Why Sky always fails at Il Giro?

First was Wiggins, then Porte & now Landa......

It appears to me that "marginal gains" don't work in Italy :D But really- what's the matter with Sky being unable to conquer the Italian race at all?

Is it the time of the year? Is it the logistics? Is it the quality team sent to Italy? It is the race difficulty? Is it the team calendar? Is it the team priorities? Is it the team's approach to the race?

Please Opine.....
 
May 16, 2016
126
0
0
Re:

MatParker117 said:
Bad luck mostly.
I wouldn't say that they always fail Cav got 3 stages in 2012, they won the white jersey with 2 in the top 10 in 2012, came 2nd and a stage in 2013, 2014 was awful and they got 2 stage wins and 6th in 2015, it's just that their leaders get ill at the wrong times Wiggo DNFd in 2013, Ports DNSd in 2014 and DNFd in 2015 and now Landa it's too many DNFs sadly I think that Porte and Landa would have won on top form and Wiggo would have got a podium some shall see next year
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,093
1
0
Re:

TMP402 said:
Also people are forgetting Uran 2nd in 2013.
OP specifically said *conquer* the race, not finish on the podium, win stages or take home the white jersey.
 
hfer07 said:
First was Wiggins, then Porte & now Landa......

It appears to me that "marginal gains" don't work in Italy :D But really- what's the matter with Sky being unable to conquer the Italian race at all?

Is it the time of the year? Is it the logistics? Is it the quality team sent to Italy? It is the race difficulty? Is it the team calendar? Is it the team priorities? Is it the team's approach to the race?

Please Opine.....
Mainly the leaders getting ill and not being consistent grand tour riders has been the issue.

Anyway for all the talk of Sky's strength as a team they only have one grand tour winner on the roster (Froome), only one other rider who has finished on a grand tour podium (Landa at the Giro last year) and one rider who has won a monument (Poels at LBL a few weeks ago).
 
hfer07 said:
First was Wiggins, then Porte & now Landa......

It appears to me that "marginal gains" don't work in Italy :D But really- what's the matter with Sky being unable to conquer the Italian race at all?

Is it the time of the year? Is it the logistics? Is it the quality team sent to Italy? It is the race difficulty? Is it the team calendar? Is it the team priorities? Is it the team's approach to the race?

Please Opine.....
It looks like they don't care much about it.They surely showed more interest in Vuelta during the years.
 
Re: Re:

Hgriffiths2606 said:
MatParker117 said:
Bad luck mostly.
I wouldn't say that they always fail Cav got 3 stages in 2012, they won the white jersey with 2 in the top 10 in 2012, came 2nd and a stage in 2013, 2014 was awful and they got 2 stage wins and 6th in 2015, it's just that their leaders get ill at the wrong times Wiggo DNFd in 2013, Ports DNSd in 2014 and DNFd in 2015 and now Landa it's too many DNFs sadly I think that Porte and Landa would have won on top form and Wiggo would have got a podium some shall see next year
That was almost verbatim what i said in the lab this morning.(I forgot the Young rider in 2012)

There are plenty of teams who would love to fail as well as Sky has, but it has been a failure for them over the last few years.
 
Re:

saganftw said:
marginal loses which turn into marginal gains in Tour
Even at the Tour you could say in 3 of the 6 attempts they failed miserably. 2010 - highest finisher - Lofkvist - 16th - after Wiggins failed. 2011 - Wiggins crashed out (Uran was highest finisher in 23rd place). 2014 - Froome crashed out - highest finisher was Nieve in 18th place.

And they have just won their first monument at the 34th (!!) attempt. It isn't really a successful team overall.
 
JRanton said:
hfer07 said:
First was Wiggins, then Porte & now Landa......

It appears to me that "marginal gains" don't work in Italy :D But really- what's the matter with Sky being unable to conquer the Italian race at all?

Is it the time of the year? Is it the logistics? Is it the quality team sent to Italy? It is the race difficulty? Is it the team calendar? Is it the team priorities? Is it the team's approach to the race?

Please Opine.....
Mainly the leaders getting ill and not being consistent grand tour riders has been the issue.

Anyway for all the talk of Sky's strength as a team they only have one grand tour winner on the roster (Froome), only one other rider who has finished on a grand tour podium (Landa at the Giro last year) and one rider who has won a monument (Poels at LBL a few weeks ago).
You're second paragraph is spot on imo.

There's a big difference between having great support riders (which they do) and having elite GT leaders. They only have one of those and he's always focusing on the Tour. Wiggins had one stellar year - besides that he was never the top favorite to win a gt. It's no surprise he couldn't do well in the Giro. Porte is Porte. Landa was the first guy besides Froome that I really thought could win a gt. Of course he still could. In the case of Landa, I think it's just bad luck.
 
DBotero said:
hfer07 said:
First was Wiggins, then Porte & now Landa......

It appears to me that "marginal gains" don't work in Italy :D But really- what's the matter with Sky being unable to conquer the Italian race at all?

Is it the time of the year? Is it the logistics? Is it the quality team sent to Italy? It is the race difficulty? Is it the team calendar? Is it the team priorities? Is it the team's approach to the race?

Please Opine.....
It looks like they don't care much about it.They surely showed more interest in Vuelta during the years.
Do you really believe that? Why sign Landa and let him ride the Giro in the first place then? Why move Nieve and Roche to the Giro team instead of letting them prepare for the Tour?

Their 2013 Giro team was stronger than their team for the 2013 Tour. The 2012 team had a lot of talent in it(Cavendish, Thomas, Uran, Henao). The team sent to support Porte last year was very good, the team in 2014 lacked Porte as the leader because he was out with illness. The only criticism I had about this year's team was that they lacked a rider for the flat. I'm talking about sending someone like Puccio or Golas because Kiryienka was out with illness. Both of those riders probably won't make the Tour team so it was a tactical decision to take an extra climber more than anything.
 
Jspear said:
JRanton said:
hfer07 said:
First was Wiggins, then Porte & now Landa......

It appears to me that "marginal gains" don't work in Italy :D But really- what's the matter with Sky being unable to conquer the Italian race at all?

Is it the time of the year? Is it the logistics? Is it the quality team sent to Italy? It is the race difficulty? Is it the team calendar? Is it the team priorities? Is it the team's approach to the race?

Please Opine.....
Mainly the leaders getting ill and not being consistent grand tour riders has been the issue.

Anyway for all the talk of Sky's strength as a team they only have one grand tour winner on the roster (Froome), only one other rider who has finished on a grand tour podium (Landa at the Giro last year) and one rider who has won a monument (Poels at LBL a few weeks ago).
You're second paragraph is spot on imo.

There's a big difference between having great support riders (which they do) and having elite GT leaders. They only have one of those and he's always focusing on the Tour. Wiggins had one stellar year - besides that he was never the top favorite to win a gt. It's no surprise he couldn't do well in the Giro. Porte is Porte. Landa was the first guy besides Froome that I really thought could win a gt. Of course he still could. In the case of Landa, I think it's just bad luck.
Yup, for instance I'd take Tinkoff's team over Sky's based purely on Sagan and Contador being the leaders (Majka's very good too). Same with Movistar and Astana.

Movistar have Valverde and Quintana. Astana have Nibali and Aru. And both have excellent support too.

I think a lot of us are guilty over obsessing about team strength (myself included). 90% of the time the final result comes down to how good the leader is. There's a reason why a big leader like Froome gets paid 4-5 million euros per year and a good domestique like Nieve gets 400,000-500,000 euros per year.
 
Re: Re:

TMP402 said:
CheckMyPecs said:
TMP402 said:
Also people are forgetting Uran 2nd in 2013.
OP specifically said *conquer* the race, not finish on the podium, win stages or take home the white jersey.
Indeed, but that doesn't prevent me from opining that Uran/Sky's 2nd in 2013 is often overlooked.
Yes and No:

No in Colombia was a big deal- It was the needed proof of Uran's talents and skills to fight with realistic chances for a GT. It was also his way to get a contract with QS the year after.

yes because SKY's priority was always WIGGINS - Uran took over when the race was already lost for them even when he was able made the best of it. In fact, the year before SKY assembled the team exclusively around Cavendish- even when Uran finished 7th -Brailsford cared less about it while being sad for Cav not winning the maglia ciclamino....

so to answer your question, Uran's 2013 meant NOTHING for SKY
 
May 16, 2016
126
0
0
JRanton said:
Jspear said:
JRanton said:
hfer07 said:
First was Wiggins, then Porte & now Landa......

It appears to me that "marginal gains" don't work in Italy :D But really- what's the matter with Sky being unable to conquer the Italian race at all?

Is it the time of the year? Is it the logistics? Is it the quality team sent to Italy? It is the race difficulty? Is it the team calendar? Is it the team priorities? Is it the team's approach to the race?

Please Opine.....
Mainly the leaders getting ill and not being consistent grand tour riders has been the issue.

Anyway for all the talk of Sky's strength as a team they only have one grand tour winner on the roster (Froome), only one other rider who has finished on a grand tour podium (Landa at the Giro last year) and one rider who has won a monument (Poels at LBL a few weeks ago).
You're second paragraph is spot on imo.

There's a big difference between having great support riders (which they do) and having elite GT leaders. They only have one of those and he's always focusing on the Tour. Wiggins had one stellar year - besides that he was never the top favorite to win a gt. It's no surprise he couldn't do well in the Giro. Porte is Porte. Landa was the first guy besides Froome that I really thought could win a gt. Of course he still could. In the case of Landa, I think it's just bad luck.
Yup, for instance I'd take Tinkoff's team over Sky's based purely on Sagan and Contador being the leaders (Majka's very good too). Same with Movistar and Astana.

Movistar have Valverde and Quintana. Astana have Nibali and Aru. And both have excellent support too.

I think a lot of us are guilty over obsessing about team strength (myself included). 90% of the time the final result comes down to how good the leader is. There's a reason why a big leader like Froome gets paid 4-5 million euros per year and a good domestique like Nieve gets 400,000-500,000 euros per year.
Are you serious? Astana may have 2 GT winners but Sky have Landa would have won had there not been illness and the support that Sky give is tonnes better than Tinkoff for a start, their support is awful they only have Roman K and Rafa Majika with Contador and Movistar and Astana have great support but that's only because they never control a race, sky put winning before the team classification and stoking a guy in the break, if sky rode like Astana and Movistar they'd have 5-6 up there in the final, the one time Astana fully controlled a race, Nibali only had Fuglsang with him so that says a lot, so I believe sky have far more talent than Movistar and Astana , they just ride differently and Tinkoff are awful, they have 4 good riders that's it.
 
Hgriffiths2606 said:
JRanton said:
Jspear said:
JRanton said:
hfer07 said:
First was Wiggins, then Porte & now Landa......

It appears to me that "marginal gains" don't work in Italy :D But really- what's the matter with Sky being unable to conquer the Italian race at all?

Is it the time of the year? Is it the logistics? Is it the quality team sent to Italy? It is the race difficulty? Is it the team calendar? Is it the team priorities? Is it the team's approach to the race?

Please Opine.....
Mainly the leaders getting ill and not being consistent grand tour riders has been the issue.

Anyway for all the talk of Sky's strength as a team they only have one grand tour winner on the roster (Froome), only one other rider who has finished on a grand tour podium (Landa at the Giro last year) and one rider who has won a monument (Poels at LBL a few weeks ago).
You're second paragraph is spot on imo.

There's a big difference between having great support riders (which they do) and having elite GT leaders. They only have one of those and he's always focusing on the Tour. Wiggins had one stellar year - besides that he was never the top favorite to win a gt. It's no surprise he couldn't do well in the Giro. Porte is Porte. Landa was the first guy besides Froome that I really thought could win a gt. Of course he still could. In the case of Landa, I think it's just bad luck.
Yup, for instance I'd take Tinkoff's team over Sky's based purely on Sagan and Contador being the leaders (Majka's very good too). Same with Movistar and Astana.

Movistar have Valverde and Quintana. Astana have Nibali and Aru. And both have excellent support too.

I think a lot of us are guilty over obsessing about team strength (myself included). 90% of the time the final result comes down to how good the leader is. There's a reason why a big leader like Froome gets paid 4-5 million euros per year and a good domestique like Nieve gets 400,000-500,000 euros per year.
Are you serious? Astana may have 2 GT winners but Sky have Landa would have won had there not been illness and the support that Sky give is tonnes better than Tinkoff for a start, their support is awful they only have Roman K and Rafa Majika with Contador and Movistar and Astana have great support but that's only because they never control a race, sky put winning before the team classification and stoking a guy in the break, if sky rode like Astana and Movistar they'd have 5-6 up there in the final, the one time Astana fully controlled a race, Nibali only had Fuglsang with him so that says a lot, so I believe sky have far more talent than Movistar and Astana , they just ride differently and Tinkoff are awful, they have 4 good riders that's it.
Where to start with this...

Yes, I am deadly serious. Sagan's average team didn't prevent him winning Flanders. Same with Contador at last year's Giro (which was actually a pretty decent team anyway). Contador's Tour team will be more than good enough.

The point about Landa is ridiculous. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Staying healthy throughout 3 weeks of a grand tour is a massive part of being an elite grand tour rider. Landa obviously struggles with his health and consistency as a rider.

Astana and Movistar have just as much depth, if not more than Sky, in terms of GC support.

I think you mostly missed the point I was making though. If you have better leaders then it doesn't matter that much if your team overall is a bit weaker.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,093
1
0
Re: Re:

JRanton said:
And they have just won their first monument at the 34th (!!) attempt. It isn't really a successful team overall.
Winning 15 one-day races (including a Monument), 37 stage races (including 3 GTs) and 130 individual stages is so unsuccessful it's a wonder they haven't been demoted to Continental status yet. :rolleyes:
 
Jspear said:
JRanton said:
hfer07 said:
First was Wiggins, then Porte & now Landa......

It appears to me that "marginal gains" don't work in Italy :D But really- what's the matter with Sky being unable to conquer the Italian race at all?

Is it the time of the year? Is it the logistics? Is it the quality team sent to Italy? It is the race difficulty? Is it the team calendar? Is it the team priorities? Is it the team's approach to the race?

Please Opine.....
Mainly the leaders getting ill and not being consistent grand tour riders has been the issue.

Anyway for all the talk of Sky's strength as a team they only have one grand tour winner on the roster (Froome), only one other rider who has finished on a grand tour podium (Landa at the Giro last year) and one rider who has won a monument (Poels at LBL a few weeks ago).
You're second paragraph is spot on imo.

There's a big difference between having great support riders (which they do) and having elite GT leaders. They only have one of those and he's always focusing on the Tour. Wiggins had one stellar year - besides that he was never the top favorite to win a gt. It's no surprise he couldn't do well in the Giro. Porte is Porte. Landa was the first guy besides Froome that I really thought could win a gt. Of course he still could. In the case of Landa, I think it's just bad luck.
You say that as if there's a bunch of elite GT leaders.

How many guys would you say are really top top GT leaders who you would expect to win a GT within the next two years?

Froome, Contador, Quintana, Nibali, Landa, Aru, maybe Pinot. Anyone else? Would you really count the likes of Valverde, Purito, Van Garderen, Dumoulin, Kruijswijk, Uran, Hesjedal, Fuglsang, Majka etc as elite leaders? If you're saying Porte isn't, I assume not.

The fact that Sky have two along with a plethora of superb domestiques makes them insanely strong
 
PremierAndrew said:
Gets ill and withdraws from a Grand Tour once.

JRanton said:
Staying healthy throughout 3 weeks of a grand tour is a massive part of being an elite grand tour rider. Landa obviously struggles with his health and consistency as a rider.
If you want to ignore the 14 minutes he lost in a stage last year at the Vuelta, 2 seasons running when he's missed the first months of the season due to illness and an entire career of inconsistent riding, as described by the likes of Taxus who know him well, then be my guest.

He's a great talent but with serious flaws in terms of being an elite grand tour GC rider. I don't think that's an unfair assessment.
 
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
JRanton said:
And they have just won their first monument at the 34th (!!) attempt. It isn't really a successful team overall.
Winning 15 one-day races (including a Monument), 37 stage races (including 3 GTs) and 130 individual stages is so unsuccessful it's a wonder they haven't been demoted to Continental status yet. :rolleyes:
Of the 53 most important races (19 grand tours and 34 monuments) that they've ridden since their inception they've won four of them. Sorry, but I don't think that's a particularly successful record considering their budget.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY