Rate the 2016 Tour de France

[Richeypen]

Re:

Sagan won the combativity prize? Really? Peter was incredible, but Pantano, Majka and Alaphilippe all deserved it more.

Or De Gendt!

 

[saganftw]

Re:

Sagan won the combativity prize? Really? Peter was incredible, but Pantano, Majka and Alaphilippe all deserved it more.

alaphilippe was highly overrated,he was in 2(?) legit breaks and one meaningless with tony martin dragging him while pantano and majka in 6(?),even de gendt was more active

 

[saganftw]

Re: Re:

I rated it an 8. I would have given it a 9 if the choice was available.

I loved that Cavendish came back and won 4 stages. To me the most exciting stages are sprint stages. Generally, mtn. stages and mostly boring won by riders whose main claim to fame is genetic not any skills they have developed on the bike.

I was very happy to see Contador leave. He is overrated and just an unnecessary overhyped distraction. But what was better was how he left. Rather than being humble and working for his teammate who has killed himself in the past for Contador he decided to leave rather than be embarrassed. Which is his career in a nutshell all ego and little substance.

I was dissapointed in all the breakaway stages and teams refusing to work to at least try for a stage win. Even more boring than a mountain stage is a stage where no one cares enough to work for a stage win.

But Cavendish, Pantano, Xakarin and Dumolin made up for the problems of this years tour. I just wish we would get more pure flat sprint stages where we could see the best cyclists display their skills.

Puffff, you must be joking.

he is not joking

 

[Bavarianrider]

No top 10GC guy anywhere near the top 10 in the king of the mountain. Nobody could have ever predicted that. Tells a lot about this whack ass tour.

 

[Gigs_98]

1 point for watching Sky/Froome win again. That squad is a TdF juggernaut.
1 point for Froome's winning style. That is burning desire when your bike breaks and you run for the line.
1 point for the annual Contador cycle of hype, bike handling disaster(s), fanboy weeping.
1 for the sprinters; strong competition this year.
1 for the podium girls; this year's crop was particularly lovely.

What was lacking was a real rivalry for GC. Back in the day, there were a few teams that were fearsome top-to-bottom, with captains who were at their peaks and close to each other.

So you give points for teams which dominate everything, riders crashing out and good looking podium girls? Well if thats what makes cycling interesting for you.

 

[Orbit501]

A 2 for me.

And if I was to describe it in one word... Pedestrian.

 

[spalco]

Re: Re:

6, somewhat above average.

I was reasonably entertained and watched for dozens of hours, but it wasn't an exciting edition.

Again I have to ask how this can be above average for anyone.

Well, as I said, I watched it, and to some degree I enjoyed it.

To the people rating it 0 or 2 or something I would have to question why they didn't just turn it off and just read the race report afterwards or watch the highlights.

Also for what it's worth, the best rider won. It sucks when a race is decided by events that are out of control of the participants.

 

[guncha]

8
Loved there were time trials unlike 2015. I hope ITT of stage 1 of 2017 won't be the only one...
I don't think mountain stages were boring; it was second best riders who did not have form to challenge Froome.
I don't blame Froome for small ball approach because overdoing some mountain stages could give a chance to his opponents. Because of his solid lead he could afford to ride defensively.
Overall, very good and strategic race.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

To the people rating it 0 or 2 or something I would have to question why they didn't just turn it off and just read the race report afterwards or watch the highlights

Because I like cycling and was hoping something would happen. I still can't believe nothing whatsoever happened on that last stage. Totally unprecedented.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

To the people rating it 0 or 2 or something I would have to question why they didn't just turn it off and just read the race report afterwards or watch the highlights

Because I like cycling and was hoping something would happen. I still can't believe nothing whatsoever happened on that last stage. Totally unprecedented.

I was even surprised (though I probably shouldn't have) that everyone in the bunch was happy with Stannard pace on the two first climbs Even though the break was huge, it did disappoint that not more riders (and teammates) rolled the dice. Why didn't Valverde join it? Why no Majka?

 

[spalco]

But that expectation/hope in a way is entertainment too, isn't it? Even if it's a bit masochistic.

If a restaurant is a 2 or 3 (let alone a 0) in my rating, I don't go back to eat there every day for three weeks.

 

[Fernandez]

Re:

But that expectation/hope in a way is entertainment too, isn't it? Even if it's a bit masochistic.

If a restaurant is a 2 or 3 (let alone a 0) in my rating, I don't go back to eat there every day for three weeks.

Why does a cycling fan watch Le Tour de France? Are you asking it seriously?

 

[spalco]

Re: Re:

Why does a cycling fan watch Le Tour de France? Are you asking it seriously?

If the race is truly a '0', then yes, I'm serious.

My point is just that people are being a little dramatic here. Yes, it was boring, but that's an unreasonable criticism imo, because that's just the nature of the sport.

It was merely an average Tour imo, not a particularly bad one.

 

[hrotha]

How the hell was it not worse than average? Just look at how few kilometers of hand-to-hand action we got among the contenders. On the last stage, two guys were within reach of the podium and they didn't try anything. Only the final winner raced semi-properly. The guy who came 2nd only made one proper attack during the whole race. Literally no one did an attack on a climb where they kept going after any other contender so much as stared at their wheel like they might glue themselves to it. Even the best mountain stage had no action on the climbs, and even the echelons stage saw relatively short echelons action.

I'm not being melodramatic. I'm not suffering from selective memory. I'm not looking at previous Tours through rose-tinted glasses. Literally no other Tour had so little action among the contenders to offer.

The 2012 Giro was famously bad and long held as the most boring borefest that ever bored, but even that had A LOT more action than this. And I mean A LOT. That Giro's "nobody attacks until 2.5 km to go" shtick would have been a massive improvement for this Tour.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

My point is just that people are being a little dramatic here. Yes, it was boring, but that's an unreasonable criticism imo, because that's just the nature of the sport.

Pardon? If every cycling event was like this, I wouldn't be a follower.
Luckily, there have been far better races and GTs to compensate. But this particular Tour was definitely sub-standard, by any neutral means of observation (i.e. non-British, non-Sky fans).

 

[Pantani_lives]

2/10

Suspense for yellow: 0/10 - Five of the ten best climbers are in the same team. They manage to make the mountain stages as boring as the sprint stages, except that there is no sprint.
Battle for stages: 4/10 - Most stages were boring and formulaic. However there were some rather uplifting wins, especially by De Gendt, Pantano and Izaguirre.
Battle for green, polka dots and white: 4/10 - All decided before the final week
Quality: 5/10 - You can argue that the best rider has won, but it never came down to an individual confrontation except in the time trials. The opposition did nothing to make it harder for him.
Course: 6/10 - Except for the debacle on the Mont Ventoux there was nothing wrong with the course.
Entertainment: 0/10 - Brailsford trying to be funny was painful.
Safety and fairness: 0/10 - Crashes once again were decisive. Contador crashing out was a disaster. Mont Ventoux, no crowd control barriers on MTFs... Even Bardet's second place wouldn't have happened without the crashes behind him. Mollema and Porte lost time because of bad luck.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

But that expectation/hope in a way is entertainment too, isn't it? Even if it's a bit masochistic.

If a restaurant is a 2 or 3 (let alone a 0) in my rating, I don't go back to eat there every day for three weeks.

That example doesnt work. In the restaurant you know it's just bad but a cycling race can always improve. I also could have stopped watching the giro after the boring stage 13 but I would have missed one of the most dramatic gt finals of the last decade. Just look at the thread of stage 20. Everyone expected action so ofc everyone watched it. Who could have imagined that there won't be one single attack by high placed gc contenders.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

How the hell was it not worse than average? Just look at how few kilometers of hand-to-hand action we got among the contenders. On the last stage, two guys were within reach of the podium and they didn't try anything. Only the final winner raced semi-properly. The guy who came 2nd only made one proper attack during the whole race. Literally no one did an attack on a climb where they kept going after any other contender so much as stared at their wheel like they might glue themselves to it. Even the best mountain stage had no action on the climbs, and even the echelons stage saw relatively short echelons action.

I'm not being melodramatic. I'm not suffering from selective memory. I'm not looking at previous Tours through rose-tinted glasses. Literally no other Tour had so little action among the contenders to offer.

The 2012 Giro was famously bad and long held as the most boring borefest that ever bored, but even that had A LOT more action than this. And I mean A LOT. That Giro's "nobody attacks until 2.5 km to go" shtick would have been a massive improvement for this Tour.

Totally agree. And like the Giro, the absence of action wasn't due to the route - which was very good for TdF standards IMO - but the riders which makes it all the more disappointing.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

How the hell was it not worse than average? Just look at how few kilometers of hand-to-hand action we got among the contenders. On the last stage, two guys were within reach of the podium and they didn't try anything. Only the final winner raced semi-properly. The guy who came 2nd only made one proper attack during the whole race. Literally no one did an attack on a climb where they kept going after any other contender so much as stared at their wheel like they might glue themselves to it. Even the best mountain stage had no action on the climbs, and even the echelons stage saw relatively short echelons action.

I'm not being melodramatic. I'm not suffering from selective memory. I'm not looking at previous Tours through rose-tinted glasses. Literally no other Tour had so little action among the contenders to offer.

The 2012 Giro was famously bad and long held as the most boring borefest that ever bored, but even that had A LOT more action than this. And I mean A LOT. That Giro's "nobody attacks until 2.5 km to go" shtick would have been a massive improvement for this Tour.

It could have been amazing.

If you look at the parcours, ASO were clearly trying to design in really tight gaps between the top riders in the final week and if you remove the yellow jersey that is what they got.

You had something like 3.5 minutes separating the second and tenth spot on GC before Saturdays stage. There really could have been an almighty scrap for this and perhaps there would have been but for rain.

As for the podium. It could have been Froome, Quintana, Contador, and Nibali fighting for it. Nibali opted for Giro, Contador crashed out, Quintana wasn't well.

Sh*t happens.

 

[hrotha]

Yes, ASO were clearly trying to design in really tight gaps between the top riders in the final week, and I think that's a terrible design decision that most of the time results in a crap race where nobody thinks they need to take risks or attack.

 

[kwikki]

What would you have preferred to see in place of back loaded climbing stages?

 

[The Principal Sheep]

There are often times I'm unable to watch cycling live and I'd usually be annoyed at missing the key events and do my best to catch up with highlights, recordings etc. but this has been the first such event which delivered so little that I've barely bothered to even watch highlights.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

What would you have preferred to see in place of back loaded climbing stages?

Pretty much like the Giro, but with more & flatter ITT kilometers and a better distribution of the mountains perhaps.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

What would you have preferred to see in place of back loaded climbing stages?

Pretty much like the Giro, but with more & flatter ITT kilometers and a better distribution of the mountains perhaps.

I think there are other reasons why the Giro (and the Vuelta) tend to be more open than the Tour, beyond parcours, and it is to do with team make up and comittment or lack of it to those two races.

I do wonder whether ASO can do anything much to even out the strength differences between teams by tweaking the route. It seems to me that the absolutely enormous disparity between team budgets is the root of the problem. You can't blame Sky for doing it, or for nailing down the race.

By definition, an exciting race means a close race, and why would any team actually want that if they have the manpower to dominate.

 

[loge1884]

Re:

Yes, ASO were clearly trying to design in really tight gaps between the top riders in the final week, and I think that's a terrible design decision that most of the time results in a crap race where nobody thinks they need to take risks or attack.

this ... I think the last week was (3 mountain stages with climbing after climbing + one Mountain Time Trial) was designed with a guy like Nairo Quintana in mind challenging the Sky team ... as NQ clearly wasn't at his best and Mr. Contador not even there - actually the whole idea just imploded ... no one (from the GC contenders) was strong enough to attack before the final climb and probably no one did have the legs anymore doing it at the final climb (with Romain Bardot being the one and only exception) ....
making the Tour harder doesn't always make it better .... I do not believe Sky/Froome would have been in any trouble with less climbs, but maybe there would have been a bit more action ....