The three biggest losers (teams) after the three first monuments

[jaylew]

Not calling Sam San a top favorite for the hilly classics is foolish. Though he is yet to bring home a victory, he is always attacking and animating LBL and GdL.

Absolutely. And don't forget he's finished 2nd and 4th at Flèche, so he's definitely got to be considered a favorite there.

 

[luckyboy]

interesting all this ragging on BMC - did anyone actually expect them to win one?

You really weren't going to get much more than what they delivered - unless my expectations of them are lower than the norm?

Same goes for Sky

I'd rank Ballan + Flecha in the second tier of favourites along with Pozzato, Hushovd, Haussler. Behind Boonen + Cancellara of course.

A lot of his reputation stems from this stage of the Vuelta:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_xMfifw6Jw

Haha 'Igor Anton on the attack now'

 

[Angliru]

That's really the crux of the matter. There are failings in the ProTour system. Either there should be fewer licences (meaning more wildcards) or teams should be able to miss a few races.

And EE on the cobbles is the best example of those failings.


PS. I personally didn't call them 'losers', I specifically excluded them.

I'm in full agreement.

By the way, I didn't mean to imply that you were calling them 'losers'.

 

[la.margna]

The problem with this thread is that people overate massively the importance of your team in cycling.

From my perspective, Flanders and Roubaix have impressively demonstrated the importance of a team. It is mainly because of a weak and non-existing team that Cancellara didn't collect one or both of them. Podium is zero, nothing, loss for Spartacus. Nobody will remember. If these races are your major targets and you are in your best form and probably clearly the strongest rider, it is outrageous that you lose because of a team. He would have been better off with EE (no offense, just because EE was quite popular in this discussion, I didn't list theim neither as losers like Mambo95)

 

[benpounder]

Euskaltel.

(Realizing that this is probably said in jest...)Attributing failure to the Basque team for not performing well in the spring classics is tantamount to dismissing Cipo's team(s) for not having a GC podium in the TdF. Many folks are throwing out many teams as candidates for top failure, yet ignoring that many of those teams simply dont have the requisite firepower, or even the preparation and/or ambition to shine in the classics. Sure, many teams have riders that could podium, but the team's overall focus is elsewhere (think Hincapie on UPS/Disco).

To state the obvious, teams target the races that are important to its sponsors and suit its riders. All other races are merely training and podiums are merely bonuses (highly valued, of course). To have ones spring campaign considered a failure, a team must have overwhelming talent in specifically targeted races e.g. BMC.

 

[greenedge]

indeed.
simon clarke did a pretty good job for so little experience - pity no one else from astana stood out.
another aussie rookie, mitchell docker for skill , did pretty good too.

failures imo, were katusha and bmc.

yeah docker and clarke did well. I commented on amstel gold about Docker. There was also stalanjei? ( powering the breakaway in Roubaix just remembered.)

 

[ansimi]

I don't think Euskaltel riders broke any bones so they probably consider their cobbles campaign a modest success.

I think that the World Tour and attempts at 'globalizing' cycling can tend to make all the races and all the teams more and more alike on a franchise model.

 

[greenedge]

indeed.
simon clarke did a pretty good job for so little experience - pity no one else from astana stood out.
another aussie rookie, mitchell docker for skill , did pretty good too.

failures imo, were katusha and bmc.

yeah docker and clarke did well. I commented on amstel gold about Docker. There was also stalanjei? ( powering the breakaway in Roubaix just remembered.)