Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[blackcat]

Mick Rogers, in a local Aussie TV interview, also mentioned being the lightest he's been since he was 16.

Just so you can get the full extent of the AICAR possibilities.

nah, its two things.

1. stress from the clen positive
2. the clen.

= clen^2

clenclen

 

[mortand]

Here's a cool song with The American Analog Set

 

[ebandit]

belief

You think the Pope actually believes in God? Your naivity is rather touching

just because the pontif hopes for clean sport is no reason to mock him

Mark L

 

[T-Nielsen]

So how about them Sky...

 

[andy1234]

Back to the cycling.....

I'm guessing, that the reason some posters are claiming that a manager has little influence on performance, is to remove the potential for meaningful performance gains, as a result of an individuals influence.

It couldn't be possible that Brailsford has achieved a competitive advantage through exceptional leadership, it must be coming from somewhere else.

While some of the perfomance gains of SKY and BC, could well be out of the scope of strategic management, deriding the influence of a world class manager, is simply absurd.

Doping may well be at the core of some team members success, but to deny the pivotal influence of exceptional managers and coaches, just because it chips away at the "success=doping" mantra, is ridiculous.

Then again, success in every competitive field, might simply be down to better drugs.....

 

[Eshnar]

looks like you guys need to be threatened in order to start listen to mods...

Next OT about football gets a ban.

Will this work?

 

[andy1234]

Jeez, I know their is a football thread, but this HAS to be replied to.
His Portugal sucsess could be easily explained by very small sample size. Speak pure luck, being signed to teams that underachieved before he signed, his predecessors could have been real bad coaches, so that his simple standing around at the sidelines meant improvement, etc.! It could be also he was the best coach at that time in Portugal.
BUT
Once he was signed to the big teams, his "magic", being "the special one", his "greatness", was gone. How you explain this?
He produced a .791 winning percentage with Chelsea, Inter and Real. The others had a .770 winning percentage. Is this 2% improvement (which could be explained solely by having spendable owners to sign the players he wanted) worth millions over millions? Really?... Of course not. And BTW, I (and most others) trust those more who actually worked on the matter (the soccer guys) than one forum guy with a gut feeling that dismisses a study because he don´t like the outcome.

Are you "the forum guy"?
Because the data that you are producing, shows he has maintained an advantage over his peers in every club he has managed.

His advantage diminished, as you would expect when moving into a more competitive environment, but he maintained an advantage in EVERY club and country he went to.

You are also comparing him to previous managers of clubs who typically hire the best available, and still he maintains that advantage.

You hire the manager with a poorer proven track record, save a few million, and who knows, you might get lucky.
For those with skin in the game, they know where their money is best spent....

MODS -- sorry, typed this in while you were issuing warnings.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

this is utter bs

coaches are paid millions/year, 10-20x more than chefs and diet guys, for a good reason. "splashing money" theories are also bs.

in today's world salaries are a very good indicator of how much ROI (return of investment) a person is worth*.

edit: * except for state employed workers.

... and portofilio managers, and....
No salaries are no good indicator, because the top gets wayyy overpaid compared to the effectivness. A guy who gets paid 1.000% more than the, lets say, one being 5% less efficient isn´t worth it.
It´s not performance that´s paid high, it´s the reputation, and market value. A Mourinho coach (and the drama & reputation that comes with) sells more tickets than a no name coach who certainly is no worse than him (except the few bad apples that truly showed coaching isn´t their niche, being just overwhelmed)

 

[Netserk]

MODS -- sorry, typed this in while you were issuing warnings.

Good thing you can delete your own post then...

Otherwise you still disregard the warning...

 

[andy1234]

looks like you guys need to be threatened in order to start listen to mods...

Next OT about football gets a ban.

Will this work?

While discussing football is OT, the topic of the influence a manager has, on a team such as SKY or BC, is not.

 

[andy1234]

Good thing you can delete your own post then...

Otherwise you still disregard the warning...

I will, when everyone else does.

Are you a Mod?

 

[Netserk]

I will, when everyone else does.

Are you a Mod?

So if others disregard the warning you will as well?

Let's see how this ends....

 

[Eshnar]

While discussing football is OT, the topic of the influence a manager has, on a team such as SKY or BC, is not.

Open a new topic then. OR talk about SKY's manager.

 

[stutue]

* surely the grown up solution is to split the thread, and put all the football related stuff in a new thread where people can carry on discussing it, as they are clearly enjoying it.

Threats aren't needed.

 

[Netserk]

* surely the grown up solution is to split the thread, and put all the football related stuff in a new thread where people can carry on discussing it, as they are clearly enjoying it.

Threats aren't needed.

I thought the grown up solution would be for people to move the discussion already when ferryman told you to?

 

[Eshnar]

* surely the grown up solution is to split the thread, and put all the football related stuff in a new thread where people can carry on discussing it, as they are clearly enjoying it.

Threats aren't needed.

The grown up solution would be to read the thread title, realize it's not about football and go to the proper thread yourselves. I agree, threats should definitely not be needed.
Now I have to pick every single post about football in the last 12 hours or so, and put it on the football thread. Something that I was still planning to do but it's ****ing annoying

 

[stutue]

Some of you guys could start a fight in an empty room

 

[andy1234]

Open a new topic then. OR talk about SKY's manager.

I tried to bring the topic back to cycling a few posts back.
The managers stats are relevant to the discussion.

 

[andy1234]

I thought the grown up solution would be for people to move the discussion already when ferryman told you to?

You are a very helpful individual.
Gold star for you....

 

[Eshnar]

I tried to bring the topic back to cycling a few posts back.
The managers stats are relevant to the discussion.

the cycling manager stats are, not the football ones. If you have such data ofc you can post them here

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Back to the cycling.....

I'm guessing, that the reason some posters are claiming that a manager has little influence on performance, is to remove the potential for meaningful performance gains, as a result of an individuals influence.

It couldn't be possible that Brailsford has achieved a competitive advantage through exceptional leadership, it must be coming from somewhere else.

Or it could be possible that coaches/trainers/managers have no or at max only marginal influence. That the improvement by the athletes under certain managers can be mostly explained due to small sample size and/or luck/randomness... (which all is much more likely, given the studies done on theses objects by guys who actually know a thing or two of what they are talking about, instead of having a feeling).
Anyway, I am not saying Sky is doping or doping better than others. But they have a major payroll, thus being able to sign the best riders, thus leading to better results. And one outlier (Froome) was even a surprise (unforeseen) to the "magic experts" that are on the staff for Sky, while the other (Wiggings) transformed somewhere else.
Funny, isn´t it?

While some of the perfomance gains of SKY and BC, could well be out of the scope of strategic management, deriding the influence of a world class manager, is simply absurd.

No it´s not (ok, maybe for you) absurd. It´s actually backed. Benotti won the argument. Sorry.

Doping may well be at the core of some team members success, but to deny the pivotal influence of exceptional managers and coaches, just because it chips away at the "success=doping" mantra, is ridiculous.

No it´s not ridiculous, even though you would like it to be. The history of cycling tells us that, and ... well, the numbers and studies that were posted to dismiss your gut feeling.

Then again, success in every competitive field, might simply be down to better drugs.....

Very much likely. So your sarcastic eyes don´t trick anybody who know the history of cycling, and pro sports in general.

 

[andy1234]

No it´s not (ok, maybe for you) absurd. It´s actually backed. Benotti won the argument. Sorry.

Every piece of data that you provided, proved that key individuals, can positively, and consistently, influence the performance of a team.

If you can't understand the meaning of the data you provided, hoping to "win the argument", I cant help you. Sorry.

Races, titles, etc are often won and lost by small percentages.
If a manager or coach ensures that his/her team is on the right side of those small percentages, competitive advantage is created.

if 1% gets you across the line first, that advantage will be the most valuable commodity in the marketplace. If that 1% cant be repeated, then the manager will soon be found out.

At the moment Sky and BCs management, for whatever reason, haven't been found out. Maybe, its just doping, but maybe its something else.

 

[martinvickers]

on the contrary, the way i shut you up is by offering facts to your non facts. like when you tried to say wiggins got superlucky because he won a tour where some of the gc contenders didn't finish. I gave you lists of gt contenders who didn't make every tour since 2006 demonstrating that it happens every year and some years far worse than 2012.

You didn't respond to the post of course, just threw some insults at those who praised the post.

In short that shut you up being abrasive is your style son.

You keep telling yourself that, lad.

I said nothing about GC contenders 'not finishing'. I said the 2012 field was, in the end weak, and showed the point by highlighting that even subtracting the Sky riders, Nibali would have had little to no competition. The stiffness of the competition isn't decided by how much ISN'T there, Hitch, but by how little IS. And they are not the same thing. If you have 20 potential podium racers in the peleton, and seven turn up to the race, that's still a stronger race than if you have five, and all five turn up. the fact that 13 are missing from the first race doesn't change the fact that there is more potential in that race from the seven. You measure what's there, not what's missing - e.g the 2006 race was gutted before it started in terms of missing riders through peurto etc, absolutely guted...but it still had Landis, Evans, Schleck Sr, Kloden, Menchov, Zubeldia, , all more or less in their peak years, and racing to the end as well as Rasmussen, Cunego etc all racing. 2012 had Wiggins (?), Nibali, Froome working for Wiggins, so not basically a rival, a past it Menchov, a sick Evans and ..... realistically, what else? Sky were able to tag team Nibali as soon as Evans showed his lack of form, and there was NOTHING else to worry about. Valverde was barely back, Ryder and Franck were out before anything really kicked off. The top ten bares witness to that 'relative' weakness.

Otherwise your argument seems to boil down to "all tours are basically the same level" - which to anyone who's watched more than three is obvious balderdash, serving a single purpose - attempting to shut up opposition with a personal rant. Which is your MO, at the minute, for reasons that escape me, because you're supposed to be, and sometimes still are, one of the better posters in here.

Look at 2013, for chrissakes. Much harder, mountain goat, parcours. All sorts of top opposition, even if one or two underperformed. Froome won handily, and you can certainly say it was one of the 'grea' performances, with all that implies in this sport. But think this way then - if Froome had been let of the leash, or in a different team , would he have won 2012? I think there' s a damn good chance he's had crucified Wiggins on the mountains, repeatedly. And quite possibly dragged Nibali with him for that matter, though that's speculation..

Now, do you think a fit Wiggins with a decent Sky train could have won in 2013? Not a snowball's chance - not even on 2012 form. He'd have struggled to make top 5, even on 2012 form.

Now you may disgree. fine. you're entitled to your opinion, and this is a forum. But don't kid yourself, yet again, that because you think it, it's a fact. It ain't.

 

[Netserk]

Major lol at Zubeldia being more of a podium contender in 2006 than JVDB was in 2012.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Every piece of data that you provided, proved that key individuals, can positively, and consistently, influence the performance of a team.

Over the course of 84 single events which are highly random in itself, and a very tiny sample size. After those 84 events, the regression to the mean set in, thus not justifying millions over millions wasted for one guy with minimal influence at best.

On what I agree is key individuals. But I mean others than you. I talk of rider talent. Benotti would talk of doping docs (which a honest cycling observer would admit, that his POV isn´t far from reality).

If you can't understand the meaning of the data you provided, hoping to "win the argument", I cant help you. Sorry.

I don´t care of winning a argument, I just look for the most likely explanation. This stats were about one "special" manager. If we expand it to all the other overpaid "special" ones, I am sure the minimal advantage diminish further the bigger the sample size gets, until it´s a pure 50/50 chance of having sucsess or not.
BTW, I pretty much understand the data. I said the early sucsess can be explained by many things, being a great manager for a short time was one of them. You OTOH insisted only one conclusion can be drawn. Couldn´t it be that you want to win the argument by all means, instead of being open to new perspectives?

Races, titles, etc are often won and lost by small percentages.
If a manager or coach ensures that his/her team is on the right side of those small percentages, competitive advantage is created.

Yup, small percentages which can be atributed to better talent and random chance.

if 1% gets you across the line first, that advantage will be the most valuable commodity in the marketplace. If that 1% cant be repeated, then the manager will soon be found out.

No it´s the athletes making the difference (or the drugs), not the person standing at the sideline or sitting in a car. If your manager inherites a roster full of great talent that helps his record, not the other way around. If your manager convinced the team owner to spend hugs sums to improve the talent on the roster, that helps his record. But the reason for his sucsess is still the athletes (and/or the drugs).

At the moment Sky and BCs management, for whatever reason, haven't been found out. Maybe, its just doping, but maybe its something else.

I would agree on that.

To the mods: I am very much aware most of the content could be more linked to other sports than cycling (which is only hold up as a shield for alibi reasons to stay in-thread), but what could I do? The post from Andy was done here, so I had to answer here.