Froome on Wiggins and more

tailwindhome

UK Cycling Expert ‏@ukcyclingexpert · 18m
Sir Brailsford is handling all the entry forms for this year's the Le Tour, and don't you forget it.

gattocattivo

TailWindHome wrote:

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.

That proves precisely nothing. No one is suggesting that nobody is going to watch the Tour in Yorkshire if Wiggins doesn't ride. There will still be thousands there. But the numbers and enthusiasm will be less than if Wiggins was there. For the Giro comparison to make any sense, we would have to imagine that there was a recent winner of the Tour from Northern Ireland, who was considered a national hero by many there and synonymous with cycle racing. And that you somehow were able to get a reliable prediction of how many people were intending to watch the race prior to the sudden announcement that he wouldn't be taking part (because of internal squabbles on his team) and then noted that this predicted figure was exactly the same as the actual number of people who turned out regardless of his absence.

ddraver

I think we need another "why do people watch cycling thread"

Swear there wasnt a single "Becasue Bradley Wiggins does it" reply last time...

hommelbier

"Sky boss Sir Dave Brailsford says that Wiggins is not out of the running. Brailsford is in charge of who rides the Tour and he will make his decision after the Criterium du Dauphine concludes next Sunday."

http://www.cyclingquotes.com/news/brailsfordwiggins_may_ride_tour/

TMR

Above The Cows wrote:

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.

Actually, I couldn't care less about Chris Froome's nationality. I don't accept him as British, regardless of what passport he holds, but that's not why I dislike him. I've just made an issue of it because I saw the way you reacted to someone else using the term earlier in the week and I thought you were out of order. I don't know who you think you are, but you aren't the arbiter of what's acceptable and what isn't on the forums. You can block someone, or just ignore what they've posted, but if you are going to try and throw your weight around then stand by for incoming because I really don't like you. Or your internet persona if you aren't actually an arrogant arse in real life.

TMR

adr82 wrote:

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.

Why do people need to justify themselves to you? We can all feel as we wish. Stick your tongue up his backside if you like, just don't expect us all to follow suit.

stagehopper

I'd like to see Wiggins there. I like him and I'm a bit of a romantic. Can understand totally why Froome wouldn't want him there though. All smacks of poor management from Brailsford who has let this rumble on for a couple of years now. But the Plastic Brit thing? It's all a bit UKIP really, isn't it?

Mark_P

I just feel uneasy about Froome. Not only did it feel wrong that Wiggins wasn't able to ride the tour last year (albeit I was as aware then as I am now that he was having 'issues'), but Froome's performance was just too good. Perhaps he is that good, and I and others are just far too cynical, but I was one of those that swooned over Contador when he was so dominant in '07 and '08.
Once bitten, twice shy as they say. I suspect in part the way in which Froome is perceived is due to the fact that I am not alone in having these feelings. Is Froome just a poor ol' victim? Perhaps. He's certainly never tested positive... :?

Crozza

TMR wrote:

Why do people need to justify themselves to you? We can all feel as we wish. Stick your tongue up his backside if you like, just don't expect us all to follow suit.

Baby wipe?

tailwindhome

gattocattivo wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

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.

That proves precisely nothing. No one is suggesting that nobody is going to watch the Tour in Yorkshire if Wiggins doesn't ride. There will still be thousands there. But the numbers and enthusiasm will be less than if Wiggins was there. For the Giro comparison to make any sense, we would have to imagine that there was a recent winner of the Tour from Northern Ireland, who was considered a national hero by many there and synonymous with cycle racing. And that you somehow were able to get a reliable prediction of how many people were intending to watch the race prior to the sudden announcement that he wouldn't be taking part (because of internal squabbles on his team) and then noted that this predicted figure was exactly the same as the actual number of people who turned out regardless of his absence.

The point is that the event is much much greater than the participation of any one rider and IMO the numbers will not be significantly effected by Wiggins' absence.

mfin

Is this thread an indicator of how dimwitted this forum will be in the next couple of months? It's fallen to about the level of chat you get between football fans.

Someone might not be riding and that person and another bloke don't get on. Big ********* deal ...and now everybody seems to be a marketing expert based on how much they like one bloke or not.

joelsim

TailWindHome wrote:

gattocattivo wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

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.

That proves precisely nothing. No one is suggesting that nobody is going to watch the Tour in Yorkshire if Wiggins doesn't ride. There will still be thousands there. But the numbers and enthusiasm will be less than if Wiggins was there. For the Giro comparison to make any sense, we would have to imagine that there was a recent winner of the Tour from Northern Ireland, who was considered a national hero by many there and synonymous with cycle racing. And that you somehow were able to get a reliable prediction of how many people were intending to watch the race prior to the sudden announcement that he wouldn't be taking part (because of internal squabbles on his team) and then noted that this predicted figure was exactly the same as the actual number of people who turned out regardless of his absence.

The point is that the event is much much greater than the participation of any one rider and IMO the numbers will not be significantly effected by Wiggins' absence.

The amount of interest in this country to the non-cycling watching public will be far less without Wiggo there, and so will the number of journalists/page space given over to the reporting. Wiggo was SPOTY don't forget, and has a bag full of Olympic medals.

I bet if there was a poll of who knew Wiggo it would be 75%, Froome more like 5%.

adr82

TMR wrote:

adr82 wrote:

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.

Why do people need to justify themselves to you? We can all feel as we wish. Stick your tongue up his backside if you like, just don't expect us all to follow suit.

OK, so you don't have any rational reasons for your opinions and basically "just know" you're right? Got it.

adr82

Joelsim wrote:

The amount of interest in this country to the non-cycling watching public will be far less without Wiggo there, and so will the number of journalists/page space given over to the reporting. Wiggo was SPOTY don't forget, and has a bag full of Olympic medals.

I bet if there was a poll of who knew Wiggo it would be 75%, Froome more like 5%.

Do you actually have a poll to back those numbers up, or did they come from the same place most statistics on the internet come from? The "non-cycling public" aren't going to simply ignore one of the biggest sporting events in the world taking place in the UK because one guy isn't competing, no matter how famous he is. To suggest there's going to be a massive wave of people saying "oh balls to the Tour, Wiggo isn't riding so I don't care about it" is just ridiculous. Utterly utterly ridiculous.

tailwindhome

I'm starting to feel bad for Cavendish now.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

The amount of interest in this country to the non-cycling watching public will be far less without Wiggo there, and so will the number of journalists/page space given over to the reporting. Wiggo was SPOTY don't forget, and has a bag full of Olympic medals.

I bet if there was a poll of who knew Wiggo it would be 75%, Froome more like 5%.

I'm guessing you weren't following cycling back in 2007 when the Tour started in London. The crowds were huge - I believe the biggest ever for a Grand Depart. They continued in Kent the next day.
Back then the British contingent didn't have any superstars. They had a track rider with one Olympic gold medal, a drugs cheat, two neo-pros and a bloke who had been banned from riding for GB.
The crowds in Yorkshire will be enormous with or without Wiggins. The Brits love to turn out for an event.

Turfle

The only people who aren't going/watching now are those who weren't going/watching anyway.

ddraver

TailWindHome wrote:

I'm starting to feel bad for Cavendish now.

TMR

adr82 wrote:

OK, so you don't have any rational reasons for your opinions and basically "just know" you're right? Got it.

That isn't what I said. You're jumping up and down like an irritating two year old demanding to know. I've already said I have my own reasons and if you look back over what's been posted over the last few days specifically about CF then you'll read what some of they are. Are you really expecting me to repeat myself every time someone asks?

TMR

RichN95 wrote:

I'm guessing you weren't following cycling back in 2007 when the Tour started in London. The crowds were huge - I believe the biggest ever for a Grand Depart. They continued in Kent the next day.
Back then the British contingent didn't have any superstars. They had a track rider with one Olympic gold medal, a drugs cheat, two neo-pros and a bloke who had been banned from riding for GB.
The crowds in Yorkshire will be enormous with or without Wiggins. The Brits love to turn out for an event.

I think that's right. The TdF will be a success in the UK with or without him. I think the argument that BW's absence will have a negative impact on the Tour itself doesn't really hold water; the TdF is bigger than any man.

TheBigBean

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

The amount of interest in this country to the non-cycling watching public will be far less without Wiggo there, and so will the number of journalists/page space given over to the reporting. Wiggo was SPOTY don't forget, and has a bag full of Olympic medals.

I bet if there was a poll of who knew Wiggo it would be 75%, Froome more like 5%.

I'm guessing you weren't following cycling back in 2007 when the Tour started in London. The crowds were huge - I believe the biggest ever for a Grand Depart. They continued in Kent the next day.
Back then the British contingent didn't have any superstars. They had a track rider with one Olympic gold medal, a drugs cheat, two neo-pros and a bloke who had been banned from riding for GB.
The crowds in Yorkshire will be enormous with or without Wiggins. The Brits love to turn out for an event.

I think they talked about two million spectators. I wondered how many of those two million knew who won the yellow jersey that year.

joelsim

Jesus Christ. All I am saying is that there will be far more interest in following the race and the associated coverage if Wiggo is riding and doing well, than if he isn't. Sky will do far better for their sponsorship money if he is there in the team. We're not talking Pete Kennaugh here, we are talking Sir Brad, the Beckham of cycling. As was mentioned earlier, Froome T-shirts don't quite fly off the shelves like Wiggo's.

I have absolutely no doubt the public will turn out in droves for the event. As it is an event.

gsk82

My girlfriend isn't bothered about going now that Wiggins won't be there.

joelsim

gsk82 wrote:

My girlfriend isn't bothered about going now that Wiggins won't be there.

Quite right.

iainf72

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.

Mild correction : Mo's father is British - was born in the UK.

I bet you people who won't accept Froome as British wouldn't accept him as a "real" Kenyan anyway.

hammerite

Anyone who is road side won't even notice that Wiggins isn't there. It's not like you can often pick out individual riders when 190 riders whizzing past like they will in most of the stages over here (Wiggins won't be in the break with half a dozen Frenchmen and the odd Russian - the only time you can pick out on non mountain stages). Cav will be the man everyone is looking out for in Yorkshire and London.

As for Sky marketing... I'm sure they would quite like the fact that there will be many column inches and TV pictures showing Froome on our near the front during the TdF. They'll then probably get a the bonus of getting a bit more coverage as there'll be some British interest in the Vuelta (Wiggo), with the ToB on at the same time and then the Wiggo's Worlds TT effort. They can't really lose can they?

Would anyone really be having a conversation about Wiggo being the biggest draw at the year's Grand Depart if he had a stinker at the Tour of Cali and was off form?

jam1e

So it's not totally settled yet then...

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/news/15264/9341958/

Hedge those bets Dave!

iainf72

One for the Wiggins-In camp : If he rode, what would your expectations of him be?

Froome is the leader : Of that there is no doubt. Porte is the number 2 (maybe, maybe not)

Do you see Wiggins just performing a normal worker role? Or do you harbour a fantasy of him gaining time and screwing Froome over as "revenge" for that time Froome didn't actually take any time from him?

adr82

TMR wrote:

adr82 wrote:

OK, so you don't have any rational reasons for your opinions and basically "just know" you're right? Got it.

That isn't what I said. You're jumping up and down like an irritating two year old demanding to know. I've already said I have my own reasons and if you look back over what's been posted over the last few days specifically about CF then you'll read what some of they are. Are you really expecting me to repeat myself every time someone asks?

I'm referring to this post of yours. Specfically, your disregard for the opinions of people who have not only actually met the people involved but spend large chunks of the year around them on and off the bike. You were asked if you thought things might be different if you had their knowledge/perspective, and immediately said no. I'd just like to know why. Genuinely curious. Saying they are "just another collection of individuals" means nothing. If the opinion of a group can be so readily dismissed "because human nature", why on earth is the opinion of a single individual worth more? Do you have some deep psychological insight into Froome or Wiggins that you're not sharing with us?

iainf72

This seems relevant