The pro peleton needs Wiggins.

[Hip Priest]

Comes back to "its all about the numbers" as per british cycling mantra. Which us clearly more appropriate in a sterile track environment.

That approach bagged them two tours on the bounce. They may well have added a third if Froome hadn't fallen off. I think it's a bit early for the post-mortem. It reminds me of whenever Barcelona lose a match. "Tiki taka is dead!"

 

[400bhp]

That approach bagged them two tours on the bounce. They may well have added a third if Froome hadn't fallen off. I think it's a bit early for the post-mortem. It reminds me of whenever Barcelona lose a match. "Tiki taka is dead!"

It worked for various reasons.

They were blinded by their own rigidity this time round.

 

[jifdave]

i heard today it was wiggins choice to not go to altitude camp in tenerife with the rest of the tour squad... all the PR stuff he's done afterwards has been fun but i wish he'd have committed properly

 

[Strathlubnaig]

Saxoff-Tinko had a good enough Plan B. Sky did not have a Plan B because their Plan A focused too much on using riders they have not developed as well as they should have.

Saxov-Tinko, this is actually what Brian Smith called them during the Tour de Wallonie coverage today.

 

[Strathlubnaig]

The peloton doesn't need Wiggins any more than anyone else, but he still could have something to give as a competitive rider. The whole plan A plan B thing I think is a peculiarly British (English) concept, like the football team where it is felt you need to send all your best individuals rather than your best team.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Saxov-Tinko, this is actually what Brian Smith called them during the Tour de Wallonie coverage today.

He calls them that all the time, hence my wording. He's still better then Liggett who still calls them Team Home - Jack & Jones (he doesn't but he might as well)

 

[smutchin]

Saxoff-Tinko had a good enough Plan B.

Aye, three stage wins and a polka dot jersey is a pretty good haul in anyone's book, even if it's not what they aspired to pre-race. Maybe Sky's mistake is thinking a second assault on GC was a viable Plan B.

They should have let Nieve off the leash in the mountains - although Nieve did finish a fair bit higher in GC than Majka, he essentially has nothing to show for his efforts.

 

[smutchin]

That approach bagged them two tours on the bounce. They may well have added a third if Froome hadn't fallen off.

Might have been a fourth if Wiggo hadn't fallen off in 2011.

But it's a moot point. To finish first, first you must finish.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Aye, three stage wins and a polka dot jersey is a pretty good haul in anyone's book, even if it's not what they aspired to pre-race. Maybe Sky's mistake is thinking a second assault on GC was a viable Plan B.

They should have let Nieve off the leash in the mountains - although Nieve did finish a fair bit higher in GC than Majka, he essentially has nothing to show for his efforts.

Indeed, their Plan B had the same goal as Plan A; which indicates that Team SKY have a very narrow focus on what constitutes "success"

 

[smutchin]

It might have worked if Porte really were a GC contender (see earlier comment re Hinault/Lemond), but I'm coming round to the idea that he's not, whatever DB might say.

Feet of clay.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

It might have worked if Porte really were a GC contender (see earlier comment re Hinault/Lemond), but I'm coming round to the idea that he's not, whatever DB might say.

Feet of clay.

Unfortunately Sir Dave cannot see anything beyond GC contenders or people supporting GC contenders. He's a bit of a twat when it comes to knowing much about the (majority) bit of pro cycling that is not a Grand Tour GC win.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

I reckon Sir Dave should employ me. I'd sort them oot.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'm also not convinced that having a Plan B is such a good idea anyway. It's fine if you have, say, Hinault and Lemond in your team but on the other hand, not if you have, say, Cadel Evans and Tejay Vangarderen, as BMC did in last year's Tour, to the benefit of neither.

Thanks for articulating something I've thought about this whole "plan B" thing, especially if "plan B" is "keep gunning for the top of the GC".

To win or place high in a GT is going to be hard enough. But to expect someone you have already decided is not your main man to step up, and do it with a reduced team is a bit much.

 

[thom]

Plan B GC riders - it's true, perhaps the only viable rider to be a plan B in recent times was when Froome rode for Wiggins in the Vuelta in 2011 and the Tour in 2012.
It took an exceptional rider to allow people to talk about SKY and their plan Bs. The problem for Wiggins' 3 week GC chances these days is he likely requires someone of Froome's capability (ie. better than him) to make him a GC winner on a parcours suited to his attributes.
The pro tour doesn't need that - it needs proper man to man racing, not the tedious delivery of a bonkers strong SKY train...

 

[John the Monkey]

its my opinion, anyone that rides for sky is expendable, just a part of a machine , a number, there is no empathy , no human element, if that makes any sense , i dont think im explaining what i mean very well , its like brailsford is trying to create a cycling team on par with ivan draggo in the rocky film ,if you know what i mean.

Ah, if only your post could then cut to a montage of Wiggins running along dragging tyres through the snow, and so forth.