Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

1) Landa took way more time in the mountains on Contador than Quintana did on Froome. IIRC Quintana took what -30 seconds-1 minute? Landa took something lik 2.20.

2) Landa beat Contador in stage wins 2-0 (should have been 3-0 but Astana). Quintana beat froome, oh wait he didn't beat froome he actually lost. 0-1.

3) Landa was 2nd in KOM (should have been 1st but Astana) vs Contador 10th. Froome won KOM vs Quintana 2nd/3rd.

Those are irrelevant arguments.
Snip

It's just about the time taken, where Quintana has the advantage.

My main argument was precisely-time taken. Landa took significant time on contador. Quintana took negligible time.

Besides I think only someone really desperate to push an agenda will make a big deal out of a handful of seconds over 8 mountain stages considering froome rode every single one in yellow and was defending for 7 of them.

And Froome still showed nothing, he was just pulling and looking easy. Contador and rodriguez in the Vuelta were much, much better uphill than Wiggins in that Tour . In numbers as well.
Froome got annihilated. There's absolutely no way Froome was the best climber in 2012, it's wishful thinking.

No Vuelta wasn't enough.

Or do you think Chris Horner would have beaten Nibali at the Tour? Or could Cobo beat Froome? Or Mosquera beat Nibali etc.

Vuelta isn't the Tour. the Tour is the Tour. That is where the best gt rider and best climber is decided.

Unfortunately, the Armstrong era is over. The best GT rider and climber is no more the Tour winner.

Contador from the Giro 11' was much better climber than Evans, Contador / Rodriguez Vuelta 12' miles better than Wiggins, Contador was the best climber of 2014 and not Nibali, the Tour winner.

To take your example, I think Horner Vuelta 13' definitely could've possibly been a better climber than Nibali Tour 14'.

At the end of the day, Nibali gave his best and lost that Vuelta to Horner by being worse, same for Froome in 2011 - 2012 and 2014.

The great Froome who won the Tour twice now, hasn't won the Vuelta in 3 participations. Sorry, but being in yellow in Paris doesn't mean being the best anymore.

You are really clutching at straws. On one hand you mock froome for looking easy in the 2012 tour then on the other you attack him for not going fast?

You also arbitrarily decide who was the best rider each year and surprise surprise contador comes off as the best lol.

The vuelta being the new crowning gt takes the cake though. Seriously. It's the tour.

Contador and froome have faced eachother on equal terms once and froome won by 1st round k.o. "lack of motivation" really isn't a great excuse for losing by as much as contador did. And contador allegedly believed all along he was going to win.

Also worth noting that contador hasn't had a dominant gt like 2013 tdf since 2011 and that was the giro which is less important. And in recent years, the supposed best climber in the world- contador, hasn't had any dominating performances like froome psm or froome ax-3 or froome ventoux. He scrapes his wins by seconds while froome takes them by a minute.

 

[BlurryVII]

Re: Re:

You also arbitrarily decide who was the best rider each year and surprise surprise contador comes off as the best lol.


Contador and froome have faced eachother on equal terms once and froome won by 1st round k.o. "lack of motivation" really isn't a great excuse for losing by as much as contador did. And contador allegedly believed all along he was going to win.

I don't arbitrarily decide, in 2012 Rodriguez was ultimately the best climber, not Froome. And Contador was close to Purito. But keep being biased, and put Froome as best when he was just pulling Wiggins for the whole Tour and ending 10 minutes off in the Vuelta.

Surely you must go really low, to take Contador 13' as example. You know very well that year isn't in any way indicative of his level, he is at the top since 2007 winning at least 1 GT every season, he was obviously gonna have one off season at some point.
At the same time, Froome only arrived, and was in his prime. Timing was just perfectly convenient for Froome to look as the better rider which he is not.

The round which was on equal terms was the Vuelta 14'. Same circumstances, both coming off an injury. But see what you wanna see and take Contador 13' and Contador coming off the Giro as your examples to show your bias.

Also worth noting that contador hasn't had a dominant gt like 2013 tdf

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[LaFlorecita]

FFS stop the bickering both of you. Blurry, check your twitter DMs.

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

You also arbitrarily decide who was the best rider each year and surprise surprise contador comes off as the best lol.


Contador and froome have faced eachother on equal terms once and froome won by 1st round k.o. "lack of motivation" really isn't a great excuse for losing by as much as contador did. And contador allegedly believed all along he was going to win.

I don't arbitrarily decide, in 2012 Rodriguez was ultimately the best climber, not Froome. And Contador was close to Purito. But keep being biased, and put Froome as best when he was just pulling Wiggins for the whole Tour.

Surely you must go really low, to take Contador 13' as example. You know very well that year isn't in any way indicative of his level, he is at the top since 2007, he was obviously gonna have one off season at some point.
At the same time, Froome only arrived, and was in his prime. Timing was just perfectly convenient for Froome to look as the better rider which he is not.

The round which was on equal terms was the Vuelta 14'. Same circumstances, both coming off an injury. But see what you wanna see and take Contador 13' and Contador coming off the Giro as your examples to show your bias.

Also worth noting that contador hasn't had a dominant gt like 2013 tdf

What the hell are you talking about?

How is Rodriguez the best climber in 2012? He got beat at the giro by second rate riders, at the vuelta an unfit Contador was at his level. Froome was best in 2012, no doubt.

 

[Miburo]

Contador has had big gaps against his competition in 2014 hitch.

TA and the last stage of the dauphine. And that wasn't against scrubs.

 

[BlurryVII]

Re: Re:

How is Rodriguez the best climber in 2012? He got beat at the giro by second rate riders, at the vuelta an unfit Contador was at his level. Froome was best in 2012, no doubt.

Rodriguez was so much better at the Vuelta than he was at the Giro, you got some serious viewing issues if you didn't see it.

Froome wasn't the best in 2012, deal with it, he finished 10 minutes off.

If you go on assumptions like that, then I can say Contador would've crushed Froome at the Tour 14', and I have no doubt about that too.

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

How is Rodriguez the best climber in 2012? He got beat at the giro by second rate riders, at the vuelta an unfit Contador was at his level. Froome was best in 2012, no doubt.

Rodriguez was so much better at the Vuelta than he was at the Giro, you got some serious viewing issues if you didn't see it.

Froome wasn't the best in 2012, deal with it, he finished 10 minutes off.

If you go on assumptions like that, then I can say Contador would've crushed Froome at the Tour 14', and I have no doubt about that too.

you say about very contradictory and unknown things with 100% assurance... i'd like to know about cycling so much...

 

[rick james]

Is blurry having a breakdown, LoL

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

The great Froome who won the Tour twice now, hasn't won the Vuelta in 3 participations.

He must feel devastated.

Useless remark, take a sentence out of context to make yourself interesting.

It's useless only if you don't wanna understand.
Not Froome, nor anybody else of the big guns target or will ever target the Vuelta. And a GT that is targeted by nobody will never decide the best GT rider of the year. It's pretty simple really.

 

[Carols]

Re:

Nice footage I never saw before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecW09eA8ASw

Thanks Blurry. Nice to see on a Monday AM with no cycle races to watch!

 

[BlurryVII]

Re: Re:

The great Froome who won the Tour twice now, hasn't won the Vuelta in 3 participations.

He must feel devastated.

Useless remark, take a sentence out of context to make yourself interesting.

It's useless only if you don't wanna understand.
Not Froome, nor anybody else of the big guns target or will ever target the Vuelta. And a GT that is targeted by nobody will never decide the best GT rider of the year. It's pretty simple really.

Yep, that one goes down as one of the most ridiculous statement I've ever read in this biased forum. You take the cake, my friend.

If nobody targets the Vuelta then Froome still loses against other riders who don't target the Vuelta as well. Pretty simple really, just changed the words according to your enlightening statement.

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

Yep, that one goes down as one of the most ridiculous statement I've ever read in this biased forum. You take the cake, my friend.

If nobody targets the Vuelta then Froome still loses against other riders who don't target the Vuelta as well. Pretty simple really, just changed the words according to your enlightening statement.

2011: Cobo
2012: Contador
2013: Horner
2014: Contador

So those are the best GT riders of the respective years, according to your logic. Makes perfect sense. And I thought they were riders who didn't finish any other GT in the same year... I even thought there was some kind of correlation, for a moment.

 

[BlurryVII]

Re: Re:

Yep, that one goes down as one of the most ridiculous statement I've ever read in this biased forum. You take the cake, my friend.

If nobody targets the Vuelta then Froome still loses against other riders who don't target the Vuelta as well. Pretty simple really, just changed the words according to your enlightening statement.

2011: Cobo
2012: Contador
2013: Horner
2014: Contador

So those are the best GT riders of the respective years, according to your logic. Makes perfect sense. And I thought they were riders who didn't finish any other GT in the same year... I even thought there was some kind of correlation, for a moment.

Good, now apparently my logic is the winner of the Vuelta is the best GT rider every year. You know my first rule is to never reply in a discussion that I haven't followed.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

So those are the best GT riders of the respective years, according to your logic. Makes perfect sense. And I thought they were riders who didn't finish any other GT in the same year... I even thought there was some kind of correlation, for a moment.

Eshnar you as a moderator should know better than to twist someone else's argument

 

[dacooley]

blurry, on a seriout note, your way of thinking is way too contador oriented. guess if he had win only tours you could have glorified the tour but as bertie is mostly the giro and vuelta specialist in the last years you tend to diminish the tour. although anyone hardly raises an objection on tour being the hardest race to win. the main point i strongly disagree with is contador doesn't set the high-water mark of gc competition which clearly follows from your posts. all the big boys set these standarts to it's an extreme bias to say somewon won cuz contador was out of shape. such statements always look like nothing but wishfull thinkings. the final question - who showed a better level this year contador in the giro or froome in the tour?

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

Froome wasn't the best in 2012, deal with it, he finished 10 minutes off.

I guess you can recognize that this was your point? Well, my point, in case it wasn't clear enough, was that at the Vuelta the relation of strength are rubbish, because nobody targets it. In the case in question, the 3 guys who got to the podium in that edition were
AC, who had raced no GTs in that year
Purito, who had raced the Giro
Valverde, who had raced the Tour in an abysmal form.

So no, those guys didn't have the same kind of form as Froome. None of them was at 100% probably, and none of them was at the same level anyway.

 

[BlurryVII]

Re: Re:

Froome wasn't the best in 2012, deal with it, he finished 10 minutes off.

So no, those guys didn't have the same kind of form as Froome. None of them was at 100% probably, and none of them was at the same level anyway.

But you don't understand that the Tour is not the benchmark, you think everyone is at 100% and at the same level at the Tour? By your logic, should I conclude that Nibali is crap? How can you explain Valverde being always stronger at the Vuelta?

And Contador has come off the Giro twice and crashed out in a stellar season, the Tour doesn't mean more than the Vuelta in that sense. You're living in the Armstrong era, as I said.

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

Froome wasn't the best in 2012, deal with it, he finished 10 minutes off.

So no, those guys didn't have the same kind of form as Froome. None of them was at 100% probably, and none of them was at the same level anyway.

But you don't understand that the Tour is not the benchmark, you think everyone is at 100% at the Tour? By your logic, Nibali is crap? How can you explain Valverde being always stronger at the Vuelta?

And Contador has come off the Giro twice and crashed out in a stellar season, the Tour doesn't mean more than the Vuelta in that sense. You're living in the Armstrong era, as I said.

The Tour does mean more than the Vuelta. Ofc it does not mean everything, but we can always assume that at the Tour (and at the Giro as well, unless somebody plans the double and doesn't show up at 100% on purpose) the values are more reliable, since more people target it and actually pull the preparation off. There will always be somebody who screws it up, but at the Vuelta everybody screws it up, and never in the same way. The list of winners speaks for itself.

 

[Hayabusa]

Re: Re:

interesting thing is that before the tour said you were convinced contador would win the race. alberto finished 5th with a 8 minute margin but this changed nothing in your estimation. that's still pretty much like 'froome won the tour as contador was nowhere from his best'

I was convinced as a fan, but I still was realistic and couldn't know he didn't have any plan going into the Tour apart from just hope for the best.

We agree then. Froome won as AC was nowhere near his best. He rode the Giro, anything to say against that? No, then fine.

Ignoring the rest of the obvious breakdown you are having. Froome won this Tour fair and square and you can not say for certain that a fully fit AC would have won cause it never happened.

You need to understand that your opinion is not fact.

 

[BlurryVII]

Bottom line, preperation screwed up or not, the strongest GT winner isn't always the Tour winner which is the main subject here.

 

[BlurryVII]

Re: Re:

interesting thing is that before the tour said you were convinced contador would win the race. alberto finished 5th with a 8 minute margin but this changed nothing in your estimation. that's still pretty much like 'froome won the tour as contador was nowhere from his best'

I was convinced as a fan, but I still was realistic and couldn't know he didn't have any plan going into the Tour apart from just hope for the best.

We agree then. Froome won as AC was nowhere near his best. He rode the Giro, anything to say against that? No, then fine.

Ignoring the rest of the obvious breakdown you are having. Froome won this Tour fair and square and you can not say for certain that a fully fit AC would have won cause it never happened.

It's fine, just like AC won Vuelta 12' and 14' fair and square then.

 

[Hayabusa]

Re: Re:

interesting thing is that before the tour said you were convinced contador would win the race. alberto finished 5th with a 8 minute margin but this changed nothing in your estimation. that's still pretty much like 'froome won the tour as contador was nowhere from his best'

I was convinced as a fan, but I still was realistic and couldn't know he didn't have any plan going into the Tour apart from just hope for the best.

We agree then. Froome won as AC was nowhere near his best. He rode the Giro, anything to say against that? No, then fine.

Ignoring the rest of the obvious breakdown you are having. Froome won this Tour fair and square and you can not say for certain that a fully fit AC would have won cause it never happened.

It's fine, just like AC won Vuelta 12' and 14' fair and square then.

Nobody is saying that he didnt....

 

[rhubroma]

Perhaps Tinkov's was a fitting final anlaysis of this Tour. I'm no fan of his, however, one has to admit some of what he says makes sense from the perspective of long term business strategies. Tinkov has a point in suggesting that if the only way to be competitive in the sport is having the type of budget Sky can generate (Murdoch empire) long term, then what will eventually happen (though to a certain degree already has) is a cycling a two speeds: the one of big corp, the other of the strugglers and the survivors. The Tour becomes an even bigger mega-commercial enterprise than it already is, which will make other historically important races on the calendar ever more marginalized and the general impoverishment for them in terms of prestige and revenues this presupposes. Having the teams earn some of the revenues generated by the commercial profits from the big races, would alleviate some of the burden of individual sponsors having to sustain the entire team budgets themselves. Trying to get the other top GC contenders to not focus primarily on the Tour (here his motive in regards to Contador is clear) is a much more complicated matter, however. It isn't going to happen unless the Giro and Vuelta can be sold globally at least to a degree that's comparable with the Tour. What's happened to the contrary is that the Tour, which is justifiably the most prestigious event on the calendar and thus hardest to win, has (not to the benefit of the sport as a whole) taken on a disproportionate position of dominance with all the political clout this entails in an age in which a concentration of wealth means a concentration of power. Tinkov, if I have understood correctly, wants to break that cycle to make the sport as a whole more "fair" as he sees it and more sustainable for the bulk of the sponsors.

 

[Publicus]

Re:

Perhaps Tinkov's was a fitting final anlaysis of this Tour. I'm no fan of his, however, one has to admit some of what he says makes sense from the perspective of long term business strategies. Tinkov has a point in suggesting that if the only way to be competitive in the sport is having the type of budget Sky can generate (Murdoch empire) long term, then what will eventually happen (though to a certain degree already has) is a cycling a two speeds: the one of big corp, the other of the strugglers and the survivors. The Tour becomes an even bigger mega-commercial enterprise than it already is, which will make other historically important races on the calendar ever more marginalized and the general impoverishment for them in terms of prestige and revenues this presupposes. Having the teams earn some of the revenues generated by the commercial profits from the big races, would alleviate some of the burden of individual sponsors having to sustain the entire team budgets themselves. Trying to get the other top GC contenders to not focus primarily on the Tour (here his motive in regards to Contador is clear) is a much more complicated matter, however. It isn't going to happen unless the Giro and Vuelta can be sold globally at least to a degree that's comparable with the Tour. What's happened to the contrary is that the Tour, which is justifiably the most prestigious event on the calendar and thus hardest to win, has (not to the benefit of the sport as a whole) taken on a disproportionate position of dominance with all the political clout this entails in an age in which a concentration of wealth means a concentration of power. Tinkov, if I have understood correctly, wants to break that cycle to make the sport as a whole more "fair" as he sees it and more sustainable for the bulk of the sponsors.

Agreed. I really appreciated his blog post. Other than Team Sky, does any team have the luxury of a 5-year plan? EDIT:

And let me add since I've been away from the forum for a bit: gutsy ride from Contador. It's pretty clear to me that there's no question that he's the greatest GT rider of this current peloton (and of this generation) by a wide margin. I say that in spite of recognizing Froome's dominance at this current Tour. I'd also add that Quintana needs to add some elements to his game. He's obviously a gifted climber, but I think his weakness (relative) in other areas will make it difficult for him to stand on the top step at GTs.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I thought Oleg's comments were also interesting too, particularly in relation to budgets.

Oleg Tinkoff: We have similar budgets; we spend 27 million Euro, while they have about 33 million Euro. The fundamental difference between Team Sky and other teams is that they have a long-term project.

That is the area that really was the failure this year. Despite similar budgets, the team around Contador was very poor in both the Giro and the TDF. It is pretty evident that Contador will be much better next year, but he also needs improvements in his supporting cast. I don't think Tinkoff can run back the same cast of characters next year and expect marked improvement. At his age, I don't think Contador can dominate in the mountains in 2016, but he can win the TDF using his all-around abilities and a strong team.