Froome v Wiggins
Comments
-
Above The Cows wrote:
Hilarious ! How dumb would you have to be to think you could get away with that ?0 -
Above The Cows wrote:
Hilarious ! How dumb would you have to be to think you could get away with that ?0 -
Here's a version of it with the Benny Hill music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuDsyfRMEoYAbove The Cows wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:
All it needs is this for true perfection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V44VniJrh8w
Twitter: @RichN950 -
The greatest. Period.0
-
Makes me laugh every time. Would have loved to hear the reaction of the commentators had they seen it while it was happening.PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 20230
-
Froome's goal now is to win 5 Tours - with admitted caveat that 4 must come first - not sure he cares that much about the Giro just now. The Vuelta is perenially on his B list though. I'm sure if he went for a Giro/Vuelta double he could do it but I can't see it happening in Sky colours as their PR machine is Tour Tour Tour.0
-
w00dster wrote:I still don't think Froome is as good as Contador or Nibali when in their prime, but it would be good to see him try to achieve all the tours before his career is over.
Really? Nibali better than Froome? When exactly was Nibali's 'prime'? Froome has beaten him in every tour he has completed in the past 5 years.
Contandor is a difficult one. He was very good, then got caught doping, then became (relatively) mediocre. Not sure if it was anything he was on or the confidence/motivation hit from a retrospective drug ban. I think Contador has far more tactical nouse, though Froome has never really needed any before as he has always been the strongest.0 -
Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
quite. lol0 -
Nibali's Tour win was probably him at his peak, I still think he may well have beaten Froome in that tour anyway. We don't know how Froome would have gone on the cobbles but had he lost similar time to every other GC favourite - Contador, Porte, Valverde, Talansky, TJVG - he'd have been 2 minutesdown on GC and given Nibali had a huge winning margin at that Tour I can't see how Froome gets that time back.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
I'm not going to justify Nibali's or Contador's palmares.
I'm also not saying I think Froome is some sort of donkey either. I just personally rate him lower than them in my little world. I like a certain type of rider and Froome for the most of his career hasn't really been overly exciting.
Froome is very very good, absolutely no denying it. He does also have a very strong set of domestiques which obviously helps a lot. He also rides in a team that enables him to have a very limited race calendar with the one goal of the Tour. Both Contador and Nibali have had similar, but not to the extent of Sky. This is why I mentioned I would like to see Froome go for the Giro and Vuelta double. I know realistically it will never happen as I imagine sponsorship contracts dictate Sky have to go all out for the Tour, but I can live in hope. Last year in the cross-winds and the downhill attack were great to see, but there's a long year of cycling and Froome just doesn't do enough for me.
I was in Nice this year to watch the last weekend of Paris Nice. To see Contador attacking on the last day and failing in the last 100 m was awesome. Contador was an absolute gent at the end of the race as well, as disappointed as he must have been he hung around at the end. I just can't ever imagine Froome being in such a weak team being as attacking.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
Thank you! Needed to be said. Tour blinkers are often skew whether rider x is great or not. Until his DSQ horror-show in the Vuelta he'd top 20'd every GT he'd entered (mostly podiums) from age 22ish.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
Perhaps contraversial, but I would rate Wiggins above both of them - Tour win, Vuelta podium, countless Olympic Track medals, Olympic and Worlds TT and a decent showing in in Spring Classics, esp Roubaix............and he even once took a bunch kick at Romandie!0 -
cougie wrote:Above The Cows wrote:
Hilarious ! How dumb would you have to be to think you could get away with that ?
Ask Arnaud Demare"Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
Why do you consider winning all 3 GTs a bigger achievement than winning the Tour (i.e. the biggest/hardest one that they all want to win) 3 times?
Also, some of Froome's non-tour achievements:
3 wins at the Criterium du Dauphine
1 Points classification at the Criterium du Dauphine
2 wins at the Tour de Romandie
2 x Bronze olympic medals
3 2nd places at the Vuelta
On top of:
3 wins and a 2nd place at the Tour
1 KOM at the tour
7 stage wins at the tour
I agree Froome hasn't done well at single day races, but he is the better stage racer without a doubt.0 -
joey54321 wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
Why do you consider winning all 3 GTs a bigger achievement than winning the Tour (i.e. the biggest/hardest one that they all want to win) 3 times?
Also, some of Froome's non-tour achievements:
3 wins at the Criterium du Dauphine
1 Points classification at the Criterium du Dauphine
2 wins at the Tour de Romandie
2 x Bronze olympic medals
3 2nd places at the Vuelta
On top of:
3 wins and a 2nd place at the Tour
1 KOM at the tour
7 stage wins at the tour
I agree Froome hasn't done well at single day races, but he is the better stage racer without a doubt.
It's a bit like Tennis and Golf. Some regard the grand slam winners superior to someone like Pete Sampras (great though he was).0 -
Joey - I don't see the Tour as being the biggest and the hardest race that everyone wants to win.
Certain GC teams/riders have it as their main objective, but not all teams. I would also argue that it isn't the most difficult, without wanting to be contentious I'd say it was the easiest of the grand tours - but that's just my opinion. Easiest used very loosely as obviously it is a very difficult race.
If you were a patriotic Italian riding for an Italian team (not referring to anyone specifically) - do you think you would rather win the Giro or the Tour? Maybe I'm an old romantic but the Giro for me is the one that gets me the most excited. I also love how the Vuelta is just insanely difficult. The Tour has all of the history but it doesn't make it the best / biggest race. Just how I see things, really not trying to be argumentative.0 -
professeur wrote:joey54321 wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
Why do you consider winning all 3 GTs a bigger achievement than winning the Tour (i.e. the biggest/hardest one that they all want to win) 3 times?
Also, some of Froome's non-tour achievements:
3 wins at the Criterium du Dauphine
1 Points classification at the Criterium du Dauphine
2 wins at the Tour de Romandie
2 x Bronze olympic medals
3 2nd places at the Vuelta
On top of:
3 wins and a 2nd place at the Tour
1 KOM at the tour
7 stage wins at the tour
I agree Froome hasn't done well at single day races, but he is the better stage racer without a doubt.
It's a bit like Tennis and Golf. Some regard the grand slam winners superior to someone like Pete Sampras (great though he was).
The Sampras era was the most boring imaginable and almost finished off mens tennis as a spectator sport0 -
The difficulty of the tour is that it is by far and away the biggest race. It attracts the highest quality opponents, usually in peak performance, and even the lower GC rankings are hotly contested. It's not all about the parcoursWarning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
w00dster wrote:Joey - I don't see the Tour as being the biggest and the hardest race that everyone wants to win.
Certain GC teams/riders have it as their main objective, but not all teams. I would also argue that it isn't the most difficult, without wanting to be contentious I'd say it was the easiest of the grand tours - but that's just my opinion. Easiest used very loosely as obviously it is a very difficult race.
If you were a patriotic Italian riding for an Italian team (not referring to anyone specifically) - do you think you would rather win the Giro or the Tour? Maybe I'm an old romantic but the Giro for me is the one that gets me the most excited. I also love how the Vuelta is just insanely difficult. The Tour has all of the history but it doesn't make it the best / biggest race. Just how I see things, really not trying to be argumentative.
^+1.
The Tour is not the hardest GT. Y-o-y it has many less MTFs than the other two for starters. Plus 9 sprint stages this year. It is the GT with the most pressure and stress, for sure.
Sky are obsessed with the Tour because James Murdoch and Jeremy Darroch are. That is why.0 -
Tougher competition, though, I'd say.
I'm a boss with riders similar level to me on hilly club runs and crap on flat club runs, but when I go out with riders faster than the lot i usually go with I'm crap again, hilly or not.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:professeur wrote:joey54321 wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
Why do you consider winning all 3 GTs a bigger achievement than winning the Tour (i.e. the biggest/hardest one that they all want to win) 3 times?
Also, some of Froome's non-tour achievements:
3 wins at the Criterium du Dauphine
1 Points classification at the Criterium du Dauphine
2 wins at the Tour de Romandie
2 x Bronze olympic medals
3 2nd places at the Vuelta
On top of:
3 wins and a 2nd place at the Tour
1 KOM at the tour
7 stage wins at the tour
I agree Froome hasn't done well at single day races, but he is the better stage racer without a doubt.
It's a bit like Tennis and Golf. Some regard the grand slam winners superior to someone like Pete Sampras (great though he was).
The Sampras era was the most boring imaginable and almost finished off mens tennis as a spectator sport
Indeed. Nuff said0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:professeur wrote:joey54321 wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
Why do you consider winning all 3 GTs a bigger achievement than winning the Tour (i.e. the biggest/hardest one that they all want to win) 3 times?
Also, some of Froome's non-tour achievements:
3 wins at the Criterium du Dauphine
1 Points classification at the Criterium du Dauphine
2 wins at the Tour de Romandie
2 x Bronze olympic medals
3 2nd places at the Vuelta
On top of:
3 wins and a 2nd place at the Tour
1 KOM at the tour
7 stage wins at the tour
I agree Froome hasn't done well at single day races, but he is the better stage racer without a doubt.
It's a bit like Tennis and Golf. Some regard the grand slam winners superior to someone like Pete Sampras (great though he was).
The Sampras era was the most boring imaginable and almost finished off mens tennis as a spectator sport
He was sublime to watch live when being pushed (rare) but lost that charm even with the best TV coverage. But - and I think I am agreeing with your Nibali/Froome point here - Sampras is a great but falls short of Agassi/Federer/Djokovic/Nadal because he could not win the French0 -
imatfaal wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:professeur wrote:joey54321 wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
Why do you consider winning all 3 GTs a bigger achievement than winning the Tour (i.e. the biggest/hardest one that they all want to win) 3 times?
Also, some of Froome's non-tour achievements:
3 wins at the Criterium du Dauphine
1 Points classification at the Criterium du Dauphine
2 wins at the Tour de Romandie
2 x Bronze olympic medals
3 2nd places at the Vuelta
On top of:
3 wins and a 2nd place at the Tour
1 KOM at the tour
7 stage wins at the tour
I agree Froome hasn't done well at single day races, but he is the better stage racer without a doubt.
It's a bit like Tennis and Golf. Some regard the grand slam winners superior to someone like Pete Sampras (great though he was).
The Sampras era was the most boring imaginable and almost finished off mens tennis as a spectator sport
He was sublime to watch live when being pushed (rare) but lost that charm even with the best TV coverage. But - and I think I am agreeing with your Nibali/Froome point here - Sampras is a great but falls short of Agassi/Federer/Djokovic/Nadal because he could not win the French
It was all serve - boom - win point - trudge to other side of court
Boring as fook0 -
Depends what you mean by better really doesnt it... Better palmares or better ability.Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
Personally think Froome is a better rider than Nibali, despite having a less well rounded palmares. I also don't think Froome really cares about how well rounded his palmares is.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:
It was all serve - boom - win point - trudge to other side of court
Boring as fook
Shorter grass then, innit.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:
Depends what you mean by better really doesnt it... Better palmares or better ability.Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
Personally think Froome is a better rider than Nibali, despite having a less well rounded palmares. I also don't think Froome really cares about how well rounded his palmares is.
But this isn't a discussion about what stirs a rider's soul (in addition to the huge wonga, obs)0 -
I'd really like to see Froome give the Giro a go. Perhaps next year he can do the Giro/Vuelta, and then when Bardet wins the Tour he can troll the booing French public by saying "he only won it because I wasn't here" It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:
It was all serve - boom - win point - trudge to other side of court
Boring as fook
Shorter grass then, innit.
Greatest serve in the history of the mens game - his first AND second serve. It was the topspin he was able to put on the ball, and the power as he turned his shoulder into the serve0 -
In cricket no-one cares that Glenn McGrath couldn't bat and Brian Lara couldn't bowl. All-rounders are all well and good, but it's better to be the absolute best at one thing (IMO).bobmcstuff wrote:
Depends what you mean by better really doesnt it... Better palmares or better ability.Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Nibali has won all 3 GTs - twice in the case of the Giro. He has also won a Monument, and has finished on Monument podiums twice. His palmares is unquestionably deeper and more rounded.
Only an idiot would try to dismiss his palmares and where to place him in the current peloton.
If you only watch the Tour...well...
Personally think Froome is a better rider than Nibali, despite having a less well rounded palmares. I also don't think Froome really cares about how well rounded his palmares is.Twitter: @RichN950
