redordead wrote:
At the end of the day I don't think my complaint or that of some the others are big deals. People always disagree on things, that's how it is.
And it wasn't my intention to offend anyone or belittle jph's work or anything like that.
That is my point also, I'm not complaining for the sake of complaining and it's not my intention to offend or belittle. But, if the MG tries to reciprocate the real life cycling than it's no fun at all. The beauty of the game is that different teams have different approaches and they cover most of the world. To say that, due to different reasons, not proposing riders or attributes for smaller nations means a back-step for the respective regions throws us into a game where we devour ourselves over the power playing nations. And that leads to a game where, as in real life football for example, the rich gets richer and there are only a couple of teams going for the big prizes. To this point, I know you have to invest in training and perfectly all right with that, but if I don't have where to invest and the development I have in mind for my team and the region I'm in suffers from it I am not sure is much fun for me and the entire exercise becomes pointless. From my point of view.
I'll try to put some attributes for the riders I suggested. I am aware that the thread is up for a long time, but I had a lot of things to take care of around me. Maybe I manage something and maybe I get a rider or two before the transfers. Although there is something of feeling unmotivated there too seeing as Alessio Acco got a potential 7. I know his stats are not great, but there's a lot to work with at potential 7 if I'm not mistaken.
Once again, I'm not trying to put a dent into the tremendous work done for this game, this are only my thoughts and sentiments at the time of a new season and me envisioning the future of the team I try to build. If by it I offended anyone please accept my apologies, it was never my intention.
DubbelDekker wrote:
I agree with the people who point out that our goal is to make riders in the 73-76 range valuable again. So please don't dismiss additions that max out in that range.
If we keep the mindset that every team should on average be able to pick up at least two or three 75-78 additions EVERY SEASON, we will never reach our goal.
I absolutely agree with you on this. IMO the issue isn't that there are too few riders in the region of 75-77, but maybe a few more in the region of 78-80 would be good.
When looking at the DB I can find something like this spread (Just checked for MO leve 1-3, including existing talents):
There's easily enough riders within the spread of 76-80 MO, but the balance is way off imo. Especially considering that some of the best riders are not likely to be maxed in the MO stat, as they are similarly good or better in f.e. hills. But 51 riders CAN max out in this region.
Good work on the DB. I see a lot of potential riders that would fit my teams vision and make my team stronger. Can’t wait for transfer window to start.
redordead wrote:
At the end of the day I don't think my complaint or that of some the others are big deals. People always disagree on things, that's how it is.
And it wasn't my intention to offend anyone or belittle jph's work or anything like that.
That is my point also, I'm not complaining for the sake of complaining and it's not my intention to offend or belittle. But, if the MG tries to reciprocate the real life cycling than it's no fun at all. The beauty of the game is that different teams have different approaches and they cover most of the world. To say that, due to different reasons, not proposing riders or attributes for smaller nations means a back-step for the respective regions throws us into a game where we devour ourselves over the power playing nations. And that leads to a game where, as in real life football for example, the rich gets richer and there are only a couple of teams going for the big prizes. To this point, I know you have to invest in training and perfectly all right with that, but if I don't have where to invest and the development I have in mind for my team and the region I'm in suffers from it I am not sure is much fun for me and the entire exercise becomes pointless. From my point of view.
I agree that the ManGame should continue to provide smaller nations with useful riders. But it does (currently not for Costa Rica, but see below). As far as I can tell, the point has never been to get elite riders for those countries. If you look at the Top 24 riders by average, there are two and a half riders from nations that don't play a major role in real life cycling (depending on how you view Eritrea by now): Kinoshita at 14th, Ahlstrand at 22nd.
The point in my opinion is to have enough useful domestiques and some second-tier contenders to fill out the back half of the roster to satisfy role playing aspects. For smaller nations, this takes time. I unfortunately came a bit too late for Areruya, so what I have to work with is Ndayisenga (which is nice) and a bunch of guys like the Mugishas who will max out at 74-75. Guys that are useful in PCT and not a complete waste of space should I ever make it to PT. Govekar is exactly that (though I would have made him stronger as well), as are Hocevar and Jarc, who were added last year and not developed (sorry to harp on Slovenia again, but just as an example). Maybe at some point in the future, we'll get another top caliber Rwandan, and maybe another top caliber Costa Rican as well.
Until then, we can build up a base of local riders and complement that with strong riders from secondary nations and leaders from all over the world. If you look at the elite riders across divisions, the percentage of team leaders that match the main nationality of the team isn't super high.
DarkWolf wrote:
I'll try to put some attributes for the riders I suggested. I am aware that the thread is up for a long time, but I had a lot of things to take care of around me. Maybe I manage something and maybe I get a rider or two before the transfers. Although there is something of feeling unmotivated there too seeing as Alessio Acco got a potential 7. I know his stats are not great, but there's a lot to work with at potential 7 if I'm not mistaken.
You can always ask for help, too If you want, I'll take a look at the riders you suggested and come up with some stats.
And I agree that Acco is a weird choice for 7 potential, but he will max out at 74 hill, or 76 flat. And he'll be really bad in the first years of development. Not sure anyone will even pick him up, so I hope that's not a motivation killer for you.
Generally, I really like the "draft classes" idea. We should still keep some degree of flexibility for unicorns like Evenepoel, but it should allow us to map out the composition of the DB fairly well. I'll gladly help with that, too.
I also agree with SotD that the reduction of top end talent (78-80) has been a bit much. But I think it's palatable for this season, and discussions like this help to optimize this for the future. The way it is this year isn't necessarily the way it's always going to be from now on, I think it's helpful to keep that in mind.
cunego59 wrote:
Since I haven't been around back then, where did the likes of Lecuisinier and Herklotz max out? If I'm not mistaken, they've gotten significant training to get to where they are, right? We have two new additions who can max out at 79 mountain with really solid TT and backup stats, they might be able to compete after a few rounds of training as well. And then as you said the likes of Bernal, Pogacar and McNulty will join the mix. Still, I do agree that we need to make sure that top level talent gets added. That was never what the true inflation problem was about.
That said, I don't think I agree with the de la Cruz / it's pointless to sign talents in that range argument. Of all the 76-78 mountain riders, just under half are 30 or older. If you want decent mountain domestiques in three or four years and don't have any or just older ones at the moment, then the guys who max at 75-76 (and there are a good amount of 77s too) are exactly the ones you need right now, because they will take their place. Like bbl said, that's the whole point: making weaker riders relevant. Isn't the fact that Boileau, who maxes out at 78 hill, only got a stagiaire contract, the best proof that we need some drastic changes for that to happen?
And I understand individual frustrations, but again, this is something that's happening across the board. Even Germany has, at first glance, a single rider that maxes with a main stat of 77, and his backup stats aren't that great.
I think Herklotz maxed at 83, Lecuisinier at 81 (wasn't the very best talent, but was french and within a realistic shot at making world class). I think Morton was added at 82, Galta and Wellens at 80-81 etc.
Herklotz mainly got his training in the HI stat.
I absolutely think that 79 is a very good maxing out stat for the younger future GT stars. That way it would take 4 seasons from maxing out to 85 stat, which would be VERY expensive in the final two seasons (from 81 to 83 and from 83 to 85). If a rider maxes at 26 he would then be 30 when he reaches 85 and is then no longer available for training.
My point in "pointless to sign talents" refer to the long period in which it makes no benefit. It doesn't give you an advantage to build your own 76MO talents. You can always find a 76MO rider from the DB for very little wage. It was easy in the past, when the 73-75 stat range was still decent.
I understand that we want to get there sooner rather than later, but people tend to see a rider decreasing for the first time as the tipping point. But in reality riders like Herklotz and Lecuisinier will stay above 76MO for A LONG time. And so will a lot of other riders.
I can only use my own experiences as reference, but looking back it has been very very easy to pick up 76-77MO riders who are not in peak (or at the end of peak) in the past. I think we need to move all the way back to 2012 to find a season where I couldn't manage to find such a rider for 50-75K. In 2013 I signed Chris Anker Sørensen (30yo), in 2014 Gianpaolo Caruso (34 yo), in 2015 Martin Hacecky and Piter Campero and so on. From there on it became increasingly easy and the DB even had 75-76 MO riders left untouched. That isn't good at all, and we need to leave that state behind.
I do, however agree that we need to get to a place where the likes of Boileau are picked up. We don't want reasonably strong talents who can max with an important key stat of 78 to be untouched. That makes absolutely no sense, regardless of the stat being hill, mountain, sprint, TT or cobble.
cunego59 wrote:
Govekar is exactly that (though I would have made him stronger as well), as are Hocevar and Jarc, who were added last year and not developed (sorry to harp on Slovenia again, but just as an example)
Hocevar I did sign as a stagiare and have renewed to a full deal now btw
Jarc was signed by Polestar who didn't make it to the season. So he lost one year of development. Haven't compared him to other riders, but he probably stands a good chance of getting signed. Jerman was also signed by Krisa 2 years ago then disbanded so he lost a stat gain. Sometime stuff like that happens and some riders fall by the way side.
But like I said I don't make every suggestion with the intention of signing them. Apart from Govekar every suggestion I made was for a domestique rider and I have zero problems if that domestique rider comes from Belgium, Costarica or Slovenia. It has little to no impact on the game imo.
cunego59 wrote:
You can always ask for help, too If you want, I'll take a look at the riders you suggested and come up with some stats.
I know that everyone is busy, so asking for this is not something easily done. But if you could help me in this instance I'd really appreciated.
Thank you very much!
I too am very happy with the efforts put into this. Commenting on it doesn't mean I don't appreciate the effort - I hope the guys doing this are aware of it. I enjoy these debates a lot as it is an important talk as to how the incremental changes should happen.
I also aknowledge the fact that stats can vary from one season to another, and that in one season the best talents are sprinters, the next they may be GC riders etc. I'm absolutely fine with that. The talks about balancing the DB to me is very interesting and I feel like Roman (as usual) have some great takes on this.
I understand that in the past we wanted the DB to be as massive as possible so it was a bit of a puzzle to find the proper talents/riders for your team, but it would be an amazing way to cut the DB and make adjustments which hit immidiately, when removing riders of a certain age/level. I feel like there will be a lot of 73-76 key stat riders in this category regardless of their state of development. And this would be a very strong take on the cutting numbers back.
Just coming back into this - i just had to basically mute the thread most of yesterday...
1) I feel like my comment from the suggestions thread was taken by some as a "guarantee" - which is wasn't.
As part of the back and forth with JPH I started drawing up a file to help keep track of the Managers & Nations in the MG. So rather than guessing who genuinely supports certain nations/regions we can quantify and track this. The hope of this is that over time we can reward the right places - as in the past i think we can all agree places like Finland and Sri Lanka were overpowered really quickly.
The key element of this is time and doing it slowly to prevent a repeat of past mistakes (OP-ing nations too fast, constantly adding top riders to generate competition for the top riders which we added).
This also goes in hand with a much bigger and deeper FA reset JPH did a huge amount of work on. The two parts don't pair up perfectly so this year the changes are more generic/realisitc. We couldn't double up that amount of work to re-set the FA & shift all the skills around to match managers prefernces.
2) This is not (i hope) the last ever MG DB to be put together! This year is weak, it happens in real life, it happens in PCM/FM/OOTP/Madden. Every sports game has ups and downs, your job as a manager is make the most of what is available. Get stuck into the challenge, maybe go into a holding pattern for a year and just consolidate your team, prep yourself for a push in the 2023 season.
With a larger FA reset in place, next season has more scope to tailor additions and make better one-to-one swaps of Spanish Rider A for Indonesian Rider A.
3) Fear of Rider Dominance. I've said it before in many other threads when talking about MG changes and inflation. We have other methods besides new riders to take on dominance.
We can move Wages & RD's around, we can even change the Points system. There's nothing to stop someone having a Herklotz and winning the TDF, but we can stop Herklotz winning too many races by limiting his RD. We can make him crazy expensive so the team can't have a second superstar. We can reduce the points scale to close the gap between winning and 2nd place.
We could flip it and add more RD to other riders, lower their wages, encourage teams with more depth to sweep up higher scoring 10th places.
Ok it won't help you win the TDF itself, but it can give you different goals - and based on the MG Survey we're supposed to be a game of RP managers this would seemingly suit.
4) I'll openly throw my name into the ring nice and early to work on next years DB! If JPH is looking to move on thats fine, i know what we discussed and what the concepts of the changes are. I have my wip list for manager/nations assistance. (I can help more with this than reporting work)
Give ourselves a nice long run-up where we can make a more directed DB after this FA re-set & we should be nicely ontop of inflation and putting the MG into one of its strongest places in years (christ, if i'm excited about the changes to inflation and state of the DB something must be going right).
5) Auto-removing riders/removing more riders. Was heavily discussed by myself and JPH how far this should go. From memory it was better to treat this lightly this season due to the other changes to the DB and FA Pool, and then work to set-up more cuts going forwards.
So Roman is right we should look proactively at this, and I very much want to. About 500 FA's rolling around felt about in the area for the end, although it will always fluctuate a bit from renewals and team disbandments. About 1000 gives a bit more room work in smaller nations/regions without becoming too detached from reality - but in general it's spot on and thought about.
6) Final note to put in mind, the idea is to move backwards from a CT leader being ~80, closer to a standard PCM DB of ~76. Overall this will make the DB appear weaker compared to our expectation now. I know JPH and I also wanted riders to be a little more rounded to encourage managers to explore more unique and varied development options & with lower Potential (so why some of MO or TT numbers look down, there's a greater range of options so you might need to look wider in the DB for relative options, and also those lower stats will be more useful).
____
Right, cool, hopefully i'm not speaking too much for JPH (or even Rotrun) - he can jump in and call me a fool if needed. Tl;dr stick with the game & DB, this is a multi-year process with various moving parts.
cunego59 wrote:
Govekar is exactly that (though I would have made him stronger as well), as are Hocevar and Jarc, who were added last year and not developed (sorry to harp on Slovenia again, but just as an example)
Hocevar I did sign as a stagiare and have renewed to a full deal now btw
Jarc was signed by Polestar who didn't make it to the season. So he lost one year of development. Haven't compared him to other riders, but he probably stands a good chance of getting signed. Jerman was also signed by Krisa 2 years ago then disbanded so he lost a stat gain. Sometime stuff like that happens and some riders fall by the way side.
But like I said I don't make every suggestion with the intention of signing them. Apart from Govekar every suggestion I made was for a domestique rider and I have zero problems if that domestique rider comes from Belgium, Costarica or Slovenia. It has little to no impact on the game imo.
Just wanna highlight here that Jarc did not gain the XP so he still maxes at the same stats, just one year later which is not really a big deal with 1-3 in mind. It's not like when Azteca disbanded and I could look at pretty much all useful NA talent get absolutely destroyed because they gained exp but no stat gains, think it was like 14 riders total that was impacted. At the end of the day it happens and it was partly done to help combat inflation I just think it sucks that it really hurt an entire region.
Great input. I'll be happy to help with the DB work myself - and obviously I will close my eyes entirely for Greek/Cypriot riders and let other people handle those, as they (for now) are my only priority.
One thing I think we need to look at in the future is to present the database prior to renewals. I think some teams could be intruiged to renew/release certain riders if they knew what the new talent pool would look like. IRL this is fairly well known ahead of the process as scouts can look for talents, results etc., while in Man-Game we create our teams based on a guess as to what is actually available.
If we know that a big talent is present, and what he will look like, some managers might clear up wage cap prior to the transferseason, and in seasons like this, where the talentpool is lower they might want to stick more to their original team.
SotD wrote:
My point in "pointless to sign talents" refer to the long period in which it makes no benefit. It doesn't give you an advantage to build your own 76MO talents. You can always find a 76MO rider from the DB for very little wage. It was easy in the past, when the 73-75 stat range was still decent.
I understand that we want to get there sooner rather than later, but people tend to see a rider decreasing for the first time as the tipping point. But in reality riders like Herklotz and Lecuisinier will stay above 76MO for A LONG time. And so will a lot of other riders.
Spoiler
I really should be working right now, but here we are
Out of curiousity, I looked at how the distribution would develop over the next few years in the 76-78 range. I took the regression of every rider into account and developed all 3.xx or 4.xx XP riders (unless they had a higher hill than mountain stat). I excluded 1.xx and 2.xx riders that are currently not under contract, since the premise is that it might not be useful to develop them, and all 3.xx riders aged 27 and older since it seems unlikely someone will pick them up.
Mo Stat
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
78
45
43
45
38
36
31
77
62
81
74
63
59
55
76
70
58
60
57
46
38
The number of riders in the 76-77 range is still fairly stable for the next 3-4 years, but by 2026, at which point the guys added as 1.00 this year, with fastest-possible development, are only in their second maxed year, there's already a pretty steep decline. I would assume it's a similar path for 75 guys. If you still want decent domestiques at low wages, and you don't currently have anyone in the 25-27 age range that'll still be decent at that point, you need to stock up now.
And all that is without taking into account that secondary stats decrease faster, so a lot of the 76 and even 77 riders will have very low stamina and resistance that make them probably less desirable than good 75ers. Plus of course the roleplaying aspects, where I'd much rather have a Rwandan or Eritrean 74 or 75 guy than a random 35 year old Spaniard with 76 or something.
Going through the declines, it's also remarkable just how many potential 6 and 7 guys are among the top riders, who thus decline very slowly. Starting with lower potential now will also be good long term I think, since riders will start declining significantly faster. Or, is that a good thing? I'm not sure, to be honest.
The spike in 77 riders next year is also interesting. There are 22 riders that max out (or have the potential to do so) at 77 mountain next year, which is a good indication of the talent generation four or five years ago
cunego59 wrote:
You can always ask for help, too If you want, I'll take a look at the riders you suggested and come up with some stats.
I know that everyone is busy, so asking for this is not something easily done. But if you could help me in this instance I'd really appreciated.
Thank you very much!
With how many people we are, someone probably always has a bit of time on their hands No problem, I'll put them in the suggestion thread or send them directly to roturn.
SotD wrote:
One thing I think we need to look at in the future is to present the database prior to renewals. I think some teams could be intruiged to renew/release certain riders if they knew what the new talent pool would look like. IRL this is fairly well known ahead of the process as scouts can look for talents, results etc., while in Man-Game we create our teams based on a guess as to what is actually available.
If we know that a big talent is present, and what he will look like, some managers might clear up wage cap prior to the transferseason, and in seasons like this, where the talentpool is lower they might want to stick more to their original team.
Just a thought
I think that's a really good point. We do need more than one or two people working on it to make that happen I think, but it looks like there are enough who would be willing to contribute
whitejersey wrote:
Just wanna highlight here that Jarc did not gain the XP so he still maxes at the same stats, just one year later which is not really a big deal with 1-3 in mind.
That's why I said...
redordead wrote:
Haven't compared him to other riders, but he probably stands a good chance of getting signed.
SotD wrote:
One thing I think we need to look at in the future is to present the database prior to renewals. I think some teams could be intruiged to renew/release certain riders if they knew what the new talent pool would look like. IRL this is fairly well known ahead of the process as scouts can look for talents, results etc., while in Man-Game we create our teams based on a guess as to what is actually available.
If we know that a big talent is present, and what he will look like, some managers might clear up wage cap prior to the transferseason, and in seasons like this, where the talentpool is lower they might want to stick more to their original team.
Just a thought
I think that's a really good point. We do need more than one or two people working on it to make that happen I think, but it looks like there are enough who would be willing to contribute
Probably the DB, calendar and renewals starting should all come out at pretty much the same time. Then a renewals deadline can be set early and everything can be clearer for everyone
Of course need a few more ppl to make that a reality.
I'm clearly joining those who said they didn't want to belittle jph's work - that definitely wasn't my goal, either. And I also wrote that from a neutral point of view, the DB team surely did a good job!
All those facts & figures about lower max stats seem to confirm this. So big thanks to those who set up the DB, and also to those who still are working on it.
One thing I currently still can't see is how a 72-74 rider should be really useful some day. I mean, Basso is such a rider - it's cool to be able to throw him in almost any race, but he hardly scores any points, definitely not in PCT. But I'll wait and see how all that works out, I'm sure you guys got a much better understanding than myself on how DBs should be built so that PCM can handle them decently!
One thing I'm not quite sure about however is that future leaders now often get low pot. As cunego pointed out, those guys will just decrease faster, meaning they'll be useful far less time than they are now (no more Taaramäe winning another GT at 50 years ^^). Also meaning less competition on a let's say PCT top level. Whether that's a good thing or not, I guess it's hard to say now.
And I'm totally in for removing "dead weight" among the FAs; but maybe don't be too extreme this year, because of all the new teams who would clearly be disadvantaged by a dried-out FA market. Maybe do it in two rounds (this year and next), as I don't expect we'll admit far more teams in the game with the current structure.
I am new to this but overall i dont understand all the fuss about it. You have to work with what is there, thats it. It's not like every year there are tons of hyper talented riders out there.
Anyway, thanks to the guys wo put in all the work!!!
What I gather from your figures above is, that it's basically the same in 2027 than it is in 2022. When I say it's pointless it doesn't mean that no one will chose that path. Obviously some will, and some might even train those or riders even worse. That is the reason why there are the numbers in 2022 that isn't there by 2027.
The "pointless" part is, that we might "force" more people into accepting that the talent route isn't viable anymore. Not that "no riders in this statregion will ever be developped".
Just looking at my plans I plan to move riders from the 75-77MO region up. So they will now be noted in the 77-78 region. If 2 more than I will do that pr. season the stats are exactly the same at top level, and some will maybe stop at 76 instead of 77/78 because of disbanding teams etc.
What I think (and what was my initial point) is not really the 75-77 or 76-78 path. That's not really what I refer to in terms of talents. The more versatile ones - absolutely, but what about the 79-81 scale? that will reduce DRASTICALLY over the coming years. And I think people will not be very interested in keeping them in that scale - so they train them. And then we might have a bulk of riders in the region of 82-84 and hardly anyone in the region of 79-81.
When I created my Festina setup it was a very viable option to go for the talent route. It wasn't a guaranteed succes, but you could invest heavily into talents, take a tumble for a season or two and bounce back for a title fight. That path is no longer viable imo, and that hurt the versatility of the game. You can't really build a team core with Lecuisinier, Coquard, Koretzky, Vlatos and a superstar. There will be too far to glory. And it's worth noting here that Coquard, Lecuisinier and Vlatos maxed at 81, while Koretzky at 79. So it's not like those talents were superior by any means. That meant that those wages were possible to fit into one team and build a long term proces. If you were to sign similar riders today you would be picking 4 of the 5 best talents from the FA pool, and hence not having money to actually create the remaining squad.
Will those 76-77 key stat riders make up that ground in terms of top level to make them future stars? I don't think so. The path to the top is too long, and the amount of time to train them too short.
Just to elaborate on my feelings about talent development now versus 5-10 seasons ago. Or just 3 seasons ago maybe. We need those occasional big name like we got in the past - but as we want to lower the figures we don't really have that spectrum of 80-83 key stat talents anymore. I like that we don't see Herklotz, MAL, Bernal etc. added with stats that can immidiately see them podium huge races, but I would instead like a little more in the region 78-79-80 riders instead. Those will be picked up by different cases. Some will be trained into new stars, others will not be trained, and thus will create that regular stream of 81-82-83-84 maybe 85 stat riders.
I certainly don't want anymore riders in general in the phramework of 75-80, but the percentage of top level talents is too low imo.
If we look at my 51 rider benchmark (adjusted to 50 for easy calculation) we see this spread:
80 - 2%
79 - 6%
78 - 2%
76-77 - 90%
This IMO is the exact problem we have been yelling about. Crowding the riders into one category. If these 50 riders are representative for a GC/GT we will see 90% of the GC riders be marked almost identical in strength, while the top 10% (5 riders) will sit safely on the top spots. All other GC sports from 6-50 is entirely up to chance.
So my point is, that it's too crowded and not spread well enough. My suggestions (from previous post) looks like this:
80 - 5%
79 - 10%
78 - 15%
76-77 - 70%
I like that spread much more tbh. It could even be 5 - 15 - 20 - 60
Edited by SotD on 10-08-2022 11:08
The point in my opinion is to have enough useful domestiques and some second-tier contenders to fill out the back half of the roster to satisfy role playing aspects. For smaller nations, this takes time. I unfortunately came a bit too late for Areruya, so what I have to work with is Ndayisenga (which is nice) and a bunch of guys like the Mugishas who will max out at 74-75. Guys that are useful in PCT and not a complete waste of space should I ever make it to PT. Govekar is exactly that (though I would have made him stronger as well), as are Hocevar and Jarc, who were added last year and not developed (sorry to harp on Slovenia again, but just as an example). Maybe at some point in the future, we'll get another top caliber Rwandan, and maybe another top caliber Costa Rican as well.
I'm sorry, but comparing #7 in the PCS nations ranking with 3 long-term main nation teams (Slovenia) to #44 Costa Rica and #53 Rwanda. For scale:
If you compare to rl quality, it's more like Slovenia is underrepresented. Especially with 3 long-term Slovenian main sponsor teams. I still argue that Rwanda and Costa Rica should receive better riders, but Slovenia should receive far better ones.
If you want, I'll take a look at the riders you suggested and come up with some stats. 
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
