Froome on Wiggins and more

Richmond Racer

I was there too, with inkyfingers and other sorts.

It was a good evening. But my head hurts today

frenchfighter

Hmm so I read some more about the 2012 issue yesterday and the events that followed and Wiggins comes across like a spoilt child - totally unprofessional. Definitely on Froome's side even if I don't like him. A few other things I read about Froome as well made me want to go a touch easier on him.

iainf72

Richmond Racer wrote:

I was there too, with inkyfingers and other sorts.

It was a good evening. But my head hurts today

Did you ask Moore who TheRaceRadio is?

inseine

ContrelaMontre wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Mechanism wrote:

The Wiggins/Froome/TdF question is discussed in the latest The Cycling Podcast. I won't spoil it by revealing their opinions but, as ever, its worth listening to.

Yes, excellent work.

[namedropping] Met Richard Moore at his book launch last night [/namedropping] and he didn't have any off the record insights to give away. Said I'd have to listen to the podcast for their take on the Wiggins selection situation.

Without trying to spoil it too much, one thing I think they've called wrong is that Sky don't do 'Plan Bs'. In 2011 they put all their eggs in the Wiggins basket and when he crashed out they had no plan B although EBH salvaged the Tour for them. But that experience was key to Cavendish's selection in 2012. Basically they picked Cavendish as an insurance policy in case Wiggo crashed or burned.

What does this mean? Was there ever a chance that they wouldn't pick the worlds best sprinter (at the time) for the TdF?

Macaloon

frenchfighter wrote:

Hmm so I read some more about the 2012 issue yesterday and the events that followed and Wiggins comes across like a spoilt child - totally unprofessional. Definitely on Froome's side even if I don't like him. A few other things I read about Froome as well made me want to go a touch easier on him.

Have a listen to the Cycling Podcast. As well as a comparison with Contador's mental strength, there's a good anecdote about Froome's reaction to being abandoned by his team on that stage last year.

ContrelaMontre

inseine wrote:

What does this mean? Was there ever a chance that they wouldn't pick the worlds best sprinter (at the time) for the TdF?

Yes. There was much debate before the 2012 Tour about whether Sky could accommodate both a tilt at the Yellow jersey and the Green jersey and therefore whether Cav (and Eisel) should be in the team at all.

Richmond Racer

Froome is hardly free of childishness and petulance himself - and has kept the thing going into its 3rd year and counting

Neither guy has come out of the whole thing, smelling of roses, let's face it

Macaloon

Richmond Racer wrote:

Froome is hardly free of childishness and petulance himself - and has kept the thing going into its 3rd year and counting

Neither guy has come out of the whole thing, smelling of roses, let's face it

One of these guys sacrificed genuine chances of two GTs for the other. For his efforts he was thanked with charges of treachery. Wiggins is very lucky that an unauthorised memoir from the Death Star driver has been suppressed. So far.

Kerrison's performance numbers carry less weight than Nielsen's ratings. Apparently.

Richmond Racer

He went against team orders in the '12 Tour to make a massive point. Even Sean Yates version of events stack up with Froome's own version, to that effect. He also dished up some humiliation to Wiggins on the final MTF with all the gesturing (to quote Robert Millar on the subject). And from that point onwards, Wiggins has had the whole 'you didnt deserve to win that Tour, you weren't worthy' shebang thrown at him. That might give most people cause to feel a bit sore, no? Hell, Cinders wouldnt have been invited to my ball, either.

After the '11 Vuelta Froome had the chance to move to other teams and get that leadership for definite in 2012, including Garmin (though his asking price had shot up beyond their means after the first few stages), AG2R (who were offering more money than even Sky were offering for his new contract) and Riis's gang, amongst a number. He chose to re-sign. If he'd moved, maybe he'd have got that first GT on his palmares in 2012. Maybe he'd have outridden Wiggins with another team.

above_the_cows

Richmond Racer wrote:

...my head hurts today

I have a hurty head in solidarity. Damn the departmental credit card and a good wine cellar.

Macaloon wrote:

Have a listen to the Cycling Podcast. As well as a comparison with Contador's mental strength, there's a good anecdote about Froome's reaction to being abandoned by his team on that stage last year.

I am listening to the podcast now. Good stuff. The anecdote you mention is interesting, as is Lionel's anecdote about the press conference.

inseine

ContrelaMontre wrote:

inseine wrote:

What does this mean? Was there ever a chance that they wouldn't pick the worlds best sprinter (at the time) for the TdF?

Yes. There was much debate before the 2012 Tour about whether Sky could accommodate both a tilt at the Yellow jersey and the Green jersey and therefore whether Cav (and Eisel) should be in the team at all.

But isn't that the opposite to what you said 'they picked Cavendish as an insurance policy in case Wiggo crashed or burned'? Sorry if I've misread/misunderstood :?

r0bh

What I don't get is why Froome doesn't want to prove to all and sundry that he is the better rider by beating Wiggins fair and square on the road? If Wiggo really is as disliked by the other team members as has been said on this thread then it is unlikely the team will split between the two, so at worst Froome has 7 team-mates instead of 8 if Wiggo goes rogue. Seems to me like Wiggo has far more to lose by riding than Froome has.

frenchfighter

Macaloon wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Hmm so I read some more about the 2012 issue yesterday and the events that followed and Wiggins comes across like a spoilt child - totally unprofessional. Definitely on Froome's side even if I don't like him. A few other things I read about Froome as well made me want to go a touch easier on him.

Have a listen to the Cycling Podcast. As well as a comparison with Contador's mental strength, there's a good anecdote about Froome's reaction to being abandoned by his team on that stage last year.

For those with no time to listen:
Going into the Vuelta 2011 Froome was on 100k/year going to a likely 60k after.
That is a huge incentive to...
Wiggins blanked Froome in the Vuelta 2011 (they were sharing a room to begin with).
Porte wanting to ride all out for second place in the 2013 Tour which which was slightly odd especially from an outwardly subservient rider.
Anecdote: Froome was not angry at all when he was left all by himself on THAT stage and was actually very encouraging.
They are strongly of the opinion Wiggins will not ride the Tour.

above_the_cows

OMG there's going to be a podcast with Ciro and Pippo Pozatto at the Tour! How do you use emojis in a podcast?

above_the_cows

r0bh wrote:

What I don't get is why Froome doesn't want to prove to all and sundry that he is the better rider by beating Wiggins fair and square on the road? If Wiggo really is as disliked by the other team members as has been said on this thread then it is unlikely the team will split between the two, so at worst Froome has 7 team-mates instead of 8 if Wiggo goes rogue. Seems to me like Wiggo has far more to lose by riding than Froome has.

I think its that Wiggins' presence will sour the milk to the extent that the team will not be a happy one. You have to decide what is important. Try and win the Tour by beating Wiggins in a horrible environment where everyone is unhappy. Try and beat Wiggins in the Tour in a team where the atmosphere is so toxic that the whole thing goes Pete Tong, or try and win the Tour in an environment where most people are happy campers.

Macaloon

Richmond Racer wrote:

He went against team orders in the '12 Tour to make a massive point. Even Sean Yates version of events stack up with Froome's own version, to that effect. He also dished up some humiliation to Wiggins on the final MTF with all the gesturing (to quote Robert Millar on the subject). And from that point onwards, Wiggins has had the whole 'you didnt deserve to win that Tour, you weren't worthy' shebang thrown at him. That might give most people cause to feel a bit sore, no? Hell, Cinders wouldnt have been invited to my ball, either.

After the '11 Vuelta Froome had the chance to move to other teams and get that leadership for definite in 2012, including Garmin (though his asking price had shot up beyond their means after the first few stages), AG2R (who were offering more money than even Sky were offering for his new contract) and Riis's gang, amongst a number. He chose to re-sign. If he'd moved, maybe he'd have got that first GT on his palmares in 2012. Maybe he'd have outridden Wiggins with another team.

All quite possibly true. Froome bruised Bradley's ego, in public. But since he managed to win in the end, instantly becoming a national sporting treasure, Wiggins' blood feud response - Giro, Tour double-talk etc - is wildly over the top. Froome has told his side of the story in a book. I don't see the equivalence.

iainf72

The only thing to add to FF's summary there is that the team seemed a lot happier last year, for whatever reason.

Macaloon

frenchfighter wrote:

For those with no time to listen:
Going into the Vuelta 2011 Froome was on 100k/year going to a likely 60k after.
That is a huge incentive to...

Have a cheap dig at the rider development program, or praise the genius of the tough love, numbers don't lie, management.

ContrelaMontre

inseine wrote:

ContrelaMontre wrote:

inseine wrote:

What does this mean? Was there ever a chance that they wouldn't pick the worlds best sprinter (at the time) for the TdF?

Yes. There was much debate before the 2012 Tour about whether Sky could accommodate both a tilt at the Yellow jersey and the Green jersey and therefore whether Cav (and Eisel) should be in the team at all.

But isn't that the opposite to what you said 'they picked Cavendish as an insurance policy in case Wiggo crashed or burned'? Sorry if I've misread/misunderstood :?

I'm confused myself now :?

All I was trying to say was that they took Cav as a Plan B even when he didn't fit in with the main goal.

Richmond Racer

Above The Cows wrote:

r0bh wrote:

What I don't get is why Froome doesn't want to prove to all and sundry that he is the better rider by beating Wiggins fair and square on the road? If Wiggo really is as disliked by the other team members as has been said on this thread then it is unlikely the team will split between the two, so at worst Froome has 7 team-mates instead of 8 if Wiggo goes rogue. Seems to me like Wiggo has far more to lose by riding than Froome has.

I think its that Wiggins' presence will sour the milk to the extent that the team will not be a happy one. You have to decide what is important. Try and win the Tour by beating Wiggins in a horrible environment where everyone is unhappy. Try and beat Wiggins in the Tour in a team where the atmosphere is so toxic that the whole thing goes Pete Tong, or try and win the Tour in an environment where most people are happy campers.

'tis true. And as per the Cycling Podcast, there's always the (quite feasible) scenario in which Wiggins finds himself ahead of Froome by the end of stage 5, and then all hell breaks loose.

Richmond Racer

Macaloon wrote:

All quite possibly true. Froome bruised Bradley's ego, in public. But since he managed to win in the end, instantly becoming a national sporting treasure, Wiggins' blood feud response - Giro, Tour double-talk etc - is wildly over the top. Froome has told his side of the story in a book. I don't see the equivalence.

I can see that you don't. Agree to disagree?

iainf72

Richmond Racer wrote:

'tis true. And as per the Cycling Podcast, there's always the (quite feasible) scenario in which Wiggins finds himself ahead of Fenton by the end of stage 5, and then all hell breaks loose.

It's a funny one,innit. Coz if that happened, Froome would likely crush him in the mountains and then say "I could've done that any time I liked in 2012"

BTW - Nearly tweeted you last night while watching Penny Dreadful to say "good news, Fenton is chained up in a basement being beaten"

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

'tis true. And as per the Cycling Podcast, there's always the (quite feasible) scenario in which Wiggins finds himself ahead of Fenton by the end of stage 5, and then all hell breaks loose.

It's a funny one,innit. Coz if that happened, Froome would likely crush him in the mountains and then say "I could've done that any time I liked in 2012"

BTW - Nearly tweeted you last night while watching Penny Dreadful to say "good news, Fenton is chained up in a basement being beaten"

He would indeed.

Hmmm....this programme sounds a must watch *goes off to sort out playback*

Macaloon

Richmond Racer wrote:

I can see that you don't. Agree to disagree?

Obviously If the soap opera results in Wiggo riding with the Yates bros and having a real pop at the Dauphine, with 100km of TT in the Tour to follow, it will have been worth it.

And dawg bless them for getting me through that post-GT slump.

bigmat

I think Wiggins knows that he won't beat Froome and he'd be an idiot to try. I just don't see that as a realistic scenario. For Wiggins it should be about enjoying a "home" tour, maybe having a crack at the cobbled stage (although if Froome gets in any trouble then he'd presumably be called upon to help - and I honestly think he would), showing his strength in the mountains as a helper and then going for it in the TT. Can't realistically see him wanting more and I don't see why his presence would be so problematic for Froome, barring personal issues. From a marketing perspective it would be a massive fail to not pick Wiggins, and from a sporting perspective I think it would be wrong too. Fingers crossed he gets a ride.

above_the_cows

BigMat wrote:

I think Wiggins knows that he won't beat Froome and he'd be an idiot to try. I just don't see that as a realistic scenario. For Wiggins it should be about enjoying a "home" tour, maybe having a crack at the cobbled stage (although if Froome gets in any trouble then he'd presumably be called upon to help - and I honestly think he would), showing his strength in the mountains as a helper and then going for it in the TT. Can't realistically see him wanting more and I don't see why his presence would be so problematic for Froome, barring personal issues. From a marketing perspective it would be a massive fail to not pick Wiggins, and from a sporting perspective I think it would be wrong too. Fingers crossed he gets a ride.

But I think those personal issues are actually very important and have the potential to damage the potential of the team. At least that seems to be the conclusion of Moore, Friebe and Birnie.

bigmat

Agreed, but that's all it is - all this talk of a Lemond / Hinault type situation is nonsense, the only issue is whether Wiggo's presence would upset Froome / the team too much. Is he really that disliked? If by the whole team then that's one thing but if its just Froome with the issue then they need to sort it out and be a bit more professional.

tuneskyline

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnbH2XvCN7c

above_the_cows

BigMat wrote:

Agreed, but that's all it is - all this talk of a Lemond / Hinault type situation is nonsense, the only issue is whether Wiggo's presence would upset Froome / the team too much. Is he really that disliked? If by the whole team then that's one thing but if its just Froome with the issue then they need to sort it out and be a bit more professional.

I think it goes beyond Froome. Two riders not getting on has the potential to impact on the happiness of the whole team. No one likes to work in a frosty atmosphere worried all the time about stepping on egg shells, seeming to be upsetting one camp or the other. And these guys don't get to go home at the end of the day and ignore it all and hopefully clear their heads, they are spending 24/7 in each others company for three weeks.

I agree that they need to be more professional but they needed to do that year's ago. It's too late now. And it isn't just Froome with the issue, this cuts both ways, Bradley has an issue with Chris too.

No_Ta_Doctor

Above The Cows wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I think Wiggins knows that he won't beat Froome and he'd be an idiot to try. I just don't see that as a realistic scenario. For Wiggins it should be about enjoying a "home" tour, maybe having a crack at the cobbled stage (although if Froome gets in any trouble then he'd presumably be called upon to help - and I honestly think he would), showing his strength in the mountains as a helper and then going for it in the TT. Can't realistically see him wanting more and I don't see why his presence would be so problematic for Froome, barring personal issues. From a marketing perspective it would be a massive fail to not pick Wiggins, and from a sporting perspective I think it would be wrong too. Fingers crossed he gets a ride.

But I think those personal issues are actually very important and have the potential to damage the potential of the team. At least that seems to be the conclusion of Moore, Friebe and Birnie.

That seemed to be based on the premiss that Wiggins can't motivate himself to fulfil his professional responsibility to ride for a teammate unless he has a strong friendship bond with or debt to them. I'm just not convinced that's the case. I think Wiggins could be motivated to ride for Froome just to prove he's the better man, out of pure ego and vindictiveness. I think if it's played right then the two of them could end up falling over themselves to show they were the most Corinthian in spirit. Just idle speculation, obviously.

On the cobbles question, isn't that a bit early on in the race for the peloton to let a rider with Wiggins' palmares and GC record get a gap? Which stage is it? As far as personal ambition goes, I can't see past the TT and a crack at third step of the podium for Wiggins - unless Froome comes a cropper.