• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Why are UK riders now more successful?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
Nowadays they still climb on the big ring :)

They also use different sized chainrings and sporckets.

A typical 80s bike used 54/44 and 12-21
A typical modern bike has 53/39 and 11-26

44/21 = 2.09
53/26 = 2.03

So a lower ratio is achievable with a modern big ring than an 80s small ring.

If you consider doping the only explanation for anything, you miss so much.
 
There are lots of factors, and those factors are different for each and every character.

Cavendish, for example, looks to be a freakishly talented cyclist who would have made it to the top regardless. He just happens to be British.

Some of the others have benefited from the funding increase and the track programme (which has ultimately led to Team Sky).

Some of the others had been hawking their wares with a decent level of success as young riders, but now have the confidence of a team behind them that they believe in (here I put the likes of Stannard and Cummings).

Some of the others just happen to be in the right place at the right time.

Some of the others are very suspicious (Froome, for example).

I think it's amplified because of Team Sky being there, and trying to gather a lot of the stars together, but there is no single overriding factor, and 'must be doping' can't explain away all of it, because some have improved gradually, some have always been that good, some still aren't but are racing smarter, and some have improved in the blink of an eye. It can't be easily explained away in one easy statement.
 
Again, what has ratios to do with the thread subject. The question is why UK riders are achieving more success. what the entire peloton changes is not relevant. If you think that doping is the answer then either the majority of Brits were clean in the old peloton and the new ones are joining the dirty masses, Brits were always dirty but now despite being on several teams and some not being BCF connected have some new super doping not understood by the rest of thevword, or the rest of the world is doping less and the Brits are still clean but now able to compete on an even basis.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Don't all the best Brit riders come from the track, (with the exception of the 2 best of the best, Froome and JTL)

Dan Martin is Irish with Brit Mom and was part of the academy before falling out with Brailsford because he wanted DM to ride track. Well the kid is small. I know that Kennaugh is a small cat too and he might fly to 3.52 53 WR in the teams pursuit

Adam Blythe similarly fell out with DB and went off to Belgium for his apprenticeship after konica minolta the saffa team.

Hammond is the best brit, (ever?) for the lowlands one-day races, well, cobbles not the spikey bergs
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Libertine Seguros said:
There are lots of factors, and those factors are different for each and every character.

Cavendish, for example, looks to be a freakishly talented cyclist who would have made it to the top regardless. He just happens to be British.

Some of the others have benefited from the funding increase and the track programme (which has ultimately led to Team Sky).

Some of the others had been hawking their wares with a decent level of success as young riders, but now have the confidence of a team behind them that they believe in (here I put the likes of Stannard and Cummings).

Some of the others just happen to be in the right place at the right time.

Some of the others are very suspicious (Froome, for example).

I think it's amplified because of Team Sky being there, and trying to gather a lot of the stars together, but there is no single overriding factor, and 'must be doping' can't explain away all of it, because some have improved gradually, some have always been that good, some still aren't but are racing smarter, and some have improved in the blink of an eye. It can't be easily explained away in one easy statement.
actually, Froome had a phenomenal debut at the Tour de France as a 22 or 23 yo on Barlo about 5 years back. And came second in a World B tt, and if he rode the u23 instead of World tt that year, he may have won or very least podiumed in the u23 chrono

still doped, but all the rest are too. Wiggins and Cav are the two guys who have been transformed by the gear. Cav just has a good aero posture. But if he had to climb without the gear, and without hanging on to cars, he would never win one sprint. Guy cant be beaten if he can see the line, and phenomenal for that talent. But we dont let chris hoy ride the last k of the champs elysees by haging on to 3000km do we? Nope. If Cav was like Mcewen, and had to climb and finish a stage thru natural aerobic ability, he would not be sprinting ftw. He would not be a pro cos he could not win!

Saying that, the best ever sprint I saw was the San Remo win. And in his second year as a pro, see him snaking solo in 3 days of De Panne, if anyone has any doubts he needs a train and could not handle himself. He could be as good as Mcewen in terms of navigating solo, and he still would be successful . He does not NEED the train, it just adds about 10 wins to the 30 he gets a year. He still would win. Cav IS phenomenal, no doubt. Best ever sprinter in my reckoning. And the San Remo win, is better than Mcewen's come from behind London win, in terms of best wins coming from nowhere metric.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
Visit site
Biggut said:
Again, what has ratios to do with the thread subject.

Nothing directly. But the poster had suggested that riders still climbing in the big ring was proof that there was as much doping as ever without acknowledging gear ratios have changed a lot in 20 years.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Biggut said:
Is it because they are superior dopers? Or is it because they have always been cleaner, so a cleaner sport means they are now getting the just rewards for their talent?

Maybe they are more successful because of twitter?

But when you say "more successful", what do you mean?
More successful than what/who/when?
 
May 6, 2011
451
0
0
Visit site
UK riders only appear successful because the baseline (especially on the road) was so low, and I would even say relative to the population of the country they still underperform. There no classics riders to speak of, just an outstanding sprinter in Cav, and Wiggins who is becoming a decent stage racer after an amazing career on the track. The rest (and there aren't many of them) are a bit meh - including Froome with his one fishy result in one race, especially when you compare to what Belgium, Spain, Italy, and even Australia are able to produce.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
problem is, u dont criticise wiggins.

psychologically, the criticism is interpreted as the assault on the self. IE. I say wiggins is undoubtedly charged. just like cav, just like the rest of teh squad, and most of the peloton.

But dimspace cant reconcile this criticism of the public athlete, and the person, Dimspace. He takes this as an adhominem assault on self, and cant understand, so he shoots the messenger. On a psychological level, when we criticise our heroes, we criticise ourselves.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
richtea said:
UK riders only appear successful because the baseline (especially on the road) was so low, and I would even say relative to the population of the country they still underperform. There no classics riders to speak of, just an outstanding sprinter in Cav, and Wiggins who is becoming a decent stage racer after an amazing career on the track. The rest (and there aren't many of them) are a bit meh - including Froome with his one fishy result in one race, especially when you compare to what Belgium, Spain, Italy, and even Australia are able to produce.
Froomes result WAS NOT fishy. It u know anything about him, u would know he is the most talented rider on Sky. By aways. There are very few athletes that can timetrial and climb naturally. Usually an inverse relationship, or an evans level competency, like LL.

Well Froome can, he almost sits between Evans and Contador, in terms of potential to do both at an elite level. Just above Evans, just behind Contador.

Chris Froome, ftw. Kenyan's first Tour De France winner.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Libertine Seguros said:
Cavendish, for example, looks to be a freakishly talented cyclist who would have made it to the top regardless. He just happens to be British.

actually not right. The coach at the academy, Bradley wiggins coach, who left to go to Perth for the West aus Institute of Sport, he was not complimentary on Cav and his testing. OK, some can test, some can race. When Cav was seen by Heiko Salzedal, famous east euro coach, who took aussie road to europe, then tok Thuringer Energie to the top espoir team, perhpas in Europe, where cav was at in 2005 ish, he said cav could race, and had the hunger and determination in his eyes, and new how to find the line.

Heiko went on to take Denmark and Alex Rass to the silver in the Beijing Team pursuit and then they won a world champs tema pursuit in 2009 or 10. Alex and his CSC teammate have won a few of the big 6 days, apart from the beijing silver.

Heiko is a genius.

I forget Wiggos coach, that had the acrimonious r/s with cav. If u read his book, Cav potted him mercilessly.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
This might be hyperbole.
how so. See his chronos, and him positioning in the final ascent of the Queen Stage.

NOT HYPERBOLE.

I got no dog in this fight. I know Froome is charged like the rest, but I see him getting no credit for his innate talent.
 
May 6, 2011
451
0
0
Visit site
Well you might be correct but it is tangential to my point, which is UK riders are not very successful. And neither is Froome - he has had one result in 5 years. Overall it looks good, because you are comparing it to nothing.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
This might be hyperbole.

It is, but if you look at his 2008 Tour de France, he was a 23 year old neo-pro who was almost fresh out of Africa and, prior to it, the biggest stage race he'd done was the Tour of Britain. He was unspectacular, but managed to come 14th in the final time trial and 30th up Alpe d'Huez. Nothing extraordinary, but signs of some genuine raw talent.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Froome was injured, then Barlo had problems. They actually explain why he was AWOL.

Unlike the justifications, of "weight loss" "efficiency" "cadence" "altitude training" "sports science" "gluten free" "nutrition".

We remember when the Chinese women middle distance racers won everything under the sun in about 98, and they were talking natural remedies and extract of frogs.

Did you believe the chinese women?

"extract of frogs"! This is the Team Sky evolution and results. The extract of frogs.

Thet have elite athletes, the best riders, and a generous budget. That eqyals results.

But dont say they dont do it like the way everyone else at the pointy head of the equation do it. They do it to compete. They do it to win. They are still phenomenal athletes, and they compete on the same terms as their rivals.

But to say they do it clean defies all credulity, and u look like a muppet. sorry
 
blackcat said:
actually not right. The coach at the academy, Bradley wiggins coach, who left to go to Perth for the West aus Institute of Sport, he was not complimentary on Cav and his testing. OK, some can test, some can race. When Cav was seen by Heiko Salzedal, famous east euro coach, who took aussie road to europe, then tok Thuringer Energie to the top espoir team, perhpas in Europe, where cav was at in 2005 ish, he said cav could race, and had the hunger and determination in his eyes, and new how to find the line.

Cav was with Salzwedel at Team Sparkasse, now Nutrixxion-Sparkasse. They aren't the top espoir team in Europe (in fact they aren't an espoir team at all, and weren't then either, including several youngsters but also being led by a 31-year-old André Schulze and a 34-year-old Lars Teutenberg). Thüringer Energie Team didn't start up until 2006; Cav was a part of the T-Mobile development program that eventually begot TET, though.

I don't dispute the rest of what you say. Just goes to show that putting out the right numbers ≠ being as good as they say. Óscar Freire isn't the quickest sprinter, but he's accumulated a better palmarès than lots of people faster than him.
 
More successful than Brits in the past. Undoubtedly there are more Brit riders winning and placing in higher quality races than at any time in the last 40 years. If drugs are the reason then my 4 options from earlier remain.
 
blackcat said:
actually, Froome had a phenomenal debut at the Tour de France as a 22 or 23 yo on Barlo about 5 years back. And came second in a World B tt, and if he rode the u23 instead of World tt that year, he may have won or very least podiumed in the u23 chrono

still doped, but all the rest are too. Wiggins and Cav are the two guys who have been transformed by the gear. Cav just has a good aero posture. But if he had to climb without the gear, and without hanging on to cars, he would never win one sprint. Guy cant be beaten if he can see the line, and phenomenal for that talent. But we dont let chris hoy ride the last k of the champs elysees by haging on to 3000km do we? Nope. If Cav was like Mcewen, and had to climb and finish a stage thru natural aerobic ability, he would not be sprinting ftw. He would not be a pro cos he could not win!

Saying that, the best ever sprint I saw was the San Remo win. And in his second year as a pro, see him snaking solo in 3 days of De Panne, if anyone has any doubts he needs a train and could not handle himself. He could be as good as Mcewen in terms of navigating solo, and he still would be successful . He does not NEED the train, it just adds about 10 wins to the 30 he gets a year. He still would win. Cav IS phenomenal, no doubt. Best ever sprinter in my reckoning. And the San Remo win, is better than Mcewen's come from behind London win, in terms of best wins coming from nowhere metric.

Froome had a solid if not spectacular debut. I think you may be mixing him up with John-Lee Augustyn who did have a fairly spectacular debut. Same team, similar age and also an African background and straight to Sky afterwards;)
 
May 6, 2011
451
0
0
Visit site
Doping isn't going to be factor unless you think Brits are more or less likely to be doping than anyone else. I don't see a compelling reason to lean one way or the other - so you would have to link any increased success (which is still limited) to other factors such as a bigger talent pool, more money, and better co-ordination.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Mambo95 said:
They also use different sized chainrings and sporckets.

A typical 80s bike used 54/44 and 12-21
A typical modern bike has 53/39 and 11-26

44/21 = 2.09
53/26 = 2.03

So a lower ratio is achievable with a modern big ring than an 80s small ring.

If you consider doping the only explanation for anything, you miss so much.

No, it seems the pro peloton considers that the only answer.

They try and blind everyone else with talk of science, technology, diets, ice baths etc etc etc....
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Biggut said:
More successful than Brits in the past. Undoubtedly there are more Brit riders winning and placing in higher quality races than at any time in the last 40 years. If drugs are the reason then my 4 options from earlier remain.

Ok, I will take your word for it.
Anyway, here is a list of Top 20 all-time greats from cyclingweekly.


1 ROBERT MILLAR 2,900 points
Pro: 1980-95

2 Tom Simpson 2,545 points
Pro: 1958-1967

3 Mark Cavendish 2,435 points
Pro: 2007-present

4 Chris Boardman 1,965 points
Pro: 1993-2000

5 David Millar 1,505 points*
Pro: 1997-present

6 Barry Hoban 1,455 points
Pro: 1962-1981

7 Bradley Wiggins 970 points
Pro: 2002-present

8 Michael Wright 800 points
Pro: 1962-1976

9 Max Sciandri 675 points **
Pro: raced as a British rider 1995-2004

10 Sean Yates 635 points
Pro: 1982-1996

11 Brian Robinson 605 points
Pro: 1952-1963

12 Malcolm Elliott 380 points
Pro: 1984-1997

13= Roger Hammond 235 points
Pro: 1998-present

13= Chris Froome 235 points
Pro: 2007-present

15 Jeremy Hunt 230 points
Pro: 1996-present

16 Vin Denson 155 points
Pro: 1959-1969

17 Alan Ramsbottom 150 points
Pro: 1961-1966

18= Graham Jones 120 points
Pro: 1979-1988

18= Paul Sherwen 120 points
Pro: 1978-1987

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...s-all-time-ranking-of-british-pro-riders.html
 

TRENDING THREADS