Froome - physically or mentally broken?

B3rnieMac

Wiggo wins Tour, has a fall in the wet, has his bottle questioned, and is subsequently sidelined and replaced without remorse by his number 2.

Froome wins Tour, has a fall in the wet, has his bottle questioned, and is.......? I wonder how Chris would feel if Richie won this year and became Sky's main focus for the future........I want to see Richie win now, just to show Froome the definition of karma.

Anonymous

Froome did also say that it wasn't even that rider's fault, it was the guy who he swerved to avoid!

iainf72

B3rnieMac wrote:

Froome wins Tour, has a fall in the wet, has his bottle questioned, and is.......? I wonder how Chris would feel if Richie won this year and became Sky's main focus for the future........I want to see Richie win now, just to show Froome the definition of karma.

Froome would be happy if Porte won. They're mates

Also, when Froome was plan B in 2012, and crashed early on they didn't wait for him. When the same happened to Porte they sent people back to get him. There isn't that unpleasantness and hostility inside this years Tour squad.

I notice Brailsford said again today that if BW had been at the Tour it would've been to work for Porte

epc06

Salsiccia1 wrote:

This thread = absolute bollocks.

OP is trolling, and really poorly too.

why so? I dont think its a totally unreasonable suggestion that the man might be feeling the pressure more than just a little bit.
Constant questions leading up to the tour about PEDs, Brad, and his admission that he was in tears about the TUE issue make me think that he might not be handling everything as well as he would want to.

squired

In one of the various interviews after yesterday's stage either Porte or Thomas explained that Sky had decided to split riders between Porte and Froome, with Thomas and Eisel set to look after Porte. For me that immediately says Sky did not expect Froome to make it to the finish of the stage. Had they expected Froome to make it surely they'd have put at least one of their two best cobble riders to be with him?

One man's loss is another man's gain. Sky will presumably not get a sniff at the yellow jersey and therefore not spend multiple days riding tempo on the front of the peloton, so hopefully there may be opportunities for a few of their riders to go in breaks. Porte will also get to show whether he is worth the presumably large salary Sky are paying him.

above_the_cows

FJS wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

tom3 wrote:

Froome is out because his bunch positioning was wee-wee poor on stage 4. You move back you get caught up.

Nonsense , he wasn't at the back. He was in the third to fourth row in the first 4km of the stage.

Just to add, Jens Keukeleire has already owned up and apologised to Froome for swerving into him on stage 4 causing Froome to crash, although Jens said he had to move himself to avoid an unidentified swerving Belkin rider.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/cn ... 8_01172080

Jong Jens did indeed swerve to avoid a Belkin. He's not wrong there.

ManOfKent

Salsiccia1 wrote:

This thread = absolute bollocks.

OP is trolling, and really poorly too.

Not trolling at all. Others, including Froome's own teammate last year, have ridden the Tour with broken bones. His injuries appeared not to be that serious and he had the added incentive of trying to win the thing. By his criticism of Wiggins he opened himself to greater scrutiny of his own mental strength and attitude.

I don't know how much pain the pros should be expected to endure for the sake of a Tour win, and plainly the majority of posters here think the answer is "less than Froome was in". Some have pointed out things I wasn't aware of when I asked the question in the first place, such as his team's approach to the stage hinting at injuries more severe than they'd let on. It's a persuasive argument and certainly better thought through than your response.

Turfle

squired wrote:

In one of the various interviews after yesterday's stage either Porte or Thomas explained that Sky had decided to split riders between Porte and Froome, with Thomas and Eisel set to look after Porte. For me that immediately says Sky did not expect Froome to make it to the finish of the stage. Had they expected Froome to make it surely they'd have put at least one of their two best cobble riders to be with him?

One man's loss is another man's gain. Sky will presumably not get a sniff at the yellow jersey and therefore not spend multiple days riding tempo on the front of the peloton, so hopefully there may be opportunities for a few of their riders to go in breaks. Porte will also get to show whether he is worth the presumably large salary Sky are paying him.

I don't see this being a repeat of 2011 when G and EBH were allowed in the breaks every day. Sky still think they can win this race.

chippyk

In my opinion, Porte is not and won't be a GC contender if the likes of NIbali, Contador, Quintana etc are in town. Cracking domestique but I can't see him going toe to toe with say Quintana up Ventoux or another big Alpine climb and winning. Then again as much as I'd like to see them in the team, I'd say the same about Brad, Kennaugh and Swift, although I think Kennaugh's time may come.

Turfle

EPC06 wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

This thread = absolute bollocks.

OP is trolling, and really poorly too.

why so? I dont think its a totally unreasonable suggestion that the man might be feeling the pressure more than just a little bit.
Constant questions leading up to the tour about PEDs, Brad, and his admission that he was in tears about the TUE issue make me think that he might not be handling everything as well as he would want to.

Froome would have to be incredibly mentally strong to be able to control riders from not taking out his front wheel.

SCR Pedro

I'm no expert, but having watched it live, and later the highlights, I thought that he looked to be in a state of shock.

milton50

ManOfKent wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

This thread = absolute bollocks.

OP is trolling, and really poorly too.

His injuries appeared not to be that serious

I honestly don't know what makes you say that. The fact that he hadn't broken his neck? He was limping and couldn't open or close a car door. There was no way he could ride a bike and definitely not over wet cobbles.

He had certainly had a relatively poor season, blighted by injuries and illnesses and had been beaten by some of his rivals in previous races. So it's arguable that he went into the Tour this year in a mentally weaker position than last year.

I don't think anyone can argue that it was mental weakness which caused his retirement yesterday though.

salsiccia1

ManOfKent wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

This thread = absolute bollocks.

OP is trolling, and really poorly too.

Not trolling at all. Others, including Froome's own teammate last year, have ridden the Tour with broken bones. His injuries appeared not to be that serious and he had the added incentive of trying to win the thing. By his criticism of Wiggins he opened himself to greater scrutiny of his own mental strength and attitude.

I don't know how much pain the pros should be expected to endure for the sake of a Tour win, and plainly the majority of posters here think the answer is "less than Froome was in". Some have pointed out things I wasn't aware of when I asked the question in the first place, such as his team's approach to the stage hinting at injuries more severe than they'd let on. It's a persuasive argument and certainly better thought through than your response.

Apologies if I misread your post. It was just the 'Or am I being too harsh on someone who labelled his former team leader "mentally weak"?' came across as a thinly veiled dig. Again, apologies if I got that wrong. There's been lots of Wiggins fans on here who've shown an unpleasant schadenfreude at Froome getting injured and having to drop out, and I thought this was more of the same.

A more thoughtful response from me:
I think Froome is pretty tough, and was probably more injured than he and the team let on. His damaged wrist probably stopped him from being able to handle his bike, which is why he crashed twice. My feeling is that if yesterday's stage had been run in the dry and without the cobbles (to come after he pulled out, I know) he might still be in the race.

adr82

ManOfKent wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

This thread = absolute bollocks.

OP is trolling, and really poorly too.

Not trolling at all. Others, including Froome's own teammate last year, have ridden the Tour with broken bones. His injuries appeared not to be that serious and he had the added incentive of trying to win the thing. By his criticism of Wiggins he opened himself to greater scrutiny of his own mental strength and attitude.

I don't know how much pain the pros should be expected to endure for the sake of a Tour win, and plainly the majority of posters here think the answer is "less than Froome was in". Some have pointed out things I wasn't aware of when I asked the question in the first place, such as his team's approach to the stage hinting at injuries more severe than they'd let on. It's a persuasive argument and certainly better thought through than your response.

Why does it have to be about pain? If you're not in that much pain but are injured in a way that means you physically cannot control your bike then you have to climb off, don't you?

Anonymous

I'd agree with the second part, but then that is the lottery of a GT. He shouldn't have been back there with some newbies when he fell off in the 1st place, especially given the impact of his fall at Daupine.

I think he's going to be far more upset than Cav is about the whole thing, and I am very much looking forward to seeing him when he's back I hope he does the Vuelta, in form, and doesn't bl**dy crash.

milton50

squired wrote:

One man's loss is another man's gain. Sky will presumably not get a sniff at the yellow jersey and therefore not spend multiple days riding tempo on the front of the peloton, so hopefully there may be opportunities for a few of their riders to go in breaks. Porte will also get to show whether he is worth the presumably large salary Sky are paying him.

I'd be very surprised if Sky didn't treat Porte as a GC contender.

Porte is currently in the top 10 on GC and has, what, 40 seconds on Contador? So unless or until he cracks he should be legitimately aiming for the final podium place.

Coriander

ManOfKent wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

This thread = absolute bollocks.

OP is trolling, and really poorly too.

Not trolling at all. Others, including Froome's own teammate last year, have ridden the Tour with broken bones. His injuries appeared not to be that serious and he had the added incentive of trying to win the thing. By his criticism of Wiggins he opened himself to greater scrutiny of his own mental strength and attitude.

I don't know how much pain the pros should be expected to endure for the sake of a Tour win, and plainly the majority of posters here think the answer is "less than Froome was in". Some have pointed out things I wasn't aware of when I asked the question in the first place, such as his team's approach to the stage hinting at injuries more severe than they'd let on. It's a persuasive argument and certainly better thought through than your response.

There's also a significant difference between a broken/fractured bone in the pelvis which is 'just' pain and a fractured wrist that prevents you being able to control the bike properly.

cornerblock

adr82 wrote:

Why does it have to be about pain? If you're not in that much pain but are injured in a way that means you physically cannot control your bike then you have to climb off, don't you?

Exactly this. Anyone who has ever damaged their wrists or hands so badly that they can barely grip the bars let alone apply enough pressure to pull the brake would understand that there are occassions when you just have to accept it's done.

ManOfKent

Coriander wrote:

There's also a significant difference between a broken/fractured bone in the pelvis which is 'just' pain and a fractured wrist that prevents you being able to control the bike properly.

Fair point - although so far it's only a rumour that Froome's wrist was fractured.

sherer

I was wondering if maybe he already had a fracture when he started the stage that the team had kept quiet about.

The comments from Froome that I read were that he said he couldn't control the bike properly and so had to stop. I think he knew when he fell off he couldn't go on as he didn't even seem to try to get back on.

kleinstroker

OnYourRight wrote:

Does anyone know which brake Froome operates with his left hand?

adr82 wrote:

It's a part of racing, you can minimise the risks but you can't avoid them.

Of course, and my point is that more should be done to minimise those risks in Froome’s case. Team Sky has the weighting wrong. When Froome loses it’s usually because of injury or illness, not lack of racing ability. What’s more, any time lost to fatigue or having a bad day is as nothing compared to crashing out.

Look at Contador. He rode a masterful race yesterday. Admittedy in part because Froome crashed out, Contador took an extremely prudent approach to the stage (Laurent Jalabert on French TV suggested it was excessively cautious; needless to say I disagree). He traded 2.5 minutes against staying upright. He’s still in the race and has every chance of winning it. (I would even consider him the favourite.)

Contador’s appreciation of risk is well developed. Froome and Brailsford could learn from him. He consistently takes big risks when there is a big reward but otherwise goes to extreme lengths to minimise risk. And he’s done this consistently for years. It’s obviously something he thinks about carefully.

Team Sky shows little sign of being aware that Froome can comfortably lose a lot of time and regain it later. Sky and Froome get nervous easily and are easily goaded into taking silly risks. The sole exception is descending mountains, which Sky treats as a special case of risk.

Nibali also rode a great race, but he was forced to go for broke. Thankfully the big risks he took paid off for him. That’s a valid and beautiful way to race, but ill-advised if you’re Froome and dominant.

I said the same thing in another thread. Sky should have been more cautious and kept Froome riding another day whatever the cost timewise

Anonymous

I think in this case they were wrong. They were overly cautious, Froome was near the back, being careful and therefore got taken out by a nervous rider who was also being overly cautious at the back!

Contador hit the cobbles quite early with the 2nd group then got dropped - a much safer option, I think.

RichN95.

OnYourRight wrote:

Does anyone know which brake Froome operates with his left hand?

adr82 wrote:

It's a part of racing, you can minimise the risks but you can't avoid them.

Of course, and my point is that more should be done to minimise those risks in Froome’s case. Team Sky has the weighting wrong. When Froome loses it’s usually because of injury or illness, not lack of racing ability. What’s more, any time lost to fatigue or having a bad day is as nothing compared to crashing out.

Look at Contador. He rode a masterful race yesterday. Admittedy in part because Froome crashed out, Contador took an extremely prudent approach to the stage (Laurent Jalabert on French TV suggested it was excessively cautious; needless to say I disagree). He traded 2.5 minutes against staying upright. He’s still in the race and has every chance of winning it. (I would even consider him the favourite.)

Contador’s appreciation of risk is well developed. Froome and Brailsford could learn from him. He consistently takes big risks when there is a big reward but otherwise goes to extreme lengths to minimise risk. And he’s done this consistently for years. It’s obviously something he thinks about carefully.

Team Sky shows little sign of being aware that Froome can comfortably lose a lot of time and regain it later. Sky and Froome get nervous easily and are easily goaded into taking silly risks. The sole exception is descending mountains, which Sky treats as a special case of risk.

Nibali also rode a great race, but he was forced to go for broke. Thankfully the big risks he took paid off for him. That’s a valid and beautiful way to race, but ill-advised if you’re Froome and dominant.

Froome got taken out by an erratic movement by two riders in front of him on stage 4 near the front of the bunch. Nothing to do with risk management - just dumb luck. Sky knew at the start of stage 5 that he was unlikely to finish it, they'd already switched their focus to Porte.

Daz555

OnYourRight wrote:

Contador’s appreciation of risk is well developed. Froome and Brailsford could learn from him. He consistently takes big risks when there is a big reward but otherwise goes to extreme lengths to minimise risk. And he’s done this consistently for years. It’s obviously something he thinks about carefully.

On the road perhaps. Off the road? Err..... :?

adr82

RichN95 wrote:

Froome got taken out by an erratic movement by two riders in front of him on stage 4 near the front of the bunch. Nothing to do with risk management - just dumb luck. Sky knew at the start of stage 5 that he was unlikely to finish it, they'd already switched their focus to Porte.

I think you're wasting your time here Rich, as far as some people are concerned Froome is just terrible at bike handling and positioning and luck had nothing to do with any of it.

Spiny_Norman

coriordan wrote:

I'd agree with the second part, but then that is the lottery of a GT. He shouldn't have been back there with some newbies when he fell off in the 1st place, especially given the impact of his fall at Daupine.

I think he's going to be far more upset than Cav is about the whole thing, and I am very much looking forward to seeing him when he's back I hope he does the Vuelta, in form, and doesn't bl**dy crash.

Wasn't Wiggins meant to be riding the Vuelta as a warm-up for the Worlds? Is that going to have to be changed now, in case they accidentally end up in the same country?

The_Boy

This thread reminds me of a comment on another board suggesting that riders should ddie in the saddle rather than climb off. An unfortunate turn off phrase rather than a genuine wishing of ill will on the riders, but given this gentleman is old enough to remember watching Tommy Simpson, well....

Froome fell and got hurt. These things happen. If we're still here in two year's time listening to him telling us he'll be back at the top any time soon then you might have a point.

ddraver

wrong thread sorry

kleinstroker

adr82 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Froome got taken out by an erratic movement by two riders in front of him on stage 4 near the front of the bunch. Nothing to do with risk management - just dumb luck. Sky knew at the start of stage 5 that he was unlikely to finish it, they'd already switched their focus to Porte.

I think you're wasting your time here Rich, as far as some people are concerned Froome is just terrible at bike handling and positioning and luck had nothing to do with any of it.

So Skys tactics had nothing to do with it either? I find that hard to take. Riding as if there wasnt a problem was not the most sensible plan.

Turfle

kleinstroker wrote:

adr82 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Froome got taken out by an erratic movement by two riders in front of him on stage 4 near the front of the bunch. Nothing to do with risk management - just dumb luck. Sky knew at the start of stage 5 that he was unlikely to finish it, they'd already switched their focus to Porte.

I think you're wasting your time here Rich, as far as some people are concerned Froome is just terrible at bike handling and positioning and luck had nothing to do with any of it.

So Skys tactics had nothing to do with it either? I find that hard to take. Riding as if there wasnt a problem was not the most sensible plan.

They rode as if there was a huge problem. They put Thomas and Eisel with Porte, rather than with Froome.