Peter Sagan: Cycling is "a boring sport" to watch on TV

I use to race non professionally at cat 3 and I too find cycling boring to watch on TV, and then have to listen to brain dead announcers trying to fill in dead space with nonsense;  I find this true with most sports that's televised.

I feel like real fans watch at least 50km on average, bar maybe sprint stages. I love a team time trial too, poetry in motion.

Don't think his sponsors or those in the rest of the peloton will be too pleased to hear that. 

Anyone would think elite cycling is flush with money right now and doesn't need TV exposure.

OTIO

well, it is sometimes, but the scenery is beautifull and this is the main reason we watch it al lthe way (except paris-roubaix where everything and anything is possible from start to finish!!)

I'm with cbrnc above, I love to watch the early work by the big rouleurs, pulling back dangerous breaks and fighting to control the pace for their GC hopefuls. You rarely even see the likes of Ben Swift or Ian Stannard's hard work in the early part of a stage on the TV coverage, unless it's on the rare days that Eurosport follow the whole stage.

I'm not glued to it all day, but do watch several hours of a stage that is fully televised. But then, I am one of those who enjoys watching all the riders in a GT TT or Worlds ITT; I just like watching good people ride bikes well I suppose.

I couldn't disagree more. I like to see how a breakaway happens, the cat and mouse antics, who goes and who stays with the peloton. I like the tension of the chase. I like the scenery also. Just seeing the last few kilometres doesn't tell me much about the race and if that's all I can get to see I generally don't bother.

I definately enjoy watching the highlight of a GT and think that whole hour (in ITV's case) is interesting (noting that normally the highlights start well into the stage) but i rekon if i had the live coverage on it would kind of be background.  Like Sagan says - there is not much happening for most of the stage especially a flatter one.  But this is comparable (kind of) to cricket where you can have it on all day in the background but might not be glued to the T.V.

I always wonder, especially for a flatter stage, why they are so long.  Would it make any difference to the result if it were say 80 miles instead of 130?

Watching sports can get really boring overall, cycling is no exception.

It's because they don't feature enough terrifying close-passes or demented gammon-faced motorists ranting incoherently.  Just cyclists cycling with nobody trying to kill them - kinda boring.

It'd be a lot more boring without Sagan.

Generally, highlights FTW - but I watch the odd stage of a grand tour, when I can. It helps that they take place in three stunning countries, so even when the riding's boring, the scenery's often worth a watch.

I can see how a young, jet-setting, millionaire (probably) might hold such an opinion. He probably cares nothing about seeing foreign landscapes and architecture, or the steady rhythm of the breakaway's advantage ebbing and flowing. But, then again, right now on ITV4 they're showing the 473rd repeat of an episode of Minder, followed by The Saint, and latter a double-bill of fourth-rate reality TV show Storage Wars. By comparison, live coverage of the Tour de France is positively enthralling.

This ties in neatly with the other thread on the demise of JLT Condor, AquaBlue etc due to lack of funding.

Why would you want to sponsor a sport that even the contestants think is dull!

Totally agree. People often talk to me about TdF, TdB, Giro etc. because I like to ride but as a spectator sport it ranks just above watching paint dry for me!

Yep, recording highlights is the way to go.  That way one can generally skip to near the end on sprint stages, or avoid the adverts to enjoy the climbing for a mountain stage.  The only benefit of watching the live coverage sometimes is the scenery & helicopter footage.

I was amazed at the lack of touristy stuff from the Tour of Britain. Even when the helicopter passed over something interesting it didn't  zoom in, the commentators hardly mentioned any details of anything historic or interesting on the route.  As the TDF found out it was an excellent showcase for French tourism, but it seems the Tour of Britain folks are not interested in promoting the glories of this wonderful isle, shame on them.

I love watching the Grand Tours. However, I do tend to have the bulk of the stage on as background while I am marking, planning or otherwise doing all the boring paperwork teachers have to do nowadays. 

The last 10-20k though I do pay more attention. 

Editted to add ... I have to confess really enjoying the early stages of the Vuelta this year, as we have holidayed on the Costa Del Sol the last two Springs and it was cool/interesting to see the race winding through roads and villages that were vaguely familiar (complete with some excellent copter shots of Mijas Pueblo village. 

I have never really done the watching Grand Tours for the scenery thing until then. 

For GTs I almost agree. For a sprint stage the last 5 minutes are enough, for mountains the last climb. The only other compelling viewing is wondering if the break will stay away. But all the same it is wonderfully relaxing and compelling watching them meander through spectacular scenery (Tour of Dubai take note) listening to the commentary. It's a bit like watching the Le Mans 24h race. To the outsider nothing is happening and the race is often decided by half way barring mechanicals but somehow I can stay up all night watching that on Eurosport.

If I was introducing someone to watching cycling I'd start with velodrome and then Flanders and Roubaix for the spectacle, or Strade Bianci perhaps. Certainly not Milan-San Remo or one of those deadly dull transitional sprint stages. Ditto TTs

He's been watching Froome and Sky then