Better palmares 1: Froome vs. Nibali

m.r.m.

With the offseason slowing the forum down and boredom leading to dumb mech doping threads I'm starting a little series of discussion threads placing riders against each other. Others (threads) will follow, but let us begin with Froome vs. Nibali and Sagan vs. Kwiatkowski.

Froome vs. Nibali

Discuss!

andyp

Might get more of a debate on this one;

http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.ph ... er2=140778

RichN95.

Froome.

Four of a kind beats a full house.

Froome v Contador is closer contest.

jam1e

I find the easiest way to think about it is "would one swap with the other?". There's no way Froome would swap with Nibali, 4 tours against anyone who's anyone over the last few years plus a vuelta (inc doing a unique double) and does anybody really doubt he could have won a giro if he'd actually gone for one?

m.r.m.

Ah but what about the monuments? What about the national champ titles? What is the equivalent of 1 Tour in terms of other races?

We will get to Froome vs.Contador and quite some more Froome vs. XXXX I'm sure.

RichN95.

M.R.M. wrote:

Ah but what about the monuments? What about the national champ titles? What is the equivalent of 1 Tour in terms of other races?

If you're a GC rider, you are pretty much defined by the world in general by what you do at the Tour. Heras, Rominger, Menchov and Simoni (three or four GT wins apiece) aren't really viewed by history as A-listers. Sure Nibali did win a Tour, so he will be, but 4 v 1 is no contest.

m.r.m.

Personally I appreciate a wide breadth of talent or wins more than just the extremely specific skill set. Unfortunately I can't go so far and say I'd rather have Nibali's palmares to Froome's, but it seems much closer for me than for you.
Also, shouldn't there be a consistency reward for competing the whole season as opposed to just showing up for the Tour like Armstrong did for example?
It's also an ability question for this discussion. Would you rather have Nibali's abilities to ride a bike or Froome's. I don't want to be changing the goal posts here, but it really isn't that cut and dry for me (The palmares title is more of a guideline than a rule ).

That is why I chose these two matchups as the first ones. Because on the surface they are extremely obvious, but the more I look at them, I'm not so sure anymore. Probably doesn't change the final verdict, but upon contemplation it gets closer for me.

argyllflyer

Nibali's a much better one day rider than Froome so their palmares comparison is not entirely like-for-like.

DeVlaeminck

I'd have Froome ahead, even if he "just" had 4 Tours I'd say he is ahead but he also has the Vuelta win and a number of big one week stage race wins.

If I had to weight their wins I'd say Nibali is roughly a Vuelta and a Tour short of Froome.

timoid.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'd have Froome ahead, even if he "just" had 4 Tours I'd say he is ahead but he also has the Vuelta win and a number of big one week stage race wins.

If I had to weight their wins I'd say Nibali is roughly a Vuelta and a Tour short of Froome.

So would you put Contador ahead?

salsiccia1

It depends on who's view you're looking from. For the more casual fan, it's Froome all day long as it's all about the Tour. But in reality, for me at least, I'd say their achievements are fairly equal. I would like to see Froome go for Lombardia or LBL but I can't see it happening. I'd also like to see him give the Giro a go, but that's another matter...

Is there some sort of formula we could agree on, using the Tour as the standard?

Such as:
TDF = 1, podium 0.5
Giro/Vuelta = 0.75, podium 0.375
Monument/Olympic Champs = 0.5
Tirreno-Adriatico, Paris-Nice, Romandie, TD Suisse, Dauphine, Catalunya, Basque Country = 0.25
Nat Champs/other decent one-dayers = 0.25

So, in that case we'd have
Froome = 7.625
Nibali = 7.875

For comparison:
Contador = 7.5
Quintana = 3.875
Valverde = 7

Food for thought.

RichN95.

Froome has won the Velo d’Or three times. Contador four times, Nibali never,

Nibali is Andy Murray to Contador and Froome’s Federer and Nadal.

ddraver

I'd say that's harsh on Andy Murray. The big difference for me is that Froome has won his victories against the best of the world wheras Nibali has never won a GT without one or (usually) more of the main GT contenders being absent either by crash or, more usually, by cunning race programming.

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

I'd say that's harsh on Andy Murray. The big difference for me is that Froome has won his victories against the best of the world wheras Nibali has never won a GT without one or (usually) more of the main GT contenders being absent either by crash or, more usually, by cunning race programming.

Well that's the different nature of each sport. Tennis they have to face each other all the time.

I was more suggesting that Nibali, like Murray, has had an unquestionably A-list career. It's just that he's overshadowed by two better people (three in Murray's case)

ddraver

Yeah I get what you meant. I think some credit has to go to Murray for at least beating the Kingpins once or twice (I don't honestly follow Tennis enough to know how many). Nibali has never done that.

DeVlaeminck

Sorry but crashing out is part of the sport - Nibali beat the A listers in his Tour win and even had they not crashed out his winning margin suggests he's probably have beaten them had they not crashed out.

The one caveat to that being had Froome been up with or close to him on the cobbles he might argue the toss.

DeVlaeminck

Timoid. wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'd have Froome ahead, even if he "just" had 4 Tours I'd say he is ahead but he also has the Vuelta win and a number of big one week stage race wins.

If I had to weight their wins I'd say Nibali is roughly a Vuelta and a Tour short of Froome.

So would you put Contador ahead?

Close but if pressed I'd say Contador edges it but I do credit him with the Giro he had taken off for a retrospective ban. These things are subjective though I'm sure people can make arguments for Froome over Contador and I wouldn't dismiss anyone with a different opinion.

Palmares aside though I think at their peak Contador would win more often than Froome - for me Froome has become a great all round bike rider at a time he is slightly past his physical best - Contador had all the elements while he was younger. Of course I'm ignoring an elephant sat in the corner of that particular room.

mr_poll

Is it also worth considering that Nibali has achieved what he has achieved with a much more inferior team? No team of super-domestiques in support.

joey54321

M.R.M. wrote:

Personally I appreciate a wide breadth of talent or wins more than just the extremely specific skill set. Unfortunately I can't go so far and say I'd rather have Nibali's palmares to Froome's, but it seems much closer for me than for you.
Also, shouldn't there be a consistency reward for competing the whole season as opposed to just showing up for the Tour like Armstrong did for example?
It's also an ability question for this discussion. Would you rather have Nibali's abilities to ride a bike or Froome's. I don't want to be changing the goal posts here, but it really isn't that cut and dry for me (The palmares title is more of a guideline than a rule ).

That is why I chose these two matchups as the first ones. Because on the surface they are extremely obvious, but the more I look at them, I'm not so sure anymore. Probably doesn't change the final verdict, but upon contemplation it gets closer for me.

Anyone who has followed pro cycling over the past 6 years or so will know Froome has a very large breath of skills. Froome's specific skillset is to adapt, look at all his wins in the tour and they have all been different, built on a wide breadth of talents that he has developed in response to the route each year. I'd say he is far more a complete rider than Nibali. Also, Froome often HAS compeated all year. This year was a slight exception due to his Tour-Vuelta double but in past years he has been winning from Paris-Nice to the Tour then gone on to the Vuelta (and often done well there).

mr_poll wrote:

Is it also worth considering that Nibali has achieved what he has achieved with a much more inferior team? No team of super-domestiques in support.

No, Froome isn't there by chance. He is there because he is the best. As soon as he shows weakness in terms of leadership his team would be the first to discard and replace him. That is a lot of pressure. It's a double edged sword IMO, and requires incredible mental fortitude to take that.

RichN95.

mr_poll wrote:

Is it also worth considering that Nibali has achieved what he has achieved with a much more inferior team? No team of super-domestiques in support.

Scarponi, Fuglsang, Aru, Kreuziger, Kangert, Agnoli, Westra... He wasn't turning up with a Pro Conti team. Astana were the strongest team in both his Giro wins (being a largely Italian team).

graeme_s-2

There's an element of luck involved, but for the most part riders "earn" (through performances) and organise (through contract negotiations) their way into a strong team. Part of being a great rider is getting yourself into a team that allow you to fulfil your potential.

Crozza

I struggle to take Nibali seriously as a GT rider, probably because he was even outclimbed by Wiggins in 2012

davidof

mr_poll wrote:

Is it also worth considering that Nibali has achieved what he has achieved with a much more inferior team? No team of super-domestiques in support.

some pros seem to agree with you

"If you look back at when Sky have been put in difficulty before now, it was at Tirreno-Adriatico when Nibali managed to isolate Froome on that stage with all the sharp climbs and descents in the rain. In those conditions they weren't able to manage the race as they normally do."

RichN95.

davidof wrote:

mr_poll wrote:

Is it also worth considering that Nibali has achieved what he has achieved with a much more inferior team? No team of super-domestiques in support.

some pros seem to agree with you

"If you look back at when Sky have been put in difficulty before now, it was at Tirreno-Adriatico when Nibali managed to isolate Froome on that stage with all the sharp climbs and descents in the rain. In those conditions they weren't able to manage the race as they normally do."

Yeah, on that day when Nibali got away on the 30% climb he was left in the small break with only one ex-teammate to help - a lowly domestique called Peter Sagan.

Bo Duke

jam1e wrote:

I find the easiest way to think about it is "would one swap with the other?". There's no way Froome would swap with Nibali, 4 tours against anyone who's anyone over the last few years plus a vuelta (inc doing a unique double) and does anybody really doubt he could have won a giro if he'd actually gone for one?

This is the exact question I was going to ask and the exact answer.

I don't believe Froome would swap his TdF's victories for anything. The other stats are of no import.

ridgerider

Steady on there...I reckon Froome has a massive dilemma at the moment, partially driven by this thread!

He can focus his year around another Tour win, and get the set of 5 he so desires. Or, will his embarrassment of being a one trick pony drive him to go for a giro win so that he can say he once held all three at the same time (and risk never winning a 5th tour).

rick_chasey

Depends what you want in a palmares.

Ultimately.

RichN95.

Ridgerider wrote:

He can focus his year around another Tour win, and get the set of 5 he so desires. Or, will his embarrassment of being a one trick pony drive him to go for a giro win so that he can say he once held all three at the same time (and risk never winning a 5th tour).

The Giro is the same trick as the Tour - just with lesser competition. It's just been won by a time trial specialist.

bobmcstuff

Froome's going to go for 5 tours, no question.

Maybe then he'll think about the Giro.

There's a subset of keener fans who value a more varied palmares but to your average part time cycling fan or man on the street, all GT riders are judged based on what they did at the Tour. I assume this is also has a big impact on future sponsorships, TV appearances, etc., and cash is important to Froome.

Lanterne_Rogue

Ridgerider wrote:

Steady on there...I reckon Froome has a massive dilemma at the moment, partially driven by this thread!

He can focus his year around another Tour win, and get the set of 5 he so desires. Or, will his embarrassment of being a one trick pony drive him to go for a giro win so that he can say he once held all three at the same time (and risk never winning a 5th tour).

I can't see him sacrificing a fifth TdF win to do it. I also can't see him turning up at the Tour undercooked again (if he really was) in order to hold something back for the Vuelta, so unless he lucks out at the latter I don't think he'll ever hold all three together.

i can imagine him going for the Giro at some point though - I just suspect it'll be too late.