Armstrong comment about T-Mobile.....................
View Full Version : Armstrong comment about T-Mobile.....................
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/mar04/mar02news "I think in that team there are too
many chiefs and not enough Indians," Armstrong said in a l'Equipe interview Monday. "In the Tour
it's pointless to have nine guys capable of winning. What you really need is one leader and eight
guys who can give him the most support. "
Lance has this idea that only the leader matters on the team. I keep reading similar comments from
Lance like "Everyone knows to ride for me". US Postal's strategy of focusing entirely on Lance could
prove to be very detrimental for the teams future. I think US Postal will have to start
trainsitioning over to a dual or multiple leadership strategy. Currently US Postal does not have
clear 2nd lieutentant for the tours (Now one can argue that George Hincapie is 2nd lt, but he leads
the team primarilly in the classics). Part of the problem is that team radios have become so
prevalent that they have taken away the 2nd lt's role. Personally I think the role of 2nd lt is a
good mentoring process for up and coming riders.
When Lance retires in the next few years US Postal does not have a rider who can contend the the
tour. If US Postal is unable to find someone then they will either have to downsize or the team lose
their key spnsor.
On 1 Mar 2004 13:52:34 -0800, hizark21@yahoo.com (Charles Hizark)
wrote:
>Lance has this idea that only the leader matters on the team. I keep reading similar comments from
>Lance like "Everyone knows to ride for me". US Postal's strategy of focusing entirely on Lance
>could prove to be very detrimental for the teams future. I think US Postal will have to start
>trainsitioning over to a dual or multiple leadership strategy. Currently US Postal does not have
>clear 2nd lieutentant for the tours (Now one can argue that George Hincapie is 2nd lt, but he leads
>the team primarilly in the classics). Part of the problem is that team radios have become so
>prevalent that they have taken away the 2nd lt's role. Personally I think the role of 2nd lt is a
>good mentoring process for up and coming riders.
It seemed to work OK for Molteni for some years (given that Merkx raced sometimes ten to eleven
months of the year, including track). If anything, it would appear to appreciate the role of the
troops rather than the viewpoint of a general who thinks he wins it on his own.
As long as sponsors pay you for what you do today, rather than what you plan for next year, you can
win today Lance's way and buy the other guy's up-and-comer next year.
Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...
"Charles Hizark" <hizark21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:86c248b3.0403011352.25274499@posting.google.com...
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/mar04/mar02news "I think in that team there are
> too many chiefs and not enough Indians," Armstrong said in a l'Equipe interview Monday. "In the
> Tour it's pointless to have nine guys capable of winning. What you really need is one leader and
> eight guys who can give him the most support. "
>
> Lance has this idea that only the leader matters on the team. I keep reading similar comments from
> Lance like "Everyone knows to ride for me". US Postal's strategy of focusing entirely on Lance
> could prove to be very detrimental for the teams future. I think US Postal will have to start
> trainsitioning over to a dual or multiple leadership strategy. Currently US Postal does not have
> clear 2nd lieutentant for the tours (Now one can argue that George Hincapie is 2nd lt, but he
> leads the team primarilly in the classics). Part of the problem is that team radios have become so
> prevalent that they have taken away the 2nd lt's role. Personally I think the role of 2nd lt is a
> good mentoring process for up and coming riders.
>
> When Lance retires in the next few years US Postal does not have a rider who can contend the the
> tour. If US Postal is unable to find someone then they will either have to downsize or the team
> lose their key spnsor.
>
This is not the first time that Armstrong has commented on the wealth of talent at T-Mobile. Most
people would agree with him. It's very difficult to place 2 riders high on the GC because it means
that one of them is not working for the other. For example: In 2002 Roberto Heras probably could
have dropped Lance on the way to La Mongie. Even if he could have won the stage and moved up on the
GC, he probably would not have been able to keep it up the rest of the race. The right move was to
have him wait for Armstrong and give him the stage ("every second counts?") Postal gives Armstrong
the best chance to win because every rider has a role in the race to make that possible. To do
otherwise would take away from the strength and effectiveness of the team. As far as George Hincapie
- he's a great support rider, but nowhere near a GC contender (can't climb, can't TT.) As far as the
sponsorship goes, it's no secret that once Lance is done, USPS will end sponsorship. Currently (I
believe) the sponsorship is scheduled to terminate at the end of this year.
-T
"Tom Schulenburg" <tschulenYour@Hatpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%MO0c.18891$Us.15463@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Charles Hizark" <hizark21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:86c248b3.0403011352.25274499@posting.google.com...
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/mar04/mar02news "I think in that team there are
> > too many chiefs and not enough Indians," Armstrong said in a l'Equipe interview Monday. "In the
> > Tour it's pointless to have nine guys capable of winning. What you really need is one leader and
> > eight guys who can give him the most support. "
> >
>
> This is not the first time that Armstrong has commented on the wealth of talent at T-Mobile. Most
> people would agree with him. It's very difficult to place 2 riders high on the GC because it means
> that one of them is not working for the other. For example: In 2002 Roberto Heras probably could
> have dropped Lance on the way to La Mongie. Even if he could have won the stage and moved up on
> the GC, he probably would not have been able to keep it up the rest of the race. The right move
> was to have him wait for Armstrong and give him the stage ("every second counts?") Postal gives
> Armstrong the best chance to win because every rider has a role in the
race
> to make that possible. To do otherwise would take away from the strength
and
> effectiveness of the team. As far as George Hincapie - he's a great support rider, but nowhere
> near a GC contender (can't climb, can't TT.)
I've often wondered about the whole thing and there have been a few articles about it, especially
since Ullrich cameback. It's like Murderer's Row. ALthough Salvodelli was out half the season,
Botero had a terrible time and Cadel Evans was also injured,who can say how things could have been?
I'll bet that a couple of them will not renew their contracts and go toother teams. Evans only
signed for two years I believe, and I'd bet he goes elsewhere after this season, and I wouldn't be
surprised if Salvodelli also moves.
Apparently LA said some more nice things in that interview
- The Telekom chiefs are "generously paid" (what's his business?)
- He can "easily do without Heras. He had a role, but if you look at the images of the Tour you
understand. Hincapie is far more unreplacable."
What I miss still is a good snear about Beloki "learning to ride a bike before he attacks me" . I
mean, is he trying to make people hostile or what?
Teams are usually built around one strong team leader who can contest the race. It has been this way LONG before LA was around.
What's the point of having three or four people on a team who have a legitimiate chance of winning or placing well, and then not having the people to help get them through rough days because because they are too busy figuring out how they can get ahead.
"Charles Hizark" <hizark21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:86c248b3.0403011352.25274499@posting.google.com...
> When Lance retires in the next few years US Postal does not have a rider who can contend the the
> tour. If US Postal is unable to find someone then they will either have to downsize or the team
> lose their key spnsor.
I thought US Postal was team Lance ... and once Lance is gone the team is gone. I understood Postal
was pulling out then. I have even heard rumors that once Lance gets 6 they are pulling sponsorship.
s http://boardnbike.com (http://boardnbike.com/)
Daremo <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Teams are usually built around one strong team leader who can contest the race. It has been this
> way LONG before LA was around.
> What's the point of having three or four people on a team who have a legitimiate chance of winning
> or placing well, and then not having the people to help get them through rough days because
> because they are too busy figuring out how they can get ahead.
That was a very successful strategy for La Vie Claire, in spite of the personality conflicts. It may
not have been pretty, but it did work.
Bob Schwartz cvcc@execpc.com
"Bob Schwartz" <cvcc@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10498fs4hade22b@corp.supernews.com...
> Daremo <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > Teams are usually built around one strong team leader who can contest the race. It has been this
> > way LONG before LA was around.
>
> > What's the point of having three or four people on a team who have a legitimiate chance of
> > winning or placing well, and then not having the people to help get them through rough days
> > because because they are too busy figuring out how they can get ahead.
>
> That was a very successful strategy for La Vie Claire, in spite of the personality conflicts. It
> may not have been pretty, but it did work.
>
> Bob Schwartz cvcc@execpc.com
But it did not last, either.
Daremo <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
bD01c.13340$%m.7612@fe02.usenetserver.com...
> Teams are usually built around one strong team leader who can contest the race. It has been this
> way LONG before LA was around.
>
> What's the point of having three or four people on a team who have a legitimiate chance of winning
> or placing well, and then not having the people to help get them through rough days because
> because they are too busy figuring out how they can get ahead.
I never saw signs that something like that was occuring in team Telekom. The quotes tell us more
about Armstrong than about T-Mobile. Especially the part about Heras is really bad form, even for an
ambitious rider.
This is the same Armstrong that scoffed at Simoni when the latter said he wanted to win the tour. He
may be a great rider, but as a person Armstrong once again proves to be very small indeed.
But it has to be said: the daily Armstrong quotes on VRT text are becoming a form of regular
entertainment. For some reason it has a certain quality of desparation to it. Armstrong doesn't seem
as confident as he used to be.
Jonathan.
Carl Sundquist <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote:
> "Bob Schwartz" <cvcc@shell.core.com> wrote in message news:10498fs4hade22b@corp.supernews.com...
>> Daremo <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> > Teams are usually built around one strong team leader who can contest the race. It has been
>> > this way LONG before LA was around.
>>
>> > What's the point of having three or four people on a team who have a legitimiate chance of
>> > winning or placing well, and then not having the people to help get them through rough days
>> > because because they are too busy figuring out how they can get ahead.
>>
>> That was a very successful strategy for La Vie Claire, in spite of the personality conflicts. It
>> may not have been pretty, but it did work.
>>
>> Bob Schwartz cvcc@execpc.com
> But it did not last, either.
Teams built around a strong leader don't last either. That's why Johann has to go shopping every
year for underpaid Spanish speaking climbers.
Banesto had to do that also. Their failure to renew Indurain's support was one of the factors in his
downfall in 1996.
Bob Schwartz cvcc@execpc.com
"Bob Schwartz" <cvcc@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10498fs4hade22b@corp.supernews.com...
> Daremo <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > Teams are usually built around one strong team leader who can contest the race. It has been this
> > way LONG before LA was around.
>
> > What's the point of having three or four people on a team who have a legitimiate chance of
> > winning or placing well, and then not having the people to help get them through rough days
> > because because they are too busy figuring out how they can get ahead.
>
> That was a very successful strategy for La Vie Claire, in spite of the personality conflicts. It
> may not have been pretty, but it did work.
>
It worked because Lemond was the biggest threat to Hinault so they were covering their bases. It
almost worked against them when the started attacking each other. Ullrich is the biggest threat to
Armstrong, if he doesn't have the full support of his team it will only work to Postal's advantage.
-T
"Van Hoorebeeck Bart" <bart.vanhoorebeeck@wvc.vlaanderen.be> wrote in
message news:40445C48.C63258A@wvc.vlaanderen.be...
> Apparently LA said some more nice things in that interview
>
<SNIP>
> - He can "easily do without Heras. He had a role, but if you look at the images of the Tour you
> understand. Hincapie is far more unreplacable."
>
<SNIP>
While he may lack tact, he's right. Roberto had one "good" TdF with Postal. The other years he was
not at his best (Illness, overtraining, crashes, etc.) Where was he last year? Typically he's been
a "protected" rider up to the final climb, then he's allowed to hammer 'til he blows up. Hincapie
on the other hand does a lot of work to chase down breaks, set tempo on the opening climbs, line
up podium girls for the rest of the team, etc. As an overall rider and Grand Tour winner Heras
will be harder to replace, but given what he's asked to do in the Tour, Azevedo may be an upgrade
(better TTT.)
-T
"Tom Schulenburg" <tschulenYour@Hatpacbell.net> wrote in message news:<%MO0c.18891$Us.15463@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
> "Charles Hizark" <hizark21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:86c248b3.0403011352.25274499@posting.google.com...
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/mar04/mar02news "I think in that team there are
> > too many chiefs and not enough Indians," Armstrong said in a l'Equipe interview Monday. "In the
> > Tour it's pointless to have nine guys capable of winning. What you really need is one leader and
> > eight guys who can give him the most support. "
> >
> > Lance has this idea that only the leader matters on the team. I keep reading similar comments
> > from Lance like "Everyone knows to ride for me". US Postal's strategy of focusing entirely on
> > Lance could prove to be very detrimental for the teams future. I think US Postal will have to
> > start trainsitioning over to a dual or multiple leadership strategy. Currently US Postal does
> > not have clear 2nd lieutentant for the tours (Now one can argue that George Hincapie is 2nd lt,
> > but he leads the team primarilly in the classics). Part of the problem is that team radios have
> > become so prevalent that they have taken away the 2nd lt's role. Personally I think the role of
> > 2nd lt is a good mentoring process for up and coming riders.
> >
> > When Lance retires in the next few years US Postal does not have a rider who can contend the the
> > tour. If US Postal is unable to find someone then they will either have to downsize or the team
> > lose their key spnsor.
> >
>
> This is not the first time that Armstrong has commented on the wealth of talent at T-Mobile. Most
> people would agree with him. It's very difficult to place 2 riders high on the GC because it means
> that one of them is not working for the other. For example: In 2002 Roberto Heras probably could
> have dropped Lance on the way to La Mongie. Even if he could have won the stage and moved up on
> the GC, he probably would not have been able to keep it up the rest of the race. The right move
> was to have him wait for Armstrong and give him the stage ("every second counts?") Postal gives
> Armstrong the best chance to win because every rider has a role in the race to make that possible.
> To do otherwise would take away from the strength and effectiveness of the team. As far as George
> Hincapie - he's a great support rider, but nowhere near a GC contender (can't climb, can't TT.) As
> far as the sponsorship goes, it's no secret that once Lance is done, USPS will end sponsorship.
> Currently (I believe) the sponsorship is scheduled to terminate at the end of this year.
>
That probably true, but US Postal can with another sponsor if they plan right.
> -T
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nospam@nospam.nl> wrote in message news:<c229t7$e0u$1@reader11.wxs.nl>...
> Daremo <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
> bD01c.13340$%m.7612@fe02.usenetserver.com...
> > Teams are usually built around one strong team leader who can contest the race. It has been this
> > way LONG before LA was around.
> >
> > What's the point of having three or four people on a team who have a legitimiate chance of
> > winning or placing well, and then not having the people to help get them through rough days
> > because because they are too busy figuring out how they can get ahead.
>
> I never saw signs that something like that was occuring in team Telekom. The quotes tell us more
> about Armstrong than about T-Mobile. Especially the part about Heras is really bad form, even for
> an ambitious rider.
>
> This is the same Armstrong that scoffed at Simoni when the latter said he wanted to win the tour.
> He may be a great rider, but as a person Armstrong once again proves to be very small indeed.
>
> But it has to be said: the daily Armstrong quotes on VRT text are becoming a form of regular
> entertainment. For some reason it has a certain quality of desparation to it. Armstrong doesn't
> seem as confident as he used to be.
>
No I think Armstrong is just facing reality and he is trying to temper the public's expectations.
> Jonathan.
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nospam@nospam.nl> wrote in message news:<c229t7$e0u$1@reader11.wxs.nl>...
> This is the same Armstrong that scoffed at Simoni when the latter said he wanted to win the tour.
Oh yeah, and Simoni showed him.
> He may be a great rider, but as a person Armstrong once again proves to be very small indeed.
>
Since when is being frank considered "small" ?
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
