Watching the Tour de France on television is a great spectacle, with exciting finishes and incredible scenery. Seeing a bunched peloton or a strung-out line of riders is a magnificent sight.
But I liken it to watching Test cricket. Astute watchers can see and understand the tactics, but you don’t need to watch every kilometre. I am often sitting at the computer or reading a book with the race on in the background.
Is the race itself really all that competitive? Most of the time it seems like a procession with breakaways inevitably caught by the peloton.
The leaders don’t attack one another too often, except in the mountains and usually only on the final climb.
For most of the race the leaders seem to just watch each other and cover any moves. They rely heavily on their teams to protect them and to do most of the work. It seems like you get into yellow and then become defensive – and that is fine.
But does this make it a bit too easy for those leaders, those heads of state? Should they have to work a bit harder? And if so, how?
In asking these questions I acknowledge just how hard the Tour is and I truly admire these iron men.
The 2014 tour has been more open and competitive than previous years. In 2012 and 2013 the Sky team was so dominant that Bradley Wiggins’ and Chris Froome’s ultimate victories were never in doubt, and the 2014 tour has been more exciting to watch for exactly this reason.
Vincenzo Nibali made a few strong statements with stage victories and moves in the mountains to stamp his authority. Still, for 90 per cent of each stage Nibali sat in the slipstream of his teammates. The Astana team was too strong and too dominant. How can we change this?
Here’s a suggestion for the UCI. Every five days, one member from each team should be removed from the race.
Each team starts with nine riders, reduced to eight after Stage 5, seven after Stage 10, and six after Stage 15. Removing another rider after Stage 20 would be pointless in a 21-stage race.
If a rider was forced to retire after a crash in Stage 3 for example, his team would not have to eliminate another rider. However if a rider were eliminated in Stage 3 for not finishing within the time limit, then his team would still have to eliminate another rider after Stage 5.
Each team directer can choose which riders to eliminate. Sprinters teams could shed their climbing domestiques after the mountain stages. General classification teams could eliminate their breakaway specialists. There would be an extra layer to the tactics for each team.
Weakening the teams in this way would make for more tactical racing and make the Tour more competitive. It is still a team event but making individual riders a little bit more responsible for their own fate would be a good thing.
With 20 teams starting the Tour, eliminating three riders from each team, or 60 riders in total, makes the peloton much smaller by the time they get to Paris, potentially detracting from the spectacle. Why not add a couple of extra teams to make up the difference?
Matthew Boulden
Roar Guru
Currently races are restricted to a maximum of ten riders on each team, though this is rare to see and even Grand Tours these days only go up to nine. The UCI are introducing a new rule, though there was last time I checked no date for when it will be introduced, that will reduce that cap down to eight riders. It remains to be seen whether the Grand Tours will be exempt from this new change since there is already a provision in the current rules that says that Grand Tours are ridden with teams of nine. However, Christopher Pruddhome from ASO has been eager to experiment with lowering the number of riders allowed on each team in the interests of making the race harder to control for a single team. There is also the added advantage that it would allow ASO to invite more wildcard teams to the Tour de France despite the 200 rider, or thereabouts, rule cap on the peloton's size, since new teams could fill the spots vacated by the axing of the ninth rider from the other teams.
Jono
Guest
What will make the tour more competitive is if the top riders stay on their bike, not removing the "weakest" rider from each team. Or if the best riders do come to the tour. You could name at least three riders who could have given the GC a really good shake up but weren't there this year.
Tomas Fish
Roar Guru
The idea of removing riders as the race goes on to me is just a terrible idea. We'd have teams with one or two riders left simply limping into Paris. As much as it doesn't look like much is happening on the flat stages, there's so much going on even with the general classification teams. When Wiggins won in 2012, as much as it looked like a precession, Brailsford said in a documentary that he was most nervous in the flat first week. Teams have enough trouble making it to Paris without making them remove strong riders. Riding the Tour isn't something a rider takes lightly and if I'd trained all year to work for the team only to be pulled after five days I'd be pretty annoyed. Some years we get strong teams that do make it difficult for the others, but for me the emergence of AG2R La Mondiale this year shows any team can do it, it's not always reserved for those with the highest budgets.
Andrew Graham
Roar Rookie
True true. It would be a step in the right direction though surely.
bryan
Guest
They did try a no radio stage awhile ago, and the riders performed a protest and a go slow ride, Stage 10, 2009. 8 teams finished 1 short, 5 teams finished 2 short, 4 team finished 3 short and 1 team finished 4 short. In essence, the majority of teams did finish with 2 riders short. I'd just limit the number of riders to 6 to begin with. But that would never pass, as too many big riders would then miss out. Your team would not be able to run a lone ranger anymore, like cavendish was when wiggins won.
Brian Orange
Roar Guru
Surprising no drug busts at this year's tour. Is the sport that clean now? Sorry I'm being cynical and can't help but doubt the authenticity of the winning effort. Vincenzo's got that nice stoned rosy glow on his face that Lance always had.
ed
Guest
This site normally has good cycling articles/opinions written by well credited writers. This article does not meet the usual standard. Firstly it's the ASO's race & not the UCI's so they set the rules. Secondly I can't think of too many pro riders who would be happy with stepping aside after 5, 10 or 15 days. Just to make team selection is an honour, to finish is a career goal many pros aspire to. Thirdly, the logistics to find lodgings for 20 teams throughout the race is quite difficult.to add an extra couple of teams is only going to add to that task. I could go on but your idea indicates you have limited understanding of the sport.
delbeato
Roar Guru
one of the reasons for teams is pragmatic - if you ban them, riders will form them anyway, with underhand alliances. having teams in uniform at least makes it more transparent and enjoyable for the fans (i.e. you can understand what is happening).
Aljay
Guest
Sporting salary caps exist in the USA and Australia. I'm not aware that exist anywhere else. Good luck telling rich, competitive European team owners like Oleg Tinkoff who want to win not to slip 1/2 mil under the table. How would you tell if a Kazakhstani or Columbian suddenly owned an extra house or two in his home country?
Andrew Graham
Roar Rookie
Or a salary cap. That would serve dual purpose, making the sport ultimately cheaper to run and also bringing the teams closer in ability.
Aljay
Guest
A more practical suggestion is removing race radios.