Teams and tactics: Who's most competent?

Headline says it, I think. What do you think are the best teams, tactically? In the current peloton, but you might also talk about history.
Sometimes it seems QS are not perfect but the only team which is constantly able to do really good tactics. I guess a lot of this comes down to which riders are recruited and how well you can play certain tactics with them, but the individual decisions of the DS seem to make a big difference, too.
What do you think, which other teams stand out as good tacticians?
Bike Exchange don't seem to be too bad, either, in comparison?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
INEOS/Sky.
Historically, Postal Service/Discovery and CSC were good. I haven't seen enough to judge the ancient pre-2000 teams.

But, with all these teams, it's a lot easier to get tactics right when you have a better team.

Disagree with BikeExchange/GreenEdge. They spent the entire 2018 Giro needlessly chasing down harmless breaks, Jumbo-Visma style.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
EF/Garmindale have a pretty good record of identifying a race they can win, working out a way to win it, and executing it. They don't win many races, but when they do you usually end up looking at how they did it and seeing a pretty smart, coordinated team effort.

Sunweb at the Tour last year were similar; they went in with, on paper, a weak-ish lineup, identified stages they could target, they worked out a plan, and each rider performed his role and they came away with a bunch of stage wins.


Also, say what you will about them and tactics are obviously easier when you've got the strongest team, but Sky got things tactically right in the 2010s.
 
Disagree with BikeExchange/GreenEdge. They spent the entire 2018 Giro needlessly chasing down harmless breaks, Jumbo-Visma style.
With racing for GC Bike Exchange have struggled with strategy ever since Neil Stephens left. Matt White is good tactically when it comes to winning stages, but isn't a big picture DS.

Peiper and Stephens are probably the best for GTs, while Steels and co are best for hardman classics.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
QS by far the most competent. Although other teams have top classics riders individually, I miss someone who can challenge QS as a team, and as the top classics team.

Lotto could have been better, but choose to recruit Greipel and Gilberg insteat of up-and-coming classics riders. Trek something of the same. They have Stuyven, Pedersen and Mollema, but choose a Nibali on the decline instead of bolstering their classics squad even more.
 
Reactions: Fuente De
What are some examples of Skyneos's tactical nous?

There's nothing tactically to admire when you put 4 of the best climbers in the world in front of the best GC rider in the world.
Come on man, credit where credit's due. They invented the "ride as hard as you can for as long as you can and stop right before you drop dead, then tell the guy behind you to do the same" tactics.
 
Come on man, credit where credit's due. They invented the "ride as hard as you can for as long as you can and stop right before you drop dead, then tell the guy behind you to do the same" tactics.
You forget the variation where the guy behind you drpos dead before you.

The only thing they really perfected was blocking the road with the entire team to stop racing even more.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY