National Teams at the World Championships: Size Matters

by majope on Aug 19, 2010 12:13 PM EDT

There's been some grumbling about the confusing way the UCI allots riders for the World Championships: once you get past the top ten in the World Rankings, it's a matter of where a country ranks in its regional Tour, or how many riders they have in the top 100 of the World Rankings or how many total in the rankings at all--oh, and don't forget whether or not any of the top 10 nations' riders get redistributed further down...

Yeah, it's a mess--but I'm going to suggest that it largely doesn't matter. Once you get out of the top ten in the World Rankings, chances are you aren't going to place a rider on the podium anyway. Just be happy you were nominated and enjoy rubbing elbows with the elite.

Harsh? Maybe, but let's take a look at the past 15 years of the World Championship Road Race. From 2005 on, the maximum number of riders on a national team at the Worlds has been 9. Before that, it was 12 or13, with second-tier nations fielding 8. In those 15 years, only one rider from a national team of fewer than 9 riders has won: Roman Vainsteins of Latvia, who took the Rainbow Jersey in 2000 from a team of 3 (Latvia actually qualified 8 riders, but was unable to field that many). Well deserved, no doubt, but several articles from the time point out that many top riders opted for the Olympics instead, which were scheduled inconveniently close to the Worlds. It may be significant that in the same edition Zbigniew Spruch of Poland took silver from a team of 8. Vainsteins and Spruch from 2000 represent fully half of the podium spots since 1995 that have been filled by smaller teams.

Who are the others? Andrej Hauptman of Slovenia, who took 3rd in 2001 from a team of 4; and Matti Breschel of Denmark, 3rd in 2008 from a team of 6. The other 41 of 45 podium spots (more than 90%) have been filled by someone from a team boasting 9, 12, or 13 riders.

That's not to say it's impossible for someone from a smallish national team to win, just statistically a heck of a lot less likely. So go Cav! and all, but really--once they lost the chance at 9, whether Great Britain fields 3 or 6 riders seems rather moot.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Sorry if this is hard to read, but thought some of you might appreciate the data.

Year/ 1st/ Team size/ 2nd/ Team size/ 3rd/ Team size
2009 Cadel Evans, AUS 9 Alexandre Kolobnev, RUS 9 Joaquim Rodriguez, ESP 9
2008 Alessandro Ballan, ITA 9 Damiano Cunego, ITA 9 Matti Breschel, DEN 6
2007 Paolo Bettini, ITA 9 Alexandre Kolobnev, RUS 9 Stefan Schumacher, GER 9
2006 Paolo Bettini, ITA 9 Erik Zabel, GER 9 Alejandro Valverde, ESP 9
2005 Tom Boonen, BEL 9 Alejandro Valverde, ESP 9 Anthony Geslin, FRA 9
2004 Oscar Freire, ESP 13 Erik Zabel, GER 12 Luca Paolini, ITA 13
2003 Igor Astarloa, ESP 12 Alejandro Valverde, ESP 12 Peter Van Petegem, BEL 12
2002 Mario Cipollini, ITA 12 Robbie McEwen, AUS 12 Erik Zabel, GER 12
2001 Oscar Freire, ESP 12 Paolo Bettini, ITA 12 Andrej Hauptman, SLO 4
2000 Romans Vainsteins, LAT 3 (qualified 8) Zbigniew Spruch, POL 8 Oscar Freire, ESP 12
1999 Oscar Freire, ESP 12 Marcus Zberg, SUI 13 Jean-Cyril Robin, FRA 12
1998 Oskar Camenzind, SUI 12 Peter Van Petegem, BEL 12 Michele Bartoli, ITA 12
1997 Laurent Brochard, FRA 12 Bo Hamburger, DEN 12 Leon Van Bon, NED 12
1996 Johan Museeuw, BEL 12 Mauro Gianetti, SUI 12 Michele Bartoli, ITA 12
1995 Abraham Olano, ESP Miguel Indurain, ESP Marco Pantani, ITA

NOTE: I couldn’t find a start list for 1995, so I’m making a (fairly safe, I think) assumption that Spain and Italy fielded the maximum number of riders. Feel free to correct me if you can find the actual numbers.

I really do not understand the truth.--Riccardo Ricco (per Google Translate)

by majope on Aug 19, 2010 12:19 PM EDT reply actions

You're right about 1995

At least if I understand “selection aux mondiaux” correct. Spain and Italy.

Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...

by TheFigurehead on Aug 19, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Thank you for finding those!

Much appreciated.

I really do not understand the truth.--Riccardo Ricco (per Google Translate)

by majope on Aug 19, 2010 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions

What I get from that data is that someone from Spain and Italy will win

by William H on Aug 19, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions

No doubt Cav will be disadvantaged by not having people to chase down a break...

…but if this comes to the line and he’s hung on, doesn’t the “team advantage” start to crumble?

I know the statistics are on your side…but, larger teams still have to beat other larger teams. So, the reality is that if one country misses out on the break, they will chase a break and Cav can take a free ride (which is perhaps his only shot at getting to the line).

But, we all know Spartacus is winning anyway…so take that. :)

Yes, I will have an Ultra Liberal MoCo Latte please.

by JustJoshinYa on Aug 19, 2010 12:44 PM EDT reply actions

and sorry for not mentioning that I do find this analysis quite interesting. Hard to argue with the results you present.

Yes, I will have an Ultra Liberal MoCo Latte please.

by JustJoshinYa on Aug 19, 2010 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh, I think that if anyone can do it, Cav can.

I just got curious as to how many times someone has won from a smaller team in recent years, so tracked down the numbers.

I really do not understand the truth.--Riccardo Ricco (per Google Translate)

by majope on Aug 19, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions

All I see is size matters (quads?)

so Cance wins.

"It's a lovely thing, feeling that momentum. If you're lucky, it's also about grace." Tim Winton

by sminer on Aug 19, 2010 12:49 PM EDT reply actions

yep, Cadel should drop off the stripes on his way out of town...

Yes, I will have an Ultra Liberal MoCo Latte please.

by JustJoshinYa on Aug 19, 2010 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Are we sure we're not confusing cause and effect?

Countries with small teams are countries with fewer and weaker riders. Countries will a full slate have more and better riders.

It’s not that you have 6 riders that puts you at a disadvantage. It’s that your country was only good enough to qualify 6 riders in the first place.

Sure, a team of 3 may make winning very difficult. But I don’t think the differences between 6 and 9 riders would be nearly as great in a one day race where everyone is highly motivated to win. It’s not a Tour stage where everyone sits back and makes HTC chase.

"Oh man, it’s going to take days to kill all these people!"

by ncrow on Aug 19, 2010 1:18 PM EDT reply actions

I didn't get into cause and effect

and it’s a great point that the teams that make the top 10 in the world ranking usually get there because they have good riders—but the way the rankings are set up, you only need a couple of high-scorers to qualify the maximum team (see: Norway, last year), so that “more and better” doesn’t always hold.

We could also (perhaps in the off-season) get into a discussion of which races count/should count for the world rankings, and who gets/doesn’t get an advantage because of that…

I really do not understand the truth.--Riccardo Ricco (per Google Translate)

by majope on Aug 19, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions

well , there's arguments to both sides

and to see how they play out . . . look at how Italy managed to win with Bettini and Ballan . . .

and how Spain has managed to lose with Valverde, Sanchez, Rodriguez, etc.

But you need team-mates. Team Australia rode well for Evans (even if some of them thought they were riding for Gerrans).

And luck. If anyone in the lead bunch had pulled through when Cancellara stopped pulling after his move, Evans would not have made the split. And someone else would have won.

And timing. Evans picked the right time (and the right combination of guys) to attack.

by R Mc on Aug 19, 2010 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Vainsteins

A complete outlier, which raises the question, since it was 2000, what was going on in his body. He never did anything much again. I know I’m playing with the no-doping-speculation rule, but it was 2000 for cripes sake.

"Good thing I never said out loud that I was pulling for France, before this all started." -Mark Blacknell

by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 19, 2010 1:32 PM EDT reply actions

adding

all I’m saying is that maybe the exception does even less to disprove the rule than appears.

"Good thing I never said out loud that I was pulling for France, before this all started." -Mark Blacknell

by Chris Fontecchio on Aug 19, 2010 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions

The Olympics factor might have been key here.

Compare top 20 at Worlds:
1 Romans Vainsteins (Lat)
2 Zbigniew Spruch (Pol)
3 Oscar Freire Gomez (Spa)
4 Michele Bartoli (Ita)
5 Tobias Steinhauser (Ger)
6 Niki Aebersold (Swi)
7 Scott Sunderland (Aus)
8 William Chann Mcrae (USA)
9 Paolo Bettini (Ita)
10 Francesco Casagrande (Ita)
11 Michael Boogerd (Ned)
12 Axel Merckx (Bel)
13 Gorazd Stangelj (Slo)
14 Niklas Axelsson (Swe)
15 Oscar Camenzind (Swi)
16 Dave Bruylandts (Bel)
17 Maximilian Sciandri (GBr)
18 Jean Cyril Robin (Fra)
19 Andrei Tchmil (Bel)
20 Nico Mattan (Bel)

With top 20 at Olympics:
1 Jan Ullrich (Ger)
2 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) 0.09
3 Andreas Kloeden (Ger) 0.12
4 Michele Bartoli (Ita) 1.26
5 Laurent Jalabert (Fra)
6 Frank Hoj (Den)
7 Piotr Wadecki (Pol)
8 George Hincapie (USA)
9 Paolo Bettini (Ita)
10 Dmitri Konychev (Rus)
11 Danilo Di Luca (Ita) 1.29
12 Axel Merckx (Bel)
13 Lance Armstrong (USA)
14 Erik Zabel (Ger) 1.38
15 Max Van Heeswijk (Ned)
16 Gordon Fraser (Can)
17 Oscar Freire Gomez (Spa)
18 Jaan Kirsipuu (Est)
19 Robbie McEwen (Aus)
20 Zbigniew Spruch (Pol)

A couple of names overlap, but the races were 18 days apart, one in Australia and one in France. Few chose to do both, and from the looks of it, more of the bigs went for Sydney and the chance for Olympic glory. I do think that might have made a difference.

I really do not understand the truth.--Riccardo Ricco (per Google Translate)

by majope on Aug 19, 2010 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes

It was widely discussed at the time that the Worlds was overshadowed by the Olympics, and that Vainsteins might not have won against a “normal” Worlds field.

by Jen See on Aug 19, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, Vainseins was really good for about three years

Some impressive results in 99. In 2000 he podiumed in the Ronde and San Sebastian. The next year he podiumed at Roubaix, MSR and Hamburg.

Also, the internets, which is a series of tubes, tell me Vainsteins was 3rd in the UCI standings in 2001. RIP Ted Stevens.

No matter what was in his body or his competitors’, he was good in late his 20s.

by Mr 60 Percent on Aug 19, 2010 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions

last year was crazy though

Getting 9 riders off Cav & Wiggins…. and then doing nothing with it, with the bonkers tactic of “Millar above all” rather than running 2 mini-teams. We don’t deserve more than 3 riders!

Fabulous analysis, though, thankyou

by Sarah Connolly on Aug 24, 2010 3:56 PM EDT reply actions

True enough.

However, comparing the parcours, I still think Cav +2 has a better chance this year than anyone of 9 last year. Not wishing to do them a disservice but I don’t believe any British rider had enough punch for either the calibre of competition or the Mendrisio course.

by El Cicada on Aug 26, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions