha said:
I love races with small teams, but the problem is that it will lead to unemployment for many riders. Logistically, it's not as simple as making teams smaller but inviting more of them to a race.

I'm all for it but we must be aware of the serious drawbacks.
Have teams ride more races. It would allow more races in the calender to have a decent field.

Very interesting topic and great OP.

Yes, there should be smaller teams. I think this is more important for stage races than one day races.

A part of that reason being that you don't see individuals dominate one day racing quite as much as stage racing (though maybe I'm wrong there, I don't take that much interest in classics). Hear me out. Even in Gilbert much lauded 2011, he 'only' won one monument. One. Out of five. Sure, they didn't all perfectly suit him, but I think that one day races generally provide more of a variety of winners. Whereas in the TDF, more often than not, the favourite going into it, wins. And we see many of the same riders win week long stage races over and over again, such as Contador. Or take Wiggins' 2012 season when he won P-N, Romandie, Dauphne and the Tour. Now as good as he was that season, could he have won them all with less teammates?

No. Let's take an extreme example. What if each team only had five riders for the grand tours? That sounds crazy, but I for one believe that it would produce epic racing. Are more riders out of a job now? Maybe not. Think about it. If you are only allowed to field five riders in your GT squad, and you decide to ride for general classification, then the amount of work that is going to be required by both the leader and the domestiques over three weeks is likely to mean that no rider can ride in two grand tours in a season; particularly if you do the Tour (well Valverde might, but he is a freak). Instead of having less opportunities, stage racers might get more, due to the level of attrition. If you had only five man teams then I would guarantee that guys like Froome and Quintana wouldn't be backing up for the Vuelta. Other riders on the Sky and Moviestar squads would thus get a chance to lead (or at least be more prominent) that they otherwise wouldn't have.

The TDF would become less predictable (in both it's individual stage racing and in it's GC outcome). As would other stage races. Maybe lead up races become less like so, and establish more of their own identity, as it becomes apparent that you can't ride Dauphne GC and the Tour GC. Well maybe you can, but it will be harder.

There would be no more GT 'doubles' of course, but it's not like anyone can do them now anyway. At least they are highly unlikely as it is with nine man teams.

Large teams don't seem to deter the racing though in P-R for example. Maybe there are less strong cobbled domestiques than climbing ones? Interesting racing often occurs 40-50 kms out, whereas the races in the Ardennes rarely see long range raids have any effect. But does that mean that P-R stays with 8 man teams and the Ardennes reduces to 6? I don't know. Not sure if you can have a rule for one, but not for the other. I know that our route design experts have suggestions on how to improve some of the classics so that they don't just come down to the last ten kms, or even less.

Would Froome in this years TDF form win next years even with only four teammates? He'd probably start favourite, but the outcome would be much less certain, and to win he'd possibly even have to take some tactical gambles. Maybe he allows Nibali to gain four minutes when he attacks 50 kms out on a stage, banking on the fact that with the greater attrition rate, that he is sure to bonk a day or two later.

Not that there will be 5 man teams next season of course. I guess that a target of 7 is realistic, and would still improve the current situation.
 
Imagine a stage like Rio race, followed by 2 Alps stages (stages 18, 19 and 20). That is a total war of attrition. A lot of tactics will be involved in rotating the squad.

Hilly Course - Froome, Thomas, Nieve, Landa, Kiri
Alps mountain stage 1 - Froome, Poels, Landa, Henao, Kiri
Alps mountain stage 2 - Froome, Thomas, Henao, Poels, Nieve
 
Re: Re:

gerundium said:
Asero831 said:
gerundium said:
i'm all for it.

how many riders should there be in each team?

7 for GTs and 6 for classics?


For GT, still 9 but only 5 will be allowed to race per stage. So riders on going for GC can have a day off and participate only in stages that they can contribute a lot.

Imagine the carnage in every stage.
Say Team Sky, Froome, Poels, Thomas, Henao and Landa will line-up for the mountain stages while Froome, Stannard, Rowe, Thomas and Kiri line-up for flat stages.

Don't think this is a good idea. It competely changes the endurance aspect of GT's. It's fun to see someone like Peter Sagan challenging Greipel for the win on Champs Elysees while not getting nearly as close earlier in the race. If you allow the flatlanders to sit out the mountain stages and vice versa it completely changes the game. Now a sprinter like Sagan with decent climbing abilities loses his edge against the other sprinters like Kittel who are much worse uphill.

GT racing is about being good on all terrain and is even more so a battle of recovery and stanima.

This.

I also think that the time limit should be much stricter (or the implementation of the rule be much stricter) in GT stages. Instead of the autobus sitting up and rolling home half an hour after the winner; make them sweat a little bit more and finish within twenty minutes for example. And that gives someone like Greipel even more chance of winning more stages.

Many sprinters can climb a lot better, but they simply will rest as much as they can so that they can be as good as possible for the stages that they care about. If they could roll in an hour behind Froome in the alps then they would, and that would be understandable. It's up to the organisers to make it (even more) of an endurance test.

Says me eating chips and drinking coffee on a couch :D
 
7 man GT teams would mean no GC team carrying a sprinter - possibly sensible - but also vice versa. I.e. no Dan Martin at Etixx. Not sure if that matters.

Smaller teams (and short stages) happen already in women's racing, and while the racing tends to be much less predictable, you do still get the richest teams dominating.

More to the point, unclear how you could get this idea through the UCI/ASO/teams clustercuddle.
 
Re: Re:

Asero831 said:
Gigs_98 said:
Asero831 said:
gerundium said:
Asero831 said:
For GT, still 9 but only 5 will be allowed to race per stage. So riders on going for GC can have a day off and participate only in stages that they can contribute a lot.

Imagine the carnage in every stage.
Say Team Sky, Froome, Poels, Thomas, Henao and Landa will line-up for the mountain stages while Froome, Stannard, Rowe, Thomas and Kiri line-up for flat stages.

Don't think this is a good idea. It competely changes the endurance aspect of GT's. It's fun to see someone like Peter Sagan challenging Greipel for the win on Champs Elysees while not getting nearly as close earlier in the race. If you allow the flatlanders to sit out the mountain stages and vice versa it completely changes the game. Now a sprinter like Sagan with decent climbing abilities loses his edge against the other sprinters like Kittel who are much worse uphill.

GT racing is about being good on all terrain and is even more so a battle of recovery and stanima.


Racing 10 stages in a 5 man team maybe even be harder than to race 21 stages with a lot of give-away stages and having 8 other guys protecting you.
1) It's also about the domestiques who should have to get through 21 stages, not only about team leaders
2.) A rider like Kittel would have ridden: stage 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 14, 21. Do you really think thats harder than 21 stages?

Do you think Etixx, Lotto and DD can control these stages with 5 man teams? Stages 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 14 and 21 is not a guarantee of a bunch sprint. Just look at London Olympics
Nobody says it would be easy to control, my comment was a response to you saying it would be a harder race for the sprinters. Anyway I think that sprint stages with rested 5 men teams and tired 7 men teams would be more or less the same. Don't forget that in London the reason why the break got away was that it was an extremely important one day race in which half of the riders were in a teams with no realistic shot to win a medal in a bunch sprint and therefore attacked. I doubt such a huge break would form in a gt stage.
 

TRENDING THREADS