|
Good stats for scouted riders?
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 26-07-2010 19:55
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3648
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
For a scouted rider who is around 20 years old, how high should his stats be for him to be regarded as a good future prospect? For example a climber (20 years +/-) who has mountain- and hill stats around 60, would you consider him good? |
| |
|
|
| Tuco the Ugly |
Posted on 26-07-2010 20:10
|
Domestique
Posts: 707
Joined: 25-06-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Starting values are important, but it all depends on potential. If he is a "future great" a 60 MO guy could be 75ish. A truly great climber will usually start around 65 with "future great" potential. |
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 26-07-2010 20:12
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3648
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Actually, in my career the first rider I found was said to be a future great. Usually I get riders that are "worth watching". Should I scout on these or is it useless? |
| |
|
|
| Tuco the Ugly |
Posted on 26-07-2010 20:16
|
Domestique
Posts: 707
Joined: 25-06-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
The potential scouts give riders only has to do with their room for growth, not their overall level (as far as I know).
Therefore, a "future great" with 50s in MO/Hill won't be better than a "worth watching" with 65 in MO/Hill.
Having said that, I stilll only usually monitor "future greats" and "promising" riders. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 07-12-2025 17:15
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 26-07-2010 20:22
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3648
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Okey, how about this:
- I only scout riders when they are "future greats" or "promising"
- Riders around 65 should be rather good no matter what (of course unless they are no hopers" |
| |
|
|
| Tuco the Ugly |
Posted on 26-07-2010 20:24
|
Domestique
Posts: 707
Joined: 25-06-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
cactus-jack wrote:
Okey, how about this:
- I only scout riders when they are "future greats" or "promising"
- Riders around 65 should be rather good no matter what (of course unless they are no hopers"
If you are one of the big teams, that should work.
"Future greats" should develop into team leaders
"Promising" should develop into protected riders
"Worth watching" should develop into useful teammates. |
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 26-07-2010 20:29
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3648
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I am a very small team. I only have 9 riders and my best guy has an average of 68 |
| |
|
|
| Tuco the Ugly |
Posted on 26-07-2010 20:32
|
Domestique
Posts: 707
Joined: 25-06-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
If you are a smaller team then you can also look at riders who have lower ratings too, but still good potential. |
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 26-07-2010 20:36
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3648
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
To be fair, I look at anyone who can ride a bike |
| |
|
|
| Lachi |
Posted on 26-07-2010 20:42
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8360
Joined: 29-06-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
If you use a crappy scout he often is wrong about the future development but never is wrong about his values (as far as I know ).
If you monitored enough cyclists, I would select the ones with high stats over the high prospects. But as Tuco said, you should monitor "future great" and "promising" first.
That said, I would never offer a contract to a rider, if 60 is his hightest stat, no matter if he is 20 or only 18 and not even with the smallest team. You can find a better young rider in the search anytime. |
| |
|
|
| cactus-jack |
Posted on 26-07-2010 20:47
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3648
Joined: 31-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I have 3 scouts so I'm planning for the future (small budget). At the moment I have a 2-3 who have some stats above 60, so I guess I'll keep an eye out on them. |
| |
|
