I have historically criticised the 2009 Tour having almost all of the top 10 from the same 4 teams thanks to a garbage course allowing the TTT to predominate all the way to the end. Now we don't even need a TTT to result in that.
Apparently this is a good thing, because having the same big names winning every race and make everybody else irrelevant paupers is apparently what we want. A repetitive, predictable spectacle is somehow easier to sell to marketing executives, and then they will put more money behind it because the outcomes are easier to work out for them so there's less risk involved as far as they are concerned, and then you end up with people arguing it's a good thing because the sport is making money even though all of the additional money is concentrated into the hands of the few who need it least.
Just like how, back in the day, teams from the Swedish, or Turkish, or Greek leagues were a dangerous banana skin for the big league teams in European football competition, rather than makeweights there to give the illusion of it being anything other than a money-making exercise for the same big 10-15 clubs that already make more money than everybody else.
We're actually going backwards in terms of variety. I mean, Campenaerts and Küng are the only genuine TT specialists in that top 10, you know, the kind of riders who would target these stages as their best chance to win, not ride them hard because they need to for the GC. The ITT is so marginalised now, though, that which TT specialists are there even to say were absent? Apart from Ganna and Tarling who's still probably too young for the Tour in the team's eyes, who even is there?
One of the things that first drew me to cycling was the cast of thousands. But the advertising execs don't want to have to explain to people why they should care about certain riders. Better to just have the same six riders win every race and then market them to the moon, because that'll be an easier catch to the casual fan. I get it, the cast of thousands is both an attraction and an impediment to the novice fan. Like how Patrick Winterton on Eurosport wintersport coverage loves the mass start events, not because they provide better spectacle but because he can just focus on the athletes at the front of the field and doesn't have to know anything about the lesser athletes. Stages for the baroudeur are eroded to nil. TT specialists get nothing to play with, so the benefit of being that kind of rider has eroded away to the point where there aren't really any of them, they all either convert to sprinter/leadout types or they learn to climb well enough to become GC men. We're headed for a future of two types of stage: flat stage for sprinter, stage with hills or mountains for GC rider, and ne'er the twain shall meet.