Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[andy1234]

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).



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?



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



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).



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.

Hiring talent, using that talent in the right place, developing their skills, keeping that talent motivated, ensuring that talent has the most effective equipment, ensuring they have the best support staff, minimizing events that detract from performance, dealing with psychological inhibitors to performance, managing every resource that is involved in each of these processes. analysing the outcome of each of these inputs and realigning and restructuring to suit.......

These things just happen by chance?
Anyone could manage these events to the same degree?

There are some key figures, sporting and otherwise, who should just give up and start playing poker.
After all, the talent just takes care of itself, performs at it's optimum level regardless of external and internal inputs.
Everything else is just chance.

If you genuinely believe this, its no wonder you cant understand how other people achieve the performances that they do.

 

[martinvickers]

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

LOL all you want, i didn't say he was. I simply gave a list of obvious talent racing the race hard; Given he had two previous top ten Vuelta finsihes, was 5th in the tour in a Lance year (2003), and managed 4th in 2007, I'm feeling pretty confident in that analysis.

In fact, come to think of it, Zubledia after 2007, having reached his thirties with 5 top tens in GTs in 8 years of solid riding, faded out, and didn't manage another top ten in any grand tour....until, oddly enough at the grand young age of 35.....at the 2012 Tour he came 6th!! You know, the famously difficult one Hitch insists was no softer than any other...

Frankly, if that's the best nitpick you could come up with, you'd be better of sitting on your hands, lad.

 

[hrotha]

All that is fine and well, but the fact remains Nibali didn't put time on Wiggins on any mountain stage.

 

[martinvickers]

All that is fine and well, but the fact remains Nibali didn't put time on Wiggins on any mountain stage.

Indeed, he didn't. In fact, he lost a handful of seconds on two summit finishes. At Belle Filles, I'm not sure what he would have done differently, given the nature of the climb...but I am pretty confident that without Froome to tag team him, Nibali takes Wiggins on the La Toussuire and Peyragudes; on Toussuire in particularly, when Froome attacked, Nibali went with him...it seemed pretty clear Nibali had stuff in the tank that Wiggins just didn't have, and in the case of Peyragudes, he was just tag teamed to death .. it was textbook ... when he was already a desperate amount behind on the clock, mainly due to a much greater than normal (for the era) number of TT kk, and had worn himself out on a series of spurts, all neutralised, not be Wiggins, but largely by Froome.

I wouldn't go so far as to say 2012 was a thin field exactly; there was a lot of 'former' or 'returning' talent at the race who did, and seemed capable of doing, absolutely nothing, Vini, Menchov, Valverde up to the last mountain etc. Not thin on paper, but not, in reality very competitive.

But I continue to contend, 2012 had a lot of stars aligned above and beyond Wiggins' own form. Heavy TT. check. Lack of summit finishes. check. Biggest real rival actually your domestique de luxe. check. Reigning champion sick and off form. check. That doesn't even get into who is missing and why - that's just in race itself.

It doesn't mean he didn't dope, of course. Not at all. But arguments that he did dope based on comparitive performance that doesn't take some of these factors about the race into account seem, to me, one eyed. At best.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

All that is fine and well, but the fact remains Nibali didn't put time on Wiggins on any mountain stage.

I don't think Nibs did very well against Wiggo in the only other two GTs where Wiggo has "turned up" - Tour 2009 and Vuelta 2011. So it's not like the post-track era Wiggo persistently struggled against Nibs when in peak form before reversing the situation in 2012.

 

[martinvickers]

I don't think Nibs did very well against Wiggo in the only other two GTs where Wiggo has "turned up" - Tour 2009 and Vuelta 2011. So it's not like the post-track era Wiggo persistently struggled against Nibs when in peak form before reversing the situation in 2012.

In 2009 nibs was 6th, rough 1,30 down on Wiggins while still in the Young rider class (2nd in that, behind A Schleck) and in 2011 7th, just under 3 min down on Wiggins. If anything, when both are 'on' at the same time, they've been pretty similar, TT apart (though nibs did a real TT in the Vuelta). The question then becomes why is nibali on more consistently?

 

[Netserk]

I don't think Nibs did very well against Wiggo in the only other two GTs where Wiggo has "turned up" - Tour 2009 and Vuelta 2011. So it's not like the post-track era Wiggo persistently struggled against Nibs when in peak form before reversing the situation in 2012.

Huh? Nibbles outclimbed Wiggo in 2009. He was the fourth best climber that year.

In 2011 he was far from his best, and was involved in a crash.

In 2012 Nibbles had a good year and was very strong, much more than the Vuelta the year before, yet couldn't put a single second to Wiggo.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Hiring talent, using that talent in the right place, developing their skills, keeping that talent motivated, ensuring that talent has the most effective equipment, ensuring they have the best support staff, minimizing events that detract from performance, dealing with psychological inhibitors to performance, managing every resource that is involved in each of these processes. analysing the outcome of each of these inputs and realigning and restructuring to suit.......

Hiring talent; having the best supporting stuff; managing every resource that is involved in each of these processes: Depends on your owner. It´s not a coaching skill. If the "special" trainer has to work with lesser talent on a lesser team he would certainly "$uck". Mourinho or Brailsford at Wiggans FC or Wanty Cycling Group would not succeed with a magic formula unless some lets say rich arab comes around the corner and is willing to throw some millions around.

Motivation(al speech): Minimal influence that diminishes after you heard it 20 more times. You can´t talk lesser talent into better ones.

Using talent in the right place: That´s the prerequisite for the job in question. That´s why they are signed. That doesn´t mean that there are not some pretty bad coaches/trainers out there who do the only mistake a coach can do; "Trying to fit the players into his system, instead of doing it the right way (the other way around)". But there are hundreds if not thousand coaches/managers/trainers who understood that basic concept. Everybody can learn that. Like a coiffeur learns to cut hairs. No special talent required.

Minimizing events that detract from performance: No influence. If Andy Schleck wants to go on a drinking bout instead of concentrating on a race, there is nothing a Rijs can do about. This was just an example as a metaphor for all the other detractions that can influence athlets where the coach can nothing do about it.

Side notes: The manager needs many people around him that work in sync for perfection. The cook, the dietian, the medical staff, the computer analyst, the co trainer, the fitness trainer, and what else. He is depending on many individuals in his staff. And the more individuals he is depending on, the less his own impact becomes. Is it a coaching skill to have these guys signed, motivated, and doing the right things for him? Maybe. But more important is a deep pocketed owner who has to pay the salaries (and good ones, to keep them motivated) for all those other staff members.

These things just happen by chance?
Anyone could manage these events to the same degree?

Everyone who understands the basic principles of coaching. OFC a nigerian farmer is not qualified. OTOH, there are endless coaches in the 5th leagues of this world hoping to be in the right place at the right time. Few get lucky, since high paid coaching jobs are rare and most of the time given to the same guys again and again... It´s a lottery, and guys like Mourinho hit the jackpot.
Just reminds me of Gerhard Berger who once said "I am sure there are at least ten taxi drivers in Vienna that are more talented than me. I just got lucky."

There are some key figures, sporting and otherwise, who should just give up and start playing poker.
After all, the talent just takes care of itself, performs at it's optimum level, and everything else is just chance.

I see you didn´t got it. In coaching you depend on a heavy load of people around you, thus diminshing your own influence to a tiny percentage. As an athlete OTOH you depend on one thing: Talent (or two, if we include doping).
And why should they (coaches/managers) give up? They are pretty much aware that they sit on a money raining tree. They won´t go on free will.

 

[Netserk]

Indeed, he didn't. In fact, he lost a handful of seconds on two summit finishes. At Belle Filles, I'm not sure what he would have done differently, given the nature of the climb...but I am pretty confident that without Froome to tag team him, Nibali takes Wiggins on the La Toussuire and Peyragudes; on Toussuire in particularly, when Froome attacked, Nibali went with him...it seemed pretty clear Nibali had stuff in the tank that Wiggins just didn't have, and in the case of Peyragudes, he was just tag teamed to death .. it was textbook ... when he was already a desperate amount behind on the clock, mainly due to a much greater than normal (for the era) number of TT kk, and had worn himself out on a series of spurts, all neutralised, not be Wiggins, but largely by Froome.

Wiggo was stronger on Peyragudes than Nibbles, Froome or no Froome. No tag team there.

 

[hrotha]

I don't think Nibs did very well against Wiggo in the only other two GTs where Wiggo has "turned up" - Tour 2009 and Vuelta 2011. So it's not like the post-track era Wiggo persistently struggled against Nibs when in peak form before reversing the situation in 2012.

That's not the point. The point is to debunk the "Wiggins-friendly route with all those ITT km" theory.

 

[martinvickers]

Wiggo was stronger on Peyragudes than Nibbles, Froome or no Froome. No tag team there.

i'm sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I saw a Nibbles already desperate, tag teamed and worn down by Froome on Wiggins behalf. No Froome? no way that happens. Do you remember Nibbles trying to escape way early that stage, and Valverde sending him back? Jut wasted efforts...

It's all hypotheticals in a sense, What if, what if...

 

[20SecondsToComply]

i'm sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I saw a Nibbles already desperate, tag teamed and worn down by Froome on Wiggins behalf. No Froome? no way that happens. Do you remember Nibbles trying to escape way early that stage, and Valverde sending him back? Jut wasted efforts...

It's all hypotheticals in a sense, What if, what if...

Just watched it on youtube and froome and wiggo drop nibs but it was most definitely froome doing the work, he had to keep slowing down to keep wiggo on his wheel.

 

[martinvickers]

Just watched it on youtube and froome and wiggo drop nibs but it was most definitely froome doing the work, he had to keep slowing down to keep wiggo on his wheel.

Yes, at the end, they drop everyone...but they'd been tag teaming Nibs for some time before that..

 

[andy1234]

Hiring talent; having the best supporting stuff; managing every resource that is involved in each of these processes: Depends on your owner. It´s not a coaching skill. If the "special" trainer has to work with lesser talent on a lesser team he would certainly "$uck". Mourinho or Brailsford at Wiggans FC or Wanty Cycling Group would not succeed with a magic formula unless some lets say rich arab comes around the corner and is willing to throw some millions around.

Motivation(al speech): Minimal influence that diminishes after you heard it 20 more times. You can´t talk lesser talent into better ones.

Using talent in the right place: That´s the prerequisite for the job in question. That´s why they are signed. That doesn´t mean that there are not some pretty bad coaches/trainers out there who do the only mistake a coach can do; "Trying to fit the players into his system, instead of doing it the right way (the other way around)". But there are hundreds if not thousand coaches/managers/trainers who understood that basic concept. Everybody can learn that. Like a coiffeur learns to cut hairs. No special talent required.

Minimizing events that detract from performance: No influence. If Andy Schleck wants to go on a drinking bout instead of concentrating on a race, there is nothing a Rijs can do about. This was just an example as a metaphor for all the other detractions that can influence athlets where the coach can nothing do about it.

Side notes: The manager needs many people around him that work in sync for perfection. The cook, the dietian, the medical staff, the computer analyst, the co trainer, the fitness trainer, and what else. He is depending on many individuals in his staff. And the more individuals he is depending on, the less his own impact becomes. Is it a coaching skill to have these guys signed, motivated, and doing the right things for him? Maybe. But more important is a deep pocketed owner who has to pay the salaries (and good ones, to keep them motivated) for all those other staff members.



Everyone who understands the basic principles of coaching. OFC a nigerian farmer is not qualified. OTOH, there are endless coaches in the 5th leagues of this world hoping to be in the right place at the right time. Few get lucky, since high paid coaching jobs are rare and most of the time given to the same guys again and again... It´s a lottery, and guys like Mourinho hit the jackpot.
Just reminds me of Gerhard Berger who once said "I am sure there are at least ten taxi drivers in Vienna that are more talented than me. I just got lucky."



I see you didn´t got it. In coaching you depend on a heavy load of people around you, thus diminshing your own influence to a tiny percentage. As an athlete OTOH you depend on one thing: Talent (or two, if we include doping).
And why should they (coaches/managers) give up? They are pretty much aware that they sit on a money raining tree. They won´t go on free will.

In summary: Successful managers are simply lucky. Got it.
Who knows, you might be right, and the most successful, powerful, and wealthy industries in the world, simply happened by chance.

My flabber is well and truly gasted.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Nibali rode the stage to Peyragudes with an injury. Imo Wiggins, without Froome, would have lost time on Nibali in the mountains.

That Tour was 'friendly' for Wiggins in the sense that he could accumulate time on the TTs that no other GC contender in that race could. That also meant he could approach the mountains knowing that it was up to the other riders to attack while he just needed to follow (Froome).

Sky being able to isolate most other GC riders meant that there was little hope they could make attacks stick on their own (as was proven).

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Huh? Nibbles outclimbed Wiggo in 2009. He was the fourth best climber that year.

By some rough calculations, Wiggo's gains in the ITT that year were pretty much his total gain over Nibs. So Wiggo took 40s in the TTT and Nibs 40s in the mountains.

Throw in needing to make excuses - even if justified - to explain Nibs' poor performance in 2011 and it hardly makes Wiggo's performance against Nibs in the mountains in 2012 the seismic shock it is being made out to be.

Nibs may well be a better climber than Wiggo was (or at least the GC focus version of Wiggo) but there wasn't much in it when you actually look at time gaps.

 

[The Hitch]

You don't understand what a tag team is in cycling Martin. It's when one rider attacks then when he gets brought back the teammate attacks. It's not when a rider had a teammate setting pace.

And if both follow wheels for a mountain. Then there is no advantage to Wiggins

You talk about all these hypotheticals of what would have happened on other stages , all conveniently pessimistic about Wiggins chances.

But we had a real stage where Wiggins followed wheels all day just like Nibali and who had more left in the tank. That's right Wiggins. So the actual stages showed that Nibali did not have superior climbing form to Wiggins even if your make believe ones did

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

That's not the point. The point is to debunk the "Wiggins-friendly route with all those ITT km" theory.

I think there's a bit of Nibs being built up to be a superman that he's never actually been, so people can say "Wiggo beat Nibs in the mountains, therefore this is really suspicious." The argument about Wiggo being close to a lot of proven/strongly suspected dopers in 2009 is much stronger.

There are many things suspicious about Wiggo's 2012 performances, but simply beating Nibs isn't particularly far up that list.

 

[red_flanders]

I think there's a bit of Nibs being built up to be a superman that he's never actually been, so people can say "Wiggo beat Nibs in the mountains, therefore this is really suspicious." The argument about Wiggo being close to a lot of proven/strongly suspected dopers in 2009 is much stronger.

There are many things suspicious about Wiggo's 2012 performances, but simply beating Nibs isn't particularly far up that list.

I don't think you need to worry about Nibali to be suspicious of Wiggins. You can just be suspicious based on watching him go from finishing in the grupetto repeatedly to becoming a contender/winner.

Who he beat, the course, who else was doping is all window dressing around a staggering change in performance.

 

[hrotha]

I think there's a bit of Nibs being built up to be a superman that he's never actually been, so people can say "Wiggo beat Nibs in the mountains, therefore this is really suspicious." The argument about Wiggo being close to a lot of proven/strongly suspected dopers in 2009 is much stronger.

There are many things suspicious about Wiggo's 2012 performances, but simply beating Nibs isn't particularly far up that list.

That's not it at all. It's not about beating Nibali. It's about justifying Wiggins's victory by saying it was a tailor-made course, when the only marked rider who could put time on him in the mountains was Froome. I use Nibali in my example simply because he's the one who came the closest to Wiggins.

 

[The Hitch]

By some rough calculations, Wiggo's gains in the ITT that year were pretty much his total gain over Nibs. So Wiggo took 40s in the TTT and Nibs 40s in the mountains.

Throw in needing to make excuses - even if justified - to explain Nibs' poor performance in 2011 and it hardly makes Wiggo's performance against Nibs in the mountains in 2012 the seismic shock it is being made out to be.

Nibs may well be a better climber than Wiggo was (or at least the GC focus version of Wiggo) but there wasn't much in it when you actually look at time gaps.

It was one of you guys who made a big deal about how Wiggins only won because he got tts.

The fact that a guy- Nibali, who is almost a pure climber, 2 time gt winner and considered one of the top 3 climbers in the world could not put time into him but actually lost time, shows that is clearly not the case.

All gts have some time trailing. This one just had more because it had an extra one. But by the time we got to that extra tt Wiggins was 3 minutes in the lead with no mountain stages left.

The whole premise that tts are less suspicious anyway is ridiculous. You spend 3 weeks fighting for the yellow jersey 2 of them in the yellow jersey and you win the final tt by that margin. When before when you were actually saving yourself for tts you struggled to come top 5. It was a joke. After pdbf everyone was laughing. Rogers Porte dropping gt winners, froome who hadn't even been good enough to make the tdf the 3 years before flying away, coming 2nd jn the tts, it was worse than us postal, sorry.

 

[martinvickers]

You don't understand what a tag team is in cycling Martin. It's when one rider attacks then when he gets brought back the teammate attacks. It's not when a rider had a teammate setting pace.

Honestly, I really do. I understand exactly what you mean, and the classic attacking tactic that it is. But I'm thinking of several stages, in particular during the stage before Froome attacked, where Nibali was let go, and then Froome and Wiggins took turns turning the screw to bring him back, and indeed, a couple of occasions, though fewer, where the same screw turning was used as an attacking tool - including at lerast one such changeup on the final mountain. Wiggins is not capable of the explosive accelration required for the classic attack you describe -they altered the tactic to suit his power grinding style.

now, if you argue we should only use tag teaming for the attacking one-two, punch counterpunch, ok, fair enough, i'll find a different word.but you understand what I'm aiming at.

You talk about all these hypotheticals of what would have happened on other stages , all conveniently pessimistic about Wiggins chances.

But we had a real stage where Wiggins followed wheels all day just like Nibali and who had more left in the tank. That's right Wiggins. So the actual stages showed that Nibali did not have superior climbing form to Wiggins even if your make believe ones did

Well, for fun, here's a hypothetical that would have suited 2012 Wiggins even more. any tour from about 1980 until Indurains departure - 150-250km of TT as a matter of course!! Hence, you might argue, Indurain.

Or the strange coincidence of the big Team time trial which really came to the fore in 1999-2000, and then all but mysteriously disappeared with Armstrong and his team built for trains.

Tours change, and suit different types of rider. The mountain goat parcours of recent years (2012 apart) are not 'the historical norm' and seem to be part of an uphill 'arms race' with the other GT's. Jesus, Sean Kelly (!!) won a Vuelta, should have won two, and could have won three. Now a beast he might have been (well, he was a monster of a beast, even if he doped) but Vueltas??? A green jersey winner winning Vueltas WHILE still a green jersey hunter in the Tour? We're not even talking the Jalabert transformation here. At the same time!!

You think Sean Kelly would win ANY GTs on the current parcours of GCs? OR realistically, even come close?

2012, by recent standards, clearly suited diesels over goats. The most TT friendly route of the era. Not just more TT alone, but fewer summit finishes too to negate the advantage.

As to wiggins superior in the mountains...he was good. Very good. At grinding them out. At following the friendly wheel. And that's worth investigating. But with the last mountain aside, and despite the assistance of froome, did he ride anybody of his wheel in the mountains on his own, ill Evans apart? Did he have to?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

That's not it at all. It's not about beating Nibali. It's about justifying Wiggins's victory by saying it was a tailor-made course, when the only marked rider who could put time on him in the mountains was Froome. I use Nibali in my example simply because he's the one who came the closest to Wiggins.

OK. Gotcha. There are, of course, many factors that contributed to Wiggo's win, as there are with pretty much any sporting victory. It's probably fair to say that no single factor can ever win you anything, but a single weakness can definitely stuff your changes.

The amount of flat TTing was certainly more of a benefit to Wiggo than Nibs, though. With the margin that Wiggo gained in the first and was likely to gain in the second, it must have been pretty demoralising for Nibs as he needed to gain 5 minutes in the mountains, which would have taken some doing even if he had some superiority going uphill.

Sub in a moutain TT instead of the two flat TTs and you'd have a scenario where Nibs might have needed small gains in the mountain road stages, which is a considerably more feasible prospect. Given Wiggo's form that year and having Froome as his team-mate, the odds were not in Nibs' favour, though.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Just watched it on youtube and froome and wiggo drop nibs but it was most definitely froome doing the work, he had to keep slowing down to keep wiggo on his wheel.

When slip streaming other riders, there's more Watts saved at 3rd wheel than there is at second.

Even if Froome is riding away from Wiggins, Nibali is on Wiggins wheel and getting dropped.

Froome or no Froome, Wiggo is dropping Nibali.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

In summary: Successful managers are simply lucky. Got it.
Who knows, you might be right, and the most successful, powerful, and wealthy industries in the world, simply happened by chance.

My flabber is well and truly gasted.

Microsoft: pure luck.