Giro 2018, Stage 19: Turin - Monte Jafferau - 184 kilometres. *Spoilers*

rick_chasey

larkim wrote:

Surely attacks should be measured by their success rather than their frequency?

I was arguing the point that Froome ought not be considered * not conservative* because of an attack he did off the Peryesourde.

If we're getting really into how conservative or not Froome is; he was a 4 time Tour winner going into the final week 4th on GC, a few minutes behind the leader, so what did he really have to lose?

Anyway, it was a great ride, worthy of a Giro win (if you dovetail it with a win on the Zoncalan, fair play) and I enjoyed hating it (as I'm not a fan, but I enjoy having villains).

lostboysaint

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Isn’t it amazing how some seem to think Froome is conservative?
He changed all that after his attack on the Peyesourde.
He just judges when to attack, and when to match.

Ok this attack on the Peyesourde.

It was about the lowest risk attack you can do.

That decent is 80% terminal velocity.

Don't get me wrong, it's great he did it, but attacking on the final decent of a very fast, non-technical decent is hardly dan dare stuff.

Nibali does more than that on an average week.

80km out on the queen stage and turning into a man v man race is a totally different kettle of fish.

When did Frenchie take over your account?

I'm glad a few have stuck up for Froome because he's always done what's needed. I can think of a few opportunist moments when he's been on the right side of echelon splits and he's made the most of it as well as other attacks mentioned.

As for what Nibali does - who gives a f@@k? His palmares is no better

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Isn’t it amazing how some seem to think Froome is conservative?
He changed all that after his attack on the Peyesourde.
He just judges when to attack, and when to match.

Ok this attack on the Peyesourde.

It was about the lowest risk attack you can do.

That decent is 80% terminal velocity.

Don't get me wrong, it's great he did it, but attacking on the final decent of a very fast, non-technical decent is hardly dan dare stuff.

Nibali does more than that on an average week.

80km out on the queen stage and turning into a man v man race is a totally different kettle of fish.

My point was that was his first unexpected attack.
He has learned that it works and applies it when it will be most efficient.
He is not boring no the bike. Off it maybe, but not on it. I’m glad to see some old school racing.

topper_harley

Reading the last pages on my phone and I though Ross tucker had joined the forum....

iainf72

It's like we've forgotten when Froome attacked with Sagan.

If you really look at it critically, he's quite an exciting rider.

cygnet

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Isn’t it amazing how some seem to think Froome is conservative?
He changed all that after his attack on the Peyesourde.
He just judges when to attack, and when to match.

Ok this attack on the Peyesourde.

It was about the lowest risk attack you can do.

That decent is 80% terminal velocity.

Don't get me wrong, it's great he did it, but attacking on the final decent of a very fast, non-technical decent is hardly dan dare stuff.

Nibali does more than that on an average week.

80km out on the queen stage and turning into a man v man race is a totally different kettle of fish.

My point was that was his first unexpected attack.
He has learned that it works and applies it when it will be most efficient.
He is not boring no the bike. Off it maybe, but not on it. I’m glad to see some old school racing.

La Toussuirre 2012?? :twisted:

maddog 2

Froome does what he needs to do to win. When I saw him attack on the Finestre I though - here we go... DumDum's in trouble now.

Apart from a few silly crashes (and letting Brad win) he's won pretty much everything, hasn't he?

pblakeney

cygnet wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

My point was that was his first unexpected attack.
He has learned that it works and applies it when it will be most efficient.
He is not boring no the bike. Off it maybe, but not on it. I’m glad to see some old school racing.

La Toussuirre 2012?? :twisted:

Okay. Off the top of my head.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

It's like we've forgotten when Froome attacked with Sagan.

If you really look at it critically, he's quite an exciting rider.

Look the guy is the best GC rider of his generation so he’s got a load of instances where he’s beaten everyone right? He’s won all 3 GTs in a row. He’s really really good at this GT stuff.

I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

Is he as opportunistic as, say, Nibali? I’d say probably not; he doesn’t really have that one day racer brain.

Was Froome’s Lazarus ride more exciting than Nibali’s? It was. It was more audacious.

Do I get the impression he’s tactically a step ahead of rivals? Not massively. He’s got the legs to execute some pretty tough stuff, but he’s rarely gonna win when he’s not the strongest. You feel with Nibs he can.

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do I get the impression he’s tactically a step ahead of rivals? Not massively. He’s got the legs to execute some pretty tough stuff, but he’s rarely gonna win when he’s not the strongest. You feel with Nibs he can.

I don't know - I feel he manages not being the strongest better than a lot of riders.

His team are good at executing against a strategy and a lot of his competition just try to ride a reactionary race. And they lose because of it.

I guess racing dumb can be exciting.

norvernrob

cq20 wrote:

RichN95

His numbers aren't correct though.

Froome's lead over Dumoulin at various points was (when he passed those points)
Finistere Summit: 0.37
Intermediate sprint: 1.51
Sestriere Summit: 2.41
20km to go: 3.10
Base of final climb: 3.20
Finish: 3.23

Thanks for that. It is the malicious nature of Tucker that is troubling. It seems to be an obsession

Yeah, but Tucker has the word ‘Science’ in his handle, which must mean what he posts is all true. :roll:

ddraver

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do I get the impression he’s tactically a step ahead of rivals? Not massively. He’s got the legs to execute some pretty tough stuff, but he’s rarely gonna win when he’s not the strongest. You feel with Nibs he can.

Back in the day a certain Mr. Cavendish used to rant about called boring adn would reposte that the best way of doing his job (winning bike races for his sponsors) was to sit on the back of a powerful train and be delivered to the final 200m in perfect position.

I feel Froome/Sky ride in a similar way. If you can have an all conquering mountain train to ride to the perfect attack point to maximise your chance of victory then you do. You's be mad not to.

It's when those things break down that we get a glimpse of how those riders can actually ride a race. Nibali has never had (never needed? never deserved?) a train so we've never seen how he rides with one. Qunitana's train has often been driven by Valverde who usually has a somewhat different direction in mind to Nairo's

hypster

ddraver wrote:

Qunitana's train has often been driven by Valverde who usually has a somewhat different direction in mind to Nairo's

LOL! I'm glad someone else realises that!

No_Ta_Doctor

ddraver wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do I get the impression he’s tactically a step ahead of rivals? Not massively. He’s got the legs to execute some pretty tough stuff, but he’s rarely gonna win when he’s not the strongest. You feel with Nibs he can.

Back in the day a certain Mr. Cavendish used to rant about called boring adn would reposte that the best way of doing his job (winning bike races for his sponsors) was to sit on the back of a powerful train and be delivered to the final 200m in perfect position.

I feel Froome/Sky ride in a similar way. If you can have an all conquering mountain train to ride to the perfect attack point to maximise your chance of victory then you do. You's be mad not to.

It's when those things break down that we get a glimpse of how those riders can actually ride a race. Nibali has never had (never needed? never deserved?) a train so we've never seen how he rides with one. Qunitana's train has often been driven by Valverde who usually has a somewhat different direction in mind to Nairo's

Yes Froome/Sky, race conservatively because it's the best way of winning GTs. They're very, very good at it. They needed to do something that really wasn't conservative to win the Giro and they did. Low risk, because they had little to lose, but certainly not conservative. They wouldn't have done it if they'd been 30" ahead in pink, obviously.

As for being opportunistic, Froome/Sky are extremely opportunistic, just usually at lower risk (last few hundred metres). They/he have consistently grabbed a handful of seconds in fairly unexpected places through being well positioned and alert. Froome often has 30+ seconds on major rivals before they've hit a single mountain of TT.

There have also been instances of larger, riskier, attacks from further out that have been made on the spur of the moment because it was a possibility in the race. Again, not hugely risky, if they hadn't worked he hadn't buried himself and lost the race, but certainly the product of an alertness to spontaneous opportunity.

rick_chasey

ddraver wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do I get the impression he’s tactically a step ahead of rivals? Not massively. He’s got the legs to execute some pretty tough stuff, but he’s rarely gonna win when he’s not the strongest. You feel with Nibs he can.

Back in the day a certain Mr. Cavendish used to rant about called boring adn would reposte that the best way of doing his job (winning bike races for his sponsors) was to sit on the back of a powerful train and be delivered to the final 200m in perfect position.

I feel Froome/Sky ride in a similar way. If you can have an all conquering mountain train to ride to the perfect attack point to maximise your chance of victory then you do. You's be mad not to.

It's when those things break down that we get a glimpse of how those riders can actually ride a race. Nibali has never had (never needed? never deserved?) a train so we've never seen how he rides with one. Qunitana's train has often been driven by Valverde who usually has a somewhat different direction in mind to Nairo's

I know why; I’m just not tenting at the prospect.


My only criteria is my own fickle preference here. Occasionally I try to articulate it.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do I get the impression he’s tactically a step ahead of rivals? Not massively. He’s got the legs to execute some pretty tough stuff, but he’s rarely gonna win when he’s not the strongest. You feel with Nibs he can.

I don't know - I feel he manages not being the strongest better than a lot of riders.

His team are good at executing against a strategy and a lot of his competition just try to ride a reactionary race. And they lose because of it.

I guess racing dumb can be exciting.

I guess it’s my preference for one day racing.

Sure Froome manages GC racing well; strong or weak.

But he would never make a move like Nibs did to win in Sheffield in the Tour; nor would Chris have the tactical finesse to be a one dayer threat.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Do I get the impression he’s tactically a step ahead of rivals? Not massively. He’s got the legs to execute some pretty tough stuff, but he’s rarely gonna win when he’s not the strongest. You feel with Nibs he can.

Back in the day a certain Mr. Cavendish used to rant about called boring adn would reposte that the best way of doing his job (winning bike races for his sponsors) was to sit on the back of a powerful train and be delivered to the final 200m in perfect position.

I feel Froome/Sky ride in a similar way. If you can have an all conquering mountain train to ride to the perfect attack point to maximise your chance of victory then you do. You's be mad not to.

It's when those things break down that we get a glimpse of how those riders can actually ride a race. Nibali has never had (never needed? never deserved?) a train so we've never seen how he rides with one. Qunitana's train has often been driven by Valverde who usually has a somewhat different direction in mind to Nairo's

I know why; I’m just not tenting at the prospect.


My only criteria is my own fickle preference here. Occasionally I try to articulate it.

When has Nibz won a GT where he's not the strongest? I'll accept that he does it in one dayers (MSR this year for example). But a GT where he's won through smarts rather than legs?

2nd question: how much of that is down to his DS and how much of it is down to his nous on the road?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

I guess it’s my preference for one day racing.

Sure Froome manages GC racing well; strong or weak.

But he would never make a move like Nibs did to win in Sheffield in the Tour; .

Never?
How soon they forget.

rick_chasey

It’s like that Vuelta stage.

Climb and short decent just before the finish.

Froome & some others drop Nibali before the top.

Guess who goes and wins the stage?

I guess he keeps me surprised. Froome wouldn’t win that one.

Look it’s all preference, hardly super rational.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s like that Vuelta stage.

Climb and short decent just before the finish.

Froome & some others drop Nibali before the top.

Guess who goes and wins the stage?

I guess he keeps me surprised. Froome wouldn’t win that one.

Look it’s all preference, hardly super rational.

I've not got any problem with irrational preferences. But you seemed to suggest some sort of rational explanation of them, involving objective analysis of racing. Just wanted a bit more flesh on the bones, you're totally free to like/dislike whoever.

Personally, I'm really not keen on Froome at all, but I feel a bit of "shock and awe" when he/Sky do their thing. It's bloody impressive when they annihilate they entire peloton. And quite entertaining/exciting too.

knedlicky

No tA Doctor wrote:

2nd question: how much of that is down to his DS and how much of it is down to his nous on the road?

I think the Sky DS team has improved a lot over the last years, so I put much of it down to them (though CF still has to actually do the work).

ShutupJens

knedlicky wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

2nd question: how much of that is down to his DS and how much of it is down to his nous on the road?

I think the Sky DS team has improved a lot over the last years, so I put much of it down to them (though CF still has to actually do the work).

Definitely, they've not been able to fire up the train with quite as much success as in 2012 when it worked perfectly. Froome's tactical nous has improved though, still remember that shot of him talking on the radio in 2013 when Contador et al were riding up the road in a cross wind.

At first I found it boring and gimmicky but Sky's attitude towards preparing for races is fascinating, they really are meticulous and even things that you would never think of as they might be too risky (Froome sprinting to 6th, TDF 14 stage 1, in order to get the team car in position for the next day) are still considered and carried out.

tailwindhome

It can't even be agreed if Froome is riding up hill or down hill.

r0bh

Even the Secret Pro thinks Froome's ride was legit: https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/the-sec ... ro-attack/

rick_chasey

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s like that Vuelta stage.

Climb and short decent just before the finish.

Froome & some others drop Nibali before the top.

Guess who goes and wins the stage?

I guess he keeps me surprised. Froome wouldn’t win that one.

Look it’s all preference, hardly super rational.

I've not got any problem with irrational preferences. But you seemed to suggest some sort of rational explanation of them, involving objective analysis of racing. Just wanted a bit more flesh on the bones, you're totally free to like/dislike whoever.

Personally, I'm really not keen on Froome at all, but I feel a bit of "shock and awe" when he/Sky do their thing. It's bloody impressive when they annihilate they entire peloton. And quite entertaining/exciting too.

You gotta admit though, even when a rider like Nibz is down and out of form there’s this nagging he’ll come out with a sly, smart move that nabs a stage.

With Chris it’s entirely does he has the form or not.

ShutupJens

r0bh wrote:

Even the Secret Pro thinks Froome's ride was legit: https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/the-sec ... ro-attack/

Man the secret pro really doesn't sound like someone who even rides a bike anymore

okgo

Rick Chasey wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s like that Vuelta stage.

Climb and short decent just before the finish.

Froome & some others drop Nibali before the top.

Guess who goes and wins the stage?

I guess he keeps me surprised. Froome wouldn’t win that one.

Look it’s all preference, hardly super rational.

I've not got any problem with irrational preferences. But you seemed to suggest some sort of rational explanation of them, involving objective analysis of racing. Just wanted a bit more flesh on the bones, you're totally free to like/dislike whoever.

Personally, I'm really not keen on Froome at all, but I feel a bit of "shock and awe" when he/Sky do their thing. It's bloody impressive when they annihilate they entire peloton. And quite entertaining/exciting too.

You gotta admit though, even when a rider like Nibz is down and out of form there’s this nagging he’ll come out with a sly, smart move that nabs a stage.

With Chris it’s entirely does he has the form or not.

Nibali wins races because most people have either crashed already (See most of his GT wins) or that the group are waiting for a big hitter to go and let him slip (MSR) away and misjudge the catch. Or he grabs onto a car.

Froome has never been worried about nabbing stages from what I see, he's there to win the whole thing, and by and large he has done it quite well, with or without the use of this that and the other.

ddraver

I get Rick's point but whilst Nibs might be good at nabbing cheeky (but largly irrelevant to GC) stage wins. Froome is very good at defending a GC position when he's not on form.

(And there was a certain amount of surprise nabbing about Zoncolan)

rick_chasey

okgo wrote:

Nibali wins races because most people have either crashed already (See most of his GT wins) or that the group are waiting for a big hitter to go and let him slip (MSR) away and misjudge the catch. Or he grabs onto a car.

Froome has never been worried about nabbing stages from what I see, he's there to win the whole thing, and by and large he has done it quite well, with or without the use of this that and the other.

I’m not arguing Nibali is a better GT rider. I thought that was fairly clear.

That’s not really an argument at all, given the results.

I find the cheeky (but broadly irrelevant) stage win really quite exciting.

I get impressed by Froome. I marvel at the athletic prowess. I am bewildered that that style is so fast. I’m amused when he follows his teammate down the wrong road because he’s so focused on the rear wheel. I don’t get that excited though. And other GT riders excite me more.

mouth

DeVlaeminck wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Just watched it - had to take daughter2 over to Stafford to play a game of football this evening - probably the best ride that wasn't subsequently DQed for testosterone I've ever seen. Almost literally unbelievable, if you'd given me 100-1 on that I'd have told you to do one.

This morning Froome was only 9-1 to win the Giro.

Cut me some slack I've had a couple of drinks, even so if anyone says they'd have taken 9-1 this morning they are either a liar a fool or can see the future.

I'm not a betting man but I wouldn't have backed against him. Nothing to lose - several GT's already on the mantelpiece, appearance fee probably equivalent to race winners prize, a weak Yates - the peloton see and hear stuff we don't in terms of mannerisms and potentially the way Yates was using terms like "I know its the bonus seconds keeping me up there", and a tactician in Brailsford, never mind the resources at SKY's disposal. What other team could have put a bidon seemingly every few hundred yards? I woke up and put Eusosport on (night shifter) fully expecting Froome to be out front if not giving Yates a very hard time indeed. As I recall he'd just gone up the road when I woke and by the time I got back from walking the dog he'd won the stage.

Salt in the wound - Yates picked Froome to win the stage a long time before the Giro even began. It was always gonna be something reasonably special to nick the pink though. My only hope is that in 5,10,15 years we're remembering the stage for all the right reasons and not Landis shaped ones. Whether Froome should be racing or not is a simple case - its within the rules he's still riding, and to be honest none of us are supposed to know about any kind of AAF anyway. He's got every single right to be there as things stand.

Sends a message to anyone in the TdF though - his head's certainly in the right place to be winning bike races.