Tour of Britain 2016

"Nearly all the major teams were there"

Really? By my count, about half of the UCI pro teams didn't bother to enter.

At least two of the teams didn't even enter a full team of riders! That's how seriously they took it!

If that isn't paying lip service to an event just for the sake of some of the sponsors, I don't know what it was.

This is a typical race for which the outcome is agreed between the team management before the event......because it has no standing in the world rankings.

When you say Tour stage winners - would that be Cavendish.......who made little effort and was just there for show (after all, his team may not even be in the pro series next year, due to their lack of race wins)?

Or Wiggins, who similarly made no effort (does he ever?) and whose Sky sponsored semi amateur team will soon fold?

Not a.very interesting competition for serious cycling fans. The commentary and the camera work was second rate, as was the performance and representation oof world class professional competitors.  Very much a disappointing event.

When you say Tour stage winners - would that be Cavendish.......

No, Greipel, Viviani, Caleb Ewan, Tom Dumoulin to name a few.

I wouldn't waste effort talking sense to closed minds Nellie, Ian and his tandem chum have made their minds up, and the teams, riders and hundreds of thousands of spectators who enjoyed the event got it badly wrong! 

TDA, I've watched a bit & enjoyed it purely because it was in Britain, I haven't watched any other mind. Added interest to me being in our Country. looking at the bigger picture I would've  thought any lover of Cycling would support these races as a way of promoting the sport-what do I know

If you watched it, and enjoyed it, brilliant

I doubt the result was pre-ordained, and glad Steve Cummins got the win.

I am not a cycling snob, but tuned in for the first stage, watched ten minutes and switched off again. Held about as much interest for me as a footballists derby (okay maybe slightly more than that)

ITV4 gave the Tour of Britain the coverage it deserved… second rate.

The Tour of Britain fills a hole for punters in the UK who don’t get to see pro cycling at a decent level (Unless you live in Yorkshire).  But coming where it does in the calendar it is of little relevance in sporting terms.  At best, it might showcase unknown young domestic riders who might hope to get recognised by the odd second-string directeur-sportif.  All those big names are all on season wind down, fulfilling the wishes of the sponsors, who eye the domestic TV coverage as easy return on their years investment.

In event ranking terms it is very definately second rate.  UCI class 2.HC (hors catégorie ) on the European Tour to be precise.  Ranking amongst such classics (not) as the Driedaagse De Panne-Koksijde, the Baloise Tour and the Tour de Wallonie.

Unfortunately the difference being, those Belgian races and the Tour de Yorkshire (which is class 2.1), occur earlier in the season, attracting the odd rider preparing for major tours (even those in the twighlight of their careers Ian), season rankings and young riders hoping to secure team selection for their teams in major tours.

Long term the Tour de Yorkshire, despite being popular with teams and riders might struggle due to fixture congestion (And total lack of support from British Cycling who had their noses well-and-truly rubbed in it).

Couldn't have put it better myself, Runrig.

TtDA.....(and Nellie)......the Tour of Britain (and the Tour of Yorkshire) are an attempt to capitalise on the popularity of cycling in Europe. But both will fail because of the complete lack of history of road racing within the UK......as Runrig says, entirely due to British Cycling, who have always actively denegrated the sport, in favour of track cycling and the odd time trial.

BC have reluctantly been forced to take note of road racing due to the massive input of advertising funds from Sky. They will however return to their stale roots when that (inevitably) disappears.

The 'stars' that have made their names by such funding are always drawn back to their roots (Wiggins, Cavendish, Thomas etc) of track cycling........something that is never seen amongst European riders.......who rarely even see a track.

Races like the T of B might draw an audience, especially when restricted to a town centre, where the compressed length of the course can give the impression of 'big crowds', but a few housewives taking their kids out for a walk (and who will have the attitude of "I've seen a bike race, so won't bother again") are no comparison to the hardened cycling fans seen in Europe. Which, by the way, vastly outnumber the part time 'fans' in the UK.

 Runrig, some of those racing were using it as their preparation for the forthcoming World Championships, so it was of significance to them.

At least ITV4 gave it a fair bit of coverage, a lot more than they did for the Vuelta.

Ian your last comment just goes to show what a blinkered view you have. There were as good a number of spectators on the climbs and at the finishes as there appeared to be on the Vuelta. Also you critasied the final stage in London. From what I saw it was virtually the same in format and road layout as the Madrid stage of the Vuelta, and just as sunny too.

BTW, how do you know that the Managers of the GC teams in the Grand Tours don't get together before each event and sort out between them selves who's going to win before the start of each, as you were inferring has happened before the ToB?

A couple of years ago I went out to watch a cycle race (probably Tour of Britain) pass through and found the show by the vehicles and motorcycles managing the race far more interesting than the cyclists.