I promised to write a bit more about what I think about good racing and good routes and about this route in particular. This is my not very elaborate essay.
„Good racing“ / What a perfect route should be like:
- it should be unpredictable
- there should be several options for the race to develope tactically
- several types of riders should be able to win
- several types of riders should be able to win in rather unpredictable ways, meaning they should have possibilities to do something with team tactics, which are not easy to foresee/ predict, but need some creativity
- it should enable the best riders to show what they are capable of, whether they win or not
- personally I much prefer the battle between the best to a close battle of second-rate riders and I appreciate a route and race which encourages the best to come
GTs:
- should offer chances for different types of riders
- there should be GC action on many stages
- there should be possibilities for break-aways, but not many, many stages going to the break because the peloton does not care
- endurance and punch should be required
- personally I love technical parts and parts that recquire positioning skills, although that's a tough decision because it can lead to (even unfair) crashes and positioning is usually way better with a strong team
- the team strength should come into play but not be totally decisive
- the finishes should vary
- it's nice if it's unclear whether the stage will go to the break or not
- there should not be only one, two or three decisive stages for the GC
- weaker riders and teams should be able to have their moments as well, for instance in breakaways
- the route should enhance active racing
I think a route is often not good or bad in absolute terms but depends on the riders and teams who participate and how willing they are to do something, their characteristics and mentality, also their matching – which teams and riders are up against which.
Now I'm going to take a closer look at the Tour21 route:
Flat stages – and many of them. That's probably disappointing to a lot of people, because no GC action can be expected, unless we get lucky with the wind. But first of all I want to say that this has been a tough year for sprinters regarding Grand Tours. If we want sprinters to get developed properly, we need to give them opportunities to shine on the biggest stages, that is the GTs. Also, looking at possible contenders for the stage wins we could have some great battles between the pure sprinters, of which the best will come to the Tour with this route, and some up and comers who can be stage winners here, as well, like van Aert or van der Poel. We could even have a battle for green between van der Poel, van Aert, Sagan and Bennett – sounds nice to me, and we saw that the fight for green can animate stages in a rather unexpected way. (Just don't cancel every other activity for these days, but watch it in the background while ironing or cooking, doing yoga or being on the rollers – and save your undivided attention for the last 15, okay 5, minutes.)
In the first week I see riders like Roglic, van Aert, Pogacar, Hirschi, Alaphilippe, Evenepoel, Schachmann and van der Poel in contention for the stage wins and yellow. Démare should be up there, too, maybe Sagan as well. The first time trial should leave guys like Hirschi and Alaphilippe behind and separate most GC contenders from the classic's riders.
Then we are starting with the mountains. I see five mountain stages.
Tignes. Basically three climbs, elevation gain over 3000 meters, mtf finish, but climbs have each a forerunner which is steeper, while they themselves are of lower gradients, so attackers, if not long range, will be caught by stronger teams. However, is there one strong team who just wants to control things because they know they have the stronger time trialer? Don't think so.
Andorra. Descent finish, again climbs are preceded, several plateaus ease them, elevation is there nonetheless, over 2000 meters.
Col du Portet: Yes, this stage is a bit disappointing, but you need one stage for Sepp Kuss and this is it. Over 2000 meters and it looks different from the other mountain stages and has three climbs. Imagine Evenepoel with a long range attack on the Peyresourde...
Tourmalet: Well, Tourmalet. Underwhelming, unoriginal, but the positioning should mean anyone who can climb very well and wants to make up time before the last tt should do so here. And there's Luz Ardiden as a gimmick.
Ventoux: Unoriginal, classic climb, done twice (from two sides) and at least the second time there should definitely be gaps. This can be done really hard and between two flat stages there is no excuse to not make use of it.
These mountains vouch for a "classic style Tour" with their names.
Do the "pure" climbers have a real chance to win against guys like Roglic and Pogacar on this route? No. But they (Lopez) didn't on that climbing heavy-route of 2020, either. Nor did Carapaz win against Roglic (despite the Angliru) or Hindley against Hart (despite Stelvio and Sestriere).
You would need some immensely hard mountain stages, and that is probably what many of you are looking for. But as long as there are riders who are among the top7 time trialists who can also climb good enough to not be significantly dropped on the Angliru or the Stelvio (and if only with the help of their teams), such mountains won't make the race.
In fact, as I have mentioned somewhere else before, I think the clear differentiation between climbers and time trialers does not suit the current state of riders. A pure time trialer would be Ganna. A pure climber would be - I don't know. Lopez? Quintana? Kuss? So we would not have to talk about Pogacar vs. Carapaz, but Ganna vs. Lopez. But we do have these extremely well-rounded GT-riders, who, thanks to power-meters, modern nutrition and windchannels and the perfectioned controlling tactics of strong teams, cannot be seriously distanced by the absolute specialists in a time trial or on the toughest climbs. On a half-balanced route they will always have the upper hand against Ganna and Lopez. If you have a route with many extremely hard climbs and 120km tts, I would bet it still won't be a battle of Ganna who takes time in the time trials and Lopez who takes his minutes on the mountains, but one between the likes of Roglic, Pogacar, van Aert, Dumoulin, Thomas and Evenepoel who just won't be distanced by many minutes, unless they are sick or have to put on a rain jacket.
So why not leave that tt vs. mountains battle a bit behind and enjoy a possible battle between GT-allrounders with a great punch vs. amazing time trialer who climbs very, very well. In fact the aspect that annoys me the most when I'm looking at this route is that van Aert is on the same team as Roglic. What could make this race very interesting would be the participation of Evenepoel. I don't really see the Olympics happening next year, so that might actually become reality.
(I don't see Ineos on the podium here, by the way. They simply don't have a rider with a profile for this. Hart, if he developes further, could be their man, or Carapaz if he improves his time trialing significantly, but I don't see it, yet. Thomas, I would think, lacks the real punch, so Roglic and Pogacar could always take the bonus seconds, while his time trialing is probably not strong enough to distance them there.)
Two more notes:
There's really a lot of descending on this route, partly technical, which I like, but I hope there won't be any serious crash.
The hope for echelons is big, which is a complete gamble, but also, who doesn't like echelon stages, and if we knew for sure there would be crosswinds, we would not like them as much anymore, I guess.