Please UCI, let's try reduced teams.

[veji11]

Re: Re:

I think 7 for GTs should be perfect. If you go lower, you almost have no team left in case one or two riders crash out.

So you could with seven man teams. Just ask OGE at the 2014 Giro.

True but the whole point is to find balance so as to :
- weaken teams as a unit able to control a race.
- not weaken them too much that they wouldn't be able to function after just one or two DNFs.

To me the ideal numbers, but this is only instinct you would need experimenting to get a proper idea, would be 7 for GTs, 6 for stage races and 5 for one day races.

 

[PremierAndrew]

 

[MatParker117]

Re:

Looking at going to eight in GT's but doesn't think the teams will go for it:

Well, I think there are two sides to that argument. You could say that even smaller numbers of riders on each team would make for even more unpredictable racing. I think it is going to be a hard one to sell to the teams. It would also mean that a team would only ever focus on one objective; they wouldn’t have a climbing half and a sprinter half, or a time trial couple of riders.

Then on the other hand, I can think of an example from Sky, for instance, a couple of years ago. They lost Kanstantsin Siutsou in the first two or three stages, but they still managed to win with eight riders. So I am not so sure that would make such a big difference. But I understand where Christian is coming from on that and it is something that we are going to look at and talk about with him and the teams.

 

[Red Rick]

Teams want what's best for them. WC teams for example would generally like smaller teams so they have more chance of breakaways succeeding, etc.

 

[veji11]

Re:

Teams want what's best for them. WC teams for example would generally like smaller teams so they have more chance of breakaways succeeding, etc.

Of course... if you ask Etixx or Lotto or Dimension Datat, they will tell you they cannot for the life of their last born even survive with less riders... why ? Because the more guys the have the more you can control the breakaway and the give your sprinter a good train.

And if you ask Sky or Movistar or Astana, you will get the same answer because the more top notch domestiques you have, the better you can control the overall race for your GC leader who you think is the strongest in the field...

And here we see again the problem that the UCI and the organisers have in trying to promote change that could give us a better show : they lack leverage. They lack leverage because what is the incentive for those teams. Sure a better show doesn't hurt, but they don't make money from a better show, tv rights don't bring them anything whereas coldblooded victories at least gives you those 30 seconds on sportscenter (well in countries who like cycling anyway).

Compare that to the NBA where faced with a league turning uber defensive and a lack of starpower when Jordan retired decided (ie the teams decided) on the no handcheck rule to allow more movement an more attacking the basket for dunks. Compare that to the NFL where the teams supported more rules protecting quaterbacks and receivers to have more of a spectacular passing game and less of a brutish running game. In those sports teams have an incentive to support that kind of change because they get a piece of the cake.

It is a complicated matter anyway, and though I wish change happens, I can read through the lines of the UCI supersoft language "gee we will look into it, as in open the book, look into it, then close it, which technically means we did indeed look into it"... Lack of leverage is a big issue.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Re: Re:

Edit: Oh, I forgot what I was really to write: I don't think racing is more boring now than it was before, I believe that is quite wrong. I only followed from like '95, but it's largely the same. Some good races every year. Most are quite ****. Dunno what you're expecting?

You have a point, boredom is an integral part of what being a sports' fan means : whether it's football or rugby or cycling or tennis, you are often bored by what you see and great races or matchs only come once in a while.

Yet more than boredom, what is horrible in nowadays' cycling is that you often feel that even the mere act of watching the race is pointless : I know in my heart that there is no point watching LBL before the last 30ks... That's what is worse than boredom. You can be bored watching a football game, but at any time a fantastic goal might come. In the past you could be bored watching LBL but something could happen in la Haute Levée or Stockeu. Nowadays not only is there boredom, but mere hope is gone. That's what is so depressing sometimes.

Yes, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things....

Being bored watching a favourite sport at times emphasises the feeling of excitement when something enthralling does happen.

With the GT's, I think that 7 man teams is a good target for now. That would make quite a difference. If we remember back to the '06 Tour, the strongest team was T-Mobile, but as they only had seven riders their strength didn't suffocate the race. Though it also helped that they didn't have the strongest rider in the race, at least not consistently (Kloden was very strong up the Alp and in the final ITT).

Given that the big teams seem to want more riders, what likelihood is it that team sizes increase further in the future? I mean is it likely that Sky, Moviestar and others have recommended ten man teams for grand tours?

 

[veji11]

Re: Re:

Being bored watching a favourite sport at times emphasises the feeling of excitement when something enthralling does happen.

With the GT's, I think that 7 man teams is a good target for now. That would make quite a difference. If we remember back to the '06 Tour, the strongest team was T-Mobile, but as they only had seven riders their strength didn't suffocate the race. Though it also helped that they didn't have the strongest rider in the race, at least not consistently (Kloden was very strong up the Alp and in the final ITT).

Given that the big teams seem to want more riders, what likelihood is it that team sizes increase further in the future? I mean is it likely that Sky, Moviestar and others have recommended ten man teams for grand tours?

I don't think we will ever see the big teams of the past anymore. If there are big resistances to change in terms of number of riders per team in the pro peloton, the UCI would be well placed to show the right example by makin the WC races closer to the olympics in terms of format : 5 riders per team, with maybe more teams having 5, so that the peloton doesn't get past 180 riders or so. And let's see what happens.

 

[Netserk]

The UCI could start off with allowing the race organizers to decide how big teams would be allowed to be (within a range). If that happened, I'm sure some races would experiment with different team sizes.

 

[veji11]

Re:

The UCI could start off with allowing the race organizers to decide how big teams would be allowed to be (within a range). If that happened, I'm sure some races would experiment with different team sizes.

True, it would be a good idea as long as guidelines are there. Watching the Omnium track competition yesterday reminded me of how uncontrolable a race can be when teams can't block it : the best rider can end up losing because he didn't make the right decision at the right time. When teams are allowed to block the race, road cycling is reduced to a wattbike challenge (safe for crashes on rainy roads, cobblestones, snowbanks on the downhill of the Agnel pass, etc...).

 

[IndianCyclist]

to break control of strong teams and make exciting racing give a jackpot of 30-60 s on every mountain top and intermediate sprints

 

[IndianCyclist]

Team ranking Number of riders/team Number of Teams
Top10 7 10
11-15 6 5
16-20 5 5
21-25 4 5
26-30 3 5
31-35 2 5
36-40 1 5
Total Teams 40
Total Riders 175
Maybe if there is something similar to the Worlds or Olympics criteria, it can give opportunity to a lot of teams and riders.

 

[Brullnux]

That would create a huge disadvantage for teams that don't have as much money. In effect you'd be exasperating the inequality in cycling with regards to teams. Basically taxing the poorest gradually more than the richest.

GVA also calls for smaller teams

 

[Cookster15]

Introduce a trial season with a limit of 7 riders per team. Lets see what happens. 5 is too little.

 

[MatParker117]

Today's ToB stage showed why reduced teams is a complete folly.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Today's ToB stage showed why reduced teams is a complete folly.

Yesterday's on the other hand showed why it's a great idea. There have been good and bad examples in stage races. Yet, in a one day race it is logical to believe that it does become more fun and exciting, as there is no evidence to suggest the contrary.

 

[Durden93]

Although I certainly feel that reducing team sizes would make racing more interesting, I'll appeal to the more knowledgeable members of this forum: Do you think that if teams were cut to say, 7 riders, that the extra 40 riders provided from pro-conti teams would make racing more dangerous? I don't think there are more crashes in the continental tours, but I could be wrong.

 

[Finn84]

It would lead each WT team to cut few of their riders anyway, so many of the riders would find other team. I think the WT limit is 30 and this would probably come down too, for example to 25-27.

Sky has 29 riders and then maybe pick two riders out of that list, let's say Boswell and Nordhaug. Similarly pick 2-3 riders from every WT team and move them to continental squads.

 

[hrotha]

It's not a given that those extra 40 spots would be filled with anyone. Logistically, having an extra team in the race is much more expensive and complicated than just having an extra 7 (or 9) riders.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Although I certainly feel that reducing team sizes would make racing more interesting, I'll appeal to the more knowledgeable members of this forum: Do you think that if teams were cut to say, 7 riders, that the extra 40 riders provided from pro-conti teams would make racing more dangerous? I don't think there are more crashes in the continental tours, but I could be wrong.

I would say one of the best reasons, besides more agressive racing, of having smaller teams is having less riders and so making racing less dangerous.