GT Ranking 2017

bobmcstuff

Don't we usually have one of these?

For me, Vuelta followed by Giro with the Tour third.

With the Vuelta I thought Froome was going to win, and he did, but the racing day to day was fairly unpredictable, the route I think was good.

Watching Dumoulin smash the Giro was really fun, even though once he got close to the lead the result looked fairly certain he was not really heralded before the race. He also threw in a few potential race-losing moments (such as going for a dump in a field) to make it more exciting.

The Tour route was pretty dull and watching Froome do basically the minimum to win wasn't the best racing. The day to day races for the stage weren't as good as the Vuelta either. Although I still enjoyed it.

andyp

I really don't get the love for the Vuelta - it was clear Froome was going to win barring an accident at the end of the first week. Sky had the race on lockdown for most of the time, it was only enlivened by some good racing for stage wins.

The Giro, in contrast was amazing after a dull first week. There were four riders within a minute of the lead on the morning of the final day. When was the last time that happened?

bobmcstuff

andyp wrote:

I really don't get the love for the Vuelta - it was clear Froome was going to win barring an accident at the end of the first week. Sky had the race on lockdown for most of the time, it was only enlivened by some good racing for stage wins.

The Giro, in contrast was amazing after a dull first week. There were four riders within a minute of the lead on the morning of the final day. When was the last time that happened?

Froome looked pretty vulnerable a couple of times. After he lost that time on los Machucos it could have gone either way - if he'd gone on to get dropped again and lose the race everyone would have been pointing to that stage.

I did really love the Giro though, I have to say. I might need to reconsider my rating - I think I need to dig out some highlights to double check

RichN95.

andyp wrote:

The Giro, in contrast was amazing after a dull first week. There were four riders within a minute of the lead on the morning of the final day. When was the last time that happened?

True. But one was a considerably superior TTer to the others. And the only reason he wasn't leading comfortably was because he stopped for a poo - the defining moment of that race. Dumoulin was rarely properly challenged and never really struggled (a little on stage 19 maybe)

mrfpb

I didn't see the Giro, but thought of the two I watched the Vuelta was better. I didn't think Froome was a certainty at all, but the main thing that lifted it was Contador's attacks.

eta. The Vuelata was poor for sprinters, placing all the intermediates near the end of the stage, and often in a valley between two mountains. The points were low for intermediates as well, it gave me the impression the organisers didn't care about the points race at all.

Pross

The Vuelta had it all, plenty of good stages and I'd have to disagree with Andy that it was never in doubt. Plenty of people on hear were anticipating Froome losing time on the Angliru after perceiving weakness the previous day. The 2nd and 3rd week of the Giro were excellent but the first week was terrible, worse than the Tour. I also felt the Vuelta was better balanced this year, it obviously benefitted climbers but there were less of those short, steep Valverde / J Rod finishes. It was interesting seeing riders come into contention and then drop away as others started to hit form. It was just a shame Contador had that early bad day as it could have been even tighter.

TheBigBean

Vuelta was the most entertaining by far.

RichN95.

mrfpb wrote:

eta. The Vuelata was poor for sprinters, placing all the intermediates near the end of the stage, and often in a valley between two mountains. The points were low for intermediates as well, it gave me the impression the organisers didn't care about the points race at all.

It used to be that sprinters would turn up and bail out at the second rest day (or earlier). I think the organisers decided that they'd create courses that encouraged them to do their World's training elsewhere.

blazing_saddles

I didn't even find the second half of the Giro to be that good to be honest.
What I do remember about it was that all the GC stages were very similar in design.
The perfect parcour for Dumoulin, who duly poo'd on the sub par opposition.
All in all, a pretty poor edition.

The Tour had the by far best 3 or 4 stages of the lot, but at least half a dozen of the dullest.
But for the Tour of Britain, the worst race design of the season.

The Vuelta had more stages which involved the GC contenders in a variety of ways.
Hence riders had good days and bad days, which kept us guessing who would come out on top, until the descent to the Angliru on stage 20.

phreak

Not for the first time, the Tour was the dullest of the three by some margin.

davidof

DuPoolins dump was the highlight of the year.
Tour - the Peyragudes runways was great stuff, the rest a bit dull.
I voted Vuelta as I slept least through the coverage.

above_the_cows

It has to be the Giro for me for the joy of seeing a Dutch GT winner after 37 years and all the hilarious love for Tom "hij is zo aardig" Dumoulin among everyone I know.

FocusZing

The Vuelta was the most entertaining. I thought I would include this great shot again, reflecting on the TDF.

andyp

Pross wrote:

The Vuelta had it all, plenty of good stages and I'd have to disagree with Andy that it was never in doubt. Plenty of people on hear were anticipating Froome losing time on the Angliru after perceiving weakness the previous day. .

It's less than a week ago and people have forgotten the details, shows what a rubbish race it was.

Froome lost time the day after the time trial, so it was probable that the cause of the time loss was going too deep the day before. He got 21 of the 42 seconds back the very next day, which laid to rest the notion of him losing form. If anyone was hanging on in the final week it was Nibali, and his crash on the descent of the Cordal meant any suspense was gone before they even hit the Angliru.

hypster

I love the way so many people were convinced the Vuelta was a foregone conclusion. Froome had already fallen off twice on bone dry roads on a previous stage and lost time. There were two fast, wet descents before the Angliru and it could easily have been him going down rather than Nibali which would have made things a lot more dodgy as he was only 1:37 up at that point. It didn't happen that way but no way was it ever a slam dunk that Froome was going to take it until Nibali faded on the final climb.

I found the Giro entertaining and a great first win for Dumoulin. The Tour parcours was the worst in living memory but still had its moments. The Vuelta as it always seems to be is overly mountainous in my opinion and tends to stifle racing at times because it is just too hard but was also entertaining at times and probably just edges it for me.

RichN95.

hypster wrote:

I love the way so many people were convinced the Vuelta was a foregone conclusion. Froome had already fallen off twice on bone dry roads on a previous stage and lost time. There were two fast, wet descents before the Angliru and it could easily have been him going down rather than Nibali which would have made things a lot more dodgy as he was only 1:37 up at that point. It didn't happen that way but no way was it ever a slam dunk that Froome was going to take it until Nibali faded on the final climb.

It was the descents that I thought provided the biggest threat. Once Nibali crashed I couldn't see Froome losing. But that's very late in the game.

Lanterne_Rogue

Lost interest in the Giro about halfway through - is it me, or is every stage the same? Tour was better than people remember it, but Vuelta was more entertaining overall - even the last, ceremonial stage had Froome's sprinting shenanigans to liven stuff up.

DeVlaeminck

Liked the Giro and Vuelta but thought the Vuelta had fewer pointless stages so it'd be my pick.

The Tour didn't really work for me, the idea of an "easy" parcours to limit gaps between the contenders until well into the race did what it was meant to but at the expense of providing opportunities for much action.

Lookyhere

hypster wrote:

I love the way so many people were convinced the Vuelta was a foregone conclusion. Froome had already fallen off twice on bone dry roads on a previous stage and lost time. There were two fast, wet descents before the Angliru and it could easily have been him going down rather than Nibali which would have made things a lot more dodgy as he was only 1:37 up at that point. It didn't happen that way but no way was it ever a slam dunk that Froome was going to take it until Nibali faded on the final climb.

For us a Froome win was a foregone conclusion (once he and sky announced their intention to win la Vuelta), its fairly obvious that a crash can wipe even the biggest of leads but i dont watch cycling in the only expectation someone will crash out or have a mechanical.

What i see is Froome does as little as he can to maintain a lead, he is disciplined enough not to throw energy away and uses his team wisely, he is rarely isolated and has team mates that can see him pull back 45sec gap on a hard riding grp and still finish fresh.

Look, Froome is a great rider and Sky a fantastically strong team but it can and does lead to dull GT overall racing, hence the lack of love here for the TDF, its not the route that makes it a dull race, its Sky !!!

blazing_saddles

Lookyhere wrote:

Look, Froome is a great rider and Sky a fantastically strong team but it can and does lead to dull GT overall racing, hence the lack of love here for the TDF, its not the route that makes it a dull race, its Sky !!!

The endless sprint stages, totally controlled by the sprint teams made the TDF very dull.
Half the hilly stages were very exciting.

RichN95.

Lookyhere wrote:

Look, Froome is a great rider and Sky a fantastically strong team but it can and does lead to dull GT overall racing, hence the lack of love here for the TDF, its not the route that makes it a dull race, its Sky !!!

One advantage of Sky leading the race for most of the time though, is that the break almost always succeeds on the non-sprint stages,.

Bo Duke

It was great to see big Tom win the Giro, that in itself made it exciting. I can't say that Quintana has EVER made a race exciting.

Agree the Tour was hard work... despite watching every stage I struggle to remember any highlights. Maybe its age.

The Vuelta was a great, the early days weren't promising but the race improved the more it went on, in the end it was the best of the 3 GT by far, followed by the Giro, then the Tour. It's NOT Froome's fault, it's the inability of other teams to put up a proper challenge to Sky. or the inability for strong breakaway's to see it through to the end.

I thought the Tour Sky train was strong, I was amazed that the Vuelta Sky train did equally well.

They had a real 'team year' congrats to Sky.

timoid.

The Giro was best for me. The course was balanced, there were some cracking stages, skullduggery and a charismatic winner.

The Vuelta suffers as it is the last GT of the season and always feels like an afterthought to the Tour. Like Andy, I never really had a doubt over who was going to win. The main threat to Froome was the same as for Doumoulin, but the latter had no team support, while the latter had a ridiculously strong team around him.

If Froome had to ride the Vuelta and win it pretty much on his own (a la Doumoulin) that would be something, but he didn't and it wasn't.

The Tour was bloody awful.

blazing_saddles

Bo Duke wrote:

It was great to see big Tom win the Giro, that in itself made it exciting. I can't say that Quintana has EVER made a race exciting.

I'm not saying you, but a lot of fans feel this way, many of whom are very anti Sky and Froome because of the way he rides.
Dumoulin: The guy who rides tempo up big, GTclimbs, yo-yos off the back only to return to the leaders before the finish, losing negligible time, if any.
Then, takes a huge advantage in the time trials.
Sound familiar? 8)

bobmcstuff

But Dumoulin is both better looking and more charismatic than Froome...

Bo Duke

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

It was great to see big Tom win the Giro, that in itself made it exciting. I can't say that Quintana has EVER made a race exciting.

I'm not saying you, but a lot of fans feel this way, many of whom are very anti Sky and Froome because of the way he rides.
Dumoulin: The guy who rides tempo up big, GTclimbs, yo-yos off the back only to return to the leaders before the finish, losing negligible time, if any.
Then, takes a huge advantage in the time trials.
Sound familiar? 8)

I was talking about Qunitana not Froome.

I'm actually a great fan of Sky and Froome!

blazing_saddles

bobmcstuff wrote:

But Dumoulin is both better looking and more charismatic than Froome...

Is being charismatic when you say things like you hope your main competitors lose their podium spots, because they won't do what you want them too?
Or perhaps it's taking a dump in a field for the cameras? :P
Being more photogenic is definitely a winner with a certain type of fan, though...

rick_chasey

Blazing Saddles wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

But Dumoulin is both better looking and more charismatic than Froome...

Is being charismatic when you say things like you hope your main competitors lose their podium spots, because they won't do what you want them too?
..

Er, yeah, it is?

He's quite honest. That's likeable.

I don't quite know why some people are so defensive about not liking Chris Froome, when there are plenty of other riders people irrationally dislike for trivial reasons too.

I don't like Chris on the bike because he looks like he learned to ride last week and I don't like him off the bike because I don't feel I'm getting his authentic thoughts on anything.

Should that matter? No. I'm not gonna debate why I don't like someone. Just get over it!

bobmcstuff

Blazing Saddles wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

But Dumoulin is both better looking and more charismatic than Froome...

Is being charismatic when you say things like you hope your main competitors lose their podium spots, because they won't do what you want them too?
Or perhaps it's taking a dump in a field for the cameras? :P
Being more photogenic is definitely a winner with a certain type of fan, though...

It definitely added a bit of drama though didn't it? (both the pooing and the ill thought out comments).

He's generally quite likeable in interviews, it was good to get a bit of emotion through (which as above, you never seem to get from Froome).

rick_chasey

Giro was also incredibly pretty...

Seems to really have improved how it looks.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't like Chris on the bike because he looks like he learned to ride last week and I don't like him off the bike because I don't feel I'm getting his authentic thoughts on anything.

I would say the latter part is largely due to a media, both traditional and social, that is constantly looking to fabricate scandal and polemics. It's the same across most major sports. Their dull public personalities are a product of a dull media.

I would say to lead that team in the way he does he would need a fair bit of charisma in private.