Team Sky and British Cycling

Daz555

Jez mon wrote:

Take Wiggins away, and Sky still win.

Because you know 100% that Froome would ride as well with the pressure of going for yellow?

richard wants a baum

Not taking anything away from Wiggin's win, but didn't he get a little lucky (which realistically every tour winner needs a bit of ) that alot of the competition either weren't present or had illness ? Nibali a good GC rider but not in a Tour heavy in ITT, though he did better in those than i thought he would and JVB isn't really in that top tier of GC riders is he? The dominated but who exactly did they dominate?

oldwelshman

richard wants a baum wrote:

Not taking anything away from Wiggin's win, but didn't he get a little lucky (which realistically every tour winner needs a bit of ) that alot of the competition either weren't present or had illness ? Nibali a good GC rider but not in a Tour heavy in ITT, though he did better in those than i thought he would and JVB isn't really in that top tier of GC riders is he? The dominated but who exactly did they dominate?

Lucky to win the tdf? wtf.
Was he also lucky with the Duaphine, paris Nice, Romandie, and Olympics?
He beat who was there that all that is needed. It would not have made any difference if shrek was there, amd if he was there maybe he would be joining brother Frank!!
Nibali has won 2 GC's so how can you say he is only "good".

carl_p

richard wants a baum wrote:

Not taking anything away from Wiggin's win, but didn't he get a little lucky (which realistically every tour winner needs a bit of ) that alot of the competition either weren't present or had illness ? Nibali a good GC rider but not in a Tour heavy in ITT, though he did better in those than i thought he would and JVB isn't really in that top tier of GC riders is he? The dominated but who exactly did they dominate?

You are right, except that the opportunity theory holds true for all the other teams also. With the possible exclusion of Nibali I didn't see other teams and riders burying themselves stage after stage in the same way that Sky did.

The Vuelta will be very interesting in that it will test Sky's perceived dominance on a very mountainous course. I suspect that if Froome doesn't win then conversation will move to Sky being a 'one trick pony' rather than dominant.

Track cycling..... well that's different. Total utter dominance. Total utter jealously from the other nations.

Vino'sGhost

Gazzaputt wrote:

You have a lot to learn.

Cyclists, no actually the clique on here I doubt most know how to ride a bike, are to cool for school and cannot been seen to endorse a successful team born from these shores.

eees plus ten

Ave GOLDEN Calves

richard wants a baum

oldwelshman wrote:

richard wants a baum wrote:

Not taking anything away from Wiggin's win, but didn't he get a little lucky (which realistically every tour winner needs a bit of ) that alot of the competition either weren't present or had illness ? Nibali a good GC rider but not in a Tour heavy in ITT, though he did better in those than i thought he would and JVB isn't really in that top tier of GC riders is he? The dominated but who exactly did they dominate?

Lucky to win the tdf? wtf.
Was he also lucky with the Duaphine, paris Nice, Romandie, and Olympics?
He beat who was there that all that is needed. It would not have made any difference if shrek was there, amd if he was there maybe he would be joining brother Frank!!
Nibali has won 2 GC's so how can you say he is only "good".

I did qualify that comment with the sentence I think all Tour winners need some luck I also agree with your comment that you can only beat those that are there same as Cadel could only beat a lethargic Contador after he had raced a Giro . My point was simply that I don't think they dominated a particularly strong field

Monty Zoncolan

Next week: Apples and oranges - which is best?

TheBigBean

sjmclean wrote:

in fact the same people go on and on about how good Barcelona are, but isn't it just the same thing.

I dislike Barcelona far more than Sky.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

in fact the same people go on and on about how good Barcelona are, but isn't it just the same thing.

I dislike Barcelona far more than Sky.

Similarly boring.

jimmythecuckoo

So how many people professing hatred for Team Sky and British Cycling actually have a licence or some form of British Cycling membership which it could be argued fuel their domination?

Spiny_Norman

Carl_P wrote:

The Vuelta will be very interesting in that it will test Sky's perceived dominance on a very mountainous course. I suspect that if Froome doesn't win then conversation will move to Sky being a 'one trick pony' rather than dominant.

And if he does, the conversation will move ever more in the direction of doping. If he comes 2nd or 3rd, we'll probably get both at the same time.

Gazzaputt

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

in fact the same people go on and on about how good Barcelona are, but isn't it just the same thing.

I dislike Barcelona far more than Sky.

Similarly boring.

:shock: your kidding right?

Barca's style of football is something to be hold and admired. The way they can maintain possession and pass ball around is sublime.

DeadCalm

Gazzaputt wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

in fact the same people go on and on about how good Barcelona are, but isn't it just the same thing.

I dislike Barcelona far more than Sky.

Similarly boring.

:shock: your kidding right?

Barca's style of football is something to be hold and admired. The way they can maintain possession and pass ball around is sublime.

And boring.

rebs

some people do argue that Barca's football style is boring in that it sucks the life out of game. It's fun to watch but try going through a whole season it does get a little tiresome as there is little competition to them :P

It's harsh for people to say that Sky made the Tour boring by sucking hte life out of it. Not many people test to say that other teams failed to bring the compeition to Sky. Wiggins outclimbed everyone except Froome remember....

I don't think Sky generate much hate. well not on this forum. Alot of cynical people around no doubt. Only thing I notice is that alot of people don't like the attention Sky get. Strange that British people cheer on a British team.... :roll:. I still think alot of the "older" generation still linken flag waving to that of say Combat 18, NF and the comedy BNP show.... :P

Earthbound

Crankbrother wrote:

There always seems to be the missing element of passion in the way Sky/GB race ... Wins almost seem a relief (Cav/Pendleton/Hoy) or, worse still, an entitlement (Wiggins) ... and this mentality seems to carry over to the 'fans' ...

Compare that to the Belgians, Italians or Spanish (esp. the Basques) and they love the sport rather than just the victory ... riders and fans alike ...

People at my work asked why I found no joy in Wiggins or Hoy winning ... and all I could think of was that although the rides were impressive athletic achievements they had none of the passion associated with the sport (this includes the TdF as well as Olympics) ...

You're bonkers mate!!!

Did you see that great big hulk of a powerhouse man Chris Hoy weeping like a baby on the medal podium last night. That's real emotion, that's what it meant. And that's his 6th Olympic Gold medal and it STILL means THAT much to him.

Pendleton of course cries after every race the little dear.

And what about Laura Trott now the national has fallen in love with the effervescent smiling, puking baby of the squad.

As for Wiggins you can't get a more gracious unassuming winner.

I have to say I've loved Cav as a pundit on the Olympics this past week or so, he's such a great guy. A real normal bloke having a laugh and a joke and sharing his knowledge. Nothing at all like the bitter self interested egotist that nobodies on forums would have you believe he is.

With the Tour and Olympic success on the back of everything else, I simply can't understand the mentality of so many of the people on these forums. The barely disguised bitterness and hate and the inverse snobbery is bizarre.

I'm really pleased I only come across some of you on these forums because if I came across you i real life I could never call you friend or even acquaintance because I really wouldn't want to know some of you. Accusing dedicated, professional, successful athletes who also happen to appear to be quite smashing people, of having no emotion or personality and are undeserving of their success!?!

Some of you need to take a good look at yourselves.

Earthbound

afx237vi wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Different style of racing, though. You can't win the classics by getting an early lead and shutting everything out for the next three weeks.

Sure, but I would suggest that the way Boonen won Paris Roubaix was far more dominating than the way Sky won the Tour.

I'd argue it's not about dominance, per se, but the manner in which you dominate. Attacking a cobbled classic from 50 km out and soloing to the finish line is not the same as getting a leader's jersey in a TT and then strangling the race to death for the next two weeks.

So in your first post you say it's about dominance i.e. the fact that Boonen dominated Paris Roubaix, then when it's pointed out to you that actually Sky did dominate the Tour, you change tack and claim it's only a bout a certain 'type' of dominance that only you have adjudication over.

Isn't it funny how wingers keep moving the goal posts so as not to eradicate their fabricated excuse for a moan. Dear god I'd hate to meet you propping up the bar on a quiet Tuesday night.

Jez mon

To be honest, Vicky P's reaction after yesterday saddened me a bit, she hadn't seemed to enjoy her career a heck of a lot!!

rick_chasey

Earthbound wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Different style of racing, though. You can't win the classics by getting an early lead and shutting everything out for the next three weeks.

Sure, but I would suggest that the way Boonen won Paris Roubaix was far more dominating than the way Sky won the Tour.

I'd argue it's not about dominance, per se, but the manner in which you dominate. Attacking a cobbled classic from 50 km out and soloing to the finish line is not the same as getting a leader's jersey in a TT and then strangling the race to death for the next two weeks.

So in your first post you say it's about dominance i.e. the fact that Boonen dominated Paris Roubaix, then when it's pointed out to you that actually Sky did dominate the Tour, you change tack and claim it's only a bout a certain 'type' of dominance that only you have adjudication over.

Isn't it funny how wingers keep moving the goal posts so as not to eradicate their fabricated excuse for a moan. Dear god I'd hate to meet you propping up the bar on a quiet Tuesday night.

What Boonen did was audacious, exciting, and risky.

For sure, there wasn't a lot of suspense after 20km for the result, but it was the above nonetheless.

Wiggin's riding was exactly the opposite.

Pross

Earthbound wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Different style of racing, though. You can't win the classics by getting an early lead and shutting everything out for the next three weeks.

Sure, but I would suggest that the way Boonen won Paris Roubaix was far more dominating than the way Sky won the Tour.

I'd argue it's not about dominance, per se, but the manner in which you dominate. Attacking a cobbled classic from 50 km out and soloing to the finish line is not the same as getting a leader's jersey in a TT and then strangling the race to death for the next two weeks.

So in your first post you say it's about dominance i.e. the fact that Boonen dominated Paris Roubaix, then when it's pointed out to you that actually Sky did dominate the Tour, you change tack and claim it's only a bout a certain 'type' of dominance that only you have adjudication over.

Isn't it funny how wingers keep moving the goal posts so as not to eradicate their fabricated excuse for a moan. Dear god I'd hate to meet you propping up the bar on a quiet Tuesday night.

I'm a big Sky / BC fan but if you can't see the point that AFX is making then you need to clear your eyes. Whilst there's plenty on this site who like to moan about Sky I'm pretty sure AFX isn't one of them, I suggest you read a bit more of the forum before commenting on individuals.

Earthbound

greasedscotsman wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Different style of racing, though. You can't win the classics by getting an early lead and shutting everything out for the next three weeks.

Sure, but I would suggest that the way Boonen won Paris Roubaix was far more dominating than the way Sky won the Tour.

Would you? I would say that 6 stage wins, top 2 positions and 6 minutes between Wiggins and Nibali is just as dominant a performance.

I've said it a few times now on similar threads, but Team Sky's performance at this year's race was good, but wasn't really that dominant. The La Vie Claire team from the 1986 Tour got 1st, 2nd, 4th and 7th. The won the KOM, best rookie and combination jerseys. The won 6 stages and also the team competition. I think they have a little way to go to beat that record.

Merckx won practically that on his own on his first tour, so that would make La Vie's achievement look weak. That team did have the Badger and Lemond after all, who accumulated 8 tours between them so lets face it you've picked a pretty impressive team from just one year in history in a desperate attempt to deflate Sky. Why the hate? Why nit just say Sky did exceptionally well this year, not as well as La Vie in '86 but probably better than most team in most years.

Why as the OP said, do some people seem to have a personal, preconceived unfounded agenda to moan about Team GB / Sky, even trotting out cherry picked statistics in an attempt to self justify their bitterness. I think in terms of the OP - point proven !

Earthbound

Pross wrote:

Earthbound wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Different style of racing, though. You can't win the classics by getting an early lead and shutting everything out for the next three weeks.

Sure, but I would suggest that the way Boonen won Paris Roubaix was far more dominating than the way Sky won the Tour.

I'd argue it's not about dominance, per se, but the manner in which you dominate. Attacking a cobbled classic from 50 km out and soloing to the finish line is not the same as getting a leader's jersey in a TT and then strangling the race to death for the next two weeks.

So in your first post you say it's about dominance i.e. the fact that Boonen dominated Paris Roubaix, then when it's pointed out to you that actually Sky did dominate the Tour, you change tack and claim it's only a bout a certain 'type' of dominance that only you have adjudication over.

Isn't it funny how wingers keep moving the goal posts so as not to eradicate their fabricated excuse for a moan. Dear god I'd hate to meet you propping up the bar on a quiet Tuesday night.

I'm a big Sky / BC fan but if you can't see the point that AFX is making then you need to clear your eyes. Whilst there's plenty on this site who like to moan about Sky I'm pretty sure AFX isn't one of them, I suggest you read a bit more of the forum before commenting on individuals.

Pardon me for pointing out a contradiction.

Earthbound

Rick Chasey wrote:

Earthbound wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Different style of racing, though. You can't win the classics by getting an early lead and shutting everything out for the next three weeks.

Sure, but I would suggest that the way Boonen won Paris Roubaix was far more dominating than the way Sky won the Tour.

I'd argue it's not about dominance, per se, but the manner in which you dominate. Attacking a cobbled classic from 50 km out and soloing to the finish line is not the same as getting a leader's jersey in a TT and then strangling the race to death for the next two weeks.

So in your first post you say it's about dominance i.e. the fact that Boonen dominated Paris Roubaix, then when it's pointed out to you that actually Sky did dominate the Tour, you change tack and claim it's only a bout a certain 'type' of dominance that only you have adjudication over.

Isn't it funny how wingers keep moving the goal posts so as not to eradicate their fabricated excuse for a moan. Dear god I'd hate to meet you propping up the bar on a quiet Tuesday night.

What Boonen did was audacious, exciting, and risky.

For sure, there wasn't a lot of suspense after 20km for the result, but it was the above nonetheless.

Wiggin's riding was exactly the opposite.

But it was equally 'dominant'. The crux of the point that was originally raised here is one of 'dominance' not 'flamboyance' surely ?

"Sure, but I would suggest that the way Boonen won Paris Roubaix was far more dominating than the way Sky won the Tour."

dominating not flamboyant.

rick_chasey

Earthbound wrote:

But it was equally 'dominant'. The crux of the point that was originally raised here is one of 'dominance' not 'flamboyance' surely ?

You're missing the point.

It's about how, not what.

Dominance is a little boring, sure. But there are more exciting ways to do it than others.

Wiggins/Sky's way felt dull. It suited them very well and you can't expect them to do it differently, but their tactic reduced the spectacle.

Anyway, they so far have only dominated the Tour.

Their performances elsewhere were as patchy as any other team. Their style of racing in those is patchy too.

The problem I have is I find the anglo-saxon 'marginal gains' - 'inner chimp' - 'we've trained for this' chat a real turn off.

Every team does that. They just don't go on about it like they're reinvented the wheel.

afx237vi

Earthbound wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Different style of racing, though. You can't win the classics by getting an early lead and shutting everything out for the next three weeks.

Sure, but I would suggest that the way Boonen won Paris Roubaix was far more dominating than the way Sky won the Tour.

I'd argue it's not about dominance, per se, but the manner in which you dominate. Attacking a cobbled classic from 50 km out and soloing to the finish line is not the same as getting a leader's jersey in a TT and then strangling the race to death for the next two weeks.

So in your first post you say it's about dominance i.e. the fact that Boonen dominated Paris Roubaix, then when it's pointed out to you that actually Sky did dominate the Tour, you change tack and claim it's only a bout a certain 'type' of dominance that only you have adjudication over.

Isn't it funny how wingers keep moving the goal posts so as not to eradicate their fabricated excuse for a moan. Dear god I'd hate to meet you propping up the bar on a quiet Tuesday night.

I'm not the one who brought up Boonen or Paris-Roubaix, so I dunno what you're on about there.

Re your last paragraph: It's funnier to me how the people who claim to see some kind of anti-Sky hatred are the ones who have the biggest chip on their shoulder. I have nothing against Sky, Wiggins, British Cycling, Brailsford or anyone else, but I'm not going to pretend the Tour de France was thrilling when it wasn't. You enjoyed it, good for you.

cougie

The Indurain years werent very exciting either. Massive gains in the time trials. Game over.
Armstrong years - demolish them in the time trials and also in the mountains. A bit more exciting but everyone knows why now.

lostboysaint

People dislike Sky and Barca for the same reasons, it's always clever NOT to like success and claim that it's dull, unworthy, not merited for whatever reasons. It's quite sad really.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem I have is I find the anglo-saxon 'marginal gains' - 'inner chimp' - 'we've trained for this' chat a real turn off.

Every team does that.

The thing is, most teams don't. Most don't even employ a coach - they just let their riders get on with their training by themselves.

You shouldn't underestimate how backward a lot of cycling is in it's thinking.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem I have is I find the anglo-saxon 'marginal gains' - 'inner chimp' - 'we've trained for this' chat a real turn off.

Every team does that.

The thing is, most teams don't. Most don't even employ a coach - they just let their riders get on with their training by themselves.

You shouldn't underestimate how backward a lot of cycling is in it's thinking.

Yeah I don't buy into this.

For sure, Sky's probably further ahead of the curve than most, but that doesn't mean the others aren't close behind.

I watched an avondetappe with 3 different DS (Rabo, Argos, Vaconsoleil) and Knaven (from Sky). They all (inc. Knaven) said the same - we do pay attention to all the stuff. The kit, the this the that. The different is they probably don't do it quite as well or in most cases with the same budget . Even Knaven was saying look, behind all the bluff, it's what everyone's been doing - just it's a bit more focussed and professional.

TheBigBean

I quite like Wiggins's put down of Piers Morgan on Twitter. Maybe I could start to like him.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

I quite like Wiggins's put down of Piers Morgan on Twitter. Maybe I could start to like him.

Don't reference it - tell us what it is.