auscyclefan94 said:
And how many threads that have nothing to do with Evans have ended up talking about him in the months you've been posting here? I don't see what conclusion you're trying to draw?
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
And how many threads that have nothing to do with Evans have ended up talking about him in the months you've been posting here? I don't see what conclusion you're trying to draw?
Libertine Seguros said:
Surprise, surprise! A Spanish poster replies to my post. I think you deep down know exactly what conclusion I am trying to draw.
18-Valve. (pithy) said:
If Schleck cannot be on form for the one race in the year he targets when will he be on form ? Anyone who does not seriously attack better time triallists until stage 18, loses time on descents and is constantly looking around to see what others are doing will never win a grand tour. Schleck might be the only one who thinks he should have won the race. He gave the indication from the start that he was only concerned about Contador which was tactically naive. He often talks up his chances but rarely delivers. Talk is cheap. Evans was consistent throughout the race and of course he had some luck. Most winners of grand tours could say the same thing about avoiding crashes etc.. You could also say that Hoogerland and Flecha were lucky not to be killed. Someone forgot to mention that most of the crashes were caused by the riders themselves. Nothing to do with the actual roads.
Why would Schleck think he should have won easily ? There was nothing to indicate during the race that that was ever going to happen. Schleck lacks the professionalism that the other top GC riders have. No one denies his talent but he lacks the consistency he needs over three weeks.
Evans did not peak in 2007. He won the World's in 2009 and made the podium of the Vuelta, and in 2011 he had his most successful season ever. He won three stage races including the TDF and was second in the Dauphine. To me that is not a rider who peaked in 2007.
auscyclefan94 said:
What, that Spain hates Evans?
Or that you are still continuing your campaign of whining about Spain screwing Evans even when Evans has actually won the big one?
I didn't enter this thread until we had people saying that Evans could or would have podiumed, even won in 2010 if he hadn't been injured. Evans is brilliant, but that's going insane. Evans is still one of the favourites for 2012, but what that has to do with his lack of performance in the 2010 edition is nothing.
I think the poster means they think he physically peaked in 2007.movingtarget said:
As I wrote when Evans won the Tour, I acknowledged that Evans is a much more aggressive, smart and tactically astute rider now than he was back then, but as he's been getting older I felt that the psychological transformation (which happened over the second half of 2009, starting with the Col de la Madeleine in the Dauphiné and culminating in his win in Mendrisio) had happened just too late for him and that he'd never achieve to the level his talents should have done; he'd been too tactically naïve or defensive when he was at his physical peak, and when he was smart enough to make the best of himself he would no longer be physically able to defeat the strongest opposition. I thought 2008 was his best chance to win the Tour and that things wouldn't fall into place as well as that for him ever again.
I was wrong about that. It doesn't mean that Cadel Evans was physically stronger in 2011 than he was in 2008, of course - but what we saw was a rider who was willing and able to take the opportunities presented to him, whereas in 2008 we saw a rider who had the opportunities but expected the race to come to him. Evans is a guy who used to achieve because he was one of the élite talents. Now, he's still one of the élite talents, but maybe not as high up the list - but he's using those talents better, he's in a better place emotionally; when things don't go his way, instead of sulking like in the past, he goes out and tries to right the wrong. He may not be a better rider in terms of peak output or whatever (the TT in Grénoble was his first really top long ITT in quite some time, for example), but he's much more opportunistic, much more focused and now that he's actually started compiling the palmarès his talent deserves, much more willing to take the risks required to add to it.
greenedge said:
I meant he should have done the Vuelta intstead of the Tour. Granted, he would have a better chance of winning or podium in Spain than in France. Him doing the Tour was kind of a bad decision if you ask me. Evans is a rider that most often rides to win and there was no chance of him winning or podium in Paris in 2010, hence it was stupid to go even if it was le Tour. As for Geelong, the Vuelta is probably the best way to preaper for the World Championship so that argument isn't valid, IMHO.
Walkman said:
One problem: BMC weren't invited to the Vuelta in 2010, whereas they were invited to the Tour. And since Evans was pretty much the only reason they got that Tour invite, they were probably beholden to make him ride.
auscyclefan94 said:
If you still think that Libertine Seguros is Spanish, you have been paying as little attention to the forum as I have always suspected.
As all your posts in this thread demonstrate.
theyoungest said:
Yes. I, however, did not got the impression of AC outclimbing his oponents "on most occasions".
If I remember correctly he was dropped on one stage in the Pyrenees, though very marginally and the other he just stayed with the top group, no attacking.
On the first of the descent finish he was with Cadel and Sammy and on the other one, he was with Sammy and dropped the other top riders on the descent. Sure, he did attack but the samll gap he got was more because on his acceleration wich is spported by the fact that he didn't drop diesel riders like Evans. In fact, Evans did some of the pacemaking on stage 16.
Dropped on Galibier by a couple of riders and finished third on Alpe. I'd say Evans was the best climber in this Tour.
Libertine Seguros said:
Didn't know they weren't invited to the Vuelta, that explaines it. As for the Tour invite, I figured so much, but once they got the invite they are free to send whomever they like (even if it's a **** squad) but I guess with no Vuelta going to the Tour was the only option.
Walkman said:
Your post was so good until this bit. Andy was clearly the best climber of the Tour.
We hear a lot of extremely pro Evans comments here, but if even THIS is under dispute then I think my mind is just going to pop.
As for the other bits, I think you are right, but 1 or 2 little things i saw differently.
And Contador was the best climber on stage 16. He was the one who launched 3 attacks, cracked everyone but Cadel and Samu, and was about to crack Samu when he decided that there was only a few m to the top and it was better to have Sanchez with him for the descent.
He was also the best climber on 19. Come on.
The way you put it - he came 3rd, doesnt tell anywhere near the full story and you know it. He had a faster time up Alpe d huez than Rolland for 1, Rolland won because of the headstart allowed to him on the flat before the climb.
And Contador had attacked 100k out and spent most of the day on his own pushing it into the wind, while entire teams behind him fought for hours to bring him back.
The only person with a comparable experience - Voeckler ended up losing 3 minutes.
So there were 2 stages were Contador was the best climber.
Walkman said:
Remember we're talking about 2010. Most of the BMC squad wasn't ready for one GT, let alone three.
Let me fix it for you Hitch. But first things first, allow me to LOL!!!! Andy was allow to let go on that stage, and a confluence of events (some people might call it luck) made him get 2 minutes on Evans. Now, the best overall climber in this year Tour was clearly Evans, that's why, in the end, he won.The Hitch said:
cineteq said:
Definatly not.. But if we are going to resort to "confluence of events / luck" don't even get me started on how lucky Evans was to dodge ALL the crashes. And if you bring up it was skill, so was Andy's escape and not random luck.
The best overall climber was (by far) Andy, he gained time on everyone in the mountains, lost it on the descends and the Time Trial, but sure as hell he didn't lose time to anyone besides Samu on Luz Ardiden..
How can Evans be the best climber in the Tour when after the climbing stages were over Andy Schleck was a minute ahead of him on GC?Walkman said:
Also, "finished third on Alpe" hardly does Contador's riding on that day justice. Ride all day in front, get caught, and attack again and nearly win the stage. That is just impossible to do, in the final days of a GT. But he does it.
cineteq said:
So lets get this straight. Evans is the best climber and the best tter (and no doubt the best descender, and best sprinter too because he beat Damiano in Moltacino) out of all the Grand Tour riders, and yet, in a race where everything goes right for him, he only ends up winning by 1.30
A race which people far inferior to Evans (at least going by the above description) have won against far tougher opponents, by 5, 6 minutes.
Right
On a sadder note your dismissal of Andy's awesome performance on 18 would btw shock even the most ardent Contador fanboys hidden in the deepest darkest corners of the anti Andy Schleck threads, who cheer and pray for his every misfortune.
Libertine Seguros said:
Yes, as far as GTs are concerned. Evans' power data and consistency that year were pretty impressive and, IMO, objectively > his 2011 TDF form. Just my opinion, though.
The Hitch said:So lets get this straight. Evans is the best climber and the best tter (and no doubt the best descender, and best sprinter too because he beat Damiano in Moltacino) out of all the Grand Tour riders, and yet, in a race where everything goes right for him, he only ends up winning by 1.30
A race which people far inferior to Evans (at least going by the above description) have won against far tougher opponents, by 5, 6 minutes.
Right
Couldnt have worded it better
The Hitch said:So lets get this straight. Evans is the best climber and the best tter (and no doubt the best descender, and best sprinter too because he beat Damiano in Moltacino) out of all the Grand Tour riders, and yet, in a race where everything goes right for him, he only ends up winning by 1.30
A race which people far inferior to Evans (at least going by the above description) have won against far tougher opponents, by 5, 6 minutes.
Right
On a sadder note your dismissal of Andy's awesome performance on 18 would btw shock even the most ardent Contador fanboys hidden in the deepest darkest corners of the anti Andy Schleck threads, who cheer and pray for his every misfortune.
As an aside might be cool to rate all sections compared to other GC guys
Climber
Sprinter/flat finish
Hill finish
ITT
Descender
the reason Evans won the tour is in one word consistence
Climber
1. Andy
2. Contador
3.Sammy - some of this is due to be let go due the the time lost
4.Evans
Sprint/Flat
1. Evans
2. Daylight
Hill Finish
1.Evans
2.Contador
3.Daylight
ITT.
1.Evans
2.Contador
3.Sammy/Andy ( Andy still finihed 17th but the problem was Evans was 2nd best ITT of the whole Tour.
Descender.
This one is tricky as the Top 3 had different good days
1. Contador - most consistent
2.Sammy
2.Evans I would rate Evans and Sammy the same - on the stage when Sammy and Contador got away Andy apparently was in the way ?
When Sammy attacked on Col du Galibier, Sammy caught the Contador group but Evans did as well all on the descent
So why did Evans win the tour being Consistent.
just some guy said:
I agree with all this other than that Samu should replace "daylight" on hill finishes. He finished with the leaders on Bretagne and Superbesse.
Also Gap was a bit more like a hill than a mountain and he was with Evans and Contador over the top there too.
The Hitch said:
I can totally se your argument for saying Andy was the best climber, I actually debated myself whether I should say Evans or Andy. I choosed Cadel and I might be biased in this question but in any case I woudn't say either one of them were much better than the other.
Cadel beated Andy in stage 4 (not counting stage 1 since Andy crashed) and they were even at Super Besse and in the Pyrenees. Then Cadel outclimbed Andy on stage 16 when he, AC and Sammy gapped the other leaders.
On stage 18 Andy did a monumental attack in wich he proved true panache. However, Cadel did too! Though I'd give Andy the edge here. What he did was magnificant but I still beleive that Cadel had as much power as Andy that day. Had the stage been 3 kilometers longer, who knows what would have happend?!
Stage 19, they were even so I'd say it's pretty close overall. But that's just my two cents.
As for the extreamly pro Evans comments, do I really do that?
The Hitch said:
Of course he was the best climber. He didn't outclimb the other thoght. The way I see it, outclimbing your oponents menas actually beating them, not just attacking and be top three. Wich is what he did acomplish. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that he was the best climber on stage 19 but what good does that do you if you doesn't come out on top? As for stage 16 I'd say he and Evans was pretty even. Sure AC did all the attacking but when he had created the group with Sammy and Evans, Cadel did go to the front and did some pacemaking. You don't dod that if you are toast, as Sammy seemed (closed) to be.
The Hitch said:
Because he said, and I quote "outclimbed everyone and their mother on most other occasions" wich per definition (at least according to me) should mean that he attacked and beated his opponents. Not that he attacked but failed to win because he let the others go away. Was he better than Rolland and Sammy that day? Yes! Was he the best climber of everyone that day? Yes definatly, but he still didn't outclimb neither Rolland or Sanchez.
The Hitch said:
Had he not done that, he most certain would have won the stage, but then he would have had to give up any hopes for a win or a place on the podium.
The Hitch said:
Yes. But he did not rode smart and I feel sorry for him. It would have been nice to see him on the podium.
The Hitch said:
I'd say he was clearly the best on stage 19 and pretty even with Evans on stage 16. That said, without AC:s attacks Evans would have made no gain on the other contenders. So this becomes an pretty hard question. I think Evans would have dropped Contador if the climb would have continued 5-7 more kilometers but without AC attacking, there wouldn't be any gap between the top rider so it all comes down to what you thinks is most important. But yeah, the way the stage was raced AC was probably the best on the ascent.
Libertine Seguros said:
Didn't even thought of that, but of course you are right. Though if invited to the Vuelta, they could have sent a bunch of neo pros to the Tour and saved their pros for the Vuelta! Don't think Prudhmome would have liked that though!
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram