Tour de France 2017 General Thread

Eamonnator

I thought the Tour was great.
Some very exciting racing.
But, then I enjoy watching cricket and chess on TV

1bryan

Brian? wrote: »

Did you watch too much? I only watched the last hour of most stages, sometime 90 minutes of a mountain stage.

well I watched most of every stage. I probably did watch too much.

Eamonnator

1bryan wrote: »

well I watched most of every stage. I probably did watch too much.

Not possible to watch too much.

ThisRegard

Eamonnator wrote: »

Not possible to watch too much.

True, sleep kicked in a few times this tour to prevent that happening.

StevieGriff

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Is Peter Sagan allowed back into France again?

Only if it's for a citizenship ceremony.

Hunterbiker

It was a good Tour to watch. Interesting to see the guys just on the cusp of great things starting to come through.
Hats off to the Yates family owning the white jersey again (TUE admin aside)...
Sad to see people starting to fade but that's life.
Fair play to Froome too but by heck what a team Sky had. They all practically killed themselves delivering the support this year. Sky will miss Landa when he goes...

mr spuckler

i don't know how i'll fill my afternoons now it's over. maybe with...work? :eek:

Leroy42

Yes I agree. This was a really good tour. Far better than the previous few years and a reminder of why the tour is could be the best out there.

Sky did a brilliant job, the other teams simply cannot match them. At and the end, despite all that was thrown at him, Froome emerged, yet again, as the strongest.

The other teams, like AG2R tried to do this year, need to up their game and not simply allow Sky to dominate. They need to start mixing it up at the front rather than simply let the SkyTrain control the whole stage. AG2R did cause them some problems, but with Landa they had the extra class.

I think a system of subs could be reviewed. Having some teams down to 3 or 4 riders only serves to diminish the race. Allow a certain number of subs to be brought in. Obviously they couldn't be part of the overall or the individual competitions, but could take stage wins etc.

retalivity

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/team-sky-top-tour-de-france-prize-money-table/

The prize money really is a pittance . Dmitri Claeys, the lowest ranked cofidis rider, got the equivalent of 23.50 per hour on the bike.

Macy0161

Didn't get to sit through any full stages, but I think it may show that 8 man teams may not be the solution. Dan was essentially screwed as Quick Step had a sprinter and GC, and consensus seems to be that no one that had anyone for any jersey or a sprinter was interested in breaks. That's going to get worse with 8 man teams, not better? Sky pretty much controlled it with 8 everywhere that mattered.

I thought individual stages were good, but I didn't really feel the GC was that open despite how close it was. If Porte had stayed upright, and Dan not been taken out, could've been very different.

3 times they could've put the boot into Froome, and the rest of the GC's bottled it, except Aru for the first time. They should've attacked with Aru when he had the mechanical (equipment robustness is a choice), they should've pushed on when Froome and Aru made the mistake on that descent, and either AG2R or the other GC guys should've at least tried to go again just as Froome came back the day of his second mechanical. No GC contenders were prepared to lose to win. Even Froome with his chasing down of Landa twice!

Dcully

Got to see the important bits of every stage as i was on holidays in 40 degree heat so i had to have some excuse to come indoors for ciesta

I didnt think this year was great at all, not helped by porte and valverde going out early and poor form of quintana and contador although he hit form near the end.
The mountain stages just didnt feel right without those guys in form.
Cavendish and Sagan going out early too was a big shame, again the sprint stages just werent the same although Kittel would probably still have won many stages but surely Sagan would have fought for the green.
Still feel Landa could have won GC it if he wore the stripes.

For me the Vuelta is always the best GT of them all.

1bryan

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think a system of subs could be reviewed. Having some teams down to 3 or 4 riders only serves to diminish the race. Allow a certain number of subs to be brought in. Obviously they couldn't be part of the overall or the individual competitions, but could take stage wins etc.

no way, that's just tough luck and all part of bike racing. Sure aren't they reducing the size of all teams from next year down to 8? I'd suggest 6 or 7 would make for a far better race.

the thoughts of a 'fresh' rider opting in for one stage against a field of riders who have 1000's of kms in the legs can't ever be fair. Though isn't that how the early season Mallorca races used to operate? You could opt in and out of any stage, as you wished but couldn't win the overall if you didn't ride them all.

Leroy42

Its not an opt-in-out-in system. A sub would be a rider replaced, the replaced rider cannot go back in later.

Of course it makes it harder for those on that have 1000's of KM's in the legs, but it also removed the 'rest days on a bike' that we seen at stages of the race.

How is really any different that the sprinters climbing off as soon as the mountains start (I'm not speaking about Kittle btw). They go full blast for the 1st week or so then simply climb off.

Or the Polka Dot winner needs to be within a certain % of the winners time, so avoid a few days breakaway to hoover up some points when you are already an hour behind and you have taken it easy until that point and go back to the rear won the title is sewn up.

neris

Thought that was possibly one of the most boring TDFs in years. Lovely scenery and all that but some of the stages were just too long and boring with nothing happening till the final 10-15km. Not their fault for having the strongest team but the sky domination really has ruined it. When you see 4 or 5 sky riders leading froome and all the other GC guys tucked in behind it just kills the race and any chances of attacking or a breakaway attempt. Sky have a focus on the TDF that other teams dont. Get froome to win and scrap any other ideas of other riders in the team getting any glory. Compare that to the likes of Quickstep trying to keep 2 riders happy or Astana who didnt really have any support riders for a GC contender. The short stages were good but they need to review the stage types and lengths for next year. Roll on the Vuelta, Grand Tour cold turkeys kicking in

Brian?

neris wrote: »

Thought that was possibly one of the most boring TDFs in years. Lovely scenery and all that but some of the stages were just too long and boring with nothing happening till the final 10-15km. Not their fault for having the strongest team but the sky domination really has ruined it. When you see 4 or 5 sky riders leading froome and all the other GC guys tucked in behind it just kills the race and any chances of attacking or a breakaway attempt. Sky have a focus on the TDF that other teams dont. Get froome to win and scrap any other ideas of other riders in the team getting any glory. Compare that to the likes of Quickstep trying to keep 2 riders happy or Astana who didnt really have any support riders for a GC contender. The short stages were good but they need to review the stage types and lengths for next year. Roll on the Vuelta, Grand Tour cold turkeys kicking in

I don't get it. Every Tour is only exciting in the last 10-15km. With rare exceptions.

There were several times this years tour were very exciting in the last 10-15km.

greenspurs

Even when the teams are reduced to 8..... Team Sly will still have the 8 strongest .....

Peterx

TTTs and ITTs are brilliant for actual physical side of the road spectators, The TTT in Belfast was excellent to watch. 20 chances to see the cyclists as opposed to the usual two chances you would get on a flat stage.

On the TV they are pretty boring most of the time.

Was there a higher than usual attrition rate of the top guys this year or is that always the case? Losing Porte in particular hurt the GC fight and obviously Sagan and Cav were huge losses.

joujoujou

greenspurs wrote: »

Even when the teams are reduced to 8..... Team Sly will still have the 8 strongest .....

I don't get it - why blame strong for strength? :P

el tel

Watching Europsort's coverage yesterday I lost count how many times they said this year was the closest tour ever. Jonathan Edwards and Brian Smith were the worst culprits for this. They seem to have forgotten about their colleague Greg Lemond, who of course won the tour by a mere 8 seconds exactly 28 years to the very day.

Then they interviewed Dave Brailsford (who has a remarkable and detailed remit over all aspects of the team, contents of jiffy bags excluded) and kept mentioning how Froome losing yellow on stage 12 was a new experience for Sky as it was the first time the team had lost the yellow jersey. Not only has Froome himself lost they yellow jersey  - in 2015 to Tony Martin - but the team lost Geraint Thomas' yellow Jersey in this tour, which of course they went on to talk about...

Maybe they were just as bored as I was at the stage

Leroy42

Sky is so strong because of the team members they have. But why are other teams not chasing the likes of Thomas and Landa to lead their teams?

They can of course argue that they simply do not have the budgets for that but then they can hardly complain that Sky are investing so much into cycling that they are unwilling to do. WHy should Sky not get a return on their investment?

This years course, whilst it may not have been designed specifically to limit the core advantages of Froome, certainly took away many of his biggest assets (lack of TT for example) and yet he still prevailed.

Even on the opening prologue, Sky riders Thomas and Froome took bigger risks on the wet surface that others (Contador and Uran) were not able to replicate.

buffalo

Cosmo: http://cyclocosm.com/2017/07/how-the-race-was-won-2017-tour-de-france-stages-16-21/

Shedite27

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sky is so strong because of the team members they have. But why are other teams not chasing the likes of Thomas and Landa to lead their teams?

Movistar were after Landa 2 years ago but Landa chose Sky (presumably getting more money). Landa is out of contract again now and Movistar are again after him.

1bryan

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sky is so strong because of the team members they have. But why are other teams not chasing the likes of Thomas and Landa to lead their teams?

They can of course argue that they simply do not have the budgets for that but then they can hardly complain that Sky are investing so much into cycling that they are unwilling to do. WHy should Sky not get a return on their investment?

well this is it. Didn't Jonathan Vaughters once say that the best paid rider on his team (then Garmin-Slipstream) was on a par with the 9th best paid at Sky? It's not just that Sky have more money, they have vast amounts more.

NeedMoreGears

The domination of a sport by one person/one team does tend to make it a duller affair. Whether that domination is due to individual skill (Federer, Williams) or loadsa money (Sky, whoever last bought the English premiership), it can still make for a borefest. At least the likes of Federer doesn't play every match in a tournament. Part of the attraction of sport is the uncertainty and unfortunately for the tour, there hasn't been too much uncertainty for the past few years.

I'm not sure where the solution might lie. Perhaps some limitations on team salary (which may not be fair on athletes trying to maximise earnings from a relatively short career)? Or else make it a real team sport and don't have an individual GC - leave that for the one day races (undoing over 100 years of tradition should be fairly simple).

Answers on a postcard........

Kav0777

el tel wrote: »

Watching Europsort's coverage yesterday I lost count how many times they said this year was the closest tour ever. Jonathan Edwards and Brian Smith were the worst culprits for this. They seem to have forgotten about their colleague Greg Lemond, who of course won the tour by a mere 8 seconds exactly 28 years to the very day.

Then they interviewed Dave Brailsford (who has a remarkable and detailed remit over all aspects of the team, contents of jiffy bags excluded) and kept mentioning how Froome losing yellow on stage 12 was a new experience for Sky as it was the first time the team had lost the yellow jersey. Not only has Froome himself lost they yellow jersey  - in 2015 to Tony Martin - but the team lost Geraint Thomas' yellow Jersey in this tour, which of course they went on to talk about...

Maybe they were just as bored as I was at the stage

I was watching that interview last night in my parents house, and after a couple of minutes my Dad,who doesn't have a big interest in cycling, said about Brailsford "He's some spoofer, who is he?"

neris

1bryan wrote: »

well this is it. Didn't Jonathan Vaughters once say that the best paid rider on his team (then Garmin-Slipstream) was on a par with the 9th best paid at Sky? It's not just that Sky have more money, they have vast amounts more.

heard somewhere sky have about €35 million a year as a budget and a team like cannondale is on €14 million

neris

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Or else make it a real team sport and don't have an individual GC - leave that for the one day races (undoing over 100 years of tradition should be fairly simple).

Answers on a postcard........

or you could go back to tradition and make it one man for GC like they had the 1st few TDFs. 21 riders, 1 team car each and a slog fest. Make for ****e tv though.

Get rid of power meters, radios and all TTs on normal bikes in normal team kit (no tt aero stuff). worked for mercxx etc in the past

All My Stars Aligned

The whole thing about Sky being the most dominant team in pro cycling is not really true though is it? Yes, they are the most dominant team in the TDF but aside from that one race the rest of the season is quite open.

Personally, while I will watch the Tour my expectations are fairly low. It's been this way for a long time really, with one rider/team dominating for years at a time.

I kind of view the Tour as a sideshow to the rest of the season. To me it ranks a very distant third of the three grand tours.

One thing I will say about Sky though. They seem to have an amazing work ethic. How often in pro sport do we see the big money guy's failing to perform on the big stage. Never seem to be the way with Sky. Each of them leave nothing on the road. I don't think the same can be said for any of the other pro teams.

Lusk_Doyle

For me, Kwiatkowski was the rider of the tour this year. His service to Froome was amazing at all times. What a rider to have in your arsenal to destroy the others, both mentally and physically. He went out, several days after riding himself to a stop in the mountains to kill off the other GC riders, and nearly won the last tt and finishing 2nd by one second. A monster performance. This, coupled with his success earlier in the season make him the rider of the tour for me and if he can take the win at the worlds later on a course that suits his strengths, similar to the manner in which he won in 2014, he will be my rider of the year.

Edit: At one stage in the mountains when AG2R were on the front and pushing on he was sitting up emptying the contents of a musette into his pockets and riding with no hands like on a normal group spin. Effortless while the others were bating away a few riders in front of him.

odyssey06

The parcours seems to have been constructed to work against Froome, but the inclusion of risky descents took out Porte, who could have run him close