Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.

Page 267 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Should this thread be shut down?

  • No

    Votes: 10 35.7%
  • No

    Votes: 24 85.7%

  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .
Re: Re:

staubsauger said:
Gigs_98 said:
staubsauger said:
He would've won that Vuelta against Purito and Valverde.

It was Contador who exposed him with his powerful attacks.
2012? No way he would have won that. Froome was 9 minutes behind Purito. That disadvantage maybe would have been smaller without Contador, but Rodriguez and valverde aren't completely stupid.
They never would've attacked him enough to crack him. In fact, they are that stupid. I'm 100% sure.
I have read a lot of your comments, most of them make good sense, but this is one of the few that absolutely doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

Froome was completely gassed, didnt gain any time on the ITT and was up against Rodriguez who never had climbed better and a fresh Valverde who climbed extremely well. Contador, Rodriguez and Valverde was in a completely different league to Froome after the first week. They took time out of him when they wanted (partially due to the route, partially due to Froome being extremely tired at that point). No way in hell Froome would have won that Vuelta - if you want ti point to a Vuelta he should/could have won, then '11 and 14' are way better.
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
staubsauger said:
Gigs_98 said:
staubsauger said:
He would've won that Vuelta against Purito and Valverde.

It was Contador who exposed him with his powerful attacks.
2012? No way he would have won that. Froome was 9 minutes behind Purito. That disadvantage maybe would have been smaller without Contador, but Rodriguez and valverde aren't completely stupid.
They never would've attacked him enough to crack him. In fact, they are that stupid. I'm 100% sure.
I have read a lot of your comments, most of them make good sense, but this is one of the few that absolutely doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

Froome was completely gassed, didnt gain any time on the ITT and was up against Rodriguez who never had climbed better and a fresh Valverde who climbed extremely well. Contador, Rodriguez and Valverde was in a completely different league to Froome after the first week. They took time out of him when they wanted (partially due to the route, partially due to Froome being extremely tired at that point). No way in hell Froome would have won that Vuelta - if you want ti point to a Vuelta he should/could have won, then '11 and 14' are way better.
I read some of them too, and most of them make no sense, just like this one above..
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
staubsauger said:
Gigs_98 said:
staubsauger said:
He would've won that Vuelta against Purito and Valverde.

It was Contador who exposed him with his powerful attacks.
2012? No way he would have won that. Froome was 9 minutes behind Purito. That disadvantage maybe would have been smaller without Contador, but Rodriguez and valverde aren't completely stupid.
They never would've attacked him enough to crack him. In fact, they are that stupid. I'm 100% sure.
I have read a lot of your comments, most of them make good sense, but this is one of the few that absolutely doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

Froome was completely gassed, didnt gain any time on the ITT and was up against Rodriguez who never had climbed better and a fresh Valverde who climbed extremely well. Contador, Rodriguez and Valverde was in a completely different league to Froome after the first week. They took time out of him when they wanted (partially due to the route, partially due to Froome being extremely tired at that point). No way in hell Froome would have won that Vuelta - if you want ti point to a Vuelta he should/could have won, then '11 and 14' are way better.
In the end Contador was there and won, so my comment was arguably nonsense anyway. I may be blinded by the fact how they missed to crack him last year, when he arguably seemed to be done a few times, but came back eventually to finish second.
 
Re: Re:

staubsauger said:
Gigs_98 said:
staubsauger said:
He would've won that Vuelta against Purito and Valverde.

It was Contador who exposed him with his powerful attacks.
2012? No way he would have won that. Froome was 9 minutes behind Purito. That disadvantage maybe would have been smaller without Contador, but Rodriguez and valverde aren't completely stupid.
They never would've attacked him enough to crack him. In fact, they are that stupid. I'm 100% sure.
Nine minutes is a huge amount of time. One has to give Valverde and Purito more credit than you're giving them (which is none at all). Froome was invisible by the third week, doing his best Zubeldia imitation. Better than the rest but far behind the podium finishers.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Hugo Koblet said:
When has Contador (or any one else for that matter) proven to have better recovery than Froome?
Well, at least Contador has shown he can ride a 3 week race at a consistent high level.
froome was at a very high level at the end both in the 2013 and 2015 tour de france. if he had all of a sadden become 10th climber in the race, then yes his level could be easily questioned but no he still remained good in the third week. his relative infirmity in the last stages is the price paid for wide power in the rest of the race. almost everybody notices how easily froome should be crushed in the third week, but a very few look up to how hard to match him before the third week.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re:

huge said:
Sad to hear that Froome is in full LA mode.
Tour, tour and only tour... a rider that doesn't give a real crack to all 3 GT will never be among the big ones, in my opinion.

Even if he wins the next 3 Tours in a row, AC will still be a much greater rider. And so will be Nibali, especially if he manages to win any other GT.
Maybe if Sky isn't invited to the Tour or he's not coming back from a ban, or something else, in time for the Tour, he'll focus on the lesser GTs
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Let's rank the races of the Golden Triple in order of likelihood that Froome wins and discuss his chances. Upon reflection, stating him to be the favourite for all three races may was unjustified. Updated analysis below:

1. Tour. Obviously. He's the clear favourite. Even from this far out, his chance to win is surely >44%

2. Olympic TT. At his best, Froome is amongst the best time triallers even when it's flat (see 2012/2013). Make it hilly and harder and his advantage only increases. Great chance to get a medal, but Gold will be very tough against Tony, Dumoulin, Denis etc who won't be coming off a huge effort at the Tour. Let's say 12% chance to win conditional on having won the Tour.

3. Olympic RR. Froome demonstrated he can crush people going up hills, not just Tour MTF. Still, it's a long shot. Let's say 7% to win conditional on having won the Tour and the ITT.

All in all, then, the greatest and grandest accomplishment in cycling for decades is unlikely to occur having a chance of only 0.36%. But stranger things have happened, and will happen again. The Golden Triple is ON
 

Singer01

BANNED
Nov 18, 2013
2,043
2
5,485
Re:

SeriousSam said:
Let's rank the races of the Golden Triple in order of likelihood that Froome wins and discuss his chances. Upon reflection, stating him to be the favourite for all three races may was unjustified. Updated analysis below:

1. Tour. Obviously. He's the clear favourite. Even from this far out, his chance to win is surely >44%

2. Olympic TT. At his best, Froome is amongst the best time triallers even when it's flat (see 2012/2013). Make it hilly and harder and his advantage only increases. Great chance to get a medal, but Gold will be very tough against Tony, Dumoulin, Denis etc who won't be coming off a huge effort at the Tour. Let's say 12% chance to win conditional on having won the Tour.

3. Olympic RR. Froome demonstrated he can crush people going up hills, not just Tour MTF. Still, it's a long shot. Let's say 7% to win conditional on having won the Tour and the ITT.

All in all, then, the greatest and grandest accomplishment in cycling for decades is unlikely to occur having a chance of only 0.36%. But stranger things have happened, and will happen again. The Golden Triple is ON
i'd say his chances of winning if he finishes the tour are about 50%, so closer to 25% when accounting for the fact that he has crashed out of a couple of grand tours/other factors beyond his control.

in a hilly (not mountainous) TT i don't think i'd take anyone above him right now (brad 2/3 years ago) and less chance of disaster (actually what was the TT where he crashed into the official after about 50 ft). lets say 40%.

road race 5% at best, based on what i understand of the route.
 
Re:

SeriousSam said:
Let's rank the races of the Golden Triple in order of likelihood that Froome wins and discuss his chances. Upon reflection, stating him to be the favourite for all three races may was unjustified. Updated analysis below:

1. Tour. Obviously. He's the clear favourite. Even from this far out, his chance to win is surely >44%

2. Olympic TT. At his best, Froome is amongst the best time triallers even when it's flat (see 2012/2013). Make it hilly and harder and his advantage only increases. Great chance to get a medal, but Gold will be very tough against Tony, Dumoulin, Denis etc who won't be coming off a huge effort at the Tour. Let's say 12% chance to win conditional on having won the Tour.

3. Olympic RR. Froome demonstrated he can crush people going up hills, not just Tour MTF. Still, it's a long shot. Let's say 7% to win conditional on having won the Tour and the ITT.

All in all, then, the greatest and grandest accomplishment in cycling for decades is unlikely to occur having a chance of only 0.36%. But stranger things have happened, and will happen again. The Golden Triple is ON
The road race is before the time trial, so potentially even more advantage for pure TTers.
 
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
huge said:
Sad to hear that Froome is in full LA mode.
Tour, tour and only tour... a rider that doesn't give a real crack to all 3 GT will never be among the big ones, in my opinion.

Even if he wins the next 3 Tours in a row, AC will still be a much greater rider. And so will be Nibali, especially if he manages to win any other GT.
Maybe if Sky isn't invited to the Tour or he's not coming back from a ban, or something else, in time for the Tour, he'll focus on the lesser GTs
yes, this could be, it happened before with other riders
 
Re:

huge said:
Sad to hear that Froome is in full LA mode.
Tour, tour and only tour... a rider that doesn't give a real crack to all 3 GT will never be among the big ones, in my opinion.

Even if he wins the next 3 Tours in a row, AC will still be a much greater rider. And so will be Nibali, especially if he manages to win any other GT.
Well he did try the Vuelta this year which is a step above what Armstrong did during his run of Tour wins. If the future Tour routes are in his favor (high itt kms) then I could see him giving the Giro/Tour double a try. With high itt kms his Tour wins will be in the 5+ minute margins unless someone well-rounded as himself rises to challenge him and I don't see anyone on the horizon just yet. If Nibali regains his 2014 form and it is at a level that many of his most devoted fans insist it was then maybe he could make things interesting for Froome which would make the liklihood that Froome would try the double unlikely UNLESS Nibali also gives it a try. Afterall he is Italian. :)
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
He was so focused to win this Tour,” says Nicolas Roche, one of Froome’s key domestiques. “He is very sure of himself on the bike. He knows no one can beat him. That gives him confidence in the decisive moments.”
Interesting coming from an experienced rider like Roche

Pundits and experts disassembled Froome’s power numbers from that day — both the data Sky released and what various sports scientists said the real numbers would have been — but the truth is the winning differences came in the crosswinds of stage 2, the time bonuses, and a vicious attack up the Mur de Huy in stage 3.
lol, oh dear. that's andy hood.
 
Re:

SeriousSam said:
He was so focused to win this Tour,” says Nicolas Roche, one of Froome’s key domestiques. “He is very sure of himself on the bike. He knows no one can beat him. That gives him confidence in the decisive moments.”
Interesting coming from an experienced rider like Roche
Especially interesting considering Contador in 2014 was sure he would beat Froome because they knew the numbers necessary to be faster - and he reached those numbers.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Yeah, assuming Roche was aware of that and is a trustworthy truth teller, it appears Froome has stepped it up and is now once again out of reach numbers wise. Very impressive.
 
Re:

SeriousSam said:
Yeah, assuming Roche was aware of that and is a trustworthy truth teller, it appears Froome has stepped it up and is now once again out of reach numbers wise. Very impressive.
That is one way to spin things. Probably, Roche is just babbling nonsense, he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. After all Froome has never raced against Contador in top shape, so he has no idea which numbers Contador can put out when he is at his absolute best.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
SeriousSam said:
He was so focused to win this Tour,” says Nicolas Roche, one of Froome’s key domestiques. “He is very sure of himself on the bike. He knows no one can beat him. That gives him confidence in the decisive moments.”
Interesting coming from an experienced rider like Roche
Especially interesting considering Contador in 2014 was sure he would beat Froome because they knew the numbers necessary to be faster - and he reached those numbers.
Maybe they knew the number needed to beat him in 2013? Which might not be the same numers as required to beat him in 2014 and 2015?
We will never know.

At least Froome does more result-wise at Tour than just talk
 
Nope, Froome has nothing to do with Majka. He just kicks Contador's (and everyone else's) ass at the Tour every chance he gets. So he backs up his words with actions. Trait that Contador does not have.
You were the one who brought Alberto and his 'claims without any backing' in here
 
Re:

damian13ster said:
Nope, Froome has nothing to do with Majka. He just kicks Contador's (and everyone else's) ass at the Tour every chance he gets. So he backs up his words with actions. Trait that Contador does not have.
You were the one who brought Alberto and his 'claims without any backing' in here
My point was that you had another dig at Contador by posting "At least Froome does more result-wise at Tour than just talk". You just confirmed that in the quoted post. You clearly feel a lot of animosity towards Contador and it is obvious this is because he is in the way of your idol's road to glory. You just can't help yourself, you have to have digs at him whenever possible. It's quite sad to see actually.
 
Re:

damian13ster said:
It is not my fault that 99% of your posts are the same as 99% of Tinkoff and Contador's PR - pure, and empty BS.
Stop inputing that off-topic crap into every thread on this forum and you won't have me responding to it
Stop hating on Contador at every opportunity and I'll stop calling you out on your obsessive hatred. If you want to be a miserable person, fine, but don't bother other people with it.
 

Dog

Mar 15, 2015
164
0
0
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
damian13ster said:
Nope, Froome has nothing to do with Majka. He just kicks Contador's (and everyone else's) ass at the Tour every chance he gets. So he backs up his words with actions. Trait that Contador does not have.
You were the one who brought Alberto and his 'claims without any backing' in here
My point was that you had another dig at Contador by posting "At least Froome does more result-wise at Tour than just talk".
But isn't it a fact? Contador hasn't performed at the Tour since 2009 (or 2010 depending on how biased you are). Froome on the other hand has finished on the podium in three of the last four Tours and won two.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY