Tirreno-Adriatico 2020 - 7th - 14th September

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
tobydawq

tobydawq

Nov 16, 2013
26,615
27,662
28,180
Libertine Seguros said:
Stage 6 is syphilitic. Putting a totally flat stage at that point in the race is a complete waste of the additional day. The rest of this looks pretty good.
Click to expand...

At least there is a stage more than usually (actually two due to the lack of a TTT). Or is it just because it's on a weekend?

You always complain that the Hammer races take away race days from the other Norwegian races but the Tour of Norway just had six flat, easily disposable stages last year, but I guess it didn't fit the narrative to call them disease-ridden names.

Are extra race days a good or a bad thing?

I think this race looks good, better than usually, even if there is a TT on the last day, but I don't imagine it being long enough to be very decisive.
 
Libertine Seguros

Libertine Seguros

Feb 20, 2010
33,061
15,247
28,180
tobydawq said:
At least there is a stage more than usually (actually two due to the lack of a TTT). Or is it just because it's on a weekend?

You always complain that the Hammer races take away race days from the other Norwegian races but the Tour of Norway just had six flat, easily disposable stages last year, but I guess it didn't fit the narrative to call them disease-ridden names.

Are extra race days a good or a bad thing?

I think this race looks good, better than usually, even if there is a TT on the last day, but I don't imagine it being long enough to be very decisive.
Click to expand...
The extra race day is a good thing. Since they put the San Benedetto del Tronto TT in there, they haven't put a flat stage at the end of the race since 2010 (when it was actually decisive thanks to time bonuses at the metas volantes). Given almost every stage of this is GC relevant bar stages 1 and 6, having the pan-flat stage on a weekend is very, very disappointing, although I'm sure they can argue that going up against the Tour is a consideration there - not unreasonable as it's not normally something they have to deal with. However, stage 6 will be on Saturday, when the Tour has a likely snoozefest, whereas the potentially good stage, stage 7, is going up against the Grand-Colombier MTF, which will obviously be one of the biggest draws of the Tour audience-wise. Most of this race consists of stages that I like the look of, at least in a vacuum. Swapping stages 6 and 7 would be beneficial in two ways, because it means the more interesting stage on Saturday with the Tour on a less interesting one, and a sprint stage going up against the MTF, but also because putting a flat stage between the last hilly stage and the ITT, giving some time to recover relatively speaking, and thus meaning the ITT is less likely to hamstring racing in the road stage.

The Tour of Norway last year was a ridiculous race and I slated it at the time. Merging the Tour of Norway (which has historically been the Tour of the Oslofjord) and the Tour des Fjords (yes, largely because of the Hammer race) created a terrible race which got from the terrain of one race to another via the least imaginative route possible. I see the current situation as the worst of both worlds. We went from two 5 day races to one 3 day race which is something I don't consider anything but a carnival sideshow (and over 3 days is about as long as the average 1.1 rated one-day race), and a 6-day race which because it consisted almost entirely of transitional stages was worse than either of the pre-existing 5 day races. However, while I did slate the route, it may have been lost in the mix with the rest of the Velon ranting, because I believe the Hammer Series does shoulder a lot of the blame for that. Without the Hammer Series having gone into Stavanger, the Tour des Fjords isn't squeezed out and we likely wouldn't have seen the need for the two stage races to merge. The Tour of Norway was already a major contender for the "Worst Misuse of Terrain" award, but after the merger it's even worse.

The other issue with the Tour of Norway is that it - like a lot of races, it doesn't deserve singling out for this as it happens at all levels up to and including Grand Tours - has built itself around catering to the home country's most successful riders, and that has meant wilfully neutering the parcours to ensure Boasson Hagen and Kristoff are prominent - but because of how mountainous and rugged Norway is as a country, it's more immediately striking than if, say, Poland or Britain were to do the same around star sprinters. It's similar to how the Tour de Slovénie has never really been a climber's race other than one stage (although largely being settled by the one mountain stage) while the likes of Bole, Mezgec and Božič were the country's most prominent riders despite the country being so mountainous, while now they seem to be embracing mountainous routes with Roglič and Pogačar prominent, which may tip the balance too far the other way in coming years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom