Can Froome dominate Le Tour?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 16, 2011
10,845
0
0
airstream said:
Wiggins was a 2 time GT podium finisher before the 2012 Tour. Competition was standart. I million times said that Contador and Schleck would in no way have been able to do anything with him on that parcours and this Tour confirmed this in a way. People hugely underrated both Froome and Wiggins in the 2012 Tour because disliked them.
But that's podium, not win. When I say one-hit wonder, I mean he had one winning year and now is falling to obscurity.

And all this Tour really confirmed is Froomes domination. It didn't confirm anything about Wiggins. It's impossible to know for sure, but I think a Schleck and Contador of old could have put Wiggins lead in some kind of danger.
 
Poursuivant said:
The way Froome won this years tour was pretty dominant, although I thought the last week he faded slightly, and arguably Quintana was the stronger climber in the last week. Contador is always a threat and isn't old enough to be written off and there is also Nibali, Valverde, Rodriguez etc. who are all obvious genuine threats as well as the numerous other GT contenders and the up and coming youngsters everyone knows of, that you would expect at least one of to reach their potential.

However, Froome this year has been the best GT rider in the world this year, and is at a pretty good age. Also, you could argue Froome won't have a team as weak as this years which left him vulnerable, and although Nibali was superb at Il Giro, personally I don't think he would have lived with Froome at Le Tour. My question is do you think Froome could dominate for 5, 6 years or will he find it hard to repeat this years form, coupled with possibly up and coming riders developing? Can he equal or even beat the five wins record? What do you think?

Please leave the Clinic stuff for the Clinic.
If I mention Armstrong, wil it be considered clinic stuff? Please advice.
 
Quintana will get the better of him sometime soon IMHO. He showed greater patience at Alpe d' Huez and Semnoz than he did at earlier MTF's and look at the time he clawed back. If he raced like that all three weeks Froome was in trouble.

Once Quintana has another 1-2 GT's in his legs look out. Then there's the rest of the young guns - Pinot, Betancur, Henao, Talansky etc who will only improve. I doubt Froome will get more than another 2, maybe 3.
 
42x16ss said:
Quintana will get the better of him sometime soon IMHO. He showed greater patience at Alpe d' Huez and Semnoz than he did at earlier MTF's and look at the time he clawed back. If he raced like that all three weeks Froome was in trouble.

Once Quintana has another 1-2 GT's in his legs look out. Then there's the rest of the young guns - Pinot, Betancur, Henao, Talansky etc who will only improve. I doubt Froome will get more than another 2, maybe 3.
Quintana has a long way to go especially with his TT. The others show promise but are nowhere near Froome's level yet. Betancur is the one who has impressed me most of the four. Pinot has other issues he has to overcome like descents but shows glimpses of real talent.
 
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Afrank said:
But that's podium, not win. When I say one-hit wonder, I mean he had one winning year and now is falling to obscurity.

And all this Tour really confirmed is Froomes domination. It didn't confirm anything about Wiggins. It's impossible to know for sure, but I think a Schleck and Contador of old could have put Wiggins lead in some kind of danger.
It is the TOUR DE FRANCE. There can't be weak competition by default, unlike the Giro and the Vuelta. No one can win the Tour being in a weak or average form. One should be very good or extremely good. There are no 2 ways about it. Yes, I agree we can call Juanito Cobo, Peter Velits or Ryder Hesjedal, if he won't be able to confirm his GT level next year, one day wonders but to call le TdF winner one day hit is a real LOL.

but I think a Schleck and Contador of old could have put Wiggins lead in some kind of danger.
With the '12 Tour route? How? Nowadays GTs are decided more in TTs anyway and gaps are rarely big on MTFs between big guns. I'd like to see how Contador and Schleck would've tried to put into Wiggins' power engine even 1 min at sloping Toussuire, especially given Froome and Porte lol. The main thing of this Tour to me is that how wrong that was to consider a boring defensive unattractive riding by Sky in the 2012 Tour weak as most people did. 'Defensive' doesn't mean 'weak'.
 
Oct 21, 2012
1,106
0
0
There are way too many variables at play to make a definitive judgement either way. Lots of things could go wrong for Froome. He could crash out, he might not be able to match this year's level again, there could be Clinic issues, a challenger could rise in the next few years, etc.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,845
0
0
airstream said:
It is the TOUR DE FRANCE. There can't be weak competition by default, unlike the Giro and the Vuelta. No one can win the Tour being in a weak or average form. One should be very good or extremely good. There are no 2 ways about it. Yes, I agree we can call Juanito Cobo, Peter Velits or Ryder Hesjedal, if he won't be able to confirm his GT level next year, one day wonders but to call le TdF winner one day hit is a real LOL.
Of course the competition can be weak, all that it being the biggest race in the world means about the competitions strength is that on average it will be stronger competition more times then it will be weak competitions. This time it was rather weak. And I would argue no one can win the Vuelta and Giro just being in average form either, whatever GT it is the winner will be someone in very good form. But that doesn't mean their competition can't be lacking. And just because it is the Tour de France, IMO, doesn't mean the winner can't be a one hit wonder. Wiggins doesn't look like he'll ever do a GT again, that for me, makes him a one hit wonder. Because after he got his big win, he is disappearing into anonymity.

With the '12 Tour route? How? Nowadays GTs are decided more in TTs anyway and gaps are rarely big on MTFs between big guns. I'd like to see how Contador and Schleck would've tried to put into Wiggins' power engine even 1 min at sloping Toussuire, especially given Froome and Porte lol. The main thing of this Tour to me is that how wrong that was to consider a boring defensive unattractive riding by Sky in the 2012 Tour weak as most people did. 'Defensive' doesn't mean 'weak'.
They might not have, but had they been there and in good form they definitely would be attacking the sky train, keeping the pace uneven, and just making it generally harder for Sky to drop everyone else and cruise in. And I don't consider Sky's train tactic weak, just boring.
 
Feb 15, 2011
1,306
0
0
Afrank said:
Of course the competition can be weak, all that it being the biggest race in the world means about the competitions strength is that on average it will be stronger competition more times then it will be weak competitions. This time it was rather weak. And I would argue no one can win the Vuelta and Giro just being in average form either, whatever GT it is the winner will be someone in very good form. But that doesn't mean their competition can't be lacking. And just because it is the Tour de France, IMO, doesn't mean the winner can't be a one hit wonder. Wiggins doesn't look like he'll ever do a GT again, that for me, makes him a one hit wonder. Because after he got his big win, he is disappearing into anonymity.
Other than Nibali, there was no one missing who may have been able to challenge Froome - I disagree that the field was weak, basically all the main GC leaders were there.

Froome is most likely going to dominate as long as there is a nice flat TT in the parcours. Quintana may outclimb him, but likely wont out TT him.

Then again, we all thought Contador would be unopposed and march on to victory again and again, but s*** happens!

If Froome rides Il Giro and wins it in style, I will be converted to a Froome fan.
 
He's 28 so he'd have to keep this up until 34.

The difference between cycling during the romantic era and today, is that you can be a nobody until "late" in your career and an alien afterwards.

Chalk it up to better preparation, intuition, whatever, though at the very least it's perplexing.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,845
0
0
gustienordic said:
Other than Nibali, there was no one missing who may have been able to challenge Froome - I disagree that the field was weak, basically all the main GC leaders were there.
We were talking about 2012 and Wiggins competition, not Froomes this year.
 
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Afrank said:
Of course the competition can be weak, all that it being the biggest race in the world means about the competitions strength is that on average it will be stronger competition more times then it will be weak competitions.
Strongly disagree. Neither Contador nor Schleck make the competition strong as it is considered. The Tour contention is mad because it is the only race in which anyone or almost anyone is in form. Exactly this fact makes the race crazy because racing always goes with initiative of one of the teams as minimum. Have a look at the first week in the Tour and in the Giro (Vuelta). There's an unbelievable difference. In the Tour we see psychosis, wild tension and fantastic speeds. In the Giro sometimes it seems like they ride a group training session in the 1st week. Many really good well-tried climbers simply can not climb well in the Tour because they can't stand this madly fast racing on flat and hills. Tour is absolutely rabid intensity and this circumstance makes the race so special. It just can't be described with words Contador and Schleck revive mountain stages but exactly incredibly strong peloton makes this competition so hard. Yeah, in terms of big GC names the Giro / the Vuelta can be equal to the Tour sometimes, possibly it even can prevail Tour, but in terms of strength of the teams - NEVER. And I find the second one more defining.
 
Jun 9, 2012
766
0
0
airstream said:
Strongly disagree. Neither Contador nor Schleck make the competition strong as it is considered. The Tour contention is mad because it is the only race in which anyone or almost anyone is in form. Exactly this fact makes the race crazy because racing always goes with initiative of one of the teams as minimum. Have a look at the first week in the Tour and in the Giro (Vuelta). There's an unbelievable difference. In the Tour we see psychosis, wild tension and fantastic speeds. In the Giro sometimes it seems like they ride a group training session in the 1st week. Many really good well-tried climbers simply can not climb well in the Tour because they can't stand this madly fast racing on flat and hills. Tour is absolutely rabid intensity and this circumstance makes the race so special. It just can't be described with words Contador and Schleck revive mountain stages but exactly incredibly strong peloton makes this competition so hard. Yeah, in terms of big GC names the Giro / the Vuelta can be equal to the Tour sometimes, possibly it even can prevail Tour, but in terms of strength of the teams - NEVER. And I find the second one more defining.
If Froome and Quintana are injured prior to 2014 TDF and Contador wins, will you not consider his victory a result of a weak field?
 
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Contadoraus Schlecks said:
If Froome and Quintana are injured prior to 2014 TDF and Contador wins, will you not consider his victory a result of a weak field?
Of course not.
 
Jun 9, 2012
766
0
0
airstream said:
Of course not.
I personally would. If you are not competing against the best, at their best level of form, then the victory is not as sweet.

Froome himself proved this year that the strength of a team often matters not as much as the strength of the individual (where pursuit of GC is concerned). A good question would be, could Froome have won this years TDF had be cycled without a team i.e. following in Peleton, on other trains etc. I believe he would still have won.
 
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Contadoraus Schlecks said:
I personally would. If you are not competing against the best, at their best level of form, then the victory is not as sweet.

Froome himself proved this year that the strength of a team matters not as much as the strength of the individual (where pursuit of GC is concerned). A good question would be, could Froome have won this years TDF had be cycled without a team i.e. following in Peleton, on other trains etc. I believe he would still have won.
Initially the talk about was Wiggins. People stated he won because of weak field and luck. I find it quite offensive. I tend to think no one but Froome wouldn't have been able to offer him anything on such a type of parcours.

I understand your point and share it in a way but the best by titles doesn't the best right now in a particular GT. In my view it often lead to some erroneous ideas like 'Armstrong won the 99 Tour 'cos there were no Ullrich and Pantani', 'Wiggins won the Tour because of Contador's absense'.. History often disproves such opinions.

He couldn't have won without a team IMO because a rider without a team feel differently while coinfidence is a big deal. Though, the way Froome rode stage 9 admired me. While seeing that stage, I often caught myself thinking if there had been a puncture, it would've been the end.
 
Oct 21, 2012
1,106
0
0
It would have taken some Godly figure as yet undiscovered by cycling to have beaten Wiggins in the 2012 Tour (or Froome could have ridden for a different team :p).
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,845
0
0
airstream said:
Strongly disagree. Neither Contador nor Schleck make the competition strong as it is considered. The Tour contention is mad because it is the only race in which anyone or almost anyone is in form. Exactly this fact makes the race crazy because racing always goes with initiative of one of the teams as minimum. Have a look at the first week in the Tour and in the Giro (Vuelta). There's an unbelievable difference. In the Tour we see psychosis, wild tension and fantastic speeds. In the Giro sometimes it seems like they ride a group training session in the 1st week. Many really good well-tried climbers simply can not climb well in the Tour because they can't stand this madly fast racing on flat and hills. Tour is absolutely rabid intensity and this circumstance makes the race so special. It just can't be described with words Contador and Schleck revive mountain stages but exactly incredibly strong peloton makes this competition so hard. Yeah, in terms of big GC names the Giro / the Vuelta can be equal to the Tour sometimes, possibly it even can prevail Tour, but in terms of strength of the teams - NEVER. And I find the second one more defining.
But if everyone is in form but those riders are not of the highest level in cycling (I.E. are not on the same level of the Contadors, Schlecks, Froomes, etc.) then the field is not as strong as it would be with those top level guys in it.
And I have to disagree about the races like the Giro being like group training rides sometimes and the Tour not. If there was one GT that could be looked at like a group training ride it would have to be the 2012 Tour. The whole race that year was boring and monotonous. The 2013 Giro definitely had more "wild tension" and "fantastic speeds" then the 2012 Tour.

Teams really don't have that much to do with competition IMO. While Sky are the strongest team in cycling, competition is about who is competing for that top GC spot. So when looking at the strength of one field, you have to look at the GC contenders, not their teams.
 
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Afrank said:
Teams really don't have that much to do with competition IMO. While Sky are the strongest team in cycling, competition is about who is competing for that top GC spot. So when looking at the strength of one field, you have to look at the GC contenders, not their teams.
Big guns create plot and expectations, but the race is built by teams. For example, the Giro 2011 had a stary squad of contenders but teams were ridiculously weak. It seemed that the race interests only Liquigas as a team.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,845
0
0
airstream said:
Big guns create plot and expectations, but the race is built by teams. For example, the Giro 2011 had a stary squad of contenders but teams were ridiculously weak. It seemed that the race interests only Liquigas as a team.
Competition is about individual riders. If in a race Froome's main competitor is a rider that has a very strong team behind them, but the leader of that team is of the same level of say a guy like Mollema. Then the simple fact of having a strong team doesn't make that competition good. Froome would always come out ahead anyways.

Team Sky were the strongest team of the 2012 Tour, but how strong were the teams of Wiggins rivals? Cannondale and Lotto were focused largely on their sprinters and I can't remember them doing anything that great. BMC weren't that great and made the mistake of supporting Evans in the beginning instead of Tejay. Most of the GC contenders were the kinds that just try to hang on as long as possible in fact. So does the presence of one really strong team (Sky) make Wiggins competition strong?
 
Feb 15, 2011
1,306
0
0
airstream said:
Initially the talk about was Wiggins. People stated he won because of weak field and luck. I find it quite offensive. I tend to think no one but Froome wouldn't have been able to offer him anything on such a type of parcours.

I understand your point and share it in a way but the best by titles doesn't the best right now in a particular GT. In my view it often lead to some erroneous ideas like 'Armstrong won the 99 Tour 'cos there were no Ullrich and Pantani', 'Wiggins won the Tour because of Contador's absense'.. History often disproves such opinions.

He couldn't have won without a team IMO because a rider without a team feel differently while coinfidence is a big deal. Though, the way Froome rode stage 9 admired me. While seeing that stage, I often caught myself thinking if there had been a puncture, it would've been the end.
Wiggins won the 2012 Tour because there was a severe lack of steep climbs. He obviously killed the TTs & could tempo up the climbs. On that course he could have beat Contador, Quintana, etc but perhaps not Froome. The competition was "weak" but I doubt anyone could have seriously challenged him anyway.
 
If Movistar had some sense they could have taken the Tour to Froome with any of 3 riders on stage 9. Instead they chose to domestique for him. Still that was an example of where a stronger team can challenger a much stronger rider.

Having the mental capacity of a 5 year old however is also neccesary and it seems not a single member of the Movistar staff met that qualification.
 
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
The Hitch said:
If Movistar had some sense they could have taken the Tour to Froome with any of 3 riders on stage 9.
Lol how? Could you provide any realistic scenario?

Dear Hitch do you realize that riders and teams have their racing goals and these goals is NOT 'not to let Froome win by any means'?
 
Oct 21, 2012
1,106
0
0
airstream is right, much as we wish it would, the peloton isn't going to unite to stop a rider winning. Nor will a team/rider sacrifice a podium place and take some huge risks in order to win, especially when the leader is so strong.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
RedheadDane Professional Road Racing 49

ASK THE COMMUNITY