Solutions to make classics less boring

[veji11]

Well, as they experienced themselves, among the fastest means one can be beaten. As it turned out, they didn't even need to be deprived of their team to get beaten, so obviously something went wrong. That said, I can understand why someone would choose to wait to maximize (Gerrans being a prime example), but if you've shown during the season that you're one of the strongest guys in the race, waiting like he did will just increase randomness in the result, there will always be a guy ready to beat you that you could've beaten easily in a decisive attack.

But my main gripe isn't even with Valverde or Gilbert. It's with teams like Belkin, Lotto, Astana, you name them, who had guys there but were glad to be beaten without even trying to win.

that's were one can clearly see you are not a team manager

for a team manager, to have your leader Valverde or Gilbert in the leading group on the slopes of Ans is a pretty awesome reduction in randomness ! A race with attacks and movements could have yielded a lot more problems for them, the team manager's priority was "get me my Valverde/Gilbert to Ans in the leading group so that we have a chance to win". Mission accomplished.

An because 80% of the teams think likewise, you have what we had last sunday...

 

[Arnout]

that's were one can clearly see you are not a team manager

Unlike the riders of the team managers, my rider would've won the race

for a team manager, to have your leader Valverde or Gilbert in the leading group on the slopes of Ans is a pretty awesome reduction in randomness ! A race with attacks and movements could have yielded a lot more problems for them, the team manager's priority was "get me my Valverde/Gilbert to Ans in the leading group so that we have a chance to win". Mission accomplished.

An because 80% of the teams think likewise, you have what we had last sunday...

When Valverde is among the five strongest riders in the race (which is a reasonable assumption in my opinion), why is it a good thing he is in a group of 30 riders on the last climb? That will increase the riders he needs to worry about: if Valverde had attacked earlier, chances are someone like Caruso wouldn't have been there to nearly win. Chances are he would've been stronger than Kwiatkowski uphill too (of course he beat him in the sprint, but that battle might have cost him the victory versus Gerrans, who knows).

And the other 80% of the teams are just stupid to be honest. Like I said, one can make a case for Valverde or Gilbert waiting, but not for a lot of the other riders.

Funny thing is, without that last minute fall Dan Martin would've won and he is from Garmin, a team that was active throughout the race.

 

[veji11]

Unlike the riders of the team managers, my rider would've won the race



When Valverde is among the five strongest riders in the race (which is a reasonable assumption in my opinion), why is it a good thing he is in a group of 30 riders on the last climb? That will increase the riders he needs to worry about: if Valverde had attacked earlier, chances are someone like Caruso wouldn't have been there to nearly win. Chances are he would've been stronger than Kwiatkowski uphill too (of course he beat him in the sprint, but that battle might have cost him the victory versus Gerrans, who knows).

And the other 80% of the teams are just stupid to be honest. Like I said, one can make a case for Valverde or Gilbert waiting, but not for a lot of the other riders.

Funny thing is, without that last minute fall Dan Martin would've won and he is from Garmin, a team that was active throughout the race.

I am not saying I agree with how they raced, I am just saying that that was the strategy they followed, and it worked well since the goal was to be there in Ans, playing for victory. I regret it very much, but I am just saying it the way it was : with the bunch on the first slopes of Ans, you had 80% of the managers happy their leader was their. For them it was mission accomplished. This is the mentality "as a manager I can only make sure my leader is there, playing for the victory, on the last climb. If i have managed that, I have succeeded".

Might be fools' gold, but that's how they see it.

 

[ILovecycling]

Maybe because hard races usually provide more action than very easy races?

Not true.
it more depends on composition of the route not cuz its hard,sometimes its way worse.
Your PR and Ronde examples are not really good and you know it
Roubaix was ALWAYS entertaining,and Ronde is worse than before,and one of the reasons are harder parcours

 

[personal]

Like Ronde and Roubaix? Whereas the much easier San Remo is raced much more aggressive?

Clearly depends on parcours, riders and weather, but with large teams protecting team leaders we often see them only in the very last parts of the races.
Adding 50 more kms will change nothing.

 

[melkemugg]

Ban race radios, smaller teams and fixed gear steel bikes.

 

[Netserk]

Clearly depends on parcours, riders and weather, but with large teams protecting team leaders we often see them only in the very last parts of the races.
Adding 50 more kms will change nothing.

That's as ridiculous as saying 50 km less wouldn't change a thing. Ofc it will.

50 km more will tire everyone even more and doms relatively more than captains.

 

[CycloAndy]

That's as ridiculous as saying 50 km less wouldn't change a thing. Ofc it will.

50 km more will tire everyone even more and doms relatively more than captains.

Todays 88km Tour de Romandie stage was full of attacks so maybe shorter stages aren't too bad an idea for exciting stage races at least.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

I'd like to see Fleche Wallone done like that sprint challenge thing they have in Canada. Would be a really exciting afternoon of racing and the riders would find it more physically draining having to race up the Mur de Huy five or six times than they do the way the race is currently.

 

[BrentonOfTheNorth]

I used to always think longer stages would mean more selection and greater time gaps but then was surprised to see a lack of huge time gaps on stages like the Stelvio MTF for example. Compare the time gaps of the short stage/climb late in the 2013 TDF (Anneczy? Something something. Short and steep MTF) to the relatively monsterous MTFs that preceeded it. The time gaps on the Mur de Huy are pretty crazy considering it's only 1km at 10% or so.

 

[willbick]

make them ride penny farthings with no brakes

seems like someone used my idea!!

http://www.steephill.tv/players/you...togne-Liège&dashboard=&id=ezlmHfYq0BU&yr=2014

 

[karlboss]

The difference is teams, the reason there is better racing at small events is that no team/teams are strong enough to control the racing. If OPQS, Movistar, BMC, Garmin, Katusha, Orica wanted a bunch finish, it becomes very hard for it to be anything else. Banning Radios and SRMs there'll be a small adjustment and we'll arrive back at this type of racing. There are full commitment ways around it under the current arrangements, those teams not wanting a bunch finish drilling it from 100 to go until 40 to go, but on the balance that's a huge risk you are guaranteed to be left with your leader only, and you may not strip the other teams down to their leader only. At least it would have been a 20 man group with 40 to go and a type of racing your leader can win.
If you want to force that type of racing, smaller teams, fewer riders in races and salary capped teams would probably do it.
Smaller teams has been discussed. Thinking about fewer teams/riders, think of Gerrans that wily b$%^&d, in an preview he gave once he said and it isn't new, start the climbs at the front set your own pace and drift back. Use the downhill and flat to work your way back to the front, and repeat. Watching the race and watching him do it was sublime. If 200 riders start, that's a lot slower he can climb and still be in contact. The fewer riders who are there the harder each climb must be done to stay in contact, and the more fragmented the chase behind to get back on.
Salary caps. The fact that outside contenders are working for favourites is a little silly, especially when the fast finishing favourites will always employ the long range outsiders to work for them and not the other way around.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

There should be no universality to racing. To say that every race needs 6 man teams, or 50+ kms misses the point.

Racing depends on the situation. I'm going to repeat myself over and over. Racing depends on the situation, in ways which cannot be manipulated by organizers. Valverde on the start list changes other teams tactics. This one strong captain who can climb and sprint will change the way other teams try to win the race. Take Pais Vasco for example. Take Valverde out of the equation and AC would have a much less dramatic stranglehold on GC after the first day. He still would have won, sure, but with steps on the podium in reach of the field, the infighting would have been more intense. Racing depends on the situation. PR and the Ronde from 2011. Cancellara's presence changed everything. Or maybe it wasn't just him, maybe it was Boonen's crashes or whatever. Same in 2012. Those races depended on the situation that happened upon that day. It wasn't race radios that stole Tony Martin's Vuelta win away from him. The race would have been totally different, with or without radios. It is unpredictable, because the racing doesn't hang on one single variable.

Only a diverse set of races, routes, rules, technicalities and targets will ensure that some cream rises to the top. Keep things the way they are, and the various mixtures of rules, riders, routes, and everything else will be enough chaos to create excitement.

 

[Tigerion]

If you are going to make use of WT points as an incentive make them focus on risk rather than conservation.
The per stage win points are ridiculous compared to the final GC result. Looking at Romandie now you are currently ranked 6th. Your chances of making up enough time on the top 5 is very low. If you attack and go for the stage win then you could get an extra 6 points. But if that fails and you lose a couple of positions you "lose" 20 points.
That is not an incentive to attack. My feeling is that stage wins (and top 5) should be increased and that GC points should be awarded as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, top 10 with all 4th-10th getting the same points. For GT have top 20 for 11th-20th.

 

[personal]

That's as ridiculous as saying 50 km less wouldn't change a thing. Ofc it will.

50 km more will tire everyone even more and doms relatively more than captains.

Nothing in the sense of adding more action to race. I think it would make them even more uninteresting.

 

[Netserk]

Nothing in the sense of adding more action to race. I think it would make them even more uninteresting.

That depends on what one finds interesting and what races. I certainly wouldn't mind another 30 or 50km to msr. I think that would make it more interesting, as it would give attackers/the strongest riders an advantage.

 

[ILovecycling]

That depends on what one finds interesting and what races. I certainly wouldn't mind another 30 or 50km to msr. I think that would make it more interesting, as it would give attackers/the strongest riders an advantage.

me neither.I think there should be one special race of 350 km or more

 

[veji11]

Todays 88km Tour de Romandie stage was full of attacks so maybe shorter stages aren't too bad an idea for exciting stage races at least.

Variety is important in terms of stage/course length. applies to stage races as well as one day races. I for one don't agree with the UCI limiting non WT races to less than 200ks per day. I would favor a wider spectrum.

For me for example there should be 250ks one day races as well at the Europe tour level, but just as well, I don't see why the Fleche Wallonne needs to be 200ks. I would be quite happy with a Fleche Wallonne being 140/150ks with a hard circuit around the Mur de Huy and a couple more of those ugly hard climbs in the neighborhood.

GTs have shown that a mix of sprint stages (that legendary 2011 Alpe d'Huez stage) as well as 230ks stages is good. No reason to have only stages between 160/180.

 

[Roude Leiw]

me neither.I think there should be one special race of 350 km or more

Bring back Paris - Bordeaux

 

[ILovecycling]

Bring back Paris - Bordeaux

whoo,thats too brutal
But I wish it was WT classic,then imo few guys would aim it,and it would be fun

 

[Tigerion]

The final result in Romandie is exactly what I was talking about in terms of WT points. A situation where Jon Izaguirre is deemed to have had a better race (Based on points) than Albasini is stupid.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Bring back Paris - Bordeaux

And make them all start within a few hours of finishing the Criterium Dauphiné without any sleep.

 

[ILovecycling]

And make them all start within a few hours of finishing the Criterium Dauphiné without any sleep.

No need to be rude

 

[Netserk]

No need to be rude

I think it just was a reference to Anquetil

 

[ILovecycling]

I think it just was a reference to Anquetil

lol thats on a higher level of knowledge

edit:sorry then