The importance of a great team in a GT.

[Miburo]

Or i'm absolutely wrong and don't know what i'm talking about or something is wrong with the mindset of many people.

I'll give an example to make my point, Rober Millar says the following

The Kazakhs can count on five guys in the first group when Contador and Porte are down to just half that number at best. The tempo they've then been setting on the climbs has been rather impressive. They'll definitely be troubling the Oleg Tinkov game plan.

The fact that you've many guys of your team in a limited group and that's supposed to be a threat for the other GC guys is absolutely overrated except in 2 cases.

1.You've another GC threat in your team so you can play with 2 guys, that's extremely important for long range attacks because that way you can attempt then to isolate other GC threats and make them do the work eventually. This is something that saxo could have tried in the tour 2013 but they never even tried since contador was terrible.

2.If you want to set up an insane pace as a team (also cause a gc guy is bad) to or bring back guys who can be a danger for your GC or you want to destroy the field, eg astana in stage 4 of the giro 2015.

In other cases i don't get the importance, like in the context of millar it's absolutely useless. How is the fact that astana still has 5 guys such a big problem for porte and contador. Astana will most likely play only the aru card and Porte/Contador would have no problem with a high pace if they're good.

Isn't it good for oleg that astana sets up a hugh pace? That way tinkoff doesn't have to do it.

And it's proven often that even in a case where a leader is isolated teams don"t do anything with it, eg. Contador giro 2011 stage 16 (or stage 15 not sure), Froome stage 9 tour 2013, vuelta 2014 pretty much every stage Contador was isolated.

How long has it been since the importance of a team has been utilized correctly?

I can think of fuente de vuelta 2012. I guess also tour 2011, andy's attack. And as i mentioned froome being isolated in the tour 2013 stage 9 was a perfect set up. Just perfect.

You saw how movistar screwed over quintana by these dumb and useless attacks against a sky train. That's not how you play out your second card and it was also not the right kinda stage.

A stage like this is where you try it. (yes there are better examples of course)

Attack on the first 2 climbs with your 2nd GC guy of your team, try and isolate your enemy (ride as hard as you can so his team won't come back in the descent) and then make him work on the flat and maybe he'll even forget to drink and eat cause of all the stress. That actually happens, eg. froome tour 2013, contador PN 2009.

Ideally you want a stage where there's some flat that the main gc guys have to work on and what will tire them out. Working on a climb or descent won't be that much an effect on their body compared to the guys following.

So will the 5 guys of astana do it that way? No they won't (unless they really gonna play out landa or cataldo, i doubt it really)

One more factor's i've to adress is bad luck. Of course a good team can help you out then.

But i think many overrate the importance of a great team especially cause many teams don't use it correctly or don't have the balls to do it.

Anyway that was it, thanks for reading i guess.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Agreed. It's like people always just assumes that having a strong team is an advantage. To actually have an advantage, as you point out, you need a second/third teammate who's a threat in the GC. In Astana's case, they've got Landa (I don't count Cataldo) who would actually be dangerous to let go for the other top contenders. Yet, Millar obviously forgets about Kreuziger in the GC, probably the strongest of all the super domestiques / lieutenants. Tinkoff-Saxo could easily play the same card as Astana and send out Kreuziger on a long range attack. They did it with less succes on the chaotic stage 4, which forced Astana work for 60km's.

 

[SeriousSam]

If you have the strongest rider, a team of superdomestiques is a great benefit and takes out much of the variance and unpredictability of racing. Simply set a pace so high you know long range attacks can be safely ignored (because leader and superdomstiques are riding at something close to the maximum sustainable pace so would always automatically reel in the attacker).

The strongest rider can of course win without such a team but you'll probably only win a few Tours and not 7 in a row. US/UK Postal utilised great teams to great effect.

 

[DFA123]

I think a strong team is much more useful when the leader is a top time triallist, but not perhaps one of the very best climbers. A strong team in that situation can really help limit losses in the mountains if the leader is dropped. Also, they can help to set a high, steady tempo in the mountains - which time triallist seem to prefer - which will help make the leader less vulnerable to attacks. Somewhat ironically, given the Giro this year, in my opinion a strong team would be a lot more beneficial to a rider like Uran than it would be to Contador or Porte.

For a leader who is a natural climber that likes changes of pace on mountains, a strong team is less of an advantage. For them I guess it is most useful in protecting them on flat stages, pacing them back from punctures, creating strong echelons if necessary and defending the yellow jersey well on rolling stages. Generally though, even a weak team (by world tour standards) would be strong enough to do all this.

 

[IndianCyclist]

With a weak team the only effect is that in the finale the leader is isolated. eg. Cadel Evans
With a strong team, a TT guy benefits the most eg. Wiggins, Indurain. When an explosive climber makes an attack which the leader cant follow, a strong teammate can pace his leader without much time loss as the difference in p/w ratio is not high between the leaders, An attack ensures separation so that the dropped person cant draft but the pace is not very different.

 

[ILovecycling]

My opinion is pretty much what DFA said.Of course its always a benefit, but for exaple I think that Saxo has too much strong team in this Giro, IMO they should send some of those for Tour.In case of Contador (or Aru,Pinot,Quintana etc) its only a luxury, they dont need that (I mean good mounatin domestics, they need roulers)

Also it doenst mean that Robert Millar has better insight in today's cycling as we have.

 

[hrotha]

You don't need to have a second GC contender. You don't need to have the strongest riders. You just need to move your pawns into position and then have your leader attack from far away. See Escartín, 1999 TdF.

It opens up all kinds of tactical possibilities that teams nowadays are too chickenshit to even contemplate.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Roberto Heras, 2005 Vuelta

 

[Miburo]

Re:

Roberto Heras, 2005 Vuelta

That was the race where with the help of his team he destroyed menchov right?

I never saw that stage, i was too late (came back from school i think).

Can you tell me how it went?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Roberto Heras, 2005 Vuelta

That was the race where with the help of his team he destroyed menchov right?

I never saw that stage, i was too late (came back from school i think).

Can you tell me how it went?

Pajares is long, but mostly gradual, ramping up the higher you go. Liberty Seguros stuck Vicioso and Beloki in the escape at the start of the day, then Caruso joined the chase group, ostensibly to play monitor and anchor them by not working as he had two men up the road. Marcos Serrano got into the next chase group (numbering around 15) for the same purpose. Menchov's Rabobank team had depleted resources and only five riders in the race; Liberty now had four men in the break. Heras attacked on La Colladiella (over-categorized as a cat.1 climb) and gapped Menchov, at which point Liberty's guys in the break sat up and literally stood by the side of the road waiting for the last chase group which Heras had caught, and then carried him up to the front group one by one, before Heras attacked solo on Pajares to take the win; Menchov's depleted backup team continued to lose time on the flat, and the isolated Rabo leader got annihilated on Pajares, losing over 5 minutes in the end.

In some respects it was similar to the Fuente Dé mugging, but with a tougher final climb and with Menchov having far more depleted backup than Rodríguez had.

 

[Sylvester]

Re:

You don't need to have a second GC contender. You don't need to have the strongest riders. You just need to move your pawns into position and then have your leader attack from far away. See Escartín, 1999 TdF.

It opens up all kinds of tactical possibilities that teams nowadays are too chickenshit to even contemplate.

Escartin was my favorite rider back in the day, not in the least because of his very strange way of riding his bike and the fact that he actually never won anything. I was eight years old. I very vividly remember watching the Piau-Engaly stage - I couldn't believe my eyes.

And it was a tactical masterpiece indeed.

 

[hrotha]

It was, but I just realized I was actually thinking of the 1998 TdF when I wrote that post.

Les Deux Alpes, to be precise.

 

[Sylvester]

The big Pantani show and Ullrich breakdown? I didn't remember Kelme being very active that day. Then again, I was very young

 

[hrotha]

Oh, absolutely. The whole thing was basically Kelme's doing. Serrano was a beast that day.

 

[King Boonen]

if Contador attacks, Aru sits on and his teammates can bring him back. If Aru attacks, Contador has to bring him back himself. If Aru attacks, Contador brings him back and then attacks himself, Aru can use his team to shut it down and save his legs where Contador can't. A strong team is a massive benefit in both shutting these attacks down and forcing other GC threats to work harder. It also dictates how your competitors can ride the race. Long distance attacks become less likely as they know you have the team to shut them down, so guys like Porte who may not be able to go with Contador or Aru in the really sharp/high stuff can limit their loses.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

if Contador attacks, Aru sits on and his teammates can bring him back. If Aru attacks, Contador has to bring him back himself. If Aru attacks, Contador brings him back and then attacks himself, Aru can use his team to shut it down and save his legs where Contador can't. A strong team is a massive benefit in both shutting these attacks down and forcing other GC threats to work harder. It also dictates how your competitors can ride the race. Long distance attacks become less likely as they know you have the team to shut them down, so guys like Porte who may not be able to go with Contador or Aru in the really sharp/high stuff can limit their loses.

Given the only example from this Giro, when Contador attacks, Porte is the one to bring Aru back. Landa only bridged over to the top 3 when they settled down. Granted, Landa was there at the end and Kreuziger wasn't, but he had way less impetus to ride when it was his leader that went off, whether he had the legs or not.

Anyway, jury is still out as to the Kreuziger vs. Landa battle.

To the OP, depends on the leader, route, weather, etc... As such, versatility is better than one dimension. Sky have played with the Geraint Thomas foil for Porte, and with the train. Contador has ambushed from far out, and put Navarro on the front to out-drill everyone.

 

[IndianCyclist]

Re:

if Contador attacks, Aru sits on and his teammates can bring him back. If Aru attacks, Contador has to bring him back himself. If Aru attacks, Contador brings him back and then attacks himself, Aru can use his team to shut it down and save his legs where Contador can't. A strong team is a massive benefit in both shutting these attacks down and forcing other GC threats to work harder. It also dictates how your competitors can ride the race. Long distance attacks become less likely as they know you have the team to shut them down, so guys like Porte who may not be able to go with Contador or Aru in the really sharp/high stuff can limit their loses.

The gap between Aru's team and Contador is too big. He destroyed the Astana team on Abetone such that Aru had to close the gap himself

 

[Miburo]

Re:

You don't need to have a second GC contender. You don't need to have the strongest riders. You just need to move your pawns into position and then have your leader attack from far away. See Escartín, 1999 TdF.

It opens up all kinds of tactical possibilities that teams nowadays are too chickenshit to even contemplate.

Yea but the only flaw of that tactic is that your gc guy needs to be strong enough to do that and drop the other guys. With a second GC guy you don't always need that to be fulfilled.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Yea but the only flaw of that tactic is that your gc guy needs to be strong enough to do that and drop the other guys. With a second GC guy you don't always need that to be fulfilled.

You don't need to drop them. You need them to take the risk and let you go.

 

[lenric]

Ask this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2AiCVzx2L8

 

[GuyIncognito]

Re: Re:

Roberto Heras, 2005 Vuelta

That was the race where with the help of his team he destroyed menchov right?

I never saw that stage, i was too late (came back from school i think).

Can you tell me how it went?

Pajares is long, but mostly gradual, ramping up the higher you go. Liberty Seguros stuck Vicioso and Beloki in the escape at the start of the day, then Caruso joined the chase group, ostensibly to play monitor and anchor them by not working as he had two men up the road. Marcos Serrano got into the next chase group (numbering around 15) for the same purpose. Menchov's Rabobank team had depleted resources and only five riders in the race; Liberty now had four men in the break. Heras attacked on La Colladiella (over-categorized as a cat.1 climb) and gapped Menchov, at which point Liberty's guys in the break sat up and literally stood by the side of the road waiting for the last chase group which Heras had caught, and then carried him up to the front group one by one, before Heras attacked solo on Pajares to take the win; Menchov's depleted backup team continued to lose time on the flat, and the isolated Rabo leader got annihilated on Pajares, losing over 5 minutes in the end.

In some respects it was similar to the Fuente Dé mugging, but with a tougher final climb and with Menchov having far more depleted backup than Rodríguez had.

Menchov was quite close to Heras by the top of La Colladiella though. Just a few meters. Usually he'd make contact no problem.
But Heras saw that and for some reason decided to risk his life. I distinctly remember Mancebo saying he'd never seen anyone take such ridiculous risks. I remember the line 'Roberto was going to end up either in the jersey or in the hospital'.

He got to the end of the descent with a 20s gap, had his teammates there and the rest is history

 

[movingtarget]

It's a tactical advantage if used properly but if you look at Aru's situation in the Giro. He has trouble dropping Porte and Contador and he does not have a good TT so already his tactical advantage and stronger team does not mean as much. If his climbers were also good TT riders he could send them up the road like he did with Landa and try and set up opportunities to counterattack Porte and Contador who will have to chase if Landa becomes too dangerous on GC. The pressure is now on Aru to do a great TT and also to drop Porte and Contador in the mountains. He may have the strongest team but all the pressure is on him as he has the weakest TT.