Froome on Wiggins and more

argyllflyer

OnYourRight wrote:

I find it very hard to believe that Wiggins won’t be starting this Tour, whether with Sky or someone else. The publicity value of Wiggins in Yorkshire is off the charts, and I’m sure he’s personally desperate to ride it.

In cycling you can only move teams (in the top two tiers) once the transfer window opens in August, if out of contract. Assuming his contract gets cancelled between now and then and the loophole that allowed Petacchi to quit Lampre to sign for OPQS last year has not been closed, the only GT Wiggo can ride in non Sky colours this year is the Vuelta.

putneypeddler

DeVlaeminck wrote:

putneypeddler wrote:

undermine the team? What was said that did that?

Yes he had ample opportunity to undermine the team if he wanted to. Wouldn't surprise me if a few people try to undermine Wiggins now though, especially if things go badly for Froome or his popularity nosedives.

But he hasn't undermined the team... in fact I genuinely am struggling to see any moment this year where he's gone in on the attack against Froome or Sky... (regardless of what he privately might be thinking)

As people have said, it's easier to warm to BW, and he's backed with an incredible palmares... Froome - we'll wait and see I guess

RonB

OnYourRight wrote:

Can you clarify what you mean? I didn’t realise the Petacchi transfer hinged on a loophole – what was the loophole??

From memory it was that Petacchi actually retired from the sport then decided to take up an offer from OPQS after that; so there was a break in between racing for one team (in this case Lampre) and another during the mid-season.

adr82

DeVlaeminck wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

They were probably thinking of a decade's worth of attempts at getting Gerrard and Lampard to play effectively together with little success.

Possibly that, though it's a bit much to call it a British trait when it was mostly a foreign manager picking them.

Going further back Jimmy Greaves didn't get back into the team in 66 either so maybe it's a Swedish/Italian thing.

So it's not really a "British trait", so what? What they were saying really boils down to "lumping a bunch of good individuals together doesn't magically produce a good team". What's to disagree with there? Especially if two of those individuals apparently actively dislike each other.

argyllflyer

The UCI ruled that you shouldn't be able to transfer mid-season in cycling between teams in the top two tiers (though there's nothing to prevent Continental to PC and WT) outwith their transfer window period, contractless or otherwise.

Petacchi, as was said, 'retired', had his contract cancelled and then immediately tried to sign for OPQS for the Giro, trying to use being out of contract to get around the closed window.

The UCI blocked the move then and would only allow it to go through once the August window opened, but it's pretty unusual for anyone to change at this level in August.

There's absolutely zero prospect of Sir Wigs getting a move before the end of July but if OGE or the likes want to buy out his Sky contract he could move in August. That is unless the UCI closed the loophole that allowed the midseason change of team at World Tour level. There seemed to be a bit of negativity about the move Petacchi made.

So just to clarify, the only time a transfer can be done between WT or PC teams is after August, and that usually is for the following season upon the expiry of contract. Petacchi got his move through a few months earlier than usual, but still months short of the 'early' OPQS wanted which was to ride the Giro.

DeVlaeminck

adr82 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

They were probably thinking of a decade's worth of attempts at getting Gerrard and Lampard to play effectively together with little success.

Possibly that, though it's a bit much to call it a British trait when it was mostly a foreign manager picking them.

Going further back Jimmy Greaves didn't get back into the team in 66 either so maybe it's a Swedish/Italian thing.

So it's not really a "British trait", so what? What they were saying really boils down to "lumping a bunch of good individuals together doesn't magically produce a good team". What's to disagree with there? Especially if two of those individuals apparently actively dislike each other.

No they were implying this concern about the star having to be included was a British thing and if Wiggins were another nationality riding for a team with ties to that nation there would be no shock about him being left out of the squad. They used a football analogy to make the point, I'm telling you that their analogy was bullshit. If you want to make another point go ahead but don't assume I've disagreed with your new point just because I disagreed with your previous one.

tailwindhome

tuneskyline

TailWindHome wrote:

Or " I thought I would drop him like a fly just to show him who's the boss"

shipley

I'm not a Wiggins fanboy but thought it would be good for Yorkshire and the UK feel good factor if he was in the squad due to his fame amongst non cyclists and it would help the region re-kindle the Olympic feeling.

Froome is dull, ungainly and has no class......and his gobby girlfriend needs gagging.

I now hope another team win it.

Brailsford has let the children make the decision.

iainf72

I enjoy this "Froome is dull" / "Wiggins is exciting / interesting stuff" - It's almost like no one remember what a turgid bore-off Wiggins Tour win was.

Wondering if Froome wanted to delay his autobiography until end of year as he knew he wouldn't have to worry about Wiggins then.

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

Brendan Gallagher has tweeted that Wiggins doing the Tour is 'fact'. We shall see if he's right, but he was one of Wiggins' s ghostwriters so is worth listening to.

Daveyl (formerly of this parish) did some sublime trolling with this one earlier.

Grill

Shipley wrote:

Froome is dull, ungainly and has no class......and his gobby girlfriend needs gagging.

I now hope another team win it.

Well said, this is how I feel over the whole situation.

argyllflyer

As a cycling rather than soap opera fan, I love watching Froome in the mountains where he's in his element. Wiggo's strength is TT which I have less interest in. He is also an unexciting climber as it's all about riding at tempo. zzz. Even in California he was doing this - a physically impressive feat but less so as TV entertainment.

I had a chat with a non-cycling fan a while about about them and the gist was Wiggo = legend, Froome = dullard and it was all from a non-sporting POV. For me that makes as much sense as saying 'give me Joey Barton over Messi any day'.

Froome is a superior GC rider to Wiggins on any TT-light and mountain heavy course and making it about headlines and personalities detracts from the sporting achievements of either. They don't like each other, barely race together and to suddenly put these two egos in the same bus would be potentially disastrous. Not to mention the not totally unfeasible scenario of Wiggins gaining time on Froome on the cobbles and demanding the team defend his jersey.

Another thing which may have gone against Wiggins was his pathetic ride for Froome in Florence. First on the bus (or not far off it) was he not? Was Froome's comment after that he looked around at one stage and realised everyone had climbed off?

Froome was asked afterwards whether Wiggins had done time at the front of the peloton (the weather was so bad that TV pictures were lost for parts of the race) like Cavendish and Luke Rowe, the replacement for Tiernan-Locke, who withdrew from the team on Thursday.

“Not that I saw,” said Froome. “I didn’t see what happened to Brad today. I think the only two guys who actually did anything on the GB side were Cav and Luke Rowe. I’d say they were the only ones who pulled their weight today, myself included.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycl ... 47439.html

TheBigBean

iainf72 wrote:

I enjoy this "Froome is dull" / "Wiggins is exciting / interesting stuff" - It's almost like no one remember what a turgid bore-off Wiggins Tour win was.

You need to increase your post count, so your signature can remind people more often.

TheBigBean

I really wish Froome had signed for another team in 2012.

iainf72

TheBigBean wrote:

I really wish Froome had signed for another team in 2012.

I have a pet theory that Wiggins can't win a grand tour without Froome. But the reverse isn't true.

TheBigBean

iainf72 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I really wish Froome had signed for another team in 2012.

I have a pet theory that Wiggins can't win a grand tour without Froome. But the reverse isn't true.

I have a corollary to that theory - Wiggins can't win a GT without both Cav and Eisel.

ddraver

Link to Wiggins on BBC this morning - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU

iainf72

On a seriously note : Curious to see what Sky say and how they play it. They can't be happy with everyone "blaming" Froome for it, it's an unnecessary distraction. Or are they happy with the timing and think the Dauphine will show how strong the core of the team is and the noise will die down?

I get the fans are disappointed, but really no-one should be surprised.

ddraver

The reality is iain if they smash the Dolphin then everyone will very quickly forget. If Wiggins smashes Suisse and Froome makes a ball of the Dauphine then things will start getting really fun

*innocent face* :P

r0bh

iainf72 wrote:

On a seriously note : Curious to see what Sky say and how they play it. They can't be happy with everyone "blaming" Froome for it, it's an unnecessary distraction. Or are they happy with the timing and think the Dauphine will show how strong the core of the team is and the noise will die down?

I get the fans are disappointed, but really no-one should be surprised.

I think the Dauphine is now key; a strong team performance there and everyone will shut up (to some extent). A weak team and/or Porte still having no form will likely keep the controversy bubbling.

Macaloon

iainf72 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I really wish Froome had signed for another team in 2012.

I have a pet theory that Wiggins can't win a grand tour without Froome. But the reverse isn't true.

Pretty sure Wiggins would have won 2012 without Froome, but with more trouble from Nibali uphill, and perhaps not if Froome had been at Garmin*. Which in the light of transparency 'issues' around his transformation would have been very interesting.

* The basis for the novel Vaughterland

TMR

Froome is a penis. Here endeth the sermon.

Has anyone seen what Tinkoff has posted on Twitter? Stirring the pot...

powerbookboy

Anyone mentioned the most obvious reason Wiggins is not going? Maybe the numbers just aren't there to justify his place. California wasn't exactly against the best opposition, he's had to drop a lot of weight post Classics in a relatively short time, etc. Tour's aren't won by Watts, they're won by Watts/kg.

Having said that, Sky last year exposed Froome on a number of occasions. I would have thought Wiggins would have been an asset on the road, but maybe off it riders just don't like him? Sucks too much attention and money in, is it a surprise if he's not the most popular boy at the disco.

He should get back in the gym, pile the muscle back on, have a real go at the Hour. That would be a fitting target, rather than twatting about at the Commonwealth Games.

TMR

powerbookboy wrote:

Anyone mentioned the most obvious reason Wiggins is not going? Maybe the numbers just aren't there to justify his place. California wasn't exactly against the best opposition, he's had to drop a lot of weight post Classics in a relatively short time, etc. Tour's aren't won by Watts, they're won by Watts/kg.

Having said that, Sky last year exposed Froome on a number of occasions. I would have thought Wiggins would have been an asset on the road, but maybe off it riders just don't like him? Sucks too much attention and money in, it is a surprise if he's not the most popular boy at the disco.

He should get back in the gym, pile the muscle back on, have a real go at the Hour. That would be a fitting target, rather than twatting about at the Commonwealth Games.

You're reaching TBH. There's nothing wrong with Wiggins' performance. It's politics, plain and simple.

TheBigBean

iainf72 wrote:

On a seriously note : Curious to see what Sky say and how they play it. They can't be happy with everyone "blaming" Froome for it, it's an unnecessary distraction. Or are they happy with the timing and think the Dauphine will show how strong the core of the team is and the noise will die down?

I get the fans are disappointed, but really no-one should be surprised.

I suspect the line from Sky will be the same one that Wiggins used this morning. Tour is most suited to Froome, it is a team game and it is best to take Froome's team that have been riding together all year.

iainf72

TheBigBean wrote:

I suspect the line from Sky will be the same one that Wiggins used this morning. Tour is most suited to Froome, it is a team game and it is best to take Froome's team that have been riding together all year.

Yup - But I think they need to take some heat out of the situation for Froome. But then that would be good management and there isn't too much of that happening.

adr82

DeVlaeminck wrote:

adr82 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

They were probably thinking of a decade's worth of attempts at getting Gerrard and Lampard to play effectively together with little success.

Possibly that, though it's a bit much to call it a British trait when it was mostly a foreign manager picking them.

Going further back Jimmy Greaves didn't get back into the team in 66 either so maybe it's a Swedish/Italian thing.

So it's not really a "British trait", so what? What they were saying really boils down to "lumping a bunch of good individuals together doesn't magically produce a good team". What's to disagree with there? Especially if two of those individuals apparently actively dislike each other.

No they were implying this concern about the star having to be included was a British thing and if Wiggins were another nationality riding for a team with ties to that nation there would be no shock about him being left out of the squad. They used a football analogy to make the point, I'm telling you that their analogy was bullshit. If you want to make another point go ahead but don't assume I've disagreed with your new point just because I disagreed with your previous one.

It's really not bullshit. As Rich pointed out, they were no doubt thinking of the regular well-publicised episodes of dithering over selections for the England international team, understandably because football being so popular makes it easier to grasp for their listeners who may be less familiar with cycling. Someone new to the sport who only knows Wiggins is an ex-TDF winner might not understand why he wouldn't be an automatic pick, while they might "get it" if you link it to something like the Lampard vs Gerrard show. I don't see why you have a problem with what they said. I think you're just being overly picky about the British/football part (despite it being essentially irrelevant to the real point) for reasons best known to yourself. It might not have been the best way of putting it but it obviously wasn't bullshit either.

tailwindhome

"You've a posh voice......"






Too much?

VO2min

While avoiding the obvious bad feeling in the team it does seem a bit of a risk for Sky to leave out Wiggins and Eisel who are probably the two best riders they have for the flatlands, cobbles and lower slopes, particularly with Stannard being out injured. I wonder what Wiggin's response would be if he was offered the ride in return for a clause that said he doesn't get the last 6 months of his salary if he contravenes team orders. The lack of experienced Rouleurs did show last year when Froome got dropped in the Echelons.

So it looks like Wiggins is leaving, will he end up at Orica, Tinkoff or back at Garmin? And will G (who is also out of contract) follow him?