Several people came to ask me about it in the past few days ... and several of my customers in the Tour de France 2010 were also wondering about the same question ... How come Mark Cavendish (HTC-Columbia) wins 5 stages in a sprint (the small rider from the Isle of Man seems to have found back his sprinters legs he was looking for since the start of the season) while he didn't win the green jersey of best sprinter?
Indeed, Alessandro Petacchi (Lampre-Farnese Vini) took - almost a week ago already - home the precious green tissue. How could Ale-Jet (who won "only" 2 stages) beat Cav like this?
The answer to this question could be very short and simple: simply because the Italian rider has shown a more regular performance than the British sprinter. Since I saw this question popping up several times however, I decided to give you a more detailed explanation!
CONTINUE READING AFTER THIS ADVERTISEMENT
The system of points for the points classification
Despite what many people think, the green jersey is not a recognition of the best sprinter at the finish of each of the stages, but the jersey which correponds to the leader of the points classification. It is therefore important to first understand how these points are awarded to the riders: points are awarded both at the stage finish and at the intermediate sprints according to the definition which figured in the official regulations of the race and which was as follows:- at the stage finish:
- for the stages in line which are referenced as flat: 35 - 30 - 26 - 24 - 22 - 20 - 19 - 18 - 17 - 16 - 15 - 14 - 13 - 12 - 11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 points for the 25 first riders (in the Tour de France 2010 this concerned the stages 1 to 6, 11 to 13, 18 and 20)
- for the stages in line which are referenced as medium mountain: 25 - 22 - 20 - 18 - 16 - 15 - 14 - 13 - 12 - 11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 points for the 20 first riders (in the Tour de France 2010 this concerned only stages 7 and 10)
- for the stages in line which are referenced as high mountain: 20 - 17 - 15 - 13 - 12 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 points for the 15 first riders (in the Tour de France 2010 this concerned the stages 8, 9 and 14 to 17)
- for the prologue and the individual time trial (the 19th stage): 15 - 12 - 10 - 8 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 points for the 10 first riders - for the intermediate sprints: the 3 first riders received respectively 6, 4 and 2 points
The points which were awarded to the favourites of the points classification of the 2010 Tour de France
In the 97th Tour de France, 3 riders have dominated the points classification: Thor Hushovd (Cervélo TestTeam), Mark Cavendish (HTC-Columbia) and Alessandro Petacchi (Lampre-Farnese Vini). However, besides Fabian Cancellara (Team Saxo Bank) after the prologue and Sylvain Chavanel (Quick Step) after his stage win in the 2nd stage, only Thor Hushovd and Alessandro Petacchi have worn the green jersey:- Thor Hushovd after 11 stages (3 to 10, 12 and 16 and 17)
- Alessandro Petacchi after 8 stages (right from the first stage and after the 11th, the 13th to 15th and 18th to 20th and last stage)
When we look at how these 3 riders have obtained the points for the classification which is often referenced to as the sprinters classification, we see the regular performance of Alessandro Petacchi who took points for this classification in 9 stages, each time taking in between 17 and 35 points in these stages (for an average of 27 points in these stages) against 9 stages with 1 to 35 points for Mark Cavendish (an average of 25.78) and 13 stages with 6 to 35 points for Thor Hushovd (an average of 17.08):
- Mark Cavendish:
> P/ 0 points (127th place)
> 1/ 0 points (178th place)
> 2/ 0 points (148th ; leading group continued until the finish)
> 3/ 1 point (25th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 4/ 14 points (12th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 5/ 35 points (stage win ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 6/ 35 points (stage win ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 7/ 0 points (161st ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 8/ 0 points (174th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 9/ 0 points (144th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 10/ 12 points (9th)
> 11/ 35 points (stage win ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 12/ 0 points (162nd)
> 13/ 30 points (2nd ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 14/ 0 points (161st ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 15/ 0 points (113th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 16/ 0 points (115th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 17/ 0 points (165th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 18/ 35 points (stage win ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
> 19/ 0 points (86th)
> 20/ 35 points (stage win ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
This gives a total of 232 points, which gives him the 2nd place in the points classification. - Alessandro Petacchi:
P/ 0 points (39th place)
1/ 35 points (stage win / no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
2/ 0 points (157th ; leading group continued until the finish)
3/ 0 points (28th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
4/ 35 points (stage win ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
5/ 18 points (8th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
6/ 26 points (3rd ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
7/ 0 points (111th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
8/ 0 points (157th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
9/ 0 points (139th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
10/ 6 + 11 = 17 points (10th + first intermediate sprint)
11/ 30 points (2nd ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
12/ 0 points (108th)
13/ 26 points (3rd ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group))
14/ 0 points (122nd ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
15/ 0 points (115th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
16/ 0 points (91st ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
17/ 0 points (169th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
18/ 26 points (3rd ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
19/ 0 points (60th)
20/ 30 points (2nd ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
This gives him a total of 243 points, which leads to the first place in the points classification. - Thor Hushovd :
P/ 0 points (157th place)
1/ 26 points (3rd place ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
2/ 0 points (7th ; leading group continued until the finish)
3/ 35 points (stage win ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
4/ 19 points (9th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
5/ 22 points (5th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
6/ 16 points (10th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
7/ 0 points (179th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
8/ 0 points (181st ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
9/ 6 points (159th ; points pris lors du premier sprint intermédiaire)
10/ 4+10 = 14 points (11th + premier sprint intermédiaire)
11/ 19 points (7th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
12/ 4 + 6 = 10 points (147th ; points pris aux sprints intermédiaires)
13/ 18 points (8th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
14/ 0 points (166th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
15/ 0 points (160th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
16/ 6 points (10th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
17/ 0 points (136th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
18/ 12 points (14th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
19/ 0 points (124th)
20/ 19 points (7th ; no points in intermediate sprints; points were distributed among the riders of the leading group)
This gives him a total of 222 points, which leads to the 3th place in the points classification.
From a financial point of view, Alessandro Petacchi is the winner when we only look at the prizes which were awarded based on this points classification, while Thor Hushovd ends ahead of Mark Cavendish thanks to the high number of stages in which he got to wear the green jersey and thanks to the intermediate sprints:
- Alessandro Petacchi wins 7 x 300 (for the days on which he wore the green jersey) + 800 (for the intermediate sprint he won in the 10th stage) + 25.000 = 27.900
- Thor Hushovd wins 11 x 300 + 2x800 (2 intermediate sprints he won in the 9th & 12th stages) + 2x450 (2 times 2nd in the intermediate sprint in the 10th & 12th stages) + 10.000 = 15.800
- Mark Cavendish wins 15.000 for his second place in the final points classification door Thomas Vergouwen
Vond u dit artikel interessant? Laat het uw vrienden op Facebook weten door op de buttons hieronder te klikken!
3 comments | 3751 views
this publication is published in: Tour de France | Tour de France 2010
by Elvira over 
by WilliamBer over
Nou dat is een hele duidelijke uitleg. Volgens mij snapt iedereen nu precies waarom Petacchi de trui won!
Overigens is er zo ook nog een theorie betreffende het bergklassement: Met de transponders zoals die gebruikt worden kan men precies berekenen wie er een klim het snelst gereden heeft, echter de punten voor dit klassement worden toegekend aan de hand van de passage op de top. Eigenlijk zou de beste klimmer degene zijn die het snelst een berg "beklimt" maar zo werkt het dus niet.
Mogelijk is hier ook een soort neven-klassement van te maken!?
Les sommes que tu indiques c est uniquement pour les 3 semaines du tour??
parce que même si par apport a nos salaires , c est deja un bon petit capital mais mérité..mais combien gagne les autres coureurs..?? une misere??
Les sommes indiquées sont les primes correspondant aux résultats des coureurs pour le classement par points. Il y a aussi des primes accordées aux vingt premiers (je crois bien) de chaque étape (8 000 pour le vainqueur, 4 000 pour le second), etc. Mais elles ne sont pas répertoriées dans cet article.
Mais ces primes ne sont pas des salaires, et pour autant que je sache, elles sont versées à l'équipe et non pas au cycliste. Ensuite, l'équipe en fait ce qu'elle veut. Généralement, elle les distribue comme prime aux coureurs et (voire uniquement ?) au personnel accompagnant.
C'est notamment une manière de motiver toute l'équipe. Et de toute façon, les coureurs (les meilleurs du moins, donc ceux qui sont le plus concernés par ces primes) touchent un salaire élevé avec leur contrat de travail.