SilverSurfer

How? Roads aren't wide enough for all those teams to try and be at the front. Say there's 22 teams, only about 13/14 of those can actually compete for the front position of the peloton. So what does it matter whether there are 22 or 25 teams? Certain teams will simply be forced to sit at the back of the peloton. Recent races have shown that the size of the peloton doesn't matter, they're gonna crash anyway.

The Tour usually gets decided on the last climb of the stages. So even if a GC-rider loses most of his domestiques, an other team will take control and pull until that last climb. This rule could also work to the advantage of the stronger rider. If a weaker rider has a stronger team that can control the race, the stronger rider might have difficulties putting enough time on the other rider. Also, bad luck is a part of the sport. It happens and it's the same for everyone. One time, you may lose through bad luck. An other time, it may work in you favor.

This rule would be more advantageous to the smaller teams, they don't have to control the race. It's the teams who have to rely more on their domestiques (i.e. the bigger teams) who will struggle more. with less control from the bigger teams, the smaller teams have more chances of going for stage victories.

Like I said, with more points awarded in intermediate sprints, GC-riders stand practically no chance of winning the competition. Also, designing a points system specifically to leave out certain riders is match-fixing and shouldn't be allowed. So, if Pogacar does win the points classification based on a fair points system, you should accept that.

You see this in black or white. There are more riders than sprinters and climbers. By awarding more points in intermediate sprints, a climber will most likely not be able to win the competition, but other type of riders can. The KOM classification is for climbers, yes, so the points competition should be for non-climbers. That's not just sprinters, but also rouleurs, puncheurs, hilly riders...

First of all, why shouldn't puncheurs have a shot at this classification? It is a popular believe that a sprinter should win this, but why? There are more riders than just sprinters and climbers, so why shouldn't puncheurs or rouleurs not get a chance? Secondly, you can't make sure it doesn't go to another type of rider. It's a competition. The organisers shouldn't manipulate the system so certain riders won't be able to win. Thirdly, by awarding more points in intermediate sprints, you lower the chances of a GC rider winning the classification. That way, it's still a sprint competition.

But the reward for winning the bunch sprints is the stage victory. They shouldn't get a classification on top of those victories, they should have to work for it seperate from the finish kicks.

This will make this competition even less interesting than it already was. It will now be a classification for whoever wins the most sprint stages, which makes no sense, the reward for winning stages should simply be the stage win. I like the idea of more intermediate sprints, but absolutely loathe the amount of points awarded in sprint stages. Why does this classification have to be specifically for sprinters anyway? It's not like there's a classification for time trialists or puncheurs, so why are they so hell bent on making this a classification for sprinters? At least the KOM classification makes sense: the harder the climb, the more points are awarded. But here it's: the easier the stage and the less you have to work for it, the more points you get. That simply makes no sense. They should make the points at the finish equal in every stage and just award more points in intermediate sprints. Then it stays a sprint competition, but at least it's fair and more exiting. This change also completely ruins the chances of riders like Wout van Aert, Mads Pedersen or in the past Peter Sagan to challenge the pure sprinters as the points difference in flat stages will be monumental.