Tour de France Tour de France 2025 Stage 21: Mantes-la-Ville – Paris (132.3k)

[dobrien]

It would have been an all time classic for the ages if she'd said No.

"YOU DIDN'T EVEN WIN A STAGE, NO WAY I'M MARRYING YOU DUDE!!!"

 

[Valv.Piti]

Would you have sprint stages and sprinters pushed out of the sport entirely? They've always been an integral part of the sport.

Way to misrepresent. I argue 3 pure sprint stages and a bunch of hard-to-predict stages for rouleurs, puncheurs, classics riders, versatile sprinter etc. But yes honestly, I wouldn't mind a Tour without any pure sprinters at all since I don't think they add anything to the spectacle (the sprint itself is interesting, everything that comes before isnt). Would be great to watch a race with zero pure sprint stages, definitely, but at the same time Im a realist, and due to the geography of France, there has to be a minimum of these stages to make it all work geographically anyways. But they rarely add anything to the race, unfortunately, since teams have gotten so good at controlling these stages, and therefore the result is that no one even want to contest them. And thats not great television and as I said, a bad deal. Thats why you hear Gouvenou critisizing teams and threatening teams about reducing pure sprint stages.

Its just funny to me that people act like if 5 pure bunch sprints are to few and they are getting margnizalied. They are not, other rider types are. Last year there was incredible rough times for breakaway artists, puncheurs and time trialist. Riders I and many other find way more interesting as these stages where those kind of riders feature most often are much better races. This year, breakaway riders and puncheurs got their shots which was great, but still time trialists have absolutely nothing outside of a measly 30 km time trial. Last year was even worse as the hill in the middle made it so only GC contenders could contest the win.

Why was the Tour 2022 so highly regarded? The GC duel was great, sure, but outside of Denmark, there were extremely few pure sprint stages, and so it was race on every single day. Thats what the audience want, thats what cycling fans want. Nobody want to watch a 4 and a half hour long procession even if the sprint is exciting.

 

[bah]

Way to misrepresent. I argue 3 pure sprint stages and a bunch of hard-to-predict stages for rouleurs, puncheurs, classics riders, versatile sprinter etc. But yes honestly, I wouldn't mind a Tour without any pure sprinters at all since I don't think they add anything to the spectacle (the sprint itself is interesting, everything that comes before isnt). Would be great to watch a race with zero pure sprint stages, definitely, but at the same time Im a realist, and due to the geography of France, there has to be a minimum of these stages to make it all work geographically anyways. But they rarely add anything to the race, unfortunately, since teams have gotten so good at controlling these stages, and therefore the result is that no one even want to contest them. And thats not great television and as I said, a bad deal. Thats why you hear Gouvenou critisizing teams and threatening teams about reducing pure sprint stages.

Its just funny to me that people act like if 5 pure bunch sprints are to few and they are getting margnizalied. They are not, other rider types are. Last year there was incredible rough times for breakaway artists, puncheurs and time trialist. Riders I and many other find way more interesting as these stages where those kind of riders feature most often are much better races. This year, breakaway riders and puncheurs got their shots which was great, but still time trialists have absolutely nothing outside of a measly 30 km time trial. Last year was even worse as the hill in the middle made it so only GC contenders could contest the win.

Why was the Tour 2022 so highly regarded? The GC duel was great, sure, but outside of Denmark, there were extremely few pure sprint stages, and so it was race on every single day. Thats what the audience want, thats what cycling fans want. Nobody want to watch a 4 and a half hour long procession even if the sprint is exciting.

I asked a question. You've stated outright you wouldn't mind if there were no "pure" sprints whatsoever so I don't think I was "misrepresenting" anything at all. I understand your perspective; I just don't agree with it. I grew up watching those mass sprints and for me they are a fundamental aspect of the TDF. We can argue about how many sprint stages would be required to keep sprinters interested but if you keep reducing it then sprinters will simply not be a part of it anymore. Again, you might think this is a good thing.

 

[Valv.Piti]

I asked a question. You've stated outright you wouldn't mind if there were no "pure" sprints whatsoever so I don't think I was "misrepresenting" anything at all. I understand your perspective; I just don't agree with it. I grew up watching those mass sprints and for me they are a fundamental aspect of the TDF. We can argue about how many sprint stages would be required to keep sprinters interested but if you keep reducing it then sprinters will simply not be a part of it anymore. Again, you might think this is a good thing.

Okay, fair enough.

And yes, I think the race would be better if the likes of Milan, Merlier etc. were not racing and the teams of the pure sprinters had other objectives. More often than not, it leads to destructive racing. But again, Im a realist, and so Im arguing to reduce it to around 3, but still keep a few stages open (like the one today, or the one in Toulouse, the stage WVA won in 2022, the stages Sagan have won in the past etc.). Those are basically the stages Im arguing for - make the fast men and their teams earn the right to sprint.

I don't know what the breakpoint would be though were the best pure sprinters don't line up. I think 3 is the perfect balance as you then have lots of stages left to reward the other, and frankly, much more interesting rider profiles of the race that more often than not get marginalized. If you can't sprint with the best and can't climb with the best, its usually incredibly difficult to win stages, but this year they have done a quite good job in that regard - Van der Poel, Healy, Abrahamsen, Wellens, Groves, WVA etc. have won some of the more interesting stages that didn't feature the GC riders. So that good. Now scrap 2 of the 5 pure bunch sprints with another time trial, a team time trial or a stage similar to Toulouse and I think you have a perfect balance where every rider type will look at the map and say "I have at least 2-3 opportunities this race". Right now a rider like Ganna or Tarling can say that about one stage, and a rider like Van der Poel has treated the race as pure training since there were not any stages that he realistically could contest.

 

[Red Rick]

It would have been an all time classic for the ages if she'd said No.

It's the only correct answer when someone asks with hundreds of people watching.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Would you have sprint stages and sprinters pushed out of the sport entirely?

Yes and yes.

By this I mean "pure sprinters": great, fantastic skill, please find a velodrome.

 

[bah]

Okay, fair enough.

And yes, I think the race would be better if the likes of Milan, Merlier etc. were not racing and the teams of the pure sprinters had other objectives. More often than not, it leads to destructive racing. But again, Im a realist, and so Im arguing to reduce it to around 3, but still keep a few stages open (like the one today, or the one in Toulouse, the stage WVA won in 2022, the stages Sagan have won in the past etc.). Those are basically the stages Im arguing for - make the fast men and their teams earn the right to sprint.

I don't know what the breakpoint would be though were the best pure sprinters don't line up. I think 3 is the perfect balance as you then have lots of stages left to reward the other, and frankly, much more interesting rider profiles of the race that more often than not get marginalized. If you can't sprint with the best and can't climb with the best, its usually incredibly difficult to win stages, but this year they have done a quite good job in that regard - Van der Poel, Healy, Abrahamsen, Wellens, Groves, WVA etc. have won some of the more interesting stages that didn't feature the GC riders. So that good. Now scrap 2 of the 5 pure bunch sprints with another time trial, a team time trial or a stage similar to Toulouse.

Fair enough. As I said I understand your perspective, at the same time for me a TDF world in which the likes of Abdoujaparov, Cipollini, Zabel, Greipel, Kittel, Cavendish, Sagan (to a degree; he would find other ways to win) might not be there would be somewhat diminished. But yes, I get that a pure sprint stage is usually worth only tuning into with 5km to go.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Fair enough. As I said I understand your perspective, at the same time for me a TDF world in which the likes of Abdoujaparov, Cipollini, Zabel, Greipel, Kittel, Cavendish, Sagan (to a degree; he would find other ways to win) might not be there would be somewhat diminished. But yes, I get that a pure sprint stage is usually worth only tuning into with 5km to go.

Milan and Merlier don't belong in the same conversation as any of those guys, and hardly in the same sport as the likes of Sagan.

 

[pmcg76]

Would you have sprint stages and sprinters pushed out of the sport entirely? They've always been an integral part of the sport.

They are a part of the sport, but they are way over-rewarded compared to their actual talent level. It is only in the last 30 years we have seen a huge jump in sprint stages. Cav, Kittel, Greipel, McEwen, Philipsen, Zabel, Cipo all in double figures for Tour stages. Go before 1992 and how many sprinters are in double figures? Freddy Maertens and Andre Darrigade, that's it I think. Maertens could win in various ways and likewise over half of Darrigades victories were not bunch sprints. I said already between 89-92, there was 10 bunch sprints in total yet Cav won 20 in the same time frame, despite not always winning. You cannot win 20 sprints if there are only 10 sprint stages. 87 Tour, 25 stages, 4 bunch sprints, 86,-3 bunch sprints, 2 on the final 2 days. Some years there were more, some years less, but there was not 6-8 sprint stages ever year like most of the past 30 years. That's the issue. Meanwhile there used to be 3-4 TTs per Tour, now that is down to one.

 

[dr.eve]

Would you have sprint stages and sprinters pushed out of the sport entirely? They've always been an integral part of the sport.

I would, let them sprint on the track! That's partly made for sprinters. In road racing I don't mind sprinting, but stages don't need to be a flat massasprint design.

 

[Red Rick]

They are a part of the sport, but they are way over-rewarded compared to their actual talent level. It is only in the last 30 years we have seen a huge jump in sprint stages. Cav, Kittel, Greipel, McEwen, Philipsen, Zabel, Cipo all in double figures for Tour stages. Go before 1992 and how many sprinters are in double figures? Freddy Maertens and Andre Darrigade, that's it I think. Maertens could win in various ways and likewise over half of Darrigades victories were not bunch sprints. I said already between 89-92, there was 10 bunch sprints in total yet Cav won 20 in the same time frame, despite not always winning. You cannot win 20 sprints if there are only 10 sprint stages. 87 Tour, 25 stages, 4 bunch sprints, 86,-3 bunch sprints, 2 on the final 2 days. Some years there were more, some years less, but there was not 6-8 sprint stages ever year like most of the past 30 years. That's the issue. Meanwhile there used to be 3-4 TTs per Tour, now that is down to one.

Sprinters, who basically by definition cannot win monuments, stage races and grand tours are over-rewarded compared to their actual talent?

 

[Valv.Piti]

Fair enough. As I said I understand your perspective, at the same time for me a TDF world in which the likes of Abdoujaparov, Cipollini, Zabel, Greipel, Kittel, Cavendish, Sagan (to a degree; he would find other ways to win) might not be there would be somewhat diminished. But yes, I get that a pure sprint stage is usually worth only tuning into with 5km to go.

They still would have their shots, but not to the same extent as before. Basically like a very skilled puncheur has a few opportunities, a time trialist having a prologue, longer time trial and a team time trial to look forward to, breakaway artists having a few dead-on break days etc. etc. Its all about balance to me, and for far too long have ASO and others catered to pure sprinters. And that comes with a huge prize to other talented riders and the number of people tuning in. The landscape of France isn't THAT interesting after all.

 

[dobrien]

The best final stage since 1989! Fantastic win by Van Aert, who hits back after all the doubts, the crashes, the criticisms etc. I wasn't sure if his shape was good enough to win this stage, but it clearly was. That acceleration on the final climb was impressive. He's won ten stages now, and this was arguably the best one, because he beat Pogacar in a direct battle.

And just such an epic and dramatic setting too, with the rain, the massive crowds, Montemarte, this was definitely a singular career moment for him. Loved seeing it.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

The entire first week, everyone was worried that we might lose GC contenders simply because of the crash danger that sprint stages bring. In sprint stages, everyone thinks they have a chance to win, so they take stupid risks. I don't want to risk losing the riders that really make the Tour just so we can see 5k of stupid human tricks.

 

[bah]

Milan and Merlier don't belong in the same conversation as any of those guys, and hardly in the same sport as the likes of Sagan.

I'm not sure why they don't belong; I agree with Sagan which is why I placed a caveat on him - he was clearly a far more talented rider than just winning bunch sprints but he did win a fair share of those.

 

[Red Rick]

This Tour de France had the GC winner finishing at 76 hours 0 minutes and 32 seconds, which is the shortest Tour de France in history.

It's also less than a third of what it used to be back in the good days.

 

[pmcg76]

Sprinters, who basically by definition cannot win monuments, stage races and grand tours are over-rewarded compared to their actual talent?

Absolutely, most of them are at best mid-tier WT riders, but the fact that in an easier race they can sit in, let others do the work and get a chance to win means they win more than just about any other type of rider. I would argue the typical mid tier domestique is a better cyclist than the average sprinter, but the nature of the sport means they don't get to win.

 

[Valv.Piti]

The entire first week, everyone was worried that we might lose GC contenders simply because of the crash danger that sprint stages bring. In sprint stages, everyone thinks they have a chance to win, so they take stupid risks. I don't want to risk losing the riders that really make the Tour just so we can see 5k of stupid human tricks.

Thats why the start in Italy was perfect. Stage 1 was a real hard day and the peloton was quickly at around 30-50 riders, reducing risks drastically. Add to that the exciting racing and the unpredictability such a stage has to offer being the first stage - basically turning a hard, dead-on breakaway stage into stage one of the TdF was great to see. Nobody really knew how that would play out. Stage 2 wasnt bad either.

 

[bah]

The entire first week, everyone was worried that we might lose GC contenders simply because of the crash danger that sprint stages bring. In sprint stages, everyone thinks they have a chance to win, so they take stupid risks. I don't want to risk losing the riders that really make the Tour just so we can see 5k of stupid human tricks.

But if I'm not wrong this seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon. The GC riders weren't desperate to be at the front, say, 20 years ago. At least I don't remember it like that.

 

[bah]

Absolutely, most of them are at best mid-tier WT riders, but the fact that in an easier race they can sit in, let others do the work and get a chance to win means they win more than just about any other type of rider. I would argue the typical mid tier domestique is a better cyclist than the average sprinter, but the nature of the sport means they don't get to win.

So, I would ask you, would you be happy to see sprinters eliminated from the sport?

 

[Valv.Piti]

But if I'm not wrong this seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon. The GC riders weren't desperate to be at the front, say, 20 years ago. At least I don't remember it like that.

Nope, and the flat stages were also far less controlled back then. At least early 2000's. Go look at some of these stages and I bet you'd be surprised to see how many great rouleurs actually tried to win and how often they managed to do so. Thats why you need to adapt, and ASO and Gouvenou are doing that as we speak.

 

[Gigs_98]

Just watched the stage and found it fantastic. I actually think going forward they should always neutralize the final laps and keep the circuit. This route is asking for massive crashes on the last day if time gaps count and at the end you would probably not see any gc riders in the battle for the stage since it wouldn't be worth the risk.

I even kinda liked the unintended side effect of most people finishing on their own a few minutes later. You can actually watch all the guys you just followed for three weeks cross the finish line and see their emotions as they finish the Tour. It gave me a very nice sense of closure. Even if you keep the new circuit but don't neutralize it you would lose all of that.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I'm not sure why they don't belong; I agree with Sagan which is why I placed a caveat on him - he was clearly a far more talented rider than just winning bunch sprints but he did win a fair share of those.

Cavendish won MSR. Zabel won it 4 times.
Milan can sprint. Great track racer, but that's really it. His winning green is really underwhelming.

 

[Red Rick]

Absolutely, most of them are at best mid-tier WT riders, but the fact that in an easier race they can sit in, let others do the work and get a chance to win means they win more than just about any other type of rider. I would argue the typical mid tier domestique is a better cyclist than the average sprinter, but the nature of the sport means they don't get to win.

Drafting is an inherent part of cycling and her identity as a sport. If I want to watch the strongest win I'll watch strongman competitions.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Absolutely, most of them are at best mid-tier WT riders, but the fact that in an easier race they can sit in, let others do the work and get a chance to win means they win more than just about any other type of rider. I would argue the typical mid tier domestique is a better cyclist than the average sprinter, but the nature of the sport means they don't get to win.