Rate the 2024 Tour de France

[Gigs_98]

Concerning stage design, I just realized that for the last two years there was only one stage each that was very suitable for long range attacks, namely the Tourmalet stage last year and the Puy Mary stage this year, and twice the resulting stage was argubly the best of the race. You could argue this even holds for the last three years with the granon stage, but if I include that I probably have to include the Bonette stage as well. Kinda remarkable how the kind of stage design that delivers great racing is staring the ASO right into the face but so far they have failed to include more such stages. Let's hope this will soon change.

 

[zlev11]

Things which are criticized without fail, every year, to the point it's usually not worth responding:

• Team and rider tactics
• Course and stage design
• Quality of this year's Tour

if someone is passionate about something, shouldn't they hold it to a high standard? if someone feels the need to criticize the route, it usually comes from a place of disappointment in something that should be better. people don't just complain about it to be negative, they complain about it because they expect a certain standard. especially when the route has a huge effect on the quality of the race, you know, the thing you're going to sit down and devote 50+ hours to over the course of 3 weeks.

 

[fbjim]

Concerning stage design, I just realized that for the last two years there was only one stage each that was very suitable for long range attacks, namely the Tourmalet stage last year and the Puy Mary stage this year, and twice the resulting stage was argubly the best of the race. You could argue this even holds for the last three years with the granon stage, but if I include that I probably have to include the Bonette stage as well. Kinda remarkable how the kind of stage design that delivers great racing is staring the ASO right into the face but so far they have failed to include more such stages. Let's hope this will soon change.

I think, at the same time there's nothing wrong with a 200km brute of a stage that finishes on the hardest climb. i think a good parcours should have a mix of stages where you can conceivably go on a raid, or one's where it's just putting a group of the top riders at the foot of Plateau de Beille after a hard 180k, and going "let's see what you've got".

obviously the hardcore MTF is "safer" too, because unlike a raid-type stage, it's nearly guaranteed to do at least *something* to GC, even if it's just dropping pretenders off the back.

basically i want to see a couple "raid" parcours, a couple descent finishes, and a few hardcore MTFs, and i think the tour has been decent on that front over the last few years

 

[fbjim]

let us not forget the forgotten raid parcours, by the way. still mad about this one, both because of the act of God, and because of the fact that they absolutely should have neutralized the GC, even if they would have gotten crucified for doing so

 

[tobydawq]

let us not forget the forgotten raid parcours, by the way. still mad about this one, both because of the act of God, and because of the fact that they absolutely should have neutralized the GC, even if they would have gotten crucified for doing so

Neutralising GC would have been grotesque.

 

[gregrowlerson]

It is difficult to rate the Tour sometimes because the quality of the GC battle can be very different in-the-moment, versus in retrospect.

I've made this comparison before, but take the 2022 race. Even before the final stage to Hautacam, people were still giving Pogacar a good chance of winning, despite the fact that he did not (and would not) drop Vingegaard on any single stage. Why? Because people remembered 2020 and 2021, and thought he could still destroy the TT, or had another stage like Le Grand-Bornand in him.

Looking at it in retrospect, it obviously was not close, but that doesn't speak to how it was perceived at the time. Just like this year - people thought Vingegaard could pull a Combloux/Granon out of the bag and it didn't happen, and if you look at it coldly, he had, if anything, been looking less and less strong as the race went on - but we all remember the Vingegaard who destroyed Pogacar on Granon/Hautacam/Combloux/Corchevel and thought he still might show up.

Does this mean it's wrong to rate Tours because people "incorrectly" perceived it to be closer than it was? Of course not - this is a subjective poll, and it's fine to rate things on how much you enjoyed them.

I think this is a good way of looking at it; how close it appeared at the time vs being the king of hindsight. Perhaps this is why many don't rate the 2020 Tour all that highly, because it just seemed like Roglic was probably going to win throughout, and there wasn't even any time for suspence after this was questioned, because that was the last GC stage, so it was game over. This is why I think the 2023 Tour was so great, because the GC battle was considered pretty interesting from the start (even with Pogacar's wrist), and after stage 4 that remained that way, then after stage 5 it was looking boring, but after stage 6 it was immediately highly interesting again, and more so than before stage 5 because now Pogacar had the momentum. The battle for yellow then continued to be highly interesting all the way until end of stage 16.

With 2024 it didn't seem greatly interesting before the start, but became pretty interesting after Vingegaard showed some form on the opening weekend. It remained mildly interesting until stage 11 when it became highly interesting (2023 post stage 6 levels), however, this interest level only lasted three days.

I was going to rate this Tour a 6, but I'll go a 7 upon reconsidering that exciting stage 11 plot twist.

P.S. You're right, Vingegaard wasn't able to pull another Granon out of the bag.....at least that's how it looked anyway....