Vuelta stage 21 *spoiler*

hypster

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

I think using phrases like "Quintana is not a devastating climber" and that "Contador won the Vuelta" are disingenuous.

Quintana was paying attention at the right time to respond to the attacks of his rivals, Froome wasn't. This is as much a part of being a stage racer as being a good time triallist.

Also, the argument that Porte would have beaten Quintana in the Tour "with better luck" seems slightly flawed to me. It's no coincidence that Porte seems to suffer from "bad luck" in each GT he competes in (some call it bad luck, I say bad positioning/bike handling)

It's also easy to rewrite history after the fact. Quintana knew he needed time on Froome before the time trial. Once he had that his tactics changed to marking him. If he was only 1'30" ahead going into the final week no doubt you would have seen him racing differently.

Similarly, Richie would have been marked closer than he was in the Tour if he was closer to Froome.

Well judging by Contador's comments after stage 20 where he was more than a little pissed off that Movistar and Quintana didn't help chase down Chaves and thus repay him and Tinkoff for helping to win the Vuelta for them, I'd say it's very pertinent. Following on from that I'd also argue that it's debateable that Movistar would have been able to motivate that break in stage 15 all on their own even though Froome was asleep at the wheel.

As far as Richie Porte goes, yes it was bad bike handling running over that stone on stage 2 and getting a puncture costing him nearly two minutes. Especially as he must have known that all the team and the team car would be looking after their lame duck. Also, it was unforgiveable not stopping in time for three motorbikes on Mont Ventoux, especially as Quintana was wallowing off the back some way down and would have lost a ton of time especially if they were going to finish at the top rather than the wind-shortened stage.

I guess we'll see in the fullness of time if Quintana really has what it takes but for my money he has just been shit lucky so far to win two GTs. He's also storing up a shedload of bad feeling in the peloton and that's going to come home to roost just when he needs it least.

andyp

Luck may play a part in winning one GT, but when you repeat that, it has nothing to do with luck.

He earned this Vuelta win by being the best rider in the race.

cq20

I'm amazed at Contador's naivety wrt Movistar. Movistar have a reputation for taking advantage of others misfortune when by convention the peloton would normally sit up. Vacansoliel's attack when Valverde punctured in the TdF a few years back was payback for a series of previous "unsporting" incidents by Dick Dastardly's team. (Not forgetting attacking when the stage had been neutralised in the Giro). I'm sure other teams are similar but Movistar are not a charity and to expect them to return favours seems like a rookie type mistake.

Richmond Racer 2

cq20 wrote:

I'm amazed at Contador's naivety wrt Movistar. Movistar have a reputation for taking advantage of others misfortune when by convention the peloton would normally sit up. Vacansoliel's attack when Valverde punctured in the TdF a few years back was payback for a series of previous "unsporting" incidents by Dick Dastardly's team. (Not forgetting attacking when the stage had been neutralised in the Giro). I'm sure other teams are similar but Movistar are not a charity and to expect them to return favours seems like a rookie type mistake.

This.

pinno

What have I stumbled on. Jesus wept.

You say this:

hypster wrote:

Nairo Quintana weighs 58kg to Chris Froome's 71kg, he should be a bloody good climber! My contention though he just isn't. He is consistently beaten by other climbers and he can't time trial for toffee so he is not the complete stage racer by any stretch of the imagination.

...and then you say this.

hypster wrote:

He relies on a heavily loaded mountain parcours to do well including the several mental 20% climbs we have seen in this Vuelta.

Which is a contradiction. Quintana managed those 'mental 20% climbs' better than anyone else. I tend to avoid Pro Race during a GT these days as it totally detracts from the racing.

What a fantastic Vuelta it was. What a great fight from a Froome - probably at 90% along with his team who were not the main stalwarts that were beside him in the TdF.

TdF
1 Chris Froome (GBr)
2 Sergio Henao (Col)
3 Vasil Kiryienka (Blr)
4 Mikel Landa (Spa)
5 Mikel Nieve (Spa)
6 Wout Poels (Ned)
7 Luke Rowe (GBr)
8 Ian Stannard (GBr)
9 Geraint Thomas (GBr)
Vuelta
Ian Boswell (USA)
Chris Froome (GBr)
Michal Golas (Pol)
Peter Kennaugh (GBr)
Christian Knees (Ger)
Leopold König (Cze)
Michal Kwiatkowski (Pol)
David Lopez (Esp)
Salvatore Puccio (Ita)

...and Quintana is still getting criticism. It boils down to parcours. If the TdF had as mountainous a course as the Vuelta, then Quintana would be capable and in contention. He'll have at least 6 more cracks at the TdF if he wished.
That sums the argument up. Quintana is more of a climber than an all rounder. Yet people are still criticising him as a climber?!
As Pross said, he used his head. It's no good going on an explosive attack that comes to nothing. It has to be a measured 3 week plan, with a measured output. Despite the ITT, despite Chavez, SKY and Froome, NQ won.
Comparing weight difference is sheer bollox.
Lucho Herrera never came close to a TdF win. In fact he never won a GT because he had the tactical nous of a Donkey, yet he could be explosive.
Quintana is as close to a pure climber as you'll get. In the last 36 years, you can list the riders who weren't so good at TT's but could climb and who did win a GT, on the fingers of one hand:
Pantani
Delgado
Sastre?
Quintana.
I'm sure there are a few others but there aren't many.

RichN95.

Pinno wrote:

Lucho Herrera never came close to a TdF win. In fact he never won a GT because he had the tactical nous of a Donkey, yet he could be explosive.

He actually won the Vuelta.

The reason that he never won a Tour was because of the huge amount of time trialing in those Tours.
These are the amounts of time trialing in the three Tours he was top ten in:

1985 159km ITT + 73km TTT
1987 168km ITT + 41km TTT
1988 137km ITT + 46km TTT

(His Vuelta win only had 65km and no TTT)

Give Quintana courses like that he won't get close to winning either.

pinno

Oh, yes - 1987, but my point wasn't lost in any way.

ocdupalais

So, basically, on his post-2012 average, if current GTs were like back in the day of, say, Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault or Indurain, etc, Froome would be winning virtually every one he entered (and finished) by quite a margin.

ocdupalais

Here's something else that seems apparent to me (is it true or isn't it?): the Giro and Vuelta don't want the strongest rider (Froome) rocking up with the strongest team (see Sky's 2016 Tour team). But the Tour demands it.

None of the GTs seem ready for an upset to their status.

RichN95.

OCDuPalais wrote:

So, basically, on his post-2012 average, if current GTs were like back in the day of, say, Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault or Indurain, etc, Froome would be winning virtually every one he entered by quite a margin.

Maybe, maybe not. Different riders would come to the fore as GC contenders. Dumoulin for a start. Even the likes of Martin, LL Sanchez or Dennis.

Also you need to remember that teams weren't as strong back then. Races got more disorganised.

ocdupalais

RichN95 wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

So, basically, on his post-2012 average, if current GTs were like back in the day of, say, Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault or Indurain, etc, Froome would be winning virtually every one he entered by quite a margin.

Maybe, maybe not. Different riders would come to the fore as GC contenders. Dumoulin for a start. Even the likes of Martin, LL Sanchez or Dennis.

Also you need to remember that teams weren't as strong back then. Races got more disorganised.

One way of "reorganising" disorganised racing is by subjecting the riders to 160km of ITT.

None of those riders you mentioned have shown they can consistently hold a candle to the best climbers*
Froome can.


*this will change in time, I hope.

ocdupalais

Possibly not, in the case of Martin, realistically (I assume you mean Tony?).

RichN95.

OCDuPalais wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

So, basically, on his post-2012 average, if current GTs were like back in the day of, say, Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault or Indurain, etc, Froome would be winning virtually every one he entered by quite a margin.

Maybe, maybe not. Different riders would come to the fore as GC contenders. Dumoulin for a start. Even the likes of Martin, LL Sanchez or Dennis.

Also you need to remember that teams weren't as strong back then. Races got more disorganised.

One way of "reorganising" disorganised racing is by subjecting the riders to 160km of ITT.

None of those riders you mentioned have shown they can consistently hold a candle to the best climbers*
Froome can.


*this will change in time, I hope.

But back in the olden days those sorts of riders would be developed into GC riders. Now they aren't because courses don't demand it. It's sporting Darwinism. As the nature of a sport changes, so does its athletes.

ocdupalais

RichN95 wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

So, basically, on his post-2012 average, if current GTs were like back in the day of, say, Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault or Indurain, etc, Froome would be winning virtually every one he entered by quite a margin.

Maybe, maybe not. Different riders would come to the fore as GC contenders. Dumoulin for a start. Even the likes of Martin, LL Sanchez or Dennis.

Also you need to remember that teams weren't as strong back then. Races got more disorganised.

One way of "reorganising" disorganised racing is by subjecting the riders to 160km of ITT.

None of those riders you mentioned have shown they can consistently hold a candle to the best climbers*
Froome can.


*this will change in time, I hope.

But back in the olden days those sorts of riders would be developed into GC riders. Now they aren't because courses don't demand it. It's sporting Darwinism. As the nature of a sport changes, so does its athletes.

But Dumoulin is being developed into a GC rider. As is Dennis. As was every GT winner since, er, Andy Shleck? Now we're getting into the nitty-gritty and dialectics of the sport...
I'm not sure Coppi, Anquetil or Merckx were "developed" as GC riders any more or less than Dumoulin - or indeed Froome (or Wiggins or Cadel Evans...).
Darwinism,by definition, is free from intention or determinism: the sport of cycling is controlled by people making decisions (or in the case of each GT, them making the best decisions to protect their brand).
As you alluded - professionalism and strong teams (and drugs, obvs) have often nullified the damage that (historically) a pint-sized climber could do to the likes of an Indurain, for example; so clearly the organisers were left with little option but to reduce the amount of ITT to minimise further ludicrous ultimate winning margins by these monstrous non-climbers who have been confounding the traditionalists for generations...
And now Froomes's TT performance at la Vuelta will almost certainly be a factor in the way in which both the Tour and Vuelta are designed for 2017... The perfect point for Froome to state he's only going for the Giro next year...

hypster

Pinno wrote:

What have I stumbled on. Jesus wept.

...and Quintana is still getting criticism. It boils down to parcours. If the TdF had as mountainous a course as the Vuelta, then Quintana would be capable and in contention. He'll have at least 6 more cracks at the TdF if he wished.
That sums the argument up. Quintana is more of a climber than an all rounder. Yet people are still criticising him as a climber?!
As Pross said, he used his head. It's no good going on an explosive attack that comes to nothing. It has to be a measured 3 week plan, with a measured output. Despite the ITT, despite Chavez, SKY and Froome, NQ won.
Comparing weight difference is sheer bollox.
Lucho Herrera never came close to a TdF win. In fact he never won a GT because he had the tactical nous of a Donkey, yet he could be explosive.
Quintana is as close to a pure climber as you'll get. In the last 36 years, you can list the riders who weren't so good at TT's but could climb and who did win a GT, on the fingers of one hand:
Pantani
Delgado
Sastre?
Quintana.
I'm sure there are a few others but there aren't many.

And of course you have totally missed the point. Yes, Quintana is a climber but that's all he is, a one trick pony. He can't time trial, he can't descend, he's not even a dynamic team leader, just a follower. If it wasn't for

a) A Parcours heavily loaded to favour mountain climbers
b) A shedload of luck and help from other teams on stage 15

He wouldn't even be on the podium let alone winning the Vuelta.

You've said as much yourself:-

It boils down to parcours. If the TdF had as mountainous a course as the Vuelta, then Quintana would be capable and in contention.


Bonkers logic. As I said earlier there were 10 mountain top finishes in this Vuelta and one individual time trial which is way too skewed in favour of out-and-out climbers. The fact that Froome clawed back 2:16 in ONE ITT on Quintana which ignoring stage 15 as a one-off, Quintana couldn't match in TEN MTFs, shows the gulf between the two riders.

Any decent grand tour needs a balance so that the best all-round rider wins, not just the one who can climb the best or time-trial the fastest which is why the TdF is a much better indication of the best rider than the Giro or the Vuelta. Those two tours will always be second-rate if they insist on going to extremes to try and ensure a spectacle.

kingstongraham

After stage 15, Quintana didn't need to attack. It is not possible to know what would have happened on the last two mountain top finishes if he had started them needing to gain time rather than not lose time.

There is no "best rider".

hypster

KingstonGraham wrote:

After stage 15, Quintana didn't need to attack. It is not possible to know what would have happened on the last two mountain top finishes if he had started them needing to gain time rather than not lose time.

There is no "best rider".

Agree with your first point but it still comes down to an unbalanced route heavily in favour of climbers.

If you read what I wrote it says 'best all-round rider'.

professeur

hypster wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

After stage 15, Quintana didn't need to attack. It is not possible to know what would have happened on the last two mountain top finishes if he had started them needing to gain time rather than not lose time.

There is no "best rider".

Agree with your first point but it still comes down to an unbalanced route heavily in favour of climbers.

If you read what I wrote it says 'best all-round rider'.

Not disagreeing that it was TT light route (aren't they all at the moment!) but I wouldn't describe it as 10 MTFs. 10 uphill/mur-type finishes, of which 4/5 were 'true' MTFs.

kingstongraham

hypster wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

After stage 15, Quintana didn't need to attack. It is not possible to know what would have happened on the last two mountain top finishes if he had started them needing to gain time rather than not lose time.

There is no "best rider".

Agree with your first point but it still comes down to an unbalanced route heavily in favour of climbers.

If you read what I wrote it says 'best all-round rider'.

If you read what you wrote, it says both. But the point stands. How would you determine the best all round rider when there is no advantage for doing well in sprints? If you want to find the best rider over distance in all terrain, the whole thing would be a series of time trials. The quality of the team is important as well.

It did favour climbers, but that doesn't make it unbalanced, just different.

fat daddy

you need to define "Best" .... surely the best rider is the one that can finish the course in the quickest time, now how that is done is irrelevant, if the race calls for a master tactician, a climber, a time trialist, a rider with a team behind him capable of dragging him along ... then that's whats needed and the best rider for that race will be the one that wins

pinno

OCDuPalais wrote:

Here's something else that seems apparent to me (is it true or isn't it?): the Giro and Vuelta don't want the strongest rider (Froome) rocking up with the strongest team (see Sky's 2016 Tour team). But the Tour demands it.

None of the GTs seem ready for an upset to their status.

I think the TdF is too processionalised (if there's such a word) in terms of structure. It's an exhibition whereas, I feel the organisers of the Giro and Vuelta want a race primarily and this years Vuelta organisers chucked a monster of a stage in on the penultimate day. There's always grumblings in the peloton about the amount of climbing in the Giro from almost the off but at least it makes for an unpredictable race for example.

As to the TdF - I am pretty sure as the Bardet's et al mature into GT possible contenders, the Organisation Du TdF will create courses that suit them. I cannot imagine the French not wanting a TdF winner, it's been 31 years and counting. Their future looks better now than it has been for a while.

hypster

Pinno wrote:

OCDuPalais wrote:

Here's something else that seems apparent to me (is it true or isn't it?): the Giro and Vuelta don't want the strongest rider (Froome) rocking up with the strongest team (see Sky's 2016 Tour team). But the Tour demands it.

None of the GTs seem ready for an upset to their status.

I think the TdF is too processionalised (if there's such a word) in terms of structure. It's an exhibition whereas, I feel the organisers of the Giro and Vuelta want a race primarily and this years Vuelta organisers chucked a monster of a stage in on the penultimate day. There's always grumblings in the peloton about the amount of climbing in the Giro from almost the off but at least it makes for an unpredictable race for example.

As to the TdF - I am pretty sure as the Bardet's et al mature into GT possible contenders, the Organisation Du TdF will create courses that suit them. I cannot imagine the French not wanting a TdF winner, it's been 31 years and counting. Their future looks better now than it has been for a while.

In general I would agree with you. I think the main problem for organisers of all the grand tours is they haven't got their heads around the fact that the riders are not on performance enhancing drugs any more. Too many hard days and ridiculous gradients do not always make for the best racing when riders are severely fatigued and have no incentive other than to roll in in a big bunch like we have seen of late.

kingstongraham

There should be more days when they roll in in a big bunch. Makes the good days better.

The reason it doesn't happen in the TdF is that the stage win is so important to the sprint teams. Even on the day that they rode at about 30kmh and left the break out all day in this year's TdF they still worked at the end. In the vuelta they just let it go because no one had a sprint train to set up for.

hypster

KingstonGraham wrote:

In the vuelta they just let it go because no one had a sprint train to set up for.

And that was another consquence of the heavily-overloaded route with MTFs and mental gradients, especially in the first week. None of the sprinters bothered to turn up for such a waste of time.

I really don't know how anyone can defend this year's Vuelta course, it was crap on so many levels with only a handful of interesting stages where people seriously raced (for GC at least).

EDIT: And it seems like we can expect more of the same next year. Bonkers.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uphill- ... -a-espana/

kingstongraham

hypster wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

In the vuelta they just let it go because no one had a sprint train to set up for.

And that was another consquence of the heavily-overloaded route with MTFs and mental gradients, especially in the first week. None of the sprinters bothered to turn up for such a waste of time.

I really don't know how anyone can defend this year's Vuelta course, it was crap on so many levels with only a handful of interesting stages where people seriously raced (for GC at least).

You only interested in GC then?

RichN95.

hypster wrote:

And that was another consquence of the heavily-overloaded route with MTFs and mental gradients, especially in the first week. None of the sprinters bothered to turn up for such a waste of time.

The sprinters didn't turn up because they are all focused on the World Championship, which is still a month away.

hypster

KingstonGraham wrote:

hypster wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

In the vuelta they just let it go because no one had a sprint train to set up for.

And that was another consquence of the heavily-overloaded route with MTFs and mental gradients, especially in the first week. None of the sprinters bothered to turn up for such a waste of time.

I really don't know how anyone can defend this year's Vuelta course, it was crap on so many levels with only a handful of interesting stages where people seriously raced (for GC at least).

You only interested in GC then?

No, but it's the main thread that holds everything together and ultimately what most people judge the race on. Personally I thought the TdF was brilliant this year for so many things but the general consensus seemed to be that it was a boring Sky-fest.

I didn't think the Vuelta was really dominated by any team this year in the same way and there were also many interesting individual performances to make up for the lack of GC excitement. I just think there were too many steep sections which tended to stifle the racing. Look at the best two stages 14 and 15 in most people's opinions. What did they have?

kingstongraham

Any sprinter that did turn up that was faster than Meersman would now have a hatful of GT stage wins.

Stage 3 had a really good finish, as did stage 6, stage 8 kicked off the GC, stage 10 was good, so was stage 11, stage 14 and 15 were great. 17 was OK. Stage 19 was interesting, Stage 20 was great as well. That's about a 50% hit rate for me.

You take the negative if you prefer, but I really, really enjoyed it. And some of the scenery was beautiful too.

No_Ta_Doctor

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

cq20 wrote:

I'm amazed at Contador's naivety wrt Movistar. Movistar have a reputation for taking advantage of others misfortune when by convention the peloton would normally sit up. Vacansoliel's attack when Valverde punctured in the TdF a few years back was payback for a series of previous "unsporting" incidents by Dick Dastardly's team. (Not forgetting attacking when the stage had been neutralised in the Giro). I'm sure other teams are similar but Movistar are not a charity and to expect them to return favours seems like a rookie type mistake.

This.

I'm not sure Movistar really owed Contador anything for that stage. Yes, they benefited hugely from it, but so did he (before he faded at the end) and they put in a shedload of work in the break once it was away.

Not that I disagree with the overall point that Movistar aren't to be trusted and probably don't have a great deal of goodwill in the bank with the peloton.

No_Ta_Doctor

OCDuPalais wrote:

Here's something else that seems apparent to me (is it true or isn't it?): the Giro and Vuelta don't want the strongest rider (Froome) rocking up with the strongest team (see Sky's 2016 Tour team). But the Tour demands it.

None of the GTs seem ready for an upset to their status.

This is the thing with the tour. Everyone brings their absolute strongest team, apart from those that think they can't win it but might have a shot at the other GTs. Riders and teams fight tooth and nail for fairly mediocre GC placings, and there is always a team or two with an incentive to chase the break, 99% of the time successfully. Occasionally the teams will play chicken with each other and the break stays away, but it's pretty rare.

The Vuelta and the Giro take advantage of the fact that teams just aren't as bothered with a stage win or a top 15 GC placing. Unexpected stuff can happen.