Chris Froome

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

But if his specific skillset / physiology is what makes him a great GC rider, why faff around with single stage hunting? Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

Nibali's consistently on a GT podium every year. It's just he can't/won't do two GTs back to back riding for GC.
I doubt Froome will do it anymore either having done that for 2015-2018.

I thoguht he did the Vuetla as it really set him up for the winter training?

Certainly the case for the classics riders; I remember Boonen citing doing the 2011 Vuelta set him up for his 2012 monster season.

larkim

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

But if his specific skillset / physiology is what makes him a great GC rider, why faff around with single stage hunting? Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

Nibali's consistently on a GT podium every year. It's just he can't/won't do two GTs back to back riding for GC.
I doubt Froome will do it anymore either having done that for 2015-2018.

True. But do you ever expect Nibali to actually *win* the GT? (Apart from when he does!)

rick_chasey

larkim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

But if his specific skillset / physiology is what makes him a great GC rider, why faff around with single stage hunting? Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

Nibali's consistently on a GT podium every year. It's just he can't/won't do two GTs back to back riding for GC.
I doubt Froome will do it anymore either having done that for 2015-2018.

True. But do you ever expect Nibali to actually *win* the GT? (Apart from when he does!)

He was WAAAAAY ahead of anyone else in the 2014 Tour.

Froome wouldn't have laid a finger on him even had he not crashed out.

Alejandrosdog

larkim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

But if his specific skillset / physiology is what makes him a great GC rider, why faff around with single stage hunting? Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

Nibali's consistently on a GT podium every year. It's just he can't/won't do two GTs back to back riding for GC.
I doubt Froome will do it anymore either having done that for 2015-2018.

True. But do you ever expect Nibali to actually *win* the GT? (Apart from when he does!)

He's one of the consistently best GT riders, and has the record to prove it. he performed better at the tour than almost all the other GT riders and didnt even have a team to support him. First rate rider and under appreciated in the English speaking world. (balanced by god like status in the italian speaking bits )

salsiccia1

Alejandrosdog wrote:

larkim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

But if his specific skillset / physiology is what makes him a great GC rider, why faff around with single stage hunting? Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

Nibali's consistently on a GT podium every year. It's just he can't/won't do two GTs back to back riding for GC.
I doubt Froome will do it anymore either having done that for 2015-2018.

True. But do you ever expect Nibali to actually *win* the GT? (Apart from when he does!)

He's one of the consistently best GT riders, and has the record to prove it. he performed better at the tour than almost all the other GT riders and didnt even have a team to support him. First rate rider and under appreciated in the English speaking world. (balanced by god like status in the italian speaking bits )

Hasn't won a GT since 2016, and only then due to a snowbank stepping out and taking down Kruijswijk. Just saying...

ocdupalais

And he ALWAYS got dropped by an in-form Bertie. But then, until Froome came along, so did everyone.

phreak

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

larkim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

But if his specific skillset / physiology is what makes him a great GC rider, why faff around with single stage hunting? Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

Nibali's consistently on a GT podium every year. It's just he can't/won't do two GTs back to back riding for GC.
I doubt Froome will do it anymore either having done that for 2015-2018.

True. But do you ever expect Nibali to actually *win* the GT? (Apart from when he does!)

He's one of the consistently best GT riders, and has the record to prove it. he performed better at the tour than almost all the other GT riders and didnt even have a team to support him. First rate rider and under appreciated in the English speaking world. (balanced by god like status in the italian speaking bits )

Hasn't won a GT since 2016, and only then due to a snowbank stepping out and taking down Kruijswijk. Just saying...

He's been on the podium 3 times though, which is not bad. Also won 2 monuments in that time.

salsiccia1

phreak wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

larkim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

But if his specific skillset / physiology is what makes him a great GC rider, why faff around with single stage hunting? Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

Nibali's consistently on a GT podium every year. It's just he can't/won't do two GTs back to back riding for GC.
I doubt Froome will do it anymore either having done that for 2015-2018.

True. But do you ever expect Nibali to actually *win* the GT? (Apart from when he does!)

He's one of the consistently best GT riders, and has the record to prove it. he performed better at the tour than almost all the other GT riders and didnt even have a team to support him. First rate rider and under appreciated in the English speaking world. (balanced by god like status in the italian speaking bits )

Hasn't won a GT since 2016, and only then due to a snowbank stepping out and taking down Kruijswijk. Just saying...

He's been on the podium 3 times though, which is not bad. Also won 2 monuments in that time.

I know, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. I don't know if he'll ever win another GT but he's a great cyclist.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

larkim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

But if his specific skillset / physiology is what makes him a great GC rider, why faff around with single stage hunting? Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

Nibali's consistently on a GT podium every year. It's just he can't/won't do two GTs back to back riding for GC.
I doubt Froome will do it anymore either having done that for 2015-2018.

True. But do you ever expect Nibali to actually *win* the GT? (Apart from when he does!)

He was WAAAAAY ahead of anyone else in the 2014 Tour.

Froome wouldn't have laid a finger on him even had he not crashed out.

Big claim considering they hadn't even reached the mountains and there was also a 54km TT in the last few days.

kingstongraham

Shirley Basso wrote:

Huh?

I'm saying that he will likely retire as a GC rider / hopeful (like Wiggins did once he won TDF) and won't go in pursuit of being a stage hunter, team leader or other in other GTs (like Nibali, for example). Imagine he had free reign to do the odd repeat of that giro stage, rather than conserving energy throughout a GT.

Not that he should become a sprinter.

To be fair, Wiggins won Olympic team pursuit gold in 2016 so it's not like he followed some set GT winner retirement plan. Sky/Ineos aren't going to give a place on the team to someone who isn't helping to win the GC, so unless Wiggins is willing to be a domestique with free rein to go for TT wins, there's no reason for him to go to the GTs without GC ambition.

RichN95.

larkim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

But if his specific skillset / physiology is what makes him a great GC rider, why faff around with single stage hunting? Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

Nibali's consistently on a GT podium every year. It's just he can't/won't do two GTs back to back riding for GC.
I doubt Froome will do it anymore either having done that for 2015-2018.

True. But do you ever expect Nibali to actually *win* the GT? (Apart from when he does!)

You said Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

a) Who can? Maybe only nine people in the last seventy years. He's a consistent podium finisher though.
b) He was a only stage hunter in this race as he'd done the Giro, where he was second.

Jammiedodgeruk

I think Froome still has the potential to win a couple more as long as the injuries dont reduce his ability.

The problem is more time for Froome. Now that Bernal has won at the age of 22, Ineos can still give Froome one, maybe two more years at a crack at the Tour but they won't beyond that because Bernal will be turning 24-25.
They also wont want Bernal getting demoralised as a domestique and being lured to another team.

I think Froome will target one more and be happy and done with 5 Tour victories. After that I think he would be happy to hand over the reigns to Bernal and probably just retire.

bobmcstuff

I think Ineos will want to help Froome get the record equalling fifth and also the record breaking sixth if that is what Froome wants to do. Both of those would be historic.

Youd think they could send Bernal to win whichever is the most mental of the giro or vuelta next year and the year after at least.

larkim

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

larkim wrote:

But if his specific skillset / physiology is what makes him a great GC rider, why faff around with single stage hunting? Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

Nibali's consistently on a GT podium every year. It's just he can't/won't do two GTs back to back riding for GC.
I doubt Froome will do it anymore either having done that for 2015-2018.

True. But do you ever expect Nibali to actually *win* the GT? (Apart from when he does!)

You said Nibali is a stage hunter because he can't consistently be a GC winner.

a) Who can? Maybe only nine people in the last seventy years. He's a consistent podium finisher though.
b) He was a only stage hunter in this race as he'd done the Giro, where he was second.

Entirely fair! Maybe I've just watched the last few cycles of GTs where Nibali has been there in the mix for the podium as someone who I had no faith in actually being able to sustain his challenge, and feeling like he knew that too. A contender, but not a serious one. OTOH, maybe he is more of an Andy Murray - were it not for Froome, he might have garnered more GT palmares in his career, but was unlucky to come up against a once in a generation talent.

john80

In typical Brailsford style he will pick at least two of each GC talent he has available to go for the Tour as priority then the Giro and Vuelta after that. They will then be put into a competitive situation on the road to see who is stronger. Brailsford gets two guys heavily motivated for months before the tour attempting to arrive in peak form as this is the only chance they have of winning. He follows the classic mantra of get the best talent you can find and pitch them against each other for a limited number of spots and then get them to compete for the win. The GB track teams success was not an accident albeit I can bet it was brutal as in this case you did not even get to the games if you came second.

PhilipPirrip

john80 wrote:

In typical Brailsford style he will pick at least two of each GC talent he has available to go for the Tour as priority then the Giro and Vuelta after that. They will then be put into a competitive situation on the road to see who is stronger. Brailsford gets two guys heavily motivated for months before the tour attempting to arrive in peak form as this is the only chance they have of winning. He follows the classic mantra of get the best talent you can find and pitch them against each other for a limited number of spots and then get them to compete for the win. The GB track teams success was not an accident albeit I can bet it was brutal as in this case you did not even get to the games if you came second.

In hindsight it is incredibly easy to suggest what Ineos would do, except their plans were thrown into turmoil early on in the season yet and they still won the Tour.

The biggest mistake any competitor could make is to think winning is easy or that Sky/Ineos are winning because they follow a formula. Every Sky/Ineos win is hard earned. To think they won/earned/were gifted anything reveals a massive flaw in competitive thinking from which a competitor can never win.

Their is no magical belief or mantra to winning, it's understanding in the finest detail what's required in every aspect to be better than the oppostion. Sky/Ineos excel at that.

smithy21

john80 wrote:

In typical Brailsford style he will pick at least two of each GC talent he has available to go for the Tour as priority then the Giro and Vuelta after that. They will then be put into a competitive situation on the road to see who is stronger. Brailsford gets two guys heavily motivated for months before the tour attempting to arrive in peak form as this is the only chance they have of winning. He follows the classic mantra of get the best talent you can find and pitch them against each other for a limited number of spots and then get them to compete for the win. The GB track teams success was not an accident albeit I can bet it was brutal as in this case you did not even get to the games if you came second.

He has never actually done this.

2010-2012 Wiggins was clearly number 1.
2013-2017 Froome was clearly number 1.
2018 Froome and Thomas but it emerged that Froome was really the protected rider.
2019 would have been the same as above until Froome hit the wall.

DeadCalm

Jammiedodgeruk wrote:

I think Froome still has the potential to win a couple more as long as the injuries dont reduce his ability.

The problem is more time for Froome. Now that Bernal has won at the age of 22, Ineos can still give Froome one, maybe two more years at a crack at the Tour but they won't beyond that because Bernal will be turning 24-25.
They also wont want Bernal getting demoralised as a domestique and being lured to another team.

I think Froome will target one more and be happy and done with 5 Tour victories. After that I think he would be happy to hand over the reigns to Bernal and probably just retire.

If Bernal's career trajectory is similar to many of the recent Colombian climbers he will be starting to decline in his mid-twenties. I don't think he's going to dominate the way many folks are predicting. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he didn't win another TDF.

RichN95.

DeadCalm wrote:

Jammiedodgeruk wrote:

I think Froome still has the potential to win a couple more as long as the injuries dont reduce his ability.

The problem is more time for Froome. Now that Bernal has won at the age of 22, Ineos can still give Froome one, maybe two more years at a crack at the Tour but they won't beyond that because Bernal will be turning 24-25.
They also wont want Bernal getting demoralised as a domestique and being lured to another team.

I think Froome will target one more and be happy and done with 5 Tour victories. After that I think he would be happy to hand over the reigns to Bernal and probably just retire.

If Bernal's career trajectory is similar to many of the recent Colombian climbers he will be starting to decline in his mid-twenties. I don't think he's going to dominate the way many folks are predicting. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he didn't win another TDF.

I agree. And I think Sivakov may turn out to be better. And elsewhere there's Pogacar who may be the better than both of them.

mididoctors

PhilipPirrip wrote:

john80 wrote:

In typical Brailsford style he will pick at least two of each GC talent he has available to go for the Tour as priority then the Giro and Vuelta after that. They will then be put into a competitive situation on the road to see who is stronger. Brailsford gets two guys heavily motivated for months before the tour attempting to arrive in peak form as this is the only chance they have of winning. He follows the classic mantra of get the best talent you can find and pitch them against each other for a limited number of spots and then get them to compete for the win. The GB track teams success was not an accident albeit I can bet it was brutal as in this case you did not even get to the games if you came second.

In hindsight it is incredibly easy to suggest what Ineos would do, except their plans were thrown into turmoil early on in the season yet and they still won the Tour.

The biggest mistake any competitor could make is to think winning is easy or that Sky/Ineos are winning because they follow a formula. Every Sky/Ineos win is hard earned. To think they won/earned/were gifted anything reveals a massive flaw in competitive thinking from which a competitor can never win.

Their is no magical belief or mantra to winning, it's understanding in the finest detail what's required in every aspect to be better than the oppostion. Sky/Ineos excel at that.

They have got more diverse in their tactics as well ...good post. Full disclosure I am not a ineos fanbois and am sympathic with financial doping arguments. That said this post nailed it.they are really really good

ocdupalais

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Jammiedodgeruk wrote:

I think Froome still has the potential to win a couple more as long as the injuries dont reduce his ability.

The problem is more time for Froome. Now that Bernal has won at the age of 22, Ineos can still give Froome one, maybe two more years at a crack at the Tour but they won't beyond that because Bernal will be turning 24-25.
They also wont want Bernal getting demoralised as a domestique and being lured to another team.

I think Froome will target one more and be happy and done with 5 Tour victories. After that I think he would be happy to hand over the reigns to Bernal and probably just retire.

If Bernal's career trajectory is similar to many of the recent Colombian climbers he will be starting to decline in his mid-twenties. I don't think he's going to dominate the way many folks are predicting. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he didn't win another TDF.

I agree. And I think Sivakov may turn out to be better. And elsewhere there's Pogacar who may be the better than both of them.

Yeah but forget all that: it’s all about MvDP from now on. If it turns out he can TT and climb big mountains, they’re all fukced.

m.r.m.

OCDuPalais wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Jammiedodgeruk wrote:

I think Froome still has the potential to win a couple more as long as the injuries dont reduce his ability.

The problem is more time for Froome. Now that Bernal has won at the age of 22, Ineos can still give Froome one, maybe two more years at a crack at the Tour but they won't beyond that because Bernal will be turning 24-25.
They also wont want Bernal getting demoralised as a domestique and being lured to another team.

I think Froome will target one more and be happy and done with 5 Tour victories. After that I think he would be happy to hand over the reigns to Bernal and probably just retire.

If Bernal's career trajectory is similar to many of the recent Colombian climbers he will be starting to decline in his mid-twenties. I don't think he's going to dominate the way many folks are predicting. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he didn't win another TDF.

I agree. And I think Sivakov may turn out to be better. And elsewhere there's Pogacar who may be the better than both of them.

Yeah but forget all that: it’s all about MvDP from now on. If it turns out he can TT and climb big mountains, they’re all fukced.

DeVlaeminck

Is there a reason we'd expect Bernal's career trajectory to follow that of Quintana? Maybe the advantage of growing up at altitude diminishes after years living mainly not at altitude?

I'd expect him to win another Tour - nothing is nailed on but he has to be as likely as Froome I'd have thought just because Bernal has maybe 10 years plus and Froome only a couple and arguably Froome has looked past his peak - albeit a very high peak.

DeadCalm

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Is there a reason we'd expect Bernal's career trajectory to follow that of Quintana? Maybe the advantage of growing up at altitude diminishes after years living mainly not at altitude?

I'd expect him to win another Tour - nothing is nailed on but he has to be as likely as Froome I'd have thought just because Bernal has maybe 10 years plus and Froome only a couple and arguably Froome has looked past his peak - albeit a very high peak.

Quintana is the obvious example but most (if not all) of the current crop seem to have failed to live up to their early promise. Henao, Uran and Chaves are further examples. I did wonder about the altitude factor.
I'm also not sure that he's as good now as people are suggesting. I am not saying he won't win another TDF. I can see him being competitive, particularly as he is likely to have the strongest team. But dominating a la Froome, not so much and if he didn't win another it would not be particularly surprising.

phreak

Bit harsh on Quintana as he's only finished outside the top 10 in one GT since he broke through in 2012 and has had 4 podiums as well as 2 wins. He may not be among the top favourites any more, but I dare say 99% of riders would have his palmares at the drop of a hat.

inseine

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Jammiedodgeruk wrote:

I think Froome still has the potential to win a couple more as long as the injuries dont reduce his ability.

The problem is more time for Froome. Now that Bernal has won at the age of 22, Ineos can still give Froome one, maybe two more years at a crack at the Tour but they won't beyond that because Bernal will be turning 24-25.
They also wont want Bernal getting demoralised as a domestique and being lured to another team.

I think Froome will target one more and be happy and done with 5 Tour victories. After that I think he would be happy to hand over the reigns to Bernal and probably just retire.

If Bernal's career trajectory is similar to many of the recent Colombian climbers he will be starting to decline in his mid-twenties. I don't think he's going to dominate the way many folks are predicting. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he didn't win another TDF.

I agree. And I think Sivakov may turn out to be better. And elsewhere there's Pogacar who may be the better than both of them.

The thing is Bernal is the real deal since he’s actually won the Tour. There are always guys who are going to be great. Some are, some aren’t.

timothyw

It depends doesn't it? With some riders (Froome) success breeds success, other riders struggle with motivation/form/weight once they've reached the peak of their sport (Wiggins, Ulrich etc).

Bernal remains to be seen but it seems likely at his young age he has a few more tour wins in him, if he wants them and the team continues to support him.

rick_chasey

inseine wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

Jammiedodgeruk wrote:

I think Froome still has the potential to win a couple more as long as the injuries dont reduce his ability.

The problem is more time for Froome. Now that Bernal has won at the age of 22, Ineos can still give Froome one, maybe two more years at a crack at the Tour but they won't beyond that because Bernal will be turning 24-25.
They also wont want Bernal getting demoralised as a domestique and being lured to another team.

I think Froome will target one more and be happy and done with 5 Tour victories. After that I think he would be happy to hand over the reigns to Bernal and probably just retire.

If Bernal's career trajectory is similar to many of the recent Colombian climbers he will be starting to decline in his mid-twenties. I don't think he's going to dominate the way many folks are predicting. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he didn't win another TDF.

I agree. And I think Sivakov may turn out to be better. And elsewhere there's Pogacar who may be the better than both of them.

The thing is Bernal is the real deal since he’s actually won the Tour. There are always guys who are going to be great. Some are, some aren’t.

The first developers of their generation are always fated to be the next 50 million time champion of whatever they've just won.

Remember Boonen's 2005 season? No-one was really paying any attention to Cancellara, who was merely a good tester who had started to ride the odd top ten in a classic, nor Ballan who had only just won his first pro-race in 2005.

RichN95.

Although Boonen is the most successful cobbles rider in history.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Although Boonen is the most successful cobbles rider in history.

For sure.

Though you would agree he made a decent chunk of his wins in a gap between generations, when his talent had persuaded the likes of Museeuw to quit but the likes of Cancellara had not quite reached the lofty heights they would yet.