ToB Stage 3

STEVESPRO 79 wrote:

Agree with you TER about the stage finish...although I do think that the stage route looks better this year...Could see attacks around Rushton/Lask Edge area...Where abouts are you,Im in Tunstall...

Yeh the stage route does look better in general just the finish annoyed me.

Im in Milton

STEVESPRO 79 wrote:

Its never going to get a decent slot in the calender until the organisers get their acts together....There are some great climbs in this country if put near a finish or as a finish would test even the pros...The stages are tedious and dull,the live commentary is a joke and the website results update is as speedy as me going up Alpe d`Huez.....Stage is in my hometown tomorrow....intend to pitch myself on the finish line all day....And so if you see someone throttling Hugh Porter....its not me honest...

Again, why would the ToB organisers throw in summit finishes or tough climbs if those stages are less likely to get coverage than a Cavendish win/crash/lose sprint stage?

It's a profile game for them. They need to increase the race's profile through more media coverage in order to attract teams who want to use that profile to sell their sponsors. Higher profile => bigger teams attending => better racing (in theory) => even higher profile.

In the past to get media coverage they've had to rely on British riders doing well, specifically household names. Having an exciting finish up a brutally steep climb might be good for the small TV audience but a random French/Spanish/Columbian winning won't make much impact on the BBC or in the papers, so they resort to the safe tactic of having Cavendish be able to compete in every stage finish.

drheaton wrote:

STEVESPRO 79 wrote:

Its never going to get a decent slot in the calender until the organisers get their acts together....There are some great climbs in this country if put near a finish or as a finish would test even the pros...The stages are tedious and dull,the live commentary is a joke and the website results update is as speedy as me going up Alpe d`Huez.....Stage is in my hometown tomorrow....intend to pitch myself on the finish line all day....And so if you see someone throttling Hugh Porter....its not me honest...

Again, why would the ToB organisers throw in summit finishes or tough climbs if those stages are less likely to get coverage than a Cavendish win/crash/lose sprint stage?

It's a profile game for them. They need to increase the race's profile through more media coverage in order to attract teams who want to use that profile to sell their sponsors. Higher profile => bigger teams attending => better racing (in theory) => even higher profile.

In the past to get media coverage they've had to rely on British riders doing well, specifically household names. Having an exciting finish up a brutally steep climb might be good for the small TV audience but a random French/Spanish/Columbian winning won't make much impact on the BBC or in the papers, so they resort to the safe tactic of having Cavendish be able to compete in every stage finish.

Totally disagree with you...The race needs marketing and making more attractive to the top overseas teams and continental audience....With the boom in british cycling the race does not need marketing in this country as much,that will look after itself.....Its supposed to be the `Tour of Britain` not the `Tour For Cav`....

STEVESPRO 79 wrote:

Totally disagree with you...The race needs marketing and making more attractive to the top overseas teams and continental audience....With the boom in british cycling the race does not need marketing in this country as much,that will look after itself.....Its supposed to be the `Tour of Britain` not the `Tour For Cav`....

Sorry, but have to disagree again.

The one big thing that the ToB has over continental races is the potential for large scale coverage in a huge media market that isn't tapped as much as mainland Europe, ie Britain.

When it comes to pro-cycling the TdF gets good coverage in Britain, as does some of the other smaller races but mainly through Eurosport, not on free-to-air TV. That means that the infiltration of the team's sponsors will always be limited by the nature of Eurosport's audience (people who are already fans of the sport, know the teams and are willing to pay for coverage). Think of it in the same terms as F1, the teams will always prefer to have the sport on free-to-air TV so that their sponsors get more coverage and therefore pay more money to sponsor the teams.

Increasing coverage of the event as a whole in Britain makes it a more attractive race for teams, not increasing coverage in Europe where they're already pretty saturated and the sponsors are visible. That means that the organisers want to extract the maximum bang for their buck from UK media outlets. Cav winning every stage will acheive that more than random breakaway winners riding for UHC, Netapp or Euskatel.

I agree that over time, on the back of the boom in cycling in this country, the race can move away from a Brit centric view to one that concentrates on quality racing (because the viewers will be more knowledgeable, more interested and more supportive of other teams/riders) but as it stands all it's trying to do is sell itself to the nation on the back of the nation's riders successes.

drheaton wrote:

STEVESPRO 79 wrote:

Totally disagree with you...The race needs marketing and making more attractive to the top overseas teams and continental audience....With the boom in british cycling the race does not need marketing in this country as much,that will look after itself.....Its supposed to be the `Tour of Britain` not the `Tour For Cav`....

Sorry, but have to disagree again.

The one big thing that the ToB has over continental races is the potential for large scale coverage in a huge media market that isn't tapped as much as mainland Europe, ie Britain.

When it comes to pro-cycling the TdF gets good coverage in Britain, as does some of the other smaller races but mainly through Eurosport, not on free-to-air TV. That means that the infiltration of the team's sponsors will always be limited by the nature of Eurosport's audience (people who are already fans of the sport, know the teams and are willing to pay for coverage). Think of it in the same terms as F1, the teams will always prefer to have the sport on free-to-air TV so that their sponsors get more coverage and therefore pay more money to sponsor the teams.

Increasing coverage of the event as a whole in Britain makes it a more attractive race for teams, not increasing coverage in Europe where they're already pretty saturated and the sponsors are visible. That means that the organisers want to extract the maximum bang for their buck from UK media outlets. Cav winning every stage will acheive that more than random breakaway winners riding for UHC, Netapp or Euskatel.

I agree that over time, on the back of the boom in cycling in this country, the race can move away from a Brit centric view to one that concentrates on quality racing (because the viewers will be more knowledgeable, more interested and more supportive of other teams/riders) but as it stands all it's trying to do is sell itself to the nation on the back of the nation's riders successes.

Audiences improve by having interesting racing,interesting commentary and not the bore festival currently on offer....You can throw as much money as you like at an event....if its not entertaining then people will not watch it....and trust me this is not entertaining....If it wasnt for my interest in the fantasy game it would be switched off....

drheaton wrote:

It's not just the ToB that's like this, there are a few other 'sprinter friendly' races at the same level. The problem for the ToB though is that it doesn't fit into the buildup for a bigger race meaning its kind of pointless and doesn't attract a high caliber of sprinter except for Cav for whom its an easy win (in theory) at his home race.

If the race fell in late May/early June as a TdF buildup race it might attract more big names.

It's true, Tour of Qatar and Eneco tour were similar but had better fields. Qatar has a geographical problem though, we don't. They could mix up the stages a bit more. A few hilltop or near hilltop finishes earlier on in the race, as well as some sprint stages, to open up the GC a bit. Maybe start with a timetrial in a big city to attract people going for the Worlds TT. The organisers could make it better with a little thought; it's not just the time of year although that is a problem. Don't think they could change the time of year easily either; Crit. de Dauph. and Tour de Suisse are the big TdF warm-ups - nothing is going to change that. The season is crowded. Maybe something pre-Giro? But it's probably stuck where it is; just the route could be tinkered with.

Alan Tullett wrote:

It's true, Tour of Qatar and Eneco tour were similar but had better fields. Qatar has a geographical problem though, we don't. They could mix up the stages a bit more. A few hilltop or near hilltop finishes earlier on in the race, as well as some sprint stages, to open up the GC a bit. Maybe start with a timetrial in a big city to attract people going for the Worlds TT. The organisers could make it better with a little thought; it's not just the time of year although that is a problem. Don't think they could change the time of year easily either; Crit. de Dauph. and Tour de Suisse are the big TdF warm-ups - nothing is going to change that. The season is crowded. Maybe something pre-Giro? But it's probably stuck where it is; just the route could be tinkered with.

Agreed, the CdD and TdS are the big TdF warm up races for climbers, but actually, most of the sprinters go elsewhere to the smaller flatter races (that's what Greenedge did to 'perfect' their sprint train). You're right though, the calendar is crowded and unfortunately in order to move the ToB something else would have to give way and no race with a prime place in the calender is going to give that up.

I agree, making it a 'Worlds' prep race designed to give a light test to riders building up to the Worlds with both a ITT (on a flat or hilly course dependent on the Worlds course of similar length) or TTT and at least one stage that has a similar finish (uphill/lumpy/flat) to the Worlds would be sensible from the organisers.

What I fear though is that they have fallen into a rut of just designing a course to suit Cav assuming that most crowds will only be bothered to see him and Team Sky race. They know they don't have the hills for a proper mountain GC battle so they pander to Britain's other major cycling force and have a week of flat stages making the race a Cav-athon.

Without world tour status the organisers can't attract all of the top teams, can't get proper TV coverage and need to rely on British news organisations to pick up the results and publicise the race. With that in mind they need Cav to win because if you look at the BBC they only ever report on the race from a 'Cav won' or 'Cav got beaten' angle, not actually reporting on the race itself which is sad given that it's the biggest race in this country.

Gkam84 wrote:

1,3,6,7 for me.

BUT everyone now has the same riders

My top tip. Forget to put a team in for stage 1 then pick the best riders from that stage with your unlimited transfers, worked for me

drheaton wrote:

Gkam84 wrote:

1,3,6,7 for me.

BUT everyone now has the same riders

My top tip. Forget to put a team in for stage 1 then pick the best riders from that stage with your unlimited transfers, worked for me

My problem is doubting myself on break guys. I took in SS incase today was his last day. Thought he might hit the break and I left out Kreder

Also, why have I not taken Rowe in for simple points

Sorry - results - trying to type quick from the Eurosport screen.

1,3,6,7,10 for me