Reservations of Relegations and Promotion Pessimism

Recently there was an article written by Al Hinds that compared and contrasted the drama and intrigue of the English Premier League (and lower tiers) to the structure of cycling. It gave readers the highs and lows of the season, revoked memories for those who have followed it; and illustrated the appeal of the game to those who don’t follow it. The basis of this argument was the relegation battle, which (for the teams who survive it) is worth millions of pounds, and a great amount of exposure and prestige; and the comparison to cycling, which has a structure that rewards cash, not results. As an example, Team BMC are assured a WorldTour place, despite one Grand Tour win and zero Monuments. However, BMC have the money. Katusha have the money. Oleg Tinkov has the money for Tinkoff-Saxo (though the Russian economic crisis briefly cast doubt over that); and all of these teams are missing Monuments or Grand Tour victories in the last few seasons. Astana have the money and a WorldTour licence, despite a dubious doping record. Wildcard teams for Grand Tours and Monuments are fairly predictable each year. So went the article. This led me to consider the practical implications of such an idealistic concept.

 

 Firstly, let us assume that each team riding in 2014 (you’ll see why I haven’t used 2015 soon…) is a recognisable brand that has stable, substantial revenue; and brand longevity. Most cycling teams are short-term affairs in terms of world sport (think Milram, Barloworld, Unibet, and so far, Greenedge) when compared to the 100+ year histories of Manchester United, Real Madrid, or even Collingwood and Carlton. The NBA has teams nearly 70 years old. Conversely, cycling’s oldest well-known team structure is the Reynolds team from Spain, created for 1980. You might not recognise the Reynolds name, but they delivered Pedro Delgado and Miguel Indurain to six Tours de France under the name ibanesto; Valverde to a Liege-Bastogne-Liege as Caisse d’Epargne, and more recently Nairo Quintana to a Giro victory as Movistar. Even one of the elder statesmen of teams in Etixx-Quickstep is only 12 years old this year. This is a consequence of the lack of money available in cycling as a world sport when compared to football, or local interest in the NBA or AFL. But, let’s ignore this and assume that each cycling squad is indeed defined as a team that merely has sponsorship, as opposed to a sponsorship defining the existence of a team.

 

 If a relegation/promotion system was in place for the 2015 season, based on the 2014 UCI points rankings, it wouldn’t be a totally different ball game. If the bottom three WorldTour teams were relegated and replaced by the highest-scoring three ProContinental teams, we would have lost Europcar (who are ProContinental anyway due to a lack of financial guarantees), Cannondale (due to Sagan moving away and who have merged anyway; hence my reluctance to assume 2015 teams for my analysis), and FDJ.fr, who delivered a rider onto the podium of the Tour de France and stage wins in the Giro d’Italia (though Bouhanni’s points wouldn’t have counted once he moved to Cofidis). The promoted teams would be Topsport-Vlaanderen (who are focussed on the Flandrian region), Wanty – Groupe Gobert (they almost won Paris-Tours, right?) and Cofidis. While the teams hypothetically relegated haven’t made a massive difference to the 2015 WorldTour; with all due respect, I don’t consider the promoted teams a strong set of additions to a calendar that includes races in Australia and Canada, where interest in Flandrian teams is minimal. The highest-ranked Asian team is Tabriz Petrochemical Team, while MTN-Qhubeka (one of the more exciting ProContintal teams) would have been ranked 42^nd in line for promotion – a reflection on the races contested in the local region more than outright ability. IAM Cycling were fifth on the list, for those wondering. The stacked and prestigious European schedule is perpetuating the balance towards European teams; but the simple fix is to open up points to teams competing in all categories on all continents (so MTN-Qhubeka takes points for Milan-San Remo despite being African-registered, for example). This creates more problems as teams might enter as many races as possible around the world and over-reach their budgets; but does eliminate the bias towards the European teams. This is certainly an issue that would need to be looked at in more detail were such a system implemented.

 

 The loss of points associated with Sagan and Bouhanni from their 2014 teams indicates that a points restructure is needed; however also that for the teams to be sustainable, this restructuring (which is before the UCI now) needs to reward teams for points, not individual riders. The current climate, which has base salaries and endorsements as opposed to criterium and track contracts earning the majority of a rider’s salary; and a rider’s value being judged on points alone does little to warrant loyalty to riders, and subsequently riders to teams. But, can you reward riders who finish 20 minutes back equally to those who win? Should you ignore the domestique’s role in the team? It’s a conundrum.

 

 If a team was promoted, and was afforded a windfall in the same manner as an English football team, it would certainly increase the quality of the racing overall. More money will lead to better riders and a more competitive free agency system than is currently in place. It will become more of a “seller’s market” as opposed to some riders (like Jani Brajkovic or Steele von Hoff) scratching for a ride in the WorldTour. A team gets promoted; they will need riders who have proven themselves at WorldTour level. This will lead to better working conditions for the riders. However, this relies on the cash being in the sport to recruit and pay the riders, and for a team like Topsport to send their riders outside of Flanders and France; and all the way to Canada or Australia. This is a big, big sticking point, and it comes back to the idealism of the concept. If the money was there, the race to sign out-of-contract super-domestiques to be leaders would be aggressive, and I believe that it would incentivise riders to show just how super they can be as domestiques, in the vein (no pun intended) of Roberto Heras or Floyd Landis, who landed contracts to lead their future teams on the back of their performances in service of Lance Armstrong. The doling of money to promoted teams would be the responsibility of the UCI, however I’m not even convinced that any money that the UCI can stockpile should be spent on the elite, so much as the local levels around the world.

 

 Before this is implemented in the WorldTour, the first step is to test it on the Wildcard places for the Grand Tours. This relies on ASO, RCS Sport, or any other promoter agreeing with the UCI, which hasn’t always been the case. RCS already has a spot lined up for the highest-ranked Italian team for the Giro, but it has gone to the same team (the Androni set-up) for the past few seasons. The obvious problem with this is the prestige associated with the biggest races; and the patriotic nature of the organisers, who wish to give French teams a place in French races (which, given the globalisation of the sport is fair enough). And this is where it gets sticky again. The big races were created for publicity. They still exist for publicity. The promoters run the races, the UCI runs the sport. The division of revenue has created political standoffs previously, and for the UCI to fund a system that may remove local teams from their local races will likely cause more disagreements; as well as maybe prompting sponsors to baulk at the prospect of missing their preferred races several times in a multi-year contract. This is certainly another issue that would need examining.

 

 I honestly believe that the promotion/relegation system is a fantastic concept. Honestly, I really do, despite the negativity that I have outlined here. Such a system would create interest at the lower end of the WorldTour, in races such as Paris-Tours or the Tour of Lombardy which have lost some of their appeal in the past decade but are situated at the end of the season; and would be a great stepping stone to a “relegation battle”. It would allow free agent riders to remain at the top level, instead of having so few places for so many riders, which would allow for better sporting contests. I love it as an idealistic concept. (Incidentally, the lack of places for riders won’t get any better if the new reforms come in for 2018, which limits teams to 22 riders instead of 30).

 

 However, the sport needs to change. Firstly, it needs teams to be recognisable brands (and devoted fans who will follow their team, regardless of which division they’re in); which will reduce the exposure and therefore sponsorship value for companies such as Movistar or Cannondale, who have had naming rights. Secondly, it needs money for promoted teams from the UCI to cover the potential shortfalls of getting to races around the globe. This and my previous point seem fairly mutually exclusive, which will be a serious problem that I don’t see being overcome anytime soon. Thirdly, the points system needs a major overhaul. Fortunately, the UCI is in the process of doing this now, and it is up to them to decide which direction the sport is heading in (as an elite set of teams; or a tiered system, which is looking the likely option for 2018). Fourth, the promoters and UCI need to play ball and be on the same page in terms of compromising wildcards on sporting merit and patriotic choices.

 

 So while I love the idea and the concept; maybe it is only appropriate for football. Cycling is still not a mainstream sport for too much of the world; and is not localised enough to cash in on the interest that it has in some areas (for example, Flanders or Brittany). It is in a transition between the two. Maybe one day a viable system will work, but for the moment, I think we should be happy to watch what teams we know have a secure budget competing against each other. The last thing that the sport needs is more elite teams withdrawing due to a lack of guaranteed exposure if a star rider is injured or ill for a big race that would have collected big points.

 

 And cycling itself doesn’t work like football – you can’t practically and economically hold qualifiers for the Tour in the same way UEFA does for the Champion’s League; and different riders target different races, rendering the WorldTour ranking a low priority for many riders and fans. So, a concept with a lot of merit, but one which sadly probably shouldn’t be implemented until the sport has a considerable amount of further money and popularity. Which is truly disappointing, because anyone who disputes the drama of a title or relegation battle need look no further than Manchester City at QPR in 2012. But then again, maybe a stage race unfolds in the same way and cycling fans are treated to several “title races” each year? Promotion system or not, I’ll still be watching.

 

The link to the original Al Hinds article is below:
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/al-hinds/blog/129488/where-results-are-inconsequential-the-uci-worldtour

Reflections on the Australian Summer

2015, and February has rolled around. Which means the “Desert Races” in Qatar, Dubai and Oman; Track Worlds, and the NRS is soon to kick off again. The WorldTour teams have rolled away from Australia, but what conclusions can we draw?

1. Are the women generally more successful than Team Sky?

I could have included Lance in the header for this argument. After all, he did show up to one race a year far better “prepared” than anyone else. That (though without the drugs) is what Team Sky is trying to do now with their classics-specific and altitude training for the Tours, and racing by numbers and with fewer race days in preparation. Pick the targets for the riders throughout the year, boil cycling down to science, and turn up with the guy to beat. Except that so far (two Tour de France titles aside) that hasn’t worked. Zero Giri, zero Vuelta’s, zero Monuments.

Maybe the races aren’t as high profile, but January was an exhibition of ladies who hit their targets. Peta Mullens was selective in picking her Bay Criterium Series races, and walked off with a stage win a day after watching from the sidelines. Her plan was to do just one genuine road race for the year – she won it. Shara Gillow aimed at reclaiming the national TT title, and took it, without having raced the Bay Crits. In the Santos Women’s Tour, none of the stage winners had raced Nationals the week before (Hoskins had trained in Adelaide, while Bronzini and Scandolara were ineligible); while Annette Edmondson took the sprint jersey after her lead-up was in Tasmania, not Ballarat. And then Rachel Neylan took out the Cadel Evans Great Ocean Road Race (CEGORR) without having raced the Santos Women’s Tour. Is the old adage that “racing is the best training for racing” really true? Is it becoming less true? Is it something about the physiology of either recovery or training peaks that sets the women apart?

2. Greenedge’s diversity strategy is working…too well?

Without Simon Gerrans, Orica-Greenedge struggled a bit this summer. It took the class of Cameron Meyer and Caleb Ewan to break the team’s duck at the Herald Sun Tour. This was the first year though, that Matt White hadn’t listed the national road race as a priority (although naturally he still wanted to win it). Greenedge didn’t win it. Greenedge didn’t win a stage at the Tour Down Under (although Daryl Impey took the sprint jersey home), or the CEGORR. Is this a disaster? Should we panic? I’m willing to say no. Losing Gerrans (who hits his targets remarkably well, and who excels on the Ballarat course) was a big blow. Albasini is a similar type of rider to Gerrans; while there is much excitement over Matthews, the Yates twins, Esteban Chaves, and Magnus Cort. None of these riders raced in Australia, or (Albasini excepted) have celebrated a 25^th birthday. I’d expect to see much more of Orica-Greenedge throughout the year, far more than their January suggested. They should continue to be contenders in the Classics, and (right on White’s plan) soon in the Tours. Lacklustre January maybe, but they are still a good team with many more goals than the Australian summer.

3. The NRS is getting better.

My favourite race of the summer was the CEGORR, just pipping the National road race. What were the features? The attacking. Constant attacking. So many attacks. Granted, by the finale of the CEGORR, there were only a few NRS riders left in the second group, but all of the teams represented made their presence felt. The early break featured Budget, African Wildlife Safaris and Charter Mason; while Search2Retain and Avanti were marking the counter-attacks that were launched shortly afterwards. These are all riders who aren’t racing WorldTour or for the National team; yet were still willing and able to take on the bigger names.

Nationals was a little different in the sense that the domestic riders seemed to be attacking to isolate the WorldTour riders (notice I haven’t used the term “teams”) with a genuine view to winning. Upwards of 8 riders against 3 is always favourable; and there was no fear shown by the Australian-registered teams. If the NRS is made up of racing as aggressive as those two races, we’ll be in for a FANTASTIC spectacle. If the riders are as good as their January racing suggested, the future of Australian cycling is still bright. It’s a good time to start having nightly NRS highlights, that’s for sure!

4. Jack and Rohan’s hours

I think everyone feels for Jack Bobridge. His name was on everyone’s lips by the midway point of the Tour Down Under after his performance at Nationals and the stage to Campbelltown; but he fell just short of the Hour Record. His turnaround time might have been a factor, with merely a week between the TDU and his record attempt. By contrast, through January, Dennis just snuck up on everyone, never more so than on his climb to Paracombe, when the riders, spectators and commentators were too busy focussing on Cadel. Dennis then rode masterfully, picking the right wheels from that point on, and not “blowing up” on Willunga Hill in a vain pursuit of Richie Porte. Their January rides were prophetic for their Hour Record attempts. Bobridge went out on the attack straight away and made a phenomenal statement about his ability, before he ultimately faded away; while Dennis rode a supremely controlled TDU and hour with the full background support of Team BMC.

5. Might is right

Once the break of 21 riders went away on Stage 1 of the Herald Sun Tour; the race was reduced to a select few who took time on the rest of the field. With 3 representatives from Orica-Greenedge (the only WorldTour team in the race), 4 from Avanti, and with Budget, Drapac, MTN-Qhubeka and United-Healthcare all represented, the race was never going to come back together. This meant that the suspense was dulled somewhat on the first full day of racing. Naturally, the race still had to be won from there, but with Orica controlling the front for Ewan and Meyer, any other overall winner was going to be a surprise, despite the best efforts of the Avanti Racing Team.

This raises a concern for the Herald Sun Tour. With only one WorldTour team present this year, the race was somewhat strangled. Is the solution to open it up to more WorldTour teams and reduce the number of local teams in the race for the sake of prestige and coverage? Is the solution to block Orica (Australia’s highest-profile team) from competing to allow a better contest that will probably have less public interest? Personally, I’d like to see 3 or 4 WorldTour teams who would make an interesting race, the mix of ProContinental teams such as those who took part this year, and then still have room for the local teams who can do their best to animate the race. Or, limit the number of riders per team. Fewer riders per team makes the race harder to control, after all.

In the Santos Women’s Tour, the control and dominance of Orica-AIS was also notable. Providing 3 stage wins out of 4, the race never really looked out of their control once Scandolara took the leader’s jersey by 6 seconds. This was partly due to the lack of time bonuses in what was a parcours unlikely to splinter the field into groups of 1’s and 2’s at the finish, but partly to the strength of Orica and Wiggle Down Under. The final criterium was nearly a procession as the two international teams organised at the front and strangled the race. This is far less of a concern than the men’s racing due to the inherently limited coverage of women’s racing – any double World Champions should be welcomed to our streets as often as possible!!

 

All of this leads me to be incredibly optimistic for the rest of the season ahead. The women now head to the NRS races (which are generally aggressive) or to Europe to take on Vos, Ferrand-Prevot and co. Orica-Greenedge should be firing again with Gerrans and Albasini in the classics and visible throughout the season. The NRS riders return on March 26 in Perth, with what is sure to be a strong field, new names to watch, and exciting racing. The Hour Record continues to gather momentum, and the anticipation of Wiggins, Martin or Phinney trying to topple Dennis’ mark is mouth-watering. Meanwhile, once the European season starts, so many of the WorldTour teams are strong that we probably won’t see too many races under total control. 2015 is going to be a good year of cycling, I can’t wait!!