• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!

World Tour Rankings

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

Califer Hill

Sep 12, 2010
38
0
0
I'm trying to understand how the world tour points are awarded with pro continental teams etc. involved. For the tour down under does Luke Roberts get points since he was on UniSA? If not are the points just given to the next world tour team rider?
 
N

nowhereman

May 24, 2010
3,444
0
0
sublimit said:
Latest UCI points here, suffice to say I'm not sure how its worked out.
I've given up on the UCI website because I dont understand anything there- its a shambles like the UCI itself.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/meyer-takes-lead-in-uci-worldtour-rankings
Click to expand...

Agreed! watch the races, enjoy them for what they are. Cycling's attempt at having "standings" is absolute nonsense as far as I'm concerned. They run it like a mess, and many of the riders don't really regard it as important. Otherwise, why do many of them severely curtail their schedules after the TdF, especially when they are competitively, in the hunt for the UCI "title"? When some highly regarded races don't even count for points, how can the title be taken seriously?
 
BroDeal

BroDeal

Mar 18, 2009
14,644
72
22,580
Califer Hill said:
I'm trying to understand how the world tour points are awarded with pro continental teams etc. involved. For the tour down under does Luke Roberts get points since he was on UniSA? If not are the points just given to the next world tour team rider?
Click to expand...

This one is pretty easy. The UCI will decide how it all works at the end of the season (after riders have been signed to new teams).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Heres an interesting one.

The team rankings are based purely on the top five riders on each team, but what if the rankings counted all riders.

55o1sm.png


Think its fair to say that Rabobank with their strength and depth but no stars get screwed.
 
Dekker_Tifosi

Dekker_Tifosi

Mar 13, 2009
29,370
3,400
28,180
The main difference between Rabobank this year and last year is that Gesink was injured for a large part of the year, TDF + in the autumn seaosn broke his leg.

Because the way Gesink started he'd probably score even more WT points than last year.

/care though.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Dekker_Tifosi said:
The main difference between Rabobank this year and last year is that Gesink was injured for a large part of the year, TDF + in the autumn seaosn broke his leg.

Because the way Gesink started he'd probably score even more WT points than last year.

/care though.
Click to expand...

but if all riders counted, which they should do, Rabo would be 4th. The top five rule is stupid.
 
Dekker_Tifosi

Dekker_Tifosi

Mar 13, 2009
29,370
3,400
28,180
I know the top 5 rule is stupid. We see that every year in the country ranking as well.

Blame the geniuses of the UCI.
It makes no sense anyway, a cycling team usually consists of 8 riders and 9 in the grand tours. So why not count the best 8/9 at least... still better than 5
 
Tank Engine

Tank Engine

Jul 16, 2011
1,561
10
10,510
Thinking about it, restricting the number of riders who count towards the national standings does make sense, because:
a) counting the points from all riders would tend to favour big countries with a number of possibly average (in terms of the pro tour) cyclists
b) the national standings are used to decide the number of riders each country should get in the world championships. The rankings should thus reflect the strength of the team you could expect from such a country, so counting the best 8-9 riders in a country seems reasonable (I know that those would not in general be the riders in the world championships team, but what can you do, it would probably ensure at least a range of types of decent riders in the highly ranked countries). Raising the number from 5 is also likely to work against e.g. a small country with two brothers who earn masses of points, but unless the worlds are in the alps or Columbia might as well be down the pub. edit: OK possibly on the LBL course or something similar

Counting the results of a small number of riders in the pro tour teams does not make any sense because:
a) they all have to take a team to all the pro tour races, thus there is no large team bias (there's not a lot really you can do to counteract differences in budget).
b) it might work against young talented riders who do not get a chance to lead a team if it appears it is struggling in the rankings
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Catwhoorg said:
Hmm
Before I go to the UCI site and do it manually, has any one got a national ranking using all riders ( or top 8/9/10) ?
Click to expand...

i havnt got around to doing that yet. Only a matter of copying the full rankings into excel, sorting by nation and then putting in a quick formula.

But as TE says, its not really workable with nations because it would favour countries with a large amount of riders, whereas world tour teams all essentially have the same, or very similar number of riders so theres no need to restrict it to five.

Interesting from Vaughters to day. The sporting ranking that decides the top 15 takes on board not just the top five, but all riders in the world tour events, but it also takes on board non world tour races, green jerseys etc. So basically, they make it up as it goes along. That list, is not then made publicly available.
 
T

togo95

Apr 19, 2010
722
0
9,980
Tank Engine said:
Thinking about it, restricting the number of riders who count towards the national standings does make sense, because:
a) counting the points from all riders would tend to favour big countries with a number of possibly average (in terms of the pro tour) cyclists
b) the national standings are used to decide the number of riders each country should get in the world championships. The rankings should thus reflect the strength of the team you could expect from such a country, so counting the best 8-9 riders in a country seems reasonable (I know that those would not in general be the riders in the world championships team, but what can you do, it would probably ensure at least a range of types of decent riders in the highly ranked countries). Raising the number from 5 is also likely to work against e.g. a small country with two brothers who earn masses of points, but unless the worlds are in the alps or Columbia might as well be down the pub. edit: OK possibly on the LBL course or something similar

Counting the results of a small number of riders in the pro tour teams does not make any sense because:
a) they all have to take a team to all the pro tour races, thus there is no large team bias (there's not a lot really you can do to counteract differences in budget).
b) it might work against young talented riders who do not get a chance to lead a team if it appears it is struggling in the rankings
Click to expand...

This. +1 ;)
 
Catwhoorg

Catwhoorg

Aug 24, 2011
4,349
0
13,480
Taking the top 9 riders from a nation

Esp 1683
ITA 1489
Bel 1474
Aus 1147
GBR 1078
NED 919
GER 839
USA 620
LUX 536
Fra 506


Taking ALL the riders
Esp 2062
ITA 1922
Bel 1760
Aus 1188
GBR 1079
NED 993
GER 841
USA 625
LUX 536
Fra 527


Oder doesn't change.

There is a slight difference in ranking between the UCI (top 5) and the above
ESP 1,357
BEL 1,164
ITA 1,112
AUS 1,082
GBR 947
GER 798
NED 693
USA 551
LUX 536
FRA 416
NOR 390
 
Tank Engine

Tank Engine

Jul 16, 2011
1,561
10
10,510
Well that sort of disproves my point. Luxembourg is still top 10 whatever method you use :eek:. Maybe it would be more realistic to extend the points to e.g. the top 20 in classics and stage races and top 10 in stages:confused:

Although that certainly justifies the rule of being only able to field a team of 5 unless more that 5 individuals actually score points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom