It's Official Schleck Brothers Suck
Comments
-
RichN95 wrote:frenchfighter wrote:You see though, some people only watch the Tour. For them if Andy lights it up they will think positively of him. For the ardent fans, who watch races all season long, andy is very poor value. If he puts some good performances in, I will congratulate him on his curiously good performance but say he is still a slouch, not a good example of a pro, not a rider for the fans, not a champion, frankly a lightweight. And that I will say even if he wins the Tour.
He provides most fans with excellent value because they haven't given him a penny. Yet they expect him to perform on demand like some dancing monkey. How he races is between him and his employers - if they're happy with him just performing at the Tour then fine. If he doesn't want his entire life dictated by his job, then that's his choice - not ours. Much of the criticism of him seems to stem from him living his life as he wants to and not as the performing monkey that the armchair DSs demand.
FF Gold medal for stating it like it is
Rich ... special pleading bulstered by blind love ...wooden spoon (performing monkey??? - he's a pro rider who turns up mid season and then disappears again)'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
Assuming the Giro/TDF double is too big an ask, and the TDF is the GT priority, what other races should Schleck be targeting through the season? What is he suited for?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
TailWindHome wrote:Assuming the Giro/TDF double is too big an ask, and the TDF is the GT priority, what other races should Schleck be targeting through the season? What is he suited for?
LBL.
Usually does, but not this year.
Paris-Nice is a reasonable aim, as are the mickey mouse Spanish 1 week Tours - Catalunya, Basque country, etc.0 -
Just take a look at Contador's plamares. Should give you a good idea.Contador is the Greatest0
-
I looked at Contador's palmares but couldn't see a monument on it.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Assuming the Giro/TDF double is too big an ask, and the TDF is the GT priority, what other races should Schleck be targeting through the season? What is he suited for?
LBL.
Usually does, but not this year.
Paris-Nice is a reasonable aim, as are the mickey mouse Spanish 1 week Tours - Catalunya, Basque country, etc.
What does he really gain from racing hard in a chipper tour?
Some respect from us? Ultimately, if your yardstick is le Tour overall, then a win in the Tour of Some Part of Spain, isn't going to save your season from a poor TdF
Paris Nice, might go some way to making up for a poor performance.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
The fact that we see guys like Evans, Wiggins and Contador going for wins in races like Paris-Nice, Romandie and the Dauphine means that they must have some prestige and value to their sponsors. Most of the "great" riders in history won a variety of major races.
The approach that Schleck takes and Armstrong (during the second half of his career) took is a risky one...get a niggling injuring or the flu in mid June or crash out of the Tour and your season is pretty much finished with nothing to show for it.
The fact that Contador has never won a monument is neither here nor there, he's a stage race specialist and (putting the steak issue to one side for a moment), a rather good one. That argument is a bit like saying that Boonen's career has been a failure because he's never won the Tour."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0 -
I agree with you Inky - in a way if you put everything on winning the Tour and it doesn't happen you deserve a bit of flak for under achieving.
At the moment Schleck's palmares is pretty thin for a rider with his talent - he's probably the only person in the world capable of climbing with Contador when they are both at their best.
These other races - Paris-Nice, Dauphine, Tour of Switzerland etc etc are big races and worth winning in their own right - I just think if he's come into this one short of form then there's no point in trying to get a top 3 or a top 5 knowing he's no chance of winning it - and then potentially stuffing his Tour for that. If we are talking about his career as a whole though yes - he should be winning more and as he is not the multiple grand tour winner that say Armstrong is a few Dauphines or whatever would boost his palmares and give a bit more return for the money he is being paid.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
inkyfingers wrote:The fact that we see guys like Evans, Wiggins and Contador going for wins in races like Paris-Nice, Romandie and the Dauphine means that they must have some prestige and value to their sponsors. Most of the "great" riders in history won a variety of major races.
Some of the greats won little though.
Take Charly Gaul for example. 1 Tour, 1 Giro and that's it. Nothing else.
Or Pantani, who many seem to revere. 1 Tour, 2 Giros and a Tour of Murcia. And that's your lot.
Federico Bahamontes won 1 Tour and nothing else. 50 years later people are still writing books about him.
And Freddy Maertens seems to have a reputation as a great classics rider despite never winning a monument.Twitter: @RichN950 -
josame wrote:Rich ... special pleading bulstered by blind love ...wooden spoon (performing monkey??? - he's a pro rider who turns up mid season and then disappears again)
No blind love here. I wanted him to beat Contador, but I also wanted him to get beaten by Evans.
I'm just not willing to see a man who at the age of twenty six is the first person to win the Tour and a monument since Hinault and Fignon and already has four GT podium finishes as some kind of failure just because he doesn't get excited by the Vuelta a Pais Vasco and prefers to have some sort of work life balance.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:josame wrote:Rich ... special pleading bulstered by blind love ...wooden spoon (performing monkey??? - he's a pro rider who turns up mid season and then disappears again)
No blind love here. I wanted him to beat Contador, but I also wanted him to get beaten by Evans.
I'm just not willing to see a man who at the age of twenty six is the first person to win the Tour and a monument since Hinault and Fignon and already has four GT podium finishes as some kind of failure just because he doesn't get excited by the Vuelta a Pais Vasco and prefers to have some sort of work life balance.
Anyway, when he is in form he's bloody exciting to watch. Give me watching Andy in the Tour over Indurain every day of the week.0 -
RichN95 wrote:inkyfingers wrote:The fact that we see guys like Evans, Wiggins and Contador going for wins in races like Paris-Nice, Romandie and the Dauphine means that they must have some prestige and value to their sponsors. Most of the "great" riders in history won a variety of major races.
Some of the greats won little though.
Take Charly Gaul for example. 1 Tour, 1 Giro and that's it. Nothing else.
Or Pantani, who many seem to revere. 1 Tour, 1 Giro and a Tour of Murcia. And that's your lot.
Federico Bahamontes won 1 Tour and nothing else. 50 years later people are still writing books about him.
And Freddy Maertens seems to have a reputation as a great classics rider despite never winning a monument.
You could argue that those guys were climbing specialists rather than top GT riders in the Merckx/Hinault/Coppi club. Bahamontes couldn't even ride downhill
In the case of Pantani, he would probably have won a lot more races if it wasn't for his psychological (and obviously his doping) problems, not to mention the nasty crash he had in 95/96 which lost him a whole season."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0 -
there is only one way to settle this"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0
-
inkyfingers wrote:
You could argue that those guys were climbing specialists rather than top GT riders in the Merckx/Hinault/Coppi club. Bahamontes couldn't even ride downhill
When Charly Gaul won the Tour he won all three time trials. And isn't Schleck a climbing specialist who isn't good at descending.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:inkyfingers wrote:
You could argue that those guys were climbing specialists rather than top GT riders in the Merckx/Hinault/Coppi club. Bahamontes couldn't even ride downhill
When Charly Gaul won the Tour he won all three time trials. And isn't Schleck a climbing specialist who isn't good at descending.
Everyone in life has to have someone that defends them...'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
You've got some good knowledge Rich. Keep the facts and figures coming. Even if I disagree with a lot of what you say.Contador is the Greatest0
-
RichN95 wrote:inkyfingers wrote:
You could argue that those guys were climbing specialists rather than top GT riders in the Merckx/Hinault/Coppi club. Bahamontes couldn't even ride downhill
When Charly Gaul won the Tour he won all three time trials. And isn't Schleck a climbing specialist who isn't good at descending.
I never knew that about Gaul. Schleck is certainly a very good climber, but the days of the "climbing specialist" seem to have passed so he has almost no choice but to focus on winning GT's.
I don't have any particular dislike for Andy Schleck, he just doesn't really ring my bells."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0 -
inkyfingers wrote:RichN95 wrote:inkyfingers wrote:The fact that we see guys like Evans, Wiggins and Contador going for wins in races like Paris-Nice, Romandie and the Dauphine means that they must have some prestige and value to their sponsors. Most of the "great" riders in history won a variety of major races.
Some of the greats won little though.
Take Charly Gaul for example. 1 Tour, 1 Giro and that's it. Nothing else.
Or Pantani, who many seem to revere. 1 Tour, 1 Giro and a Tour of Murcia. And that's your lot.
Federico Bahamontes won 1 Tour and nothing else. 50 years later people are still writing books about him.
And Freddy Maertens seems to have a reputation as a great classics rider despite never winning a monument.
You could argue that those guys were climbing specialists rather than top GT riders in the Merckx/Hinault/Coppi club. Bahamontes couldn't even ride downhill
In the case of Pantani, he would probably have won a lot more races if it wasn't for his psychological (and obviously his doping) problems, not to mention the nasty crash he had in 95/96 which lost him a whole season.
Pantani also has 8 stage wins in the Tour and 8 at the Giro. That massages his Palmeres a little... Likewise he always rode hard at LBL (despite never getting anywhere).
On the whole however, he seems to have been afflicted by that most Italian of disorders of not liking to race outside Italy very often."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:inkyfingers wrote:RichN95 wrote:inkyfingers wrote:The fact that we see guys like Evans, Wiggins and Contador going for wins in races like Paris-Nice, Romandie and the Dauphine means that they must have some prestige and value to their sponsors. Most of the "great" riders in history won a variety of major races.
Some of the greats won little though.
Take Charly Gaul for example. 1 Tour, 1 Giro and that's it. Nothing else.
Or Pantani, who many seem to revere. 1 Tour, 1 Giro and a Tour of Murcia. And that's your lot.
Federico Bahamontes won 1 Tour and nothing else. 50 years later people are still writing books about him.
And Freddy Maertens seems to have a reputation as a great classics rider despite never winning a monument.
You could argue that those guys were climbing specialists rather than top GT riders in the Merckx/Hinault/Coppi club. Bahamontes couldn't even ride downhill
In the case of Pantani, he would probably have won a lot more races if it wasn't for his psychological (and obviously his doping) problems, not to mention the nasty crash he had in 95/96 which lost him a whole season.
Pantani also has 8 stage wins in the Tour and 8 at the Giro. That massages his Palmeres a little... Likewise he always rode hard at LBL (despite never getting anywhere).
On the whole however, he seems to have been afflicted by that most Italian of disorders of not liking to race outside Italy very often.
Plenty of Belgians suffer from Belgiumitus too.0 -
This thread has more pages than any thread on the past 10 pages other than Roubaix Spoiler (19) and one PTP thread. Impressive. He sure creates some opinion.Contador is the Greatest0
-
Completely off topic but I jut love herbs fact that wiggins and evans are being held as examples of attacking riders!
As for Schleck I'm changing my opinion of him. He's a whining pain in the arse but I'd like to see him do well at the tour now just to shut a few people up. 0 -
RichN95 wrote:Some of the greats won little though.
Take Charly Gaul for example. 1 Tour, 1 Giro and that's it. Nothing else.
Or Pantani, who many seem to revere. 1 Tour, 2 Giros and a Tour of Murcia. And that's your lot.
Federico Bahamontes won 1 Tour and nothing else. 50 years later people are still writing books about him.
And Freddy Maertens seems to have a reputation as a great classics rider despite never winning a monument.
Slightly understating the great Gaul's palmares there Rich.
Gaul won the Giro in 56 and 59. In addition he was 3rd in 58 and 60 and fourth in 57 and 61. A six year stretch where he as in the top four. He won 11 stages and the mountains classification twice.
He also won the Tour mountains classification twice and 10 stages (on top of his overall victory and two other podiums).
But it is the manner of his victories that stand out. Soloing for massive breaks through abysmal weather.
Ditto Bahamontes
Bahamontes won the king of the mountains 11 times in GTs (6 Tour, 1 Giro, 2 Vuelta), 11 Stages (7 Tour, 1 Giro, 3 Vuelta) . Finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th positions in the Tour and runner up in the Vuelta.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Gaul used to tell riders the excact point he would attack to, and always follow through."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Gaul used to tell riders the excact point he would attack to, and always follow through.
Nasty. I'd never sh!t myself, even if I was chatting to Boonen.0 -
Greg Lemond could tell you a thing or two about that, also."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Greg Lemond could tell you a thing or two about that, also.
Give me your cap.
NOW0 -
Timoid. wrote:Slightly understating the great Gaul's palmares there Rich.
Gaul won the Giro in 56 and 59. In addition he was 3rd in 58 and 60 and fourth in 57 and 61. A six year stretch where he as in the top four. He won 11 stages and the mountains classification twice.
He also won the Tour mountains classification twice and 10 stages (on top of his overall victory and two other podiums).
But it is the manner of his victories that stand out. Soloing for massive breaks through abysmal weather.
Ditto Bahamontes
Bahamontes won the king of the mountains 11 times in GTs (6 Tour, 1 Giro, 2 Vuelta), 11 Stages (7 Tour, 1 Giro, 3 Vuelta) . Finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th positions in the Tour and runner up in the Vuelta.
I know they did other things, but I was using them to illustrate that you don't have to have many actual stage race wins to be considered great.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Timoid. wrote:RichN95 wrote:Some of the greats won little though.
Take Charly Gaul for example. 1 Tour, 1 Giro and that's it. Nothing else.
Or Pantani, who many seem to revere. 1 Tour, 2 Giros and a Tour of Murcia. And that's your lot.
Federico Bahamontes won 1 Tour and nothing else. 50 years later people are still writing books about him.
And Freddy Maertens seems to have a reputation as a great classics rider despite never winning a monument.
Slightly understating the great Gaul's palmares there Rich.
Gaul won the Giro in 56 and 59. In addition he was 3rd in 58 and 60 and fourth in 57 and 61. A six year stretch where he as in the top four. He won 11 stages and the mountains classification twice.
He also won the Tour mountains classification twice and 10 stages (on top of his overall victory and two other podiums).
But it is the manner of his victories that stand out. Soloing for massive breaks through abysmal weather.
Ditto Bahamontes
Bahamontes won the king of the mountains 11 times in GTs (6 Tour, 1 Giro, 2 Vuelta), 11 Stages (7 Tour, 1 Giro, 3 Vuelta) . Finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th positions in the Tour and runner up in the Vuelta.
Interesting, thanks for posting. Go Gaul.Contador is the Greatest0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Gaul used to tell riders the excact point he would attack to, and always follow through.
There was a great anecdote in the Pure Climbers thread about Gaul along just the lines above. Ill try and find it.Contador is the Greatest0
