No cause you use the rankings from 16th august 2008 till 16th august 2009, and so on

Ahh... Gotcha. Yeah, that does make more sense.

Even then the rankings would be stupid, because you may find the guys who've got the points, don't want to race.

Like Luxemburg, who always send 4 guys.

We all agree this ranking is stupid. Also the 'only best 5 riders count' is a huge advantage to countries like norway who only have 2/3 riders that can score points.

For example, Hoogerlands points of the Vuelta don't count, because he is not within the best 5 of holland
Same goes for France, which is at a larger disadvantage.

At the old UCI ranking, the best 10 count, much fairer that way. So that countries who have more than 3 good riders actually can send those good riders to the worlds, instead of Luxemburg and Norway which have to search far and wide to make teams

Bellis is now in a stable condition... which is good to hear.

Yes Luxembourg always send 4 guys .. except the 9 last year or the 5 before that. (Irregardless of their skill, they still sent more than 4, with their full allocation used up last year)

Youre still going on (and on and on) about the ranking system? Yes its not a great system but you made your point the first time you moaned about it. How many times have you brought it up now? (And in how many different threads?)

Or perhaps try thinking of it another way (ignoring the deficiencies of the ranking system as a whole). If a rider scores lots of points it means he is a good rider, maybe the Worlds route suits him maybe not, but if it does then he might have a good chance of winning. And by achieving good results throughout the season, he has earned the right to have extra teammates to help him win the race.
Its all very well having a nation of riders who consistently score points, like France, but if none of them have scored big points, then none of them are really going to be favourites for the race. I think most people would be surprised if a French rider were to become World Champion this year, for example.

It would also follow that 5 riders is a better judgement for World Championships selection than 10. A nation isnt going to send 10 riders who can each win the World Champs - sending 10 isnt even possible. Even the top teams like Spain and Italy probably arent going into the race with 5 leaders, let alone more than that. The World Championships are there to find the World Champion individual rider - theres no prize for fielding the best all round team in the race.

One last thing, to discount your 'last 12 months' complaint. If we were to use CQuotient as a judge so for the last 12 months of racing, but taking the 5 best riders from each country in order to decide the amount for each Worlds team, then you would see that Netherlands still dont make the Top 10, maybe it should be the Danes complaining instead?

1	Spain	7751
2	Italy	6406
3	Germany	5041
4	Australia	4756
5	Belgium	4548
6	USA	4008
7	France	3852
8	Russia	3683
9	Denmark	3419
10	Norway	3382
11	United Kingdom	3367
12	Netherlands	3289
13	Switzerland	2641
14	Luxembourg	2604
15	Slovenia	2559

UCI threatens Astana that they are going to be be thrown out of the ProTour if Vinokourov becomes manager. What are they then going to do with Riis/Saxo-Bank, Aldag, Zabel/ Team Columbia-HTC and others? And why didnt they do anything with Riis, Zabel etc. when they said they were going to be managers/director sportifs (expect that Riis had to stay away from one Tour de France) ?

EDIT: https://msn.tv2spo...19596.html
It's all in norwegian...

Yeah, I don't really understand why UCI has anything to say in this case.

And if they really are to say anything, a lot of directors will have to be fired soon...

All manager have some dirty riders in the past. Or they where one them self.

SN, the best 5 of a country is the worst possible system if you apply that.
I just explained to you why. But you are oblivious. Like always
If you ignore my previous argument, then why am I discussing it?

When you use the best of 5 method, every country becomes almost 100% dependant on the 1 or 2 world class riders they have. (except for Spain and Italy, obviously).
The overall strength of a country beyond that is not considered when you use the best 5 of each country. And since the best ten countries go the worlds with 9, yes 9, riders, the best 10 riders ranking is about 100x fairer and more logical than the best 5.
I would say, well duh!

you want to change that? I mean seriously, i said nothing, i think you're refering to SN's comments.

So yeah, take it back please.

See the edit

But on the subject of the worlds selection, i agree if you have one or two guys scoring all the points (as in GB's case i think amongst others), it's highly unfair. IMO GB don't deserve 9 riders because 9 GB riders haven't been un there scoring points.

It's a crap system, i'd much rather see a fair system, but this is the UCI, and thats just not going to happen.

And we Dutch have the perfect example of what happens when one of your top riders has a lot of bad luck.

Gesink fell in the Tirreno in the queen stage, he was 6th in the TT afterwards and would probably finished top 5 without the 1'30 timeloss on the Montelupone due to untimely fall. And now finished outside top 10

Gesink got injured in AGR (3rd place) and missed FW (4th last year) and was not fit for LBL (close to top 10 year before) and again missing loads of points

Tour and Vuelta speak for itself, again missing bollocks of points due to bad luck

Combine that with Maaskant's bad luck in Paris Roubaix and San Sebastian and you have about 250 points less.

It's all so luck-related, this new ranking.
But you are right, it's far from the first time UCI refuse to change something that is clearly wrong

Why are Valverde and F. Schleck not banned yet?
Why is Vino forbidden to manage Astana while Riis manages Saxo?
Why ,,,,,

€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€

--
That explain it?

Well I did make an argument for why 5 riders may be better for the Worlds selection but "like always" if you ignore it, then...

Ok, so rather then having a guy like Tankink who can actually finish the race, the Schlecks should get 6 helpers for the first three laps?

Well my point is that ultimately, all that matters about the Worlds is the winner. Better to have domestiques for one or two of the real race favourites so that they are not isolated and have to needlessly waste energy, than have just another finisher for the race.

And you and Ruben really dont like Luxembourg do you Always the exaggerations on how bad they are.

I can't see how SN is oblivious and ignoring your arguments.... And actually, SNs argument was pretty good, I think it was a nice, new and interesting view at the "qualification."

And is it wrong that the best riders in the world should have most helpers in a World Championship? Or should it be focus on which country that gets most riders to finish?

Serious - they only have one rider for this years WC - is that exaggerating?

I think the World are for the best riders to ride. Not for a few top riders plus some shitty riders from their country.

Also, I wouldnt mind seeing Spain and Italy have 12 riders. Not that it's ever going to happen - but they've got the riders for it.