Pro Tour Punditry
Guru
He actually sleeps in the back of the bus during the majority of stages.
True story
That makes sense. He'd be no use if he was awake.
He actually sleeps in the back of the bus during the majority of stages.
True story
Oh sorry I didn't realize you started CC, so your opinions are more valid than a new member. Its a good post so let it run !!The previous replies were civilised, with no personal attacks (I called you a nobber after my initial reply, which I thought was rather good of me). You seem rather "prickly", and your OP was rather antagonistic where it stated "I'll duck now in expectation of the usual barrage of put-downs from people who a more 'qualified' to provide an opinion".
I've never seen you post in Pro Race before (you might have done but I'd certainly say you are not a regular) so I doubt you are in a position to know what the "usual position" is; in fact, the "usual position" is that newcomers are welcomed unless they are quite clearly trolls or set out to cause a stir or think they are the authority on everything and not open to challenge. I'm not sure which category you fall into but you are certainly a bit of a twit for not being able to find a current thread where you comment my have been relevant.
Sky's defeciencies are being painfully exposed and I do wonder if they have any tactical nouse in the team. It was a citicism I first read in Robert Millr's book. Recently reading Yates's book, he describes riding a stage in advance and planning the exact attack point, that as a DS he's thinking 5 days ahead, I wonder if that's still happening. He also said Brailsford often stays in the bus because he gets frustrated in the car not being able to see what's happening.
How many promising riders have not progressed with Sky, how many have been passed over. EBH, Lopez, the Yates twins plus others. Wiggins and Kennaugh not in this team, Cavendish's treatment. I can't think of many other teams who seem to foul things up so much.
Oh sorry I didn't realize you started CC, so your opinions are more valid than a new member. Its a good post so let it run !!
^ That's all very well if Wiggins could be relied upon to play the loyal team mate whilst Plan A is in operation. But that's the problem, he's too much of a prima donna for that to work.
Indeed, and I think the fact that Porte was not only included in the squad, but was designated team leader when Froome crashed out, is far more interesting than Brad not being included.Sky's defeciencies are being painfully exposed
No problem anytimeI didn't realise you only read part of threads before replying; if you had continued to read the thread beyond that post then you'd have seen I admit I got it wrong. But thanks for your contribution. As always.
Corporate certainly. It's a kind of business version of success he seeks. That said, he's quite good at it.
A good argument. I think my reason for posting initially was to see if I was missing something underpinning the decision to leave Wiggins out. At the end of the day he is a winner with all the baggage that goes with that - we don't have to think too hard to come up with a list of champions in all disciplines who have generated a range of opposing sentiments - the thing they all share though is a will to win even in the most adverse circumstances. Personally, I think his inclusion in the team would have provided an exciting edge. Who knows what would have happened but my guess is that Sky would have had somebody on the podium. His future surely lies with another team run by people with nounce and a modicum of loyalty (perhaps a British trait rather than a corporate one).But (in their eyes) it's all about the win, not the individual. So they just treat everyone as pawns. It's a "team" set up and run like a corporation. I'm not as blunt as Marmion and they will survive but he has made some good points. They have money to throw at it so they don't care about "casualties".
But this is also their weakness. I reckon Nibali would have beaten Froome anyway at this year's tour. His tactics were fantastic and they [Astana] had clearly decided to attack when they weren't supposed to attack. Brilliant.
If we look at risk vs reward, they try and remove one aspect of the internal risk (lets call it alpha risk), be that having a team of individuals that have the "numbers", such that one can replace another in the Sky train. What they hadn't covered is the beta risk, i.e. the risk that their top rider exits the tour early. Now for most teams, they cover the beta risk to some extent, but with Sky this is one area where they could have covered it almost in full, i.e. because of their money they could put in Wiggins.
Another aspect is the fear factor on the other competitors when a big name/former world champion/TDF winner is in the team. It puts doubt in other cyclists minds. Sky had the opportunity to use this but didn't. Look at the effect that Jason Kenny's Olympic champion had on the sprints yesterday in the Commonwealth sprint. He isn't in form but could progress to some extent because of his status.
A good argument. I think my reason for posting initially was to see if I was missing something underpinning the decision to leave Wiggins out. At the end of the day he is a winner with all the baggage that goes with that - we don't have to think too hard to come up with a list of champions in all disciplines who have generated a range of opposing sentiments - the thing they all share though is a will to win even in the most adverse circumstances. Personally, I think his inclusion in the team would have provided an exciting edge. Who knows what would have happened but my guess is that Sky would have had somebody on the podium. His future surely lies with another team run by people with nounce and a modicum of loyalty (perhaps a British trait rather than a corporate one).
I agree but to me loyalty, not blind or irrational,I agree with all of that, but not your brackets.
I may be misreading your post, but for me the idea of loyalty in professional sports is nonsense.