Although it is a team sport, it is an individual classification, so that's the reason for the dislike of the TTT impacting the race too much. Riders on the strongest teams are already heavily advantaged by having the strongest teams.
As an example, Michele Scarponi lost five times more time in the 33km TTT in the 2010 Giro than he did in the other 3452km combined and would have been less than 30 seconds behind Basso otherwise. David Arroyo lost the GC because his team lost over 2 minutes in that 33km TTT. If that's a 33km ITT, Arroyo still loses minutes because he's a poor time triallist, but suddenly the dynamic between Nibali, Basso and Scarponi is significantly altered. Instead, Scarponi is punished for his team, because they were pinned at going at a speed that wouldn't drop Venezuelan climber Jackson Rodríguez, their 5th rider.
And that's in a race that people loved. I mean, I could analyse the impact of the TTT on the 2009 Tour.
Well, I understand the argument on the one hand, but on the other I still think it would be okay if the teams had about the same budget and had the same chances of building a team to support their chosen riders best. Then if they fail to do that, it's not "unfair" for the individual rider, it's just road cycling.
I mean, I'm torn myself. Do I want the best rider to win? Yes. Do I have a somehow awkward feeling in my stomach when someone else but the strongest rider wins? Yes.
But. Do I believe that the strongest rider is definitely the strongest rider anyway? No. (Clinic issues.)
Do I think that road cycling is a lot more than the strongest rider winning and that's the reason why I watch it while I hardly ever watch triathlon? Yes. Do I, in the end, care more about the excitement watching than the strongest rider winning? Yes.
But my argument is very theoretical anyway since there are immense differences in budgets and I don't have any solution to solve this problem, which I regard as the real root of the problem.