Froome on Wiggins and more
Comments
-
Apparently he has this on his trophy shelf...
Correlation is not causation.0 -
I hope BW has an amazing TdS now.0
-
Above The Cows wrote:Apparently he has this on his trophy shelf...
Who? The plastic Brit you are so fond of?0 -
TMR wrote:Above The Cows wrote:Apparently he has this on his trophy shelf...
Who? The plastic Brit you are so fond of?
Seeing as you used the pathetic and offensive 'plastic Brit' label I'm not even going to deign to respond.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:Seeing as you used the pathetic and offensive 'plastic Brit' label I'm not even going to deign to respond.
You did respond? The term is neither pathetic or offensive. Perhaps you could go hug a tree?0 -
adr82 wrote:
Yes - anyone who isn't in the corner of Sir Bradley "National Treasure" Wiggins is now considered evil. Apparently.iainf72 wrote:
Indeed. Apparently if you can understand Sky's decision for a variety of reasons it automatically makes you Froome's biggest fan.
As I said such Manichaen thought processes on display.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Been away a few days and cant believe this thread has rocketed. You would have thought there was nothing else to talk about. Wiggins, Froome, Sky, Britain...lets have a 50 page discussion on it.
Has anyone posted Millar's comments?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert ... g-man-down
Yorkshire and ASO must have been counting on Bradley Wiggins being present and British fans certainly were.
Wiggins enjoys way more popularity than Chris Froome ever will, has more media coverage and an image that attracts and inspires. Dave Brailsford might like to think it's all about winning but Team Sky aren't buying Tour de France victories when they hand over the money they are hoping to sell subscriptions to their services. It's not hard to work out who has more kudos in that department. I've yet to see a Sky van or billboard with the Kenyan born Brit on it.
Things are pretty desperate when a national hero like Bradley Wiggins, first British winner of the Tour, one of the most successful Olympians, BBC Sportsman of the Year, honoured by the Queen, feted and admired throughout the land isn't at the start of a Tour de France in his own country.
It's pretty low to take that opportunity from him. The team can try to hide behind excuses and so-called reasoning but it shows a total lack of respect for what he has given to Team Sky.
I agree really but as you know I have no respect for Sky and their minions and this just goes to prove me right once again. The 'potential' discord caused may be an issue but if Chris Froome wants to be a great champion (he isn't even close yet) he should be able to win the Tour regardless. I certainly do not think Wiggins will do anything 'bad' if he races the Tour as it will reflect badly on him and no one else. Additionally if he proved a huge worth to Froome (or even Sky's best placed GC rider if Froome gets ill, crashes, bonks etc) he will come out of the Tour better than Froome in the public's eye. Wiggins' form is superb right now and although the huge lack of TT km would almost certainly prevent him from winning the Tour I was eager to see how he goes. I would much rather a better rider working for me than a better personality. I suspect he will be in the squad (the rest of the team are pretty shi t compared to Wiggins) and Wiggins deliberately put out his comments to incite a public reaction (which has been in his favour) so that the bald corporates will have a much harder job omitting him.
That's my few pence and now I am moving along.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Above The Cows wrote:Indeed. Apparently if you can understand Sky's decision for a variety of reasons it automatically makes you Froome's biggest fan.
As I said such Manichaen thought processes on display.
Or perhaps *shock horror* people just don't agree with the 'apparent' decision.0 -
I'm not sure why this has polarised opinion quite so much. Why not just say, it's a bit shoot on Wiggins but I can understand why the decision has/will be taken? I think it would have been great for British cycling (and I don't mean the organisation) to have Wiggins riding this years TDF, the vast majority of people on the roadside over the first few days would want him to be there. However, if it's not conducive to best overall team performance then however shoot it is for Wiggins I can understand it. Just hope they don't regret the decision to leave him out as on current form he could definitely do an excellent job for Froome.0
-
TMR wrote:ALIHISGREAT wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Cal_Stewart wrote:CF better have his climbing legs on as the team looks a little light for the cobbles and wind. He's going to lose time in the first 10 days or so
Versus who? Contador?
Remember the echelons stage last year?
Definitely a possibility.. Contador knows how to race...
Like the 2009 TdF you mean? When Lance made the split and AC didn't and HTC drilled it to the finish?
5 years ago.. hmm. I wonder how much experience a rider can gain in 5 years?0 -
TMR wrote:Who? The plastic Brit you are so fond of?
On the set of True Brit
Sir Bradley Wiggins: I want to restore Americans' faith in cycling post-Lance Armstrong
Briton is relishing his role as elder statesman of the peloton as he helps to restore the sport's credibility in a country he loves
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/bradley-wiggins/10844339/Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-I-want-to-restore-Americans-faith-in-cycling-post-Lance-Armstrong.html
Wiggo is a lion led by a donkey....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
TMR wrote:Above The Cows wrote:Seeing as you used the pathetic and offensive 'plastic Brit' label I'm not even going to deign to respond.
You did respond? The term is neither pathetic or offensive. Perhaps you could go hug a tree?
Attacking someone over their nationality is both pathetic and offensive.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:I'm not sure why this has polarised opinion quite so much. Why not just say, it's a bit shoot on Wiggins but I can understand why the decision has/will be taken? I think it would have been great for British cycling (and I don't mean the organisation) to have Wiggins riding this years TDF, the vast majority of people on the roadside over the first few days would want him to be there. However, if it's not conducive to best overall team performance then however shoot it is for Wiggins I can understand it. Just hope they don't regret the decision to leave him out as on current form he could definitely do an excellent job for Froome.
They basically hate each other and Wiggins has never done much work for Froome in the past so why should he be trusted to now? What if SBW's ultimate revenge was to climb off just before the ferry heads from Dover to Calais? He's untrustworthy and should not be picked.
I think it was Richard Moore who made a fair comment by saying Wiggins will only work to his max for a cause he believes in. If anyone thinks he'll put it all on the line for someone he can't stand, they're lala.0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:I'm not sure why this has polarised opinion quite so much. Why not just say, it's a bit shoot on Wiggins but I can understand why the decision has/will be taken? I think it would have been great for British cycling (and I don't mean the organisation) to have Wiggins riding this years TDF, the vast majority of people on the roadside over the first few days would want him to be there. However, if it's not conducive to best overall team performance then however shoot it is for Wiggins I can understand it. Just hope they don't regret the decision to leave him out as on current form he could definitely do an excellent job for Froome.
Because that would be the grown up response, but most people prefer to play at being children instead because it's easier. You start from that position but somehow it seems many people cannot understand such nuance and that such a position must stem from you personally preferring one rider over the other and so they attribute all sorts of things to you through their failure to understand any sort of complexity.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:TMR wrote:Above The Cows wrote:Seeing as you used the pathetic and offensive 'plastic Brit' label I'm not even going to deign to respond.
You did respond? The term is neither pathetic or offensive. Perhaps you could go hug a tree?
Attacking someone over their nationality is both pathetic and offensive.
It's not an attack, it's a fact. You're the only forum member I have seen whinging about the use of the term.0 -
TMR wrote:Above The Cows wrote:TMR wrote:Above The Cows wrote:Seeing as you used the pathetic and offensive 'plastic Brit' label I'm not even going to deign to respond.
You did respond? The term is neither pathetic or offensive. Perhaps you could go hug a tree?
Attacking someone over their nationality is both pathetic and offensive.
It's not an attack, it's a fact. You're the only forum member I have seen whinging about the use of the term.
Why is he plastic? He's British, he has a British passport and he rides under a British license. This makes him British, unless of course your one of those sorts of people who think there are 'different' types of British people because by using the term 'plastic' you are somehow suggesting he is different from non-plastic British people? So who are plastic British people and who are non-plastic British people?Correlation is not causation.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:Why is he plastic? He's British, he has a British passport and he rides under a British license. This makes him British, unless of course your one of those sorts of people who think there are 'different' types of British people because by using the term 'plastic' you are somehow suggesting he is different from non-plastic British people? So who are plastic British people and who are non-plastic British people?
Touched a nerve have I? Are you plastic as well?0 -
Yes he's a British citizen but for many people he isn't actually British any more than Zola Budd was British. He has never lived here, he is unlikely to settle here after his career, he didn't come through the British cycling system, there is no evidence he has any real affinity for the country at all. Yes if your sole definition of being British is having citizenship then he's as British as I am - if your definition is more nuanced then he isn't. I don't think the Britishness thing is why a lot of people don't like him though - plenty of my favourite riders aren't British - it's more the way he acts.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
TMR wrote:Above The Cows wrote:Why is he plastic? He's British, he has a British passport and he rides under a British license. This makes him British, unless of course your one of those sorts of people who think there are 'different' types of British people because by using the term 'plastic' you are somehow suggesting he is different from non-plastic British people? So who are plastic British people and who are non-plastic British people?
Touched a nerve have I? Are you plastic as well?
Without wanting to get in on an argument, questioning Froome's nationality against that of Wiggins isn't the most secure argument. What with having an Aussie dad and being born in Gent.
As for whether Wiggins should be at the Tour, on current form he'd certainly be a good shout. However, in these quarters at least, Sky were criticised (by plenty of us) for their Giro team, performance and targeting of just one race (TdF). If Wiggins really is in much better form this year, maybe having him at the Vuelta is better for them as a team for Grand Tour performances.0 -
Which Plastic Brit are we talking about...the half Belgian/Australian one or the half Kenyan one!
Or are we best to just, try and be mature(ish) about it and keep nationality out of it to an extent. And quite what is wrong with Bradley Wiggins saying he likes the USA?
FWIW, I think (if he wanted to) Brad could play a good role for Froome. I also think he wouldn't want to climb off after London when the one stage he could win is the TT.
Considering Brailsford is marketing himself as an amazing manager, his inability to get the two largest stars on his team to get on at all has got to be a blot on his copy book...You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
TMR wrote:Above The Cows wrote:Why is he plastic? He's British, he has a British passport and he rides under a British license. This makes him British, unless of course your one of those sorts of people who think there are 'different' types of British people because by using the term 'plastic' you are somehow suggesting he is different from non-plastic British people? So who are plastic British people and who are non-plastic British people?
Touched a nerve have I? Are you plastic as well?
Depends how you define plastic? How do you define plastic? Why is he any different to other British people?DeVlaeminck wrote:Yes he's a British citizen but for many people he isn't actually British any more than Zola Budd was British. He has never lived here, he is unlikely to settle here after his career, he didn't come through the British cycling system, there is no evidence he has any real affinity for the country at all. Yes if your sole definition of being British is having citizenship then he's as British as I am - if your definition is more nuanced then he isn't. I don't think the Britishness thing is why a lot of people don't like him though - plenty of my favourite riders aren't British - it's more the way he acts.
It seems some people (not you) can't seem to not bring up his nationality and instead use it as a term of abuse.
I don't know why people would do that? It's perfectly possible to say 'I don't like Chris Froome' without the need to refer to his nationality in a derogatory manner.
And for the record my sole definition of being British is citizenship, it is a legal construct that is all it is at the end of the day, the rest is whatever anyone else wants it to be and leads to some people deciding who is and who is not 'in' and who is 'out' often for some not very nice reasons. If Chris Froome is legally British then he's British. If other people want to say he's not then it says more about them than it does about Chris Froome.Correlation is not causation.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Yes he's a British citizen but for many people he isn't actually British any more than Zola Budd was British. He has never lived here, he is unlikely to settle here after his career, he didn't come through the British cycling system, there is no evidence he has any real affinity for the country at all. Yes if your sole definition of being British is having citizenship then he's as British as I am - if your definition is more nuanced then he isn't. I don't think the Britishness thing is why a lot of people don't like him though - plenty of my favourite riders aren't British - it's more the way he acts.
I agree but British people will see Wiggins [ born in Belgium] as more of a true Brit and hold him in favour.
You ask the non educated UK cycling crowd who they want to lead Sky and it would be Wiggo as they have no idea of the beating Contador and co would give him in the mountains.0 -
I think it's quite healthy that people are happy to accept someone like Mo Farah as British, a black guy born abroad from foreign parents but not necessarily Froome. It shows that people see Britishness more as a shared culture and affinity for the country - that has to be more healthy than seeing it as something handed down the bloodline and excluding everyone else. Nobody questions Wiggins as British because nobody thinks having a foreign parent is relevant - they do think never having lived here is though - seems to make sense to me.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
smithy21 wrote:Jesus. Andy Schleck managed the cobbles ok last time they did this sort of thing. Can't help thinking this is being overplayed.
Your right but Andy Schleck is still the best.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:I think it's quite healthy that people are happy to accept someone like Mo Farah as British, a black guy born abroad from foreign parents but not necessarily Froome. It shows that people see Britishness more as a shared culture and affinity for the country - that has to be more healthy than seeing it as something handed down the bloodline and excluding everyone else. Nobody questions Wiggins as British because nobody thinks having a foreign parent is relevant - they do think never having lived here is though - seems to make sense to me.
Exactly this. I doubt even Chris Froome considers himself British, it's just a flag of convenience for him.0 -
UncleMonty wrote:Joelsim wrote:The column inches and TV value will be far higher for Sky if Wiggo is in the team, and plenty of non-avid fans will have an interest/awareness because it is The Tour De France. The value of the coverage I would imagine would be a few million pounds' worth with him in.
But this whole debacle is generating even more publicity, Sky just can't loose, more column inches, more stories & images on all the sports channels & new bulletins.
But not good publicity. The idea that 'there's no such thing as bad publicity is nonsense. Ask Gerald Ratner. Or Rolf Harris.UncleMonty wrote:As a few people have already pointed out winning is everything, Sky as a sponsor only care about one thing, as long as this happens they're happy........him not racing isn't going to change anything, not the result, not the viewing figures, attendance figures, nothing.
That's not true though (and we're going round and round in circles here): there are (at least) three distinct groups with different interests here.
One is Brailsford/Froome etc., whose primary concern is to win the TDF with the man who is clearly the strongest GC rider in the squad - Froome doesn't want Wiggins in the squad because he doesn't like him or trust him, Brailsford doesn't want him there because the only thing that concerns him is winning and that's only going to happen with one rider so he has to do whatever it takes to keep that rider happy. For them, they will feel that as long as Froome wins the Tour, then the decision was worth it.
Another is the general public in Britain who have some interest in watching / attending the TDF. The vast majority of them have heard of Wiggins and like him and would have been looking forward to seeing him in action in England in the Tour. Froome has far less recognition, never mind support, and another victory for Froome will mean little to most of these people. Wiggins not racing will obviously have an adverse effect on viewing figures because most of the viewers are very much casual fans of cycling (in the same way that most people watching Wimbledon are not avid tennis fans - obviously the viewing figures would be lower if Murray was injured and couldn't take part this year).
The third is the sponsor, SKY. They want to make money by selling satellite TV subscriptions. Sponsoring the team is a way of making the brand likeable. For them there is a considerable downside in Wiggins being squeezed out which is not outweighed by the glow of a Froome victory in the eyes of the wider public (as opposed to cycling obsessives on here).0 -
In light of the last couple of pages, can someone explain to me why Froome's citizenship status has any bearing whatsoever on Wiggins riding the Tour? Who gives a f*ck if he doesn't see himself as a True Brit™ (whatever that means)? I think the point has been made already but if Froome was a more... "media-friendly" person(ality), nobody would care about this. I don't remember much discussion over it last year either. Some people don't like him based on nothing much more than the way he comes across in interviews, and then latch onto his supposed lack of Britishness as a very flimsy reason to justify that vague dislike.
Also all this stuff about Froome not being as well known as Wiggins... that's true, he is less well known, but only relative to Wiggins, who is probably one of the top 10 most famous sportsmen in the country! Froome may be less familiar to the general public, but he's not exactly a total unknown either. Is everyone forgetting he actually won the Tour last year? The 100th edition? Plus a few stages? Ventoux? There was a teeny tiny bit of media coverage involved? People know him and I think it's pretty condescending to imply that all the crowds who'll go along to watch will be mystified about who he is.0 -
The impact of Wiggin's absence on the Tour's Grand Depart will be negligible. Prior to the Giro starting in Belfast I'm sure the vast majority of the 1000's who lined the route couldn't name any riders in the race. It still seemed to go alright.
For Sky as a sponsor nothing outweighs the Yellow Jersey in Paris.
The only loser in this has been Wiggins and to an extent it's his own fault.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
This discussion has been closed.
