There's a lot of really good cyclists retiring this year. Quite a few I'll miss.
I really wished that Pinot could have won yesterday (one of the reasons I really like the French teams is that there's no way they've managed effective doping, just as soon as a rider looks to be doing reasonably well, they just collapse). I've never fully got over Tommy Voeckler.
After what was undoubtedly a thrilling Tour, I hate the way that I'm questioning whether so many of those involved had their performances artificially enhanced.
Someone I follow on Twitter was suggesting that pro-cycling needs to introduce a salary cap - a very few teams have the outstanding riders (Jumbo Visma probably had 3 or 4 that would have been team leaders anywhere else), and I find the idea tempting.
What's the goal? To create better racing? This year almost ever stage has been thrilling even if Yellow, White and Green were settled days, if not weeks ago.
It's simply to avoid complete dominance by individual teams.
Successful breakaways have become much rarer than they used to be.
The top two this year were reasonably equally matched (with Jumbo Visma clearly stronger), which is why this year's Tour was as exciting as it was.
As I understand it the idea is that, if it was possible to have 5 or 6 top teams that were much of a muchness, more equality would mean closer GC races and more excitement.
There's a lot of really good cyclists retiring this year. Quite a few I'll miss.
I really wished that Pinot could have won yesterday (one of the reasons I really like the French teams is that there's no way they've managed effective doping, just as soon as a rider looks to be doing reasonably well, they just collapse). I've never fully got over Tommy Voeckler.
After what was undoubtedly a thrilling Tour, I hate the way that I'm questioning whether so many of those involved had their performances artificially enhanced.
Someone I follow on Twitter was suggesting that pro-cycling needs to introduce a salary cap - a very few teams have the outstanding riders (Jumbo Visma probably had 3 or 4 that would have been team leaders anywhere else), and I find the idea tempting.
What's the goal? To create better racing? This year almost ever stage has been thrilling even if Yellow, White and Green were settled days, if not weeks ago.
It's simply to avoid complete dominance by individual teams.
Successful breakaways have become much rarer than they used to be.
The top two this year were reasonably equally matched (with Jumbo Visma clearly stronger), which is why this year's Tour was as exciting as it was.
As I understand it the idea is that, if it was possible to have 5 or 6 top teams that were much of a muchness, more equality would mean closer GC races and more excitement.
OK but you would still end up with someone having to compete with Vingegaard and Pogacar.
Break aways stuck in sprint stages this year, which must be unusual? And Vingegaard didn't actually win a proper stage.
Having two teams is certainly better than having one, like SKY were. It also didn't help that Ineos used it as a testing ground so hopefully next year they will be up there in the GC as well.
I often think salary caps are normally solutions for problems that don't really exist or because people can't be trusted to live within their means.
There's a lot of really good cyclists retiring this year. Quite a few I'll miss.
I really wished that Pinot could have won yesterday (one of the reasons I really like the French teams is that there's no way they've managed effective doping, just as soon as a rider looks to be doing reasonably well, they just collapse). I've never fully got over Tommy Voeckler.
After what was undoubtedly a thrilling Tour, I hate the way that I'm questioning whether so many of those involved had their performances artificially enhanced.
Someone I follow on Twitter was suggesting that pro-cycling needs to introduce a salary cap - a very few teams have the outstanding riders (Jumbo Visma probably had 3 or 4 that would have been team leaders anywhere else), and I find the idea tempting.
What's the goal? To create better racing? This year almost ever stage has been thrilling even if Yellow, White and Green were settled days, if not weeks ago.
It's simply to avoid complete dominance by individual teams.
Successful breakaways have become much rarer than they used to be.
The top two this year were reasonably equally matched (with Jumbo Visma clearly stronger), which is why this year's Tour was as exciting as it was.
As I understand it the idea is that, if it was possible to have 5 or 6 top teams that were much of a muchness, more equality would mean closer GC races and more excitement.
OK but you would still end up with someone having to compete with Vingegaard and Pogacar.
Break aways stuck in sprint stages this year, which must be unusual? And Vingegaard didn't actually win a proper stage.
Having two teams is certainly better than having one, like SKY were. It also didn't help that Ineos used it as a testing ground so hopefully next year they will be up there in the GC as well.
I often think salary caps are normally solutions for problems that don't really exist or because people can't be trusted to live within their means.
Not sure Wiggins won too many proper stages and picked up time on individual time trials.
I just hope they stick with the idea of putting some mountains in the first week. That really changed the dynamic of the racing, and I’m sure the reason why breakaways worked.
I just hope they stick with the idea of putting some mountains in the first week. That really changed the dynamic of the racing, and I’m sure the reason why breakaways worked.
I just hope they stick with the idea of putting some mountains in the first week. That really changed the dynamic of the racing, and I’m sure the reason why breakaways worked.
Yeah, I like limiting it to one time trial and putting that towards the end too.
Comments
Successful breakaways have become much rarer than they used to be.
The top two this year were reasonably equally matched (with Jumbo Visma clearly stronger), which is why this year's Tour was as exciting as it was.
As I understand it the idea is that, if it was possible to have 5 or 6 top teams that were much of a muchness, more equality would mean closer GC races and more excitement.
Break aways stuck in sprint stages this year, which must be unusual? And Vingegaard didn't actually win a proper stage.
Having two teams is certainly better than having one, like SKY were. It also didn't help that Ineos used it as a testing ground so hopefully next year they will be up there in the GC as well.
I often think salary caps are normally solutions for problems that don't really exist or because people can't be trusted to live within their means.