The Role of TTTs in Stage Races

[roundabout]

Here are the top 4 teams of the TTT in the 2009 Tour:

Astana
Garmin
Saxo Bank
Liquigas

Here are the teams of the top 10 riders on the GC at that race:

Astana
Saxo Bank
Astana
Garmin
Saxo Bank
Astana
Liquigas
Garmin
Liquigas
Française des Jeux

Apart from Le Mevel, who got that position thanks to a break away, the entire top 10, all came from the same four teams that had finished in positions 1-4 on the TTT. That's just as bad an imbalance as the 2011 Giro.

If we are going to pick a race-decisive stage I nominate stage 17 where the final top 8 on GC finished in the top 9 of the stage and the 9th rider was 2 minutes ahead of 10th.

Bad imbalance, lets do away with the mountains.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

If we are going to pick a race-decisive stage I nominate stage 17 where the final top 8 on GC finished in the top 9 of the stage and the 9th rider was 2 minutes ahead of 10th.

Bad imbalance, lets do away with the mountains.

Ah, but the imbalance there was the result of the status quo already being set; Evans had tried to attack and gain time back and was sent back by the péloton, Menchov had tried from long range and failed, Sastre had gone at the bottom of the Romme and blown up. They wouldn't have been trying these last-ditch attempts that caused them to blow up and lose massive time (thus falling from contention) had they not been minutes back from the TTT. The top TTT teams in that race were just too strong that any attempt to gain the time back was doomed to fail, so when the guys did attack and then blew up, it's no surprise that the guys on the successful TTT teams, who did not need to take such gambles, were the strongest at the end, because they hadn't had to waste all their energy trying to come back from a deficit they should never have had in the first place.

Also, that stage wouldn't have been so decisive if Prudhomme had included ANY other selective mountain stages. Instead he gave us a one-climb stage to Arcalis (a boring tempo climb), a more or less one climb stage to Verbier (which isn't very long), a completely neutered Pyrénées and a stage to Bourg-Saint-Maurice over two very long but not very steep climbs. Realistically, the time lost in the TTT wasn't going to come back on any of these except possibly Verbier (and Evans and Sastre won some time back on some contenders there). But then they were left with pretty much all-or-nothing on stage 17, because it was the ONLY really selective mountain stage of that race.

 

[Nikoloz]

60-80 and more km TTT will be interesting to see...

any other... = 0

TNX...

 

[jens_attacks]

60-80 and more km TTT will be interesting to see...

any other... = 0

TNX...

same here.what happens these days is a disgrace.those ttt's shouldn' exist. 15 km ttt lol.it's like a prologue,they just use a day of a grand tour for nothing.
i want the monster ttt's back BUT just once in 4-5 years,the teams being informed two years before to train their aszes off for this

 

[cineteq]

100k of flat ITT is unfair for Schleck, and 6 MTFs is unfair for Martin, but they will at least have the control of their own destiny there.

Do you really believe this nonsense? In other words, you're saying that the team has zero influence on the rider's placing. This is coming from you of all people...wow...Libertine if you say you're purist I'll accept it, you won't have to find more arguments

 

[The Hitch]

A team can have zero influence on a riders placing yes.

 

[woodie]

A team can have zero influence on a riders placing yes.

But more often than not they do have an influence on their placing

 

[Magnus]

By 2013 the Tour will have had one 3/5 years

Or 3/8 years...

 

[Maxiton]

I guess I'm late to this thread, but in my view the team time trial is a beautiful thing. And not only beautiful but a thing that properly belongs in a GT.

Cycling is unique in that it's something of a hybrid sport, neither purely individual nor purely team. It's both and neither. This unique nature can be expressed most clearly in the grand tour, and an important component of that expression is the team time trial.

The real issue is not the TTT or the individual TT, nor is it mountain top finishes, nor descent finishes, nor cobbles nor flats. The real issue is one of balance. The ideal GT would (and does) use the various components to both provide variety and balance out the other components, so that the tour is no more oriented to one particular team or rider than the organizers want it to be. Balance is not achieved by doing away with components altogether - why take arrows out of the quiver (except to fire them)?

Coming back to beauty: the team time trial is a great thing to see, adding some real visual excitement and making apparent to onlookers the team aspect of this unique sport. Reason enough to keep it in play. With balance.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Do you really believe this nonsense? In other words, you're saying that the team has zero influence on the rider's placing. This is coming from you of all people...wow...Libertine if you say you're purist I'll accept it, you won't have to find more arguments

Of course a team is important, but as I've said before, riders with weak teams are already punished enough without deliberately targeting them with a format to make sure they start with a deficit. On 6 MTFs, Tony Martin is disadvantaged, but the time he gets is the time Tony Martin crosses the line. On 150km ITT mileage, Andy Schleck is disadvantaged, but the time he gets is the time Andy Schleck crosses the line.

Not the time Oliver Zaugg, or Gorazd Stangelj, or Michal Kwiatkowski, or Ron Jeremy cross the line, but the time they cross the line themselves.

Maxiton -
As for it looking beautiful, that's subjective but is one of the main arguments in favour of TTTs. This is perhaps its ONLY advantage over an ITT. It's a track format, and should have stayed there.

 

[Maxiton]

<snip>

Maxiton -
As for it looking beautiful, that's subjective but is one of the main arguments in favour of TTTs. This is perhaps its ONLY advantage over an ITT. It's a track format, and should have stayed there.

Perhaps you should read my post again. You need the TTT, which of course is pure team, in order to balance out the ITT, which is pure individual. It's about a balanced whole that expresses cycling's unique hybrid nature. Without the TTT it'll still be hybrid but unbalanced.

See also this thread:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=16122

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So it "balances" the hybrid nature of cycling by biasing it against the individuals who aren't in strong teams? "Balance" is about kicking the little guy when he's down?

 

[cineteq]

So it "balances" the hybrid nature of cycling by biasing it against the individuals who aren't in strong teams? "Balance" is about kicking the little guy when he's down?

Are you talking about Rujano?

 

[taiwan]

Anyhow, how is cycling a team sport, and what does that mean?

Football is a team sport - scores are collective for the team, and there are no awards for individuals other than man of the match prizes or maybe a private financial bonus.

Cycling puts the winning individual on the podium, aggregates the individual's stage times in a GT, and even awards World Tour points to the individual, which follow him between teams.

You can point to the team classification in the Tour: ok, that's the exception which proves the rule. It's there to give recognition to strong teams who'll miss out on other prizes, and it was generally ridiculed when Caisse and Radioshack were fighting for it. It highlights the fact that the GC is an individual contest which the team participates in only indirectly.

 

[Magnus]

It's a track format, and should have stayed there.

It's been on the road for a while. You might as well say that bicycle racing is a track format and should have stayed there.
I think everybody gets that you don't like TTT's.
But if you're going to argue with anything else than your dislike use proper arguments.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It's been on the road for a while. You might as well say that bicycle racing is a track format and should have stayed there.
I think everybody gets that you don't like TTT's.
But if you're going to argue with anything else than your dislike use proper arguments.

Such as its unfairness, its meaning that a rider's time is not a true reflection of their abilities (considering that though it is a team sport it is an INDIVIDUAL classification), its inherent bias towards those teams that are already advantaged anyway, and its encouraging of defensive, dull GC riding as the strongest teams advantaged by it are the ones that find it easiest to control the race?

All of those have been mentioned, and apart from the last they aren't as subjective as most of the arguments in favour. If something as subjective as "it looks cool" is an argument in favour, then "I don't like it" is an argument against.

 

[Netserk]

It should ONLY be in a grand tour, if the times are individual. Otherwise it should only be in one-day races.

 

[Cobblestoned]

I guess I'm late to this thread, but in my view the team time trial is a beautiful thing. And not only beautiful but a thing that properly belongs in a GT.

Cycling is unique in that it's something of a hybrid sport, neither purely individual nor purely team. It's both and neither. This unique nature can be expressed most clearly in the grand tour, and an important component of that expression is the team time trial.

The real issue is not the TTT or the individual TT, nor is it mountain top finishes, nor descent finishes, nor cobbles nor flats. The real issue is one of balance. The ideal GT would (and does) use the various components to both provide variety and balance out the other components, so that the tour is no more oriented to one particular team or rider than the organizers want it to be. Balance is not achieved by doing away with components altogether - why take arrows out of the quiver (except to fire them)?

Coming back to beauty: the team time trial is a great thing to see, adding some real visual excitement and making apparent to onlookers the team aspect of this unique sport. Reason enough to keep it in play. With balance.

Wow. Someone with a sense for beautiful things. Mentioned it earlier.
I guess most people just never experienced it.
Balance - Yes

Besides that, it is a discipline of cycling and part of a GT. If some teams or riders don't take this serious and just moan instead of practicing it, it's their problem. Over and out.

 

[Maxiton]

So it "balances" the hybrid nature of cycling by biasing it against the individuals who aren't in strong teams? "Balance" is about kicking the little guy when he's down?

Like it or not, the team plays an important role in what is, in part, a team sport. Some teams are stronger than others. This is the nature of sport. What makes cycling different, in my view, is that, unlike a purely team sport, this is not the end of the story.

In truly exceptional cases a single rider can prevail even when he's on the weakest team. (Case in point, Contador in 2009. You could argue that as far as he and his interests were concerned, his team was the weakest in the field.) But those should be exceptional cases, not the rule. (In the off season every team and every rider should be doing all they can to strengthen the team.)

On top of which, the team that's expected to dominate doesn't always fulfill expectations. Case in point, the 1979 Tour in the thread referenced earlier:

http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1979.html

This Tour featured five individual time trials and two team time trials. Hinault's team was expected to dominate the TTTs. They did in fact win the first, but placed a surprising fourth in the second. Hinault, however, had ridden the first IT so fast that his primary rival had already lost two important domestiques in the time cut.

If you read the stage-by-stage narrative of that Tour, it's evident that there weren't any dull stages. And the interplay between the various types of stages - TTTs, ITs, MTFs, cobbles, etcetera, made for an exciting back-and-forth and the eventual domination of two top riders.

Sure, you could weaken the team role by eliminating the team time trial, but in doing so you'd arguably lessen the potential for excitement in the race. If riders who are capable of winning lose on account of the team time trial, they just need to find a better team.

 

[cineteq]

Such as its unfairness, its meaning that a rider's time is not a true reflection of their abilities (considering that though it is a team sport it is an INDIVIDUAL classification), its inherent bias towards those teams that are already advantaged anyway

So let's see how far can you go with your unfair-to-the-little-riders/belongs-to-the-track/encourage-defensive-riding arguments. If we take your argument on strong teams helping their GC leaders, would it be unfair also that in a MTF stage a rider gets pulled by 4 teammates at get 2 minutes on the rest of the GC riders? Would it be unfair also what Nibali & Liquigas did on stage 6 of 2011 Vuelta?

its encouraging of defensive, dull GC riding as the strongest teams advantaged by it are the ones that find it easiest to control the race?

Dull defensive riding is found with or without TTTs.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Such as its unfairness, its meaning that a rider's time is not a true reflection of their abilities (considering that though it is a team sport it is an INDIVIDUAL classification), its inherent bias towards those teams that are already advantaged anyway, and its encouraging of defensive, dull GC riding as the strongest teams advantaged by it are the ones that find it easiest to control the race?

All of those have been mentioned, and apart from the last they aren't as subjective as most of the arguments in favour. If something as subjective as "it looks cool" is an argument in favour, then "I don't like it" is an argument against.

But look, the only reason for you investing so much time in moaning about TTTs is that most of your beloved little teams and riders don't take things serious and are too lazy to practise those disciplines accurately, or are even too lazy or feel too uncomfortable to place their asses onto their TT bikes for more than just those race kilometers.
I really get pox when I see/saw certain teams and riders. In those cases it is really clear to see that they just didn't practise (enough) and didn't take it serious. Some even admit it, paired with some moaning.

You know, they don't have to win, but at least they should try and show some professional behavior, but first of all, they should stop annoying me.

I need beauty.

 

[cineteq]

If you read the stage-by-stage narrative of that Tour, it's evident that there weren't any dull stages. And the interplay between the various types of stages - TTTs, ITs, MTFs, cobbles, etcetera, made for an exciting back-and-forth and the eventual domination of two top riders.

Well said. In the end, in most cases, the best riders adjust and overcome the obstacles they encountered in the whole stage race regardless of it was a TTT or not. So TTTs become just a part of an equation of many variables, including weather, pain, not feeding properly, crashes, etc.

 

[taiwan]

Case in point, Contador in 2009. You could argue that as far as he and his interests were concerned, his team was the weakest in the field.

But Astana won the TTT in 2009 - put 3 riders in the GC top ten - and the rest of the top ten came exclusively from the top 4 teams in the TTT.

Sure, you could weaken the team role by eliminating the team time trial, but in doing so you'd arguably lessen the potential for excitement in the race. If riders who are capable of winning lose on account of the team time trial, they just need to find a better team.

Well let's hear that argument. TTTs favour strong teams. Strong teams are already at an advantage. Therefore TTTs tip the balance further to one side. That makes for more predictable racing with the odds stacked further against the smaller teams. Less uncertainty, less excitement. Force good riders to all sign for the same teams and you have poorly matched contests across the calendar with weak teams getting weaker, and strong stronger. How is that a good thing?

 

[roundabout]

But Astana won the TTT in 2009 - put 3 riders in the GC top ten - and the rest of the top ten came exclusively from the top 4 teams in the TTT.

But they all rode for Armstrong.

Contador would have likely lost the Tour on Skil so all the talk about Astana being the weakest team in the field is the most laughably ridiculous thing that I've read on this forum and this says a lot.

Hell, I think I've found my new signature.

 

[The Hitch]

So let's see how far can you go with your unfair-to-the-little-riders/belongs-to-the-track/encourage-defensive-riding arguments. If we take your argument on strong teams helping their GC leaders, would it be unfair also that in a MTF stage a rider gets pulled by 4 teammates at get 2 minutes on the rest of the GC riders? Would it be unfair also what Nibali & Liquigas did on stage 6 of 2011 Vuelta?

In all those examples the rider on the weaker team has a chance. If hes good enough he won't get dropped in the first place.

In a ttt he has NO CHANCE.

Your examples handicap a rider slightly. A ttt defeats him period.

There is a world of difference between the 2.