Tom Dumoulin discussion thread

Page 154 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 28, 2019
58
8
195
And the polka dot jersey is won by attackers. In all tour's history, attackers (elite climbers) like virenque were winning this jersey. Nowadays, these climbers are turning in gc contenders because of this joke of putting 30 km of TT in the tour
Wondering why that is, why so few TT kilometers nowadays?
 
Wondering why that is, why so few TT kilometers nowadays?
Because, a) “people” don’t like time trials (don’t ask me which people) and b) if you put 100km of TT in any TdF route in the past decade, it’s basically giving Sky (be it Froome, Thomas or Wiggins, but not Bernal so much) a 2 minute head start over any other realistic GC contenders, until the emergence of Roglic and Dumoulin.
 
Reactions: geisterhome
Jul 28, 2019
58
8
195
Because, a) “people” don’t like time trials (don’t ask me which people) and b) if you put 100km of TT in any TdF route in the past decade, it’s basically giving Sky (be it Froome, Thomas or Wiggins, but not Bernal so much) a 2 minute head start over any other realistic GC contenders, until the emergence of Roglic and Dumoulin.
Are TTs really more boring for, let's say casual fans than flat stages? I feel a TT heavy GT once in a while would be an exciting change, a prologue, a long TTT, 2 ITTs. Maybe it would even create a more animated race in the mountains, forcing pure climbers to attack earlier, not waiting for the last few km to gain 20 seconds.
 
Reactions: kiszol
And the polka dot jersey is won by attackers. In all tour's history, attackers (elite climbers) like virenque were winning this jersey. Nowadays, these climbers are turning in gc contenders because of this joke of putting 30 km of TT in the tour
And now we have entered a completely different conversation. So Im gonna opt out from here on now. I only explained why a tour contains sprint stages and why teams that has a really great sprinter put value in trying to win the green jersey with them. That was what I was responding to in your first post in which I quoted.
 
Are TTs really more boring for, let's say casual fans than flat stages? I feel a TT heavy GT once in a while would be an exciting change, a prologue, a long TTT, 2 ITTs. Maybe it would even create a more animated race in the mountains, forcing pure climbers to attack earlier, not waiting for the last few km to gain 20 seconds.
What you describe is what the format generally was in the 80s/90s/00s. But what tended to happen was one rider (Hinault, Lemond, Indurain, Ullrich, Armstrong) would win all the TTs, or at least gain so much time in the TTs, that climbers/attackers like Pantani, Virenque, Chiapucci has no hope of making up the time.

Thing is, at least back then, the other contenders were all-rounders (Jalabert), TTers who could climb (Zulle, Rominger) or climbers who could TT a bit. Whereas in the 2010s, all the gc riders are primarily climbers, with the exception of Froome. And now Roglic and Dumoulin.
 
2012 was very heavily TT-favouring route and many consider it the worst Tour this decade.

And even worse, it didn't have a single HC mountaintop finish.
2012 was only TT-heavy by post-2008 standards. Any year before that, 100kms of TT would have been standard or even pretty low.

2012 was boring because Sky kept the race under complete control. A part of that control was through Wiggins being comfortably the best time trialist in the race. But they also had the best climbing team, so even if there had been an Alpe d’Heuz or Ventoux, finish the result would have been the same.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY