When watching a lot of the men’s professional cycling this season I was bored. Many of the biggest races in 2025 lacked suspense; the outcome of the majority of the key one-days decided long before the finish and the Tour de France yellow jersey sewn up with half of the Grand Tour to race. I am, of course, referring to Tadej Pogačar’s dominance at La Grande Boucle, Strade Bianche, the Tour of Flanders, Liège-Bastogne-Liege, the Critérium du Dauphiné, the World Championships and Il Lombardia, to name a few of his 20 wins this season. 

In a number of races, Pogačar attacked with almost two hours left to race, never to be seen again. As his time gaps stretched out, for me it was less edge-of-your-seat viewing and more slumping on the sofa in front of another inevitable result. I started reaching for the kettle to keep myself awake and break up the mundanity. Soon, as his victory became more and more inevitable, the tea breaks became longer. 

Before I am chastised for saying I don’t find these types of races interesting or, worse still, in the unnuanced world of social media, that this is a personal attack on Pogačar’s character, I want to point out that, for me, in three of the four most engaging races in 2025 the Slovenian was the protagonist. Pogačar animated Milan-Sanremo, Paris-Roubaix and the Amstel Gold Race and I was on the edge of my seat, the kettle remained unboiled. The difference was his attacks sparked these races into life but didn’t decimate the rest of the field. 

The other race was the Giro d’Italia, which was by far the most intriguing Grand Tour of the year, only decided on the penultimate day, with jeopardy on every stage and any one of the podium finishers having a realistic chance of winning the maglia rosa. Victory for Simon Yates clinched not by sheer talent, but by patience, tactical nous and his opponents faltering. It was fascinating. 

This made me consider why we watch sport. A question for which I have simplified to three answers, which are not mutually exclusive: to be inspired, to share a feeling of loyalty towards a team or sportsperson, or to be entertained.

I understand that some people are inspired by athletes. Pogačar has transcended the sport, inspiring thousands to take up cycling. But, my own inspiration to ride my bike is more determined by the weather, if my friends are joining, or how busy I am — all factors that no matter how impressive their FTPs are, the professionals have no control over.

I get the elation and turmoil of feeling part of a team’s performance. For example, I would never get bored of watching Wales consistently win at rugby (if that ever happens again). In 2019, despite playing some mundane tactics, Wales enjoyed a dominant spell, but I can sympathise with the neutral fans reaching for the kettle during those matches. Pogačar is why some people watch cycling and it’s the same effect Serena Williams had on tennis, Ronnie O’Sullivan on snooker. But, loyalty to a particular team or individual isn’t why I watch cycling; on the whole I am an impartial viewer. I have riders who I want to see win because they are affable people, have unique backgrounds or race in an exciting way — I can flip-flop between who I want to win solely by the way they have raced. But if their winning becomes routine or foregone, I lose interest. 

So, for me, it boils down to entertainment; I don’t mind who wins if the race is exciting and suspenseful. This year Pogačar could have won Sanremo, Roubaix and Amstel and I still would have enjoyed the final hour of racing. Hypothetically, I perhaps would have reflected afterwards that it would have been better for the sport if someone else had won, as ex-pros like Gianni Bugno have said. But, I wouldn’t deny that I was engaged for the final hour of racing.

I am a cycling journalist — I will always watch the sport, regardless of how interesting I find it. It certainly makes my job easier if it is interesting, but it would be naive to assume that the lay person watching cycling for the first time will be captivated. For the sport to grow it has to appeal to the neutrals who just want to be entertained, not just the partisan fans who never get enough of Pogačar winning (like me with Welsh rugby). 

In a world of competition for our attention, we cannot expect that two hours — more than the length of entire sport matches — with no jeopardy and no suspense will compete with other sports. This also applies to seasoned cycling followers — anecdotally, I have many cycling friends who don’t bother watching anymore. They watch other sports instead. 

This is where I believe entertainment needs to be at the heart of race design. Pogačar is the best cyclist of all time and there is no doubt he is an animator, which is to his credit. His ability is unmatched. But, that doesn’t mean runaway victories are engrossing. It doesn’t need to be — Pogačar is paid to win bike races. It’s up to his competitors and the course designers to challenge him. The reason for the former is obvious, for the latter is to make sure the sport reaches a bigger audience, which means more advertising, which means more money. 

I was therefore disappointed to see the Tour de France 2026 route offer little in the way of obstacles for a fifth Pogačar yellow jersey. If race organisers don’t want people reaching for their kettles — or worse, switching channels — they should design a route that allows for a closer race. Perhaps including some longer flat time trials, where Remco Evenepoel could gain time, or fewer punchy finishes where Pogačar can hoover up bonus seconds. The point wouldn’t be to stop him winning, the chances are it wouldn’t, and I am ok with that. I want it to be less of a foregone conclusion.