This is my first post, although I follow cycling and this forum for some 5 years. The current outcry about the “most boring tour ever” prompted me to try and formulate my view why this Tour is regarded as boring, although it probably provided comparable entertainment to most of recent grand tours.
I blame the schizophrenic nature of cycling. It is a team sport, but the glory goes to an individual. I mean, in ice hockey the captain may get the first round with the cup, but it’s always team Russia that won, not Ovetschkin or Malkov (and everybody gets a medal). Here it is Wiggins who gets to stand on the podium and it would always be him who won the Tour, not Tem Sky.
While Sky was undoubtedly the best team, Wiggins may or may not be the best rider. He was superior in TTs but he has never shown his superiority in the mountains by an attack or even by riding in front himself for a while. Granted, he did not need to and it would be tactically unsound. But it leaves fans in a strange position. How are we supposed to believe that Wiggins was the best cyclist in this Tour when he was dragged most of the way by his team mates?
Cycling is a sport that is built on stories of the past exploits, of great champions and unbelievable feats of strength and determination. A sport, which thrives on individual achievements but due to unavoidable progress of technology and tactics, has become a sport where individual can no longer achieve anything against a well-organized team.
I believe people sense this dichotomy and search for confirmation that the individual getting the glory really deserves it. Not that he just happens to be on the best team. That’s why many people find this tour unfulfilling, and few(er) people complained about 2011 Giro.
What is the difference between Contador domination and Team Sky domination in terms of suspense? I would say none. Likewise, what is the difference between Team Sky grinding tempo and the same approach by Evans the year before? In terms of tactics employed - none.
However, both Contador and Evans have done that almost singlehandedly, with limited support from their respective teams. Would people still mention those stages from 2011 Tour where Evans dragged the whole peloton behind him to limit the losses to Contador and Andy Schleck as great examples of interesting racing if BMC had 5 riders in front winching Andy back in before the last climb?
I have no doubt that 5 years from now, we will still hear about Andy’s or Alberto’s long range attacks, but I would be seriously surprised if we would still recount Sky’s meticulous attention to detail and precision with which Wiggins kept the power meter pinned to 420 Watts.
With that said, I believe this is the future of cycling. What we have seen is the result of British dedication to sport science which started in 2004 in a bid to secure Olympic success in 2012 (look for BBC Horizon documentary from 2006 - Winning Gold in 2012). The Brits copied it from Australian swimmers and they in turn from East Germany athletes. The science and team organization just works. If an exceptional individual would be able to prevail from time to time, it would be very rare occasion.
So I guess it all ends well. There will still be stories of great exploits, we just have to get used to that the heroes would mostly lose their battles, as was so often the case in the course of human history. So why should cycling be different?