Would changing the sizes of teams improve racing?

[boalio]

So everyone seems to agree that racing, especially grand tours, has started to become much more technical and less interesting to watch.

There is the whole argument about banning race radios to help remove some of the 'technical' control of races, but what about changing team sizes?

What would the effect of changing to smaller teams have? What about if the TdF had 30 teams of 6 riders instead of 20 teams of 9? Would this make it harder for one team to dominate the whole race? Would it make it more competitive?

Would it also maybe help sponsorship problems? A smaller team would be cheaper, so the barrier of entry to the sport would be lower. Would you get more sponsors involved?

 

[Anonymous]

It would make the first quarter of each stage more unpredictable as adding 10 more small teams who need a flier to put the sponsor on TV would create nothing but attacks. I am not sure having more breaks with unknown riders who will get caught sooner or later makes the race better though.

 

[byu123]

So everyone seems to agree that racing, especially grand tours, has started to become much more technical and less interesting to watch.

There is the whole argument about banning race radios to help remove some of the 'technical' control of races, but what about changing team sizes?

What would the effect of changing to smaller teams have? What about if the TdF had 30 teams of 6 riders instead of 20 teams of 9? Would this make it harder for one team to dominate the whole race? Would it make it more competitive?

Would it also maybe help sponsorship problems? A smaller team would be cheaper, so the barrier of entry to the sport would be lower. Would you get more sponsors involved?

Excellent thread topic and a purely cycling issue I have wondered often about.

The whole traing of super domestiques pulling one GC guy seems to take some of the drama out of it. If anything, I think it would be great to see smaller teams. Make it more about the talents of the individual racers as opposed the the strength of the team. I say that knowing full well that ("he whose name I won't mention unless someone else does first here") 's teams were probably the most notorious examples of the 9 man team packed with super domestiques in support of one GC guy. This is why I like the time trials so much . . . 1st with mountain top finishes a close 2nd. They make it more mano a mano. Anything to improve this would be a good thing.

What do you think is the minimum team number you could mandate and have it not damage the sport? You mentioned 6. What about 5 or even as low as 3? I know that may sound somewhat naive, the 3 man comment, but how bad would it negatively affect the race and its financial viability in terms of sponsorship if you only had three-man teams??? Can you imagine the battles you would see on the bike in the mountains with 3 man teams???

 

[boalio]

What do you think is the minimum team number you could mandate and have it not damage the sport? You mentioned 6. What about 5 or even as low as 3? I know that may sound somewhat naive, the 3 man comment, but how bad would it negatively affect the race and its financial viability in terms of sponsorship if you only had three-man teams??? Can you imagine the battles you would see on the bike in the mountains with 3 man teams???

I think the problem with teams as small as 3 is that you really start to lose the team effect. And the team aspect is a huge part of cycling. The other thing is injuries etc. with a 3 man team, you lose one guy and you pretty much don't have a team any more.

 

[karlboss]

Not a bad idea, though I personally don't like it, because then no team could support a sprinter and a GC hopeful. That is at 6 let alone 3. If one team can't do both then you should have 2 races. I think maybe a salary cap would work better. The salary cap I also believe would make teams a little more international which for australians is important as we don't have a linking team between lower level continental competition and protour.

 

[AW7577]

I think what might happen with 3 man teams is that we would see teams almost making deals. Like "We'll help you in Race A since we don't have a great contender but next race we're gonna need your help because our great rider is gonna be there." Altogether though I think it's an interesting argument and maybe a number around 6 or 7 would make things interesting.

 

[byu123]

I think the problem with teams as small as 3 is that you really start to lose the team effect. And the team aspect is a huge part of cycling. The other thing is injuries etc. with a 3 man team, you lose one guy and you pretty much don't have a team any more.

Yeah . . . especially in a GT. I do think "any" reduction from 9 would help the sport.

One thing they could very easily do is in addition to the traditional opening TT/Prologue and the usually flat mid-distance TTs in the middle and 2nd to last day, they could make a new rule/policy to always have at least one additional mountain top finish TT a la the year they did the TT up Alpe d'Huez. That adds a lot of drama and puts more burden on the individual cyclist. I know they do the mountain top TT from time to time but making it a regular fixture of the Tour would be great and one way to reduce the distortion of a team packed with super domestiques.

 

[byu123]

Not a bad idea, though I personally don't like it, because then no team could support a sprinter and a GC hopeful. That is at 6 let alone 3. If one team can't do both then you should have 2 races. I think maybe a salary cap would work better. The salary cap I also believe would make teams a little more international which for australians is important as we don't have a linking team between lower level continental competition and protour.

When I made the 3 comment, which baiolo validly points out would be unworkable due to people naturally dropping/crashing out, I thought about the effect on sprinters. One thought would be to have a collective time requirement which if a certain minimum time were not achieved (i.e. tough mountain stage) by the collective team then there is a time penalty or the slowest finisher gets DQd (would usually be a sprinter).

This wouldn't force the smaller teams to not completely abandone the sprint but nor could they couldn't just stack the time as a "sprinter support team" either. Have a sprinter, but make sure collectively the team finishes with a set minimum time. Teams could still have GC contenders and sprinters. There would just have to be a careful balance. A team of just sprinters and lead outs wouldn't make the time cut offs on the mountain stages. Make the time cut offs collective, with the slowest guy getting DQd as opposed to making the cut offs individual only.

Would seem to make the smaller team (5-6) concept workable while still maintaining the drama of the sprint at end of flat stages.

 

[karlboss]

Yeah . . . especially in a GT. I do think "any" reduction from 9 would help the sport.

One thing they could very easily do is in addition to the traditional opening TT/Prologue and the usually flat mid-distance TTs in the middle and 2nd to last day, they could make a new rule/policy to always have at least one additional mountain top finish TT a la the year they did the TT up Alpe d'Huez. That adds a lot of drama and puts more burden on the individual cyclist. I know they do the mountain top TT from time to time but making it a regular fixture of the Tour would be great and one way to reduce the distortion of a team packed with super domestiques.

Just having mountain top finishes will do that, no need for mountain TTs, though i do love them. Having "super domestiques" doesn't help too much up a climb except when you have the strongest rider. Imagine if armstrong wasn't the strongest, his train would have done all the work keeping the pace high controlling ill thought out attacks and then as the last man pulls off ullrich would attack. T-mobile tried it in Lance's last year and it didn't work because of exactly that.
Guys that can help on a mountain are limited they pretty much need to be contenders in their own right. They have 2 jobs, launch attacks to take the win or force other contenders to waste energy chasing, or chase down attacks from contenders. Thats why horner, though great in the mountains, couldn't help evans.

 

[byu123]

Guys that can help on a mountain are limited they pretty much need to be contenders in their own right.

Thats why the whole Astana thing this year seems so bizarre in a way . . . Contador, Leipheimer, Kloden, and "that other guy" all on the same team . . . what is your strategy in the moutains with this kind of set up. Has there ever been an equivalent situation with so many to legit GC contenders who are all accomplished climbers on one team? The dynamics of exactly how this plays itself out is one of the most intriguing thing about this year. Seems no one, even Bruyneel, knows exactly how this is going to unfold. Nice problem to have though . . . .

 

[karlboss]

If you are only supporting a sprinter...you need how many guys?
Without the train
1 the sprinter.
2. the guy to deliver him to the sprint very underrated guy who will work with the sprinter wheel to wheel to put them into position somewhere in the top 10 so the sprinter "can come from nowhere". On good days will even to emerge to lead the sprinter out.
3. At least one guy to push the pace with other teams so cancellara types can't break away in the last km. This is only if no other tema has a full deedicated train. If noone does more likely you'll need 2 even 3.
4 and 5. two guys to help sprinters teams bring back a break. If these 2 are great they may be able to double up with position 3.
With a dedicated train you need more, but you'll note that was 5 guys you must have to adequately support a sprinter. Less and you are relying on luck.
Hence I say if you want teams to be competitive for GC and sprints you need 9.
I don't like teams that can only do one or the other, so i like 9.

 

[byu123]

If you are only supporting a sprinter...you need how many guys?
Without the train
1 the sprinter.
2. the guy to deliver him to the sprint very underrated guy who will work with the sprinter wheel to wheel to put them into position somewhere in the top 10 so the sprinter "can come from nowhere". On good days will even to emerge to lead the sprinter out.
3. At least one guy to push the pace with other teams so cancellara types can't break away in the last km. This is only if no other tema has a full deedicated train. If noone does more likely you'll need 2 even 3.
4 and 5. two guys to help sprinters teams bring back a break. If these 2 are great they may be able to double up with position 3.
With a dedicated train you need more, but you'll note that was 5 guys you must have to adequately support a sprinter. Less and you are relying on luck.
Hence I say if you want teams to be competitive for GC and sprints you need 9.
I don't like teams that can only do one or the other, so i like 9.

Sure changing the team number from 9 would have an effect on the dynamics of the race, but isn't what you are saying basically that a change down from 9 would make this more unpredictable as opposed to carefully planned? Thats what I am trying to get at. A little more unpredictability would improve the races. I get the point of how things are done now . . . but even if there were not the numbers there would still be a sprint at the end for the win it would just be a different dynamic and would seem to be more unpredictable.

 

[karlboss]

Thats why the whole Astana thing this year seems so bizarre in a way . . . Contador, Leipheimer, Kloden, and "that other guy" all on the same team . . . what is your strategy in the moutains with this kind of set up. Has there ever been an equivalent situation with so many to legit GC contenders who are all accomplished climbers on one team? The dynamics of exactly how this plays itself out is one of the most intriguing thing about this year. Seems no one, even Bruyneel, knows exactly how this is going to unfold. Nice problem to have though . . . .

the other guy and zubeldia...the other 2 domestiques have also been used to set tempo up mountains also, that team is way too deep with way too many cards to play.

The train seems a good idea and drop contador at least off at the end, but more likely don't even completely wear out your 3rd last rider. Then tag team which ever contender/s is/are left. Alternately put Kloedon or leipheimer in breakways every day and let someone else pull the train for you...

 

[byu123]

the other guy and zubeldia...the other 2 domestiques have also been used to set tempo up mountains also, that team is way too deep with way too many cards to play.

The train seems a good idea and drop contador at least off at the end, but more likely don't even completely wear out your 3rd last rider. Then tag team which ever contender/s is/are left. Alternately put Kloedon or leipheimer in breakways every day and let someone else pull the train for you...

This is what I am so amped about with regard to this years Tour. It appears that the usual dynamics may be thrown entirely out the window with the packed nature of Astana.

 

[karlboss]

Sure changing the team number from 9 would have an effect on the dynamics of the race, but isn't what you are saying basically that a change down from 9 would make this more unpredictable as opposed to carefully planned? Thats what I am trying to get at. A little more unpredictability would improve the races. I get the point of how things are done now . . . but even if there were not the numbers there would still be a sprint at the end for the win it would just be a different dynamic and would seem to be more unpredictable.

unpredicitble and dangerous, varying the pace in the last kilmoetres is dangerous, small break goes teams work, small break comes back they back off, etc...where as a cohesive effort from at least one team sorts that danger out. You see the danger increasing when no team has a train.

Taking away from the great rivalries in the sport. I love Cavendish vs pettachi, why would i watch that guy who won that thing 3 years ago and that other guy who keeps finishing top 10 but never wins?

Driving down rider salaries as noone could win as regularly anymore hence aren't worth the money, hence sponsors steer clear of sponsoring and money further drops, support riders become truly unappreciated because why pay good money to support another rider who can't even win regularly?

 

[karlboss]

This is what I am so amped about with regard to this years Tour. It appears that the usual dynamics may be thrown entirely out the window with the packed nature of Astana.

I think the strength is too concentrated, I mean you have many ways for astana to win, but virtually none for anyone else, so if you only like the one team, i suppose its good.

I liked last year where a strong team took out someone I thought a stronger rider. I like it when many teams have tactics that can play out.

Having said, why get leipheimer to breakaway when you can ride tempo on what seems a sure thing, in a race of 200 guys Contador is 1:1.9 ridiculous.

 

[byu123]

I think the strength is too concentrated, I mean you have many ways for astana to win, but virtually none for anyone else, so if you only like the one team, i suppose its good.

I liked last year where a strong team took out someone I thought a stronger rider. I like it when many teams have tactics that can play out.

Having said, why get leipheimer to breakaway when you can ride tempo on what seems a sure thing, in a race of 200 guys Contador is 1:1.9 ridiculous.

I'm with you on this. I wish Contador and "that other guy" were not on the same team. Because I admit Contador is better on paper at this point. But at the same time I strongly feel the "other guy" is in good enough shape and given the history should have the ability to go for the win as well.

It seems that if "he" had gone to Columbia-Highroad instead of Astana things would be have been much better. I know the whole long term relationship with Bruyneel was one of the driving factors in going to Astana but it set up the conundrum you pointed out here.

If he were on Columbia with his old mate Hincapie et al it would have been much better I believe. Especially since neither Kirchen nor Rogers is exactly looking like a dominant GC guy for Columbia this year.

Would have been better for him to go to Columbia.

 

[karlboss]

lol, and I wanted contador to go there.

 

[byu123]

lol, and I wanted contador to go there.

Either way . . . Astana has two top GC guys and Columbia has none really. OK . . . I'll go with that Contador to Columbia and then Horner doesn't get screwed and gets to ride in the Tour. THAT . . . is one of the biggest injustices to happen this year. After the Giro, even with the injury, he should be in the Tour.

 

[karlboss]

For a US cycling fan, you can think that. I think you'll find all teams will have similar thoughts about one rider or another, sweden with lokvist, australians with gerrans, etc.
Horner was dumped for 2 reasons, one politics in needing a kazakh, and 2 the job he would have filled was over filled, who were you going to kick out, leipheimer, kloedon or zubeldia?

 

[byu123]

For a US cycling fan, you can think that. I think you'll find all teams will have similar thoughts about one rider or another, sweden with lokvist, australians with gerrans, etc.
Horner was dumped for 2 reasons, one politics in needing a kazakh, and 2 the job he would have filled was over filled, who were you going to kick out, leipheimer, kloedon or zubeldia?

I agree . . . Gerrans got screwed. I also agree that the position was overfilled . . . but what I don't get is Gregory Rast . . .

Tour de Suisse, Stage 9 DNF
Tour de Suisse, Stage 8 91
Tour de Suisse, Stage 7 129
Tour de Suisse, Stage 6 77
Tour de Suisse, Stage 5 106
Tour de Suisse, Stage 4 53
Tour de Suisse, Stage 3 39
Tour de Suisse, Stage 2 136
Tour de Suisse, Stage 1 96

WTF!!! If they had taken Jani Brakjovic I would have understood, I get the Kazakh guy on Astana but Rast over Horner or Brakjovic for that matter???

 

[karlboss]

I agree . . . Gerrans got screwed. I also agree that the position was overfilled . . . but what I don't get is Gregory Rast . . .

Tour de Suisse, Stage 9 DNF
Tour de Suisse, Stage 8 91
Tour de Suisse, Stage 7 129
Tour de Suisse, Stage 6 77
Tour de Suisse, Stage 5 106
Tour de Suisse, Stage 4 53
Tour de Suisse, Stage 3 39
Tour de Suisse, Stage 2 136
Tour de Suisse, Stage 1 96

WTF!!! If they had taken Jani Brakjovic I would have understood, I get the Kazakh guy on Astana but Rast over Horner or Brakjovic for that matter???

and what do you expect from a diesel engine in switzerland with no ambitions for the overall? Stage 1 I'd have expected more...who knows