Should National Champions be gauranteed a spot at the worlds

[Buffalo Soldier]

Ofcourse not, strange question.

But íf this would be a rule, all national championships would have to be hold after the Tour, and on a similar track as the worlds of that year.

 

[Anonymous]

yeah, I think they should...what is the point of the national jersey anyhow...it should be represented at least.

 

[Anonymous]

besides, it is not like the world champion jersey is really representative of world champion in cycling...so yeah, the national jerseys should get an instant in...

 

[zapata]

Doesn't matter really as most riders today don't truly care about the World's.

are you serious?

 

[maltiv]

It's understandable. National Champions deserve more attention than what they may receive at minor races in their respective countries. I was stoked when I read Zirbel signed with Garmin (and he wasn't even champ). He probably won't be much more than a domestique, but he can TT with the best of them. I'm looking forward to what he does next season. Same goes for House, he deserves that shot; unfortunately, this may be it.

The solution then is to make sure that a cyclist who actually is one of the best, will win it. When national championships are won in random breakaways because the favorites are just looking at each other (has happened in Norway many times), the winner is not the best cyclist in that country, just the best finisher in that exact breakaway.

The attention you get should be decided by your performances on the road, and if those performances are limited to only a national championship, then obviously you don't really deserve that much attention.

 

[cyclegeek]

If they want to ride the worlds they should be given a spot.

 

[zapata]

The solution then is to make sure that a cyclist who actually is one of the best, will win it. When national championships are won in random breakaways because the favorites are just looking at each other (has happened in Norway many times), the winner is not the best cyclist in that country, just the best finisher in that exact breakaway.

The attention you get should be decided by your performances on the road, and if those performances are limited to only a national championship, then obviously you don't really deserve that much attention.

How to make sure? He who wins, wins. Often, he who wins a bike race is not necessarily the "best cyclist"; that's just how it is. Although, I have to say, I saw the norwegian championships in bergen that arvesen won, and that was one circuit that almost 100% ensured that the strongest man won..

 

[maltiv]

How to make sure? He who wins, wins. Often, he who wins a bike race is not necessarily the "best cyclist"; that's just how it is. Although, I have to say, I saw the norwegian championships in bergen that arvesen won, and that was one circuit that almost 100% ensured that the strongest man won..

There is no way to make sure, thus what he suggests about the national championship winner should be guaranteed an entry to worlds, is nuts.

And if we only had 1 man to send to worlds, you wouldn't send Arvesen over Thor Hushovd or EBH in a completely flat course, even if Arvesen was the national champion.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Some problems with the National jersey rule:
1) In Australia, the competition for the nationals is lower than other countries as it is in january so a rider that maybe riding a pro continenetal or an even lower leveled squad may win so that rider would take up a spot
2) What about if a guy like Robbie Mcewen wins the nationals and in that year it's the Mendrisio course. What a waste of a rider.

 

[zapata]

There is no way to make sure, thus what he suggests about the national championship winner should be guaranteed an entry to worlds, is nuts.

And if we only had 1 man to send to worlds, you wouldn't send Arvesen over Thor Hushovd or EBH in a completely flat course, even if Arvesen was the national champion.

Nuts is a bit harsh, but it's probably not a good idea, unless the national champ got a spot independent of the national quota, so that he wasn't picked at someone elses expense. (It might be an interesting race-within-the-race: who's the best of the national champions?)

 

[Anonymous]

i certainly think in countries that have nine spots, giving the national champ a spot wouldnt really effect things two much.. thats like saying the national champ is the tenth best rider in the country...

tenth best why? because he doesnt ride for a pro tour team and only gets to compete in certain races.. youre only as good as the competition you are in..

interesting discussion though...

 

[auscyclefan94]

i certainly think in countries that have nine spots, giving the national champ a spot wouldnt really effect things two much.. thats like saying the national champ is the tenth best rider in the country...

tenth best why? because he doesnt ride for a pro tour team and only gets to compete in certain races.. youre only as good as the competition you are in..

interesting discussion though...

Either in 2006 or 2007, a guy called Russell van Hout won our nationals, who knows much about him and what has he won? This year, Peter Macdonald from Drapac Porsche won the nationals. Both of those guys i have listed are not in our top 20 riders in Aus and porbably would only just scrape in to the top 30.

 

[dolophonic]

You are undervaluing the National championship.
The winner is The National Champion, that is the prize !
To race at the Worlds is different and you have to earn that ride.
The point has been made here many times by other posters.
Maybe your real problem is with British Cycling and whoever selects the squad.

 

[Anonymous]

You are undervaluing the National championship.
The winner is The National Champion, that is the prize !
To race at the Worlds is different and you have to earn that ride.
The point has been made here many times by other posters.

Maybe your real problem is with British Cycling and whoever selects the squad.

its not just about my opinion and british cycling.. its an open question, concerning all countries and the premise of what people think..

yes im arguing for, and using house as my argument cos thats the original point I related to, but if it was a purely british question then the poll would have been should kristian house have been at the worlds..

i can only base my opinion on that as i have no idea what happened at the australian nationals, or the finnish, or hungarian nationals..

get off your high horse.. some say yes, some say no.. its called a discussion.. blimey.. and its actually a much closer vote that your "the point has been made blah blah blah" comment suggests..

Either in 2006 or 2007, a guy called Russell van Hout won our nationals, who knows much about him and what has he won? This year, Peter Macdonald from Drapac Porsche won the nationals. Both of those guys i have listed are not in our top 20 riders in Aus and porbably would only just scrape in to the top 30.

and wouldnt that have been a great opportunity to Macdonald to make a name for himself in a breakaway.. you would have been cheering him all the way if he had.. i certainly know from a british point of view house could have done no worse than the rest of our riders, im sure macdonald could have done no worse than many of yours, in fact id be willing to bet, that given that once in a lifetime opportinity many of us would now know who he was..

 

[dolophonic]

its not just about my opinion and british cycling.. its an open question, concerning all countries and the premise of what people think..

yes im arguing for, and using house as my argument cos thats the original point I related to, but if it was a purely british question then the poll would have been should kristian house have been at the worlds..

i can only base my opinion on that as i have no idea what happened at the australian nationals, or the finnish, or hungarian nationals..

get off your high horse.. some say yes, some say no.. its called a discussion.. blimey.. and its actually a much closer vote that your "the point has been made blah blah blah" comment suggests..


Mate, you seem to have a problem.
Try rereading my post again, it relates to all National Champs.
You are the one getting all shirty,i said nothing to demean you or your opinion.
If you want beef got to the butcher shop...
By the way i don't have a horse, i ride a bicycle.
Calmado ...

 

[bobbins]

i certainly know from a british point of view house could have done no worse than the rest of our riders, im sure macdonald could have done no worse than many of yours, in fact id be willing to bet, that given that once in a lifetime opportinity many of us would now know who he was..

Seeing as you can predict the future so accurately, could you let me know Saturdays 6 winning lottery numbers please?

You seem to want to send a rider to the worlds that may have no form, no experience of riding at that level and be completely unsuited to the course as an added reward for winning the national champs. Your name isn't David Rand is it?

How hard is it to understand that is a country is serious about its performance at the worlds, they will send the nest team they can, not the best team plus 1 tourist.

 

[Anonymous]

im gonna let the other 21 yes's argue it...

i seem to be being outshouted by the small majority

 

[red_flanders]

Interesting idea---I voted yes. Some good arguments against, mostly the one that sticks with me is the form from June to October, and for countries with a small team it's more of an issue. Maybe the rule could be modified such that any country with 3 or less riders qualifying for the WC wouldn't have to comply.

If a country's national championship race is such a minor event that second tier riders can easily win it in a breakaway, then maybe a ruling like this would put more pressure on the race such that breaks like this would be less likely. Don't get me started about the US nationals, where guys coming in third "win" and such.

Sure, riders could not be mated well with courses, but any rider winning a NC is probably not a liability as a worker on a larger WC team, no matter the course. I say it's a great reward and great incentive to get locked into the worlds. I love the idea of some opportunistic riders who have more guts than talent and who ride to win getting a shot to ride with the big boys.

Coaches and the hand-picked top riders don't like it? Stuff 'em.

 

[Andy99]

From Kristian House's Twitter (http://twitter.com/kristianhouse)


'For the record, was never interested in doing the worlds, the course doesn't suit me and I couldn't have contributed much to the team goals!'

 

[Anonymous]

In the road race - No

For the time trial - Yes

I assume the poll is for RR so i'll tick 'no'

 

[kurtinsc]

I voted yes.

The WC team selection is often based on politics and egos. The whole mess with Devolder last year being passed over is an example. I understand the stated reason was "we have too many leaders"... but then you should have made him a domestique in that race. He obviously has more talent then some who were chosen.

So I simply don't buy the idea that the managers are trying to choose the "best team". Rather I think it's much more about politics and internal bickering.

I'd love to have one spot on each team free of that sort of garbage. I'd like each team to be the WC, then the highest ranked riders using some objective ranking system. If any pass on the race, you move down to the next guy on the list.

I like the idea that the individual riders would EARN their way onto the worlds squad... then a team has to be crafted from the pieces chosen by the actual season results.

 

[ak-zaaf]

I voted yes.

The WC team selection is often based on politics and egos. The whole mess with Devolder last year being passed over is an example. I understand the stated reason was "we have too many leaders"... but then you should have made him a domestique in that race. He obviously has more talent then some who were chosen.

So I simply don't buy the idea that the managers are trying to choose the "best team". Rather I think it's much more about politics and internal bickering.

I'd love to have one spot on each team free of that sort of garbage. I'd like each team to be the WC, then the highest ranked riders using some objective ranking system. If any pass on the race, you move down to the next guy on the list.

I like the idea that the individual riders would EARN their way onto the worlds squad... then a team has to be crafted from the pieces chosen by the actual season results.

So if you're injured for a large part of the season you can forget a place at the worlds?
Or if you won a ton of bunch sprints as an Italian you get to go to a hilly course like Mendrisio in stead of a climber who has 10 points less than you.

I like the current system. Situations like with the Devolder make it that much better. Devolder wasn't going to work for Gilbert anyway.

A few years ago former national DS Jose de Cauwer got burned down to the ground by everything Belgian before the worlds. His selection was wrong, he couldn't handle the Lotto-QSI rivalry etc etc. As you know eventually Lotto riders emptied themselves to close a gap for Boonen who won the Worlds.
I love things like that. It makes the worlds that much more interesting.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

From Kristian House's Twitter (http://twitter.com/kristianhouse)


'For the record, was never interested in doing the worlds, the course doesn't suit me and I couldn't have contributed much to the team goals!'

That's consistent with something I said earlier. Most racers won't go if the parcours don't suit them, but it should still be their option to attend worlds. National champions wouldn't contest a race if they knew it would only hurt their country's reputation in the cycling world. They want to do what is best for their country.

Anyway, people are saying they have to earn the right to contest Worlds, which I agree with completely. My question then is how does one earn the "right" to race at worlds? Is a spot on a Pro-Tour team enough? Many of these national champs race on continental teams and contest second tier races throughout their country receiving little or no attention for their efforts. Call me naive, but I've always considered some of the classics, nationals, and worlds an excellent way for guys to gain some recognition in a highly competitive sport.

 

[red_flanders]

...it should still be their option to attend worlds.

Definitely--I think the idea is that you earn the right to claim a spot. I see no way you could force anyone to ride a race they're not interested in.

 

[kurtinsc]

So if you're injured for a large part of the season you can forget a place at the worlds?
Or if you won a ton of bunch sprints as an Italian you get to go to a hilly course like Mendrisio in stead of a climber who has 10 points less than you.

I like the current system. Situations like with the Devolder make it that much better. Devolder wasn't going to work for Gilbert anyway.

A few years ago former national DS Jose de Cauwer got burned down to the ground by everything Belgian before the worlds. His selection was wrong, he couldn't handle the Lotto-QSI rivalry etc etc. As you know eventually Lotto riders emptied themselves to close a gap for Boonen who won the Worlds.
I love things like that. It makes the worlds that much more interesting.

Yes, if you're injured for most of the season, in my scenario you wouldn't get an invite for the worlds.

It's a different view of what the event would be. It would be more of a reward for a successful season... not each country trying to put together the strongest team.

Obviously most sprinters would opt out of a mountain world championship venue, and many mountain goats would opt out of a sprint world championship... but they would have earned the right to accept or decline an invite based on their performance. Invitation would be based on performance, not the opinion of a manager running the national team.


To be perfectly honest, I'd like it better if there were NO teams involved. There's no way to do it, but I'd love a race where everyone was on their own rather then working for one or two riders. I guess that's what the time trial is for.