Road to Olympics: UCI World Tour Nations Ranking

[Asero831]

With 1 GT, 5 Classics and 2 Stage races left, the fight for the Top 5 spots are getting tighter. 3rd to 7th ranked nations are separated only by 95 points. The 7th ranked team, Netherlands is only 4 points behind 5th ranked Australia.

The reward for getting into the top 5 is to have a full 5 man squad in next year's Olympic Road Race in Rio. This type of races are rare with each Nation only have a maximum of 5 riders and with 8.5km Cat 1 climbs to be negotiated four times in the last 120km of a 253km race, each body will be important.

Spain and GB seem to secure to have a five man roster come the Olympics.

1. SPAIN 1.491
2. GREAT BRITAIN 973

The battle for the last three desired places are getting exciting:
3. COLOMBIA 787
4. FRANCE 752
5. AUSTRALIA 696
6. ITALY 694
7. NETHERLANDS 692

Columbia will be hoping to secure the Top 5 place with Nairo Quintana on the Vuelta provisional startlist and Sergio Henao is one of the favorites to podium the Tour of Poland.

France has a disappointing Tour de France that could have secured their top 5 finish. So they will be pinning their hopes on Romain Bardet and Thibaut Pinot at Vuelta to gain points to provide enough cushion. In case the two underperformed again, Arnaud Demare can be counted on the Sprint Classics while Julian Alaphilippe can gather point at Lombardia.

Thanks to Richie Porte early season form, Australia is able to land top 5. Australia will be relying on the classics to retain their top 5 standing with Michael Matthews and Simon Gerrans. Gerrans accumulated 210 points while Matthews were going Vuelta stage hunting in Autumn last year. It will be interesting if Matthews will ride Vuelta given that the Worlds will be his primary target.

Italy is favored to gain one of the top 5 spots as Aru, Pozzovivo and Nibali will be giving them points via GC in Vuelta. Also Aru is one of the podium contenders in Tour of Poland. An additional man in the Olympics can also increase their chances in Rio next year. Surely having both Damiano Caruso and Fabio Felline in Rio will only help their chances.

Lastly Netherlands still have a chance but it all depends on how Bauke Mollema and Robert Gesink performs in Vuelta. Perhaps Wilco Kelderman can also contribute but it seems that the Dutch chances are bleak

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Surely the principle of sporting equity of opportunity should demand that all teams have the same number of riders. As riders line up on the start, they should have the same chance, differentiation of opportunity being based on ability, fitness and form only.

The best riders already have the best chance: they should not be further advantaged by having additional team-mates. This is equivalent to letting the hurdlers who have the best qualifying times having lower hurdles to get over, the hockey team that does best in the qualifying tournament having larger goals to aim at, the higher ranked boxers having gloves packed with iron filings.

Anyone who sets up qualification in this manner either does not understand the team nature of cycling, or has no interest in equal competition.

 

[Brullnux]

I would've thought that the Comtinental rankings were taken into account like for the WRC?

Anyway, not been a good year for Italian cycling it seems, but even worse for the Belgians.

 

[Yingge]

Re:

Surely the principle of sporting equity of opportunity should demand that all teams have the same number of riders. As riders line up on the start, they should have the same chance, differentiation of opportunity being based on ability, fitness and form only.

The best riders already have the best chance: they should not be further advantaged by having additional team-mates. This is equivalent to letting the hurdlers who have the best qualifying times having lower hurdles to get over, the hockey team that does best in the qualifying tournament having larger goals to aim at, the higher ranked boxers having gloves packed with iron filings.

Anyone who sets up qualification in this manner either does not understand the team nature of cycling, or has no interest in equal competition.

You have to pare the numbers down to a manageable field somehow. There are about 200 Olympic Nations, so if you allow each one 5 each that's 1000 at the start of the Road Race. Those that have a reasonable chance of supplying riders that are able to actually finish the course should get priority.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

Surely the principle of sporting equity of opportunity should demand that all teams have the same number of riders. As riders line up on the start, they should have the same chance, differentiation of opportunity being based on ability, fitness and form only.

The best riders already have the best chance: they should not be further advantaged by having additional team-mates. This is equivalent to letting the hurdlers who have the best qualifying times having lower hurdles to get over, the hockey team that does best in the qualifying tournament having larger goals to aim at, the higher ranked boxers having gloves packed with iron filings.

Anyone who sets up qualification in this manner either does not understand the team nature of cycling, or has no interest in equal competition.

You have to pare the numbers down to a manageable field somehow. There are about 200 Olympic Nations, so if you allow each one 5 each that's 1000 at the start of the Road Race. Those that have a reasonable chance of supplying riders that are able to actually finish the course should get priority.

I'm not sure whether that is uninformed or deliberately provocative. They don't have 200 teams in the football tournament, the track pursuit, or handball either. There are qualification tournaments and rankings used to determine invitation to participate in each sport.

They should decide how many teams/riders are manageable on the course (bearing in mind support vehicles), and determine a criterion for selecting that many nations, each of which has the right to enter a team of the same number of riders.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Lastly Netherlands still have a chance but it all depends on how Bauke Mollema and Robert Gesink performs in Vuelta. Perhaps Wilco Kelderman can also contribute but it seems that the Dutch chances are bleak

You are forgetting a lot of things.

1) Neither Gesink or Kelderman will participate in the Vuelta and I doubt Mollema will
2) Netherlands will probably pick up points in the Tour de Pologne (Gesink) and ENECO Tour (a lot of possibilities, Terpstra, Boom, Kelderman among others).
3) Also Quebec/Montreal (classis where Gesink won and is riding this year, also Mollema again and even Slagter as possbility.

These points could add up to more than a Vuelta top 10 by Pinot for instance.
You are overestimating Vuelta and forgetting other races.

 

[MatParker117]

G, Froome, Cav, Stannard & Kennaugh is probably GB's team

 

[jaylew]

Re: Re:

Surely the principle of sporting equity of opportunity should demand that all teams have the same number of riders. As riders line up on the start, they should have the same chance, differentiation of opportunity being based on ability, fitness and form only.

The best riders already have the best chance: they should not be further advantaged by having additional team-mates. This is equivalent to letting the hurdlers who have the best qualifying times having lower hurdles to get over, the hockey team that does best in the qualifying tournament having larger goals to aim at, the higher ranked boxers having gloves packed with iron filings.

Anyone who sets up qualification in this manner either does not understand the team nature of cycling, or has no interest in equal competition.

You have to pare the numbers down to a manageable field somehow. There are about 200 Olympic Nations, so if you allow each one 5 each that's 1000 at the start of the Road Race. Those that have a reasonable chance of supplying riders that are able to actually finish the course should get priority.

I'm not sure whether that is uninformed or deliberately provocative. They don't have 200 teams in the football tournament, the track pursuit, or handball either. There are qualification tournaments and rankings used to determine invitation to participate in each sport.

They should decide how many teams/riders are manageable on the course (bearing in mind support vehicles), and determine a criterion for selecting that many nations, each of which has the right to enter a team of the same number of riders.

Well, nations don't have the same number of riders at Worlds either.

It would certainly seem strange if Colombia, UK, and Australia had 5 and Italy, Netherlands, and Belgium didn't but it's possible.

 

[del1962]

Re:

G, Froome, Cav, Stannard & Kennaugh is probably GB's team

What about the Yates brothers and Ben Swift

 

[MatParker117]

Re: Re:

G, Froome, Cav, Stannard & Kennaugh is probably GB's team

What about the Yates brothers and Ben Swift

Swift's going to the track and the Yates brothers were my 6 & 7.

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

G, Froome, Cav, Stannard & Kennaugh is probably GB's team

What about the Yates brothers and Ben Swift

Exactly. No need for Cavendish or Stannard unless they do probably superfluous grunt work for the first 100km.

Froome, Thomas, Kennaugh, A Yates, S Yates - now we're cooking with gas.

 

[MatParker117]

Re: Re:

G, Froome, Cav, Stannard & Kennaugh is probably GB's team

What about the Yates brothers and Ben Swift

Exactly. No need for Cavendish or Stannard unless they do probably superfluous grunt work for the first 100km.

Froome, Thomas, Kennaugh, A Yates, S Yates - now we're cooking with gas.

With G and Froome for the TT.

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

G, Froome, Cav, Stannard & Kennaugh is probably GB's team

What about the Yates brothers and Ben Swift

Exactly. No need for Cavendish or Stannard unless they do probably superfluous grunt work for the first 100km.

Froome, Thomas, Kennaugh, A Yates, S Yates - now we're cooking with gas.

With G and Froome for the TT.

See the route of next year's Tour. If it's similar to this years, maybe Dowsett rather than Froome.

 

[del1962]

Problem if France get too many places they will just use them up for track riders

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Re: Re:

Surely the principle of sporting equity of opportunity should demand that all teams have the same number of riders. As riders line up on the start, they should have the same chance, differentiation of opportunity being based on ability, fitness and form only.

The best riders already have the best chance: they should not be further advantaged by having additional team-mates. This is equivalent to letting the hurdlers who have the best qualifying times having lower hurdles to get over, the hockey team that does best in the qualifying tournament having larger goals to aim at, the higher ranked boxers having gloves packed with iron filings.

Anyone who sets up qualification in this manner either does not understand the team nature of cycling, or has no interest in equal competition.

Well, nations don't have the same number of riders at Worlds either.

It would certainly seem strange if Colombia, UK, and Australia had 5 and Italy, Netherlands, and Belgium didn't but it's possible.

I'm aware of that: that also seems iniquitous, but the subject of this thread is the Olympic RR. There is an opportunity to make that race different from the WC.
It is reasonable that, for example, Jungels has a reduced chance compared to Uran if the Columbian team is stronger than the Luxembourg team, that is sporting competition: it is not reasonable that Uran has a greater number of teammates, that is unsporting and anti-competitive.

 

[Finn84]

Regardless of whether they have different or same number of team-mates, the quality makes a big difference. Thinking someone like Peter Sagan who is probably the most dominant big-name cyclist compared to his compatriots.

 

[AICA ribonucleotide]

Re:

G, Froome, Cav, Stannard & Kennaugh is probably GB's team

You have to bare in mind each rider needs to get a minimum of 10 world tour points. Stannard and Kennaugh wouldnt be eligible to compete.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Regardless of whether they have different or same number of team-mates, the quality makes a big difference. Thinking someone like Peter Sagan who is probably the most dominant big-name cyclist compared to his compatriots.

don't worry, he'll come second

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

G, Froome, Cav, Stannard & Kennaugh is probably GB's team

You have to bare in mind each rider needs to get a minimum of 10 world tour points. Stannard and Kennaugh wouldnt be eligible to compete.

Stannard getting a top 10 in say MSR (which he has done before) and P-R would do the job. ditto Kennaugh having a good Ardennes campaign, and I'm sure Sky will be well aware of this.

Edit: Rowe got 20 WT points for his P-R 8th place, so if Stannard can get a P-R top 10 and Kennaugh an Ardennes top 10 or two and a WT stage win, they'll be fine. But I don't think Stannard will be that useful for Team GB. He can do grunt work, but with that parcours and a maximum team of five, surely having five contenders in Kennaugh, Froome, Thomas and the Yates' would be at least as useful as including Stannard if not more.

 

[jaylew]

Re: Re:

Surely the principle of sporting equity of opportunity should demand that all teams have the same number of riders. As riders line up on the start, they should have the same chance, differentiation of opportunity being based on ability, fitness and form only.

The best riders already have the best chance: they should not be further advantaged by having additional team-mates. This is equivalent to letting the hurdlers who have the best qualifying times having lower hurdles to get over, the hockey team that does best in the qualifying tournament having larger goals to aim at, the higher ranked boxers having gloves packed with iron filings.

Anyone who sets up qualification in this manner either does not understand the team nature of cycling, or has no interest in equal competition.

Well, nations don't have the same number of riders at Worlds either.

It would certainly seem strange if Colombia, UK, and Australia had 5 and Italy, Netherlands, and Belgium didn't but it's possible.

I'm aware of that: that also seems iniquitous, but the subject of this thread is the Olympic RR. There is an opportunity to make that race different from the WC.
It is reasonable that, for example, Jungels has a reduced chance compared to Uran if the Columbian team is stronger than the Luxembourg team, that is sporting competition: it is not reasonable that Uran has a greater number of teammates, that is unsporting and anti-competitive.

I'd certainly be fine with an even number of riders per team. Of course you'd have to do away with the minimum WT points qualifier as well.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

I'd certainly be fine with an even number of riders per team. Of course you'd have to do away with the minimum WT points qualifier as well.

Yes, we would need an entirely different qualification system - by nation and then the countries can bring whatever riders they like to fill their slots. That would be much fairer.

 

[Asero831]

Re: Re:

G, Froome, Cav, Stannard & Kennaugh is probably GB's team

You have to bare in mind each rider needs to get a minimum of 10 world tour points. Stannard and Kennaugh wouldnt be eligible to compete.

Stannard getting a top 10 in say MSR (which he has done before) and P-R would do the job. ditto Kennaugh having a good Ardennes campaign, and I'm sure Sky will be well aware of this.

Edit: Rowe got 20 WT points for his P-R 8th place, so if Stannard can get a P-R top 10 and Kennaugh an Ardennes top 10 or two and a WT stage win, they'll be fine. But I don't think Stannard will be that useful for Team GB. He can do grunt work, but with that parcours and a maximum team of five, surely having five contenders in Kennaugh, Froome, Thomas and the Yates' would be at least as useful as including Stannard if not more.

The 10 points rule is for the 2015 season. So as of now, only 6 British riders have atleast 10 WT points

Froomey, G, Yates bros, Cav and Luke.

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

G, Froome, Cav, Stannard & Kennaugh is probably GB's team

You have to bare in mind each rider needs to get a minimum of 10 world tour points. Stannard and Kennaugh wouldnt be eligible to compete.

Stannard getting a top 10 in say MSR (which he has done before) and P-R would do the job. ditto Kennaugh having a good Ardennes campaign, and I'm sure Sky will be well aware of this.

Edit: Rowe got 20 WT points for his P-R 8th place, so if Stannard can get a P-R top 10 and Kennaugh an Ardennes top 10 or two and a WT stage win, they'll be fine. But I don't think Stannard will be that useful for Team GB. He can do grunt work, but with that parcours and a maximum team of five, surely having five contenders in Kennaugh, Froome, Thomas and the Yates' would be at least as useful as including Stannard if not more.

The 10 points rule is for the 2015 season. So as of now, only 6 British riders have atleast 10 WT points

Froomey, G, Yates bros, Cav and Luke.

Oh of course. Silly me. So Kennaugh needs to get his skates on in the second half of the season. Still, 4 climbers out of 5 isn't bad.

 

[Yingge]

Re: Re:

Surely the principle of sporting equity of opportunity should demand that all teams have the same number of riders. As riders line up on the start, they should have the same chance, differentiation of opportunity being based on ability, fitness and form only.

The best riders already have the best chance: they should not be further advantaged by having additional team-mates. This is equivalent to letting the hurdlers who have the best qualifying times having lower hurdles to get over, the hockey team that does best in the qualifying tournament having larger goals to aim at, the higher ranked boxers having gloves packed with iron filings.

Anyone who sets up qualification in this manner either does not understand the team nature of cycling, or has no interest in equal competition.

You have to pare the numbers down to a manageable field somehow. There are about 200 Olympic Nations, so if you allow each one 5 each that's 1000 at the start of the Road Race. Those that have a reasonable chance of supplying riders that are able to actually finish the course should get priority.

I'm not sure whether that is uninformed or deliberately provocative. They don't have 200 teams in the football tournament, the track pursuit, or handball either. There are qualification tournaments and rankings used to determine invitation to participate in each sport.

They should decide how many teams/riders are manageable on the course (bearing in mind support vehicles), and determine a criterion for selecting that many nations, each of which has the right to enter a team of the same number of riders.

And the 'qualification tournament' for Cycling is derived from UCI points. I gather that the scaling from 5 down is to allow for a greater number of countries to actually compete. No selection criteria is perfect, and if you think there is a better one, by all means bring it forward.

 

[Asero831]

They still have Stephen Cummings just in case Kennaugh missed out