Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.

Page 487 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Is Froome over the hill?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 24 33.8%
  • No, the GC finished 40 minutes ago but Froomie is still climbing it

    Votes: 41 57.7%
  • No he is totally winning the Vuelta

    Votes: 17 23.9%

  • Total voters
    71
Re:

dacooley said:
losing the vuelta as it might seem on a gc-uneventful day when the whole peloton but astana was riding against froome clearly changed froome. as of now, he's more like lance, so there's no mercy for anyone on the road.

"The whole peloton but Astana"? Isn't that an exaggeration? It's a race. Were they racing against Froome or just racing for their sponsors trying to get results and some visibility? As a team that promotes their attention to detail it seems that all possible scenarios would have been presented pre-stage in order for them to be prepared to deal with it.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Jspear said:
Forever The Best said:
While I dislike Froome, Froome rode like a champ on the stage to Solaison and tried everything to win. It was a joy to see. This is racing, not a tea party. Porte should stop whining.

I'm all for racing hard as well...but I do wonder what benefit Froome gained by asking the other strong riders to attack Porte. It did him no good.
Porte had a one minute lead on GC. Froome was in second. To win Froome, or anyone else, had to crack Porte. No-one was likely to do it alone. (With about 7km to go, Froome was the virtual leader, so the opportunity was created - which Fuglsang eventually took for himself)

I still think it was pointless for Froome to do that when he didn't have the form to win. He knew he didn't have the form. He's a computer. He knew he was going for the Tour-Vuelta and that his form wasn't very good.
 
The guy in 2nd place doesn't give gifts. You do that if you're not in contention (Contador, Dauphiné 09; Anton, Giro 15), or if you're winning (Valverde, Dauphiné 09; Contador, Giro 11). Porte has nothing to complain about.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
Parker said:
Jspear said:
Forever The Best said:
While I dislike Froome, Froome rode like a champ on the stage to Solaison and tried everything to win. It was a joy to see. This is racing, not a tea party. Porte should stop whining.

I'm all for racing hard as well...but I do wonder what benefit Froome gained by asking the other strong riders to attack Porte. It did him no good.
Porte had a one minute lead on GC. Froome was in second. To win Froome, or anyone else, had to crack Porte. No-one was likely to do it alone. (With about 7km to go, Froome was the virtual leader, so the opportunity was created - which Fuglsang eventually took for himself)
I still think it was pointless for Froome to do that when he didn't have the form to win. He knew he didn't have the form. He's a computer. He knew he was going for the Tour-Vuelta and that his form wasn't very good.

I agree ....Froome most likely could not have won so ganging up on Porte just let someone else in ...Froome could have let Porte have the race ...he wasnt going to win it...why did he have to gang up on him ? I see no benefit for Froome...plus Richie has ridden out of his skin for Froome in the past and gave up his chance of results...Froome does have a ruthless streak alright....Maybe Porte could just bide his time instead relaying to the press and get Froome where it hurts ...on the bike

And why was Dan Martin telling this to Porte ??

As for saying Froome is not boring because he followed some snake and tried to catch it :lol: ....makes one wonder what their definition of interesting is ??
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
Parker said:
Jspear said:
Forever The Best said:
While I dislike Froome, Froome rode like a champ on the stage to Solaison and tried everything to win. It was a joy to see. This is racing, not a tea party. Porte should stop whining.

I'm all for racing hard as well...but I do wonder what benefit Froome gained by asking the other strong riders to attack Porte. It did him no good.
Porte had a one minute lead on GC. Froome was in second. To win Froome, or anyone else, had to crack Porte. No-one was likely to do it alone. (With about 7km to go, Froome was the virtual leader, so the opportunity was created - which Fuglsang eventually took for himself)

I still think it was pointless for Froome to do that when he didn't have the form to win. He knew he didn't have the form. He's a computer. He knew he was going for the Tour-Vuelta and that his form wasn't very good.
He was second on GC going into the final stage, not 22nd. He obviously had some sort of form. He's clearly not a computer. He did what Contador's fans wet themselves about - going for the win. (And unlike Contador he risked an actual podium place)
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Jspear said:
Parker said:
Jspear said:
Forever The Best said:
While I dislike Froome, Froome rode like a champ on the stage to Solaison and tried everything to win. It was a joy to see. This is racing, not a tea party. Porte should stop whining.

I'm all for racing hard as well...but I do wonder what benefit Froome gained by asking the other strong riders to attack Porte. It did him no good.
Porte had a one minute lead on GC. Froome was in second. To win Froome, or anyone else, had to crack Porte. No-one was likely to do it alone. (With about 7km to go, Froome was the virtual leader, so the opportunity was created - which Fuglsang eventually took for himself)

I still think it was pointless for Froome to do that when he didn't have the form to win. He knew he didn't have the form. He's a computer. He knew he was going for the Tour-Vuelta and that his form wasn't very good.
He was second on GC going into the final stage, not 22nd. He obviously had some sort of form. He's clearly not a computer. He did what Contador's fans wet themselves about - going for the win. (And unlike Contador he risked an actual podium place)

Admittedly I don't know everything about AC and what he did in his career, but I think he attacked when he wanted to gain time. Sometimes he attacked from very far out...much further out than Froome ever has. That said, all that seems very different to Froome asking other people to attack the leader when he couldn't even finish it off. It's like he couldn't win, so he wanted to make sure his old faithful domestique didn't win....
 
If Porte had remained upright in the Tour and got into the leaders jersey, it would have been an important lesson to learn, so Froome was doing him a favour.

Anyway reading the article it seems they are still good friends off the bike.
 
I can understand why Porte feels betrayed if it's true that Froome was trying to get others to gang up on him. It's a race, but on a personal level it's not a very nice thing to do. You would think once Froome felt he couldn't win, he'd like his friend Porte to win.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
dacooley said:
oddly enough, any possible alliances with the whole peloton riding against froome were always considered normal :D

ahaha this made me laugh! even possible alliance between his Basque team mate and a now retired spanish rider were normal ;)

Ah yes the Spanish Armada...........other riders have memories of it. Trouble is someone has to win and everyone wants to win so alliances are very flexible. The Vino option is probably best in a one day race and has the most chance of success. Whenever he was asked about certain issues his English skills suddenly deteriorated.........
 
What's Porte's problem? Froome wanted to drop Porte before the final climb to have a chance to win the gc, so he did what was necessary to achieve that. He was to weak to go on to win the Dauphine but still the original plan worked. You can't say a rider did something wrong when what he wanted to do worked. It's like the complaining about Sagan not attacking in the WC last sunday although what he did was the perfect tactic which ultimately won him the race.
I find it funny that Froome did something which gained him a lot of respect from me while his fans criticize him for not being classy and call it "not one of Froome's best moments"
 
Gigs_98 said:
What's Porte's problem? Froome wanted to drop Porte before the final climb to have a chance to win the gc, so he did what was necessary to achieve that. He was to weak to go on to win the Dauphine but still the original plan worked. You can't say a rider did something wrong when what he wanted to do worked. It's like the complaining about Sagan not attacking in the WC last sunday although what he did was the perfect tactic which ultimately won him the race.
I find it funny that Froome did something which gained him a lot of respect from me while his fans criticize him for not being classy and call it "not one of Froome's best moments"

According to me, it isn't. For me, Froome is more than just a bike rider. This might come back and haunt him. Meanwhile, Dan Martin seems like a ***. Cant shut his mouth. :razz:

Obviously, to each his own.
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
I can understand why Porte feels betrayed if it's true that Froome was trying to get others to gang up on him. It's a race, but on a personal level it's not a very nice thing to do. You would think once Froome felt he couldn't win, he'd like his friend Porte to win.
no it isn't
 
Re:

dacooley said:
oddly enough, any possible alliances with the whole peloton riding against froome were always considered normal :D
snigger.gif
 
silvergrenade said:
Gigs_98 said:
What's Porte's problem? Froome wanted to drop Porte before the final climb to have a chance to win the gc, so he did what was necessary to achieve that. He was to weak to go on to win the Dauphine but still the original plan worked. You can't say a rider did something wrong when what he wanted to do worked. It's like the complaining about Sagan not attacking in the WC last sunday although what he did was the perfect tactic which ultimately won him the race.
I find it funny that Froome did something which gained him a lot of respect from me while his fans criticize him for not being classy and call it "not one of Froome's best moments"

According to me, it isn't. For me, Froome is more than just a bike rider. This might come back and haunt him. Meanwhile, Dan Martin seems like a ****. Cant shut his mouth. :razz:

Obviously, to each his own.
one thing we can learn from this is, Dan martin is a grass :lol:
 
the threads related to the tours of 2013 and 2015-2017 are flooded with the posts like 'god let ambush happen' ,'let's have a go at fuente de II', 'other favorites should combine their power to shipwreck Sky", "contador, aru, bardet and nibali must do this" and so on. but once froome tears the race into pieces and delivers a great stage inspite of losing the podium, on personal level he still remains not a nice guy. that's what's called imperial logics.
 
silvergrenade said:
Gigs_98 said:
What's Porte's problem? Froome wanted to drop Porte before the final climb to have a chance to win the gc, so he did what was necessary to achieve that. He was to weak to go on to win the Dauphine but still the original plan worked. You can't say a rider did something wrong when what he wanted to do worked. It's like the complaining about Sagan not attacking in the WC last sunday although what he did was the perfect tactic which ultimately won him the race.
I find it funny that Froome did something which gained him a lot of respect from me while his fans criticize him for not being classy and call it "not one of Froome's best moments"

According to me, it isn't. For me, Froome is more than just a bike rider. This might come back and haunt him. Meanwhile, Dan Martin seems like a ****. Cant shut his mouth. :razz:

Obviously, to each his own.

Honesty is a terrible trait to have. Dan Martin is always an entertaining interview because he says what's on his mind unlike Froome and Contador who tend to step back and play nice just in case someone thinks they have a real opinion on something.
 
movingtarget said:
silvergrenade said:
Gigs_98 said:
What's Porte's problem? Froome wanted to drop Porte before the final climb to have a chance to win the gc, so he did what was necessary to achieve that. He was to weak to go on to win the Dauphine but still the original plan worked. You can't say a rider did something wrong when what he wanted to do worked. It's like the complaining about Sagan not attacking in the WC last sunday although what he did was the perfect tactic which ultimately won him the race.
I find it funny that Froome did something which gained him a lot of respect from me while his fans criticize him for not being classy and call it "not one of Froome's best moments"

According to me, it isn't. For me, Froome is more than just a bike rider. This might come back and haunt him. Meanwhile, Dan Martin seems like a ****. Cant shut his mouth. :razz:

Obviously, to each his own.

Honesty is a terrible trait to have. Dan Martin is always an entertaining interview because he says what's on his mind unlike Froome and Contador who tend to step back and play nice just in case someone thinks they have a real opinion on something.
I appreciate diplomacy. It's an important trait to have. Trump speaks whatever he feels like. He too is a ***. Shoot me. :) :razz:
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
I can understand why Porte feels betrayed if it's true that Froome was trying to get others to gang up on him. It's a race, but on a personal level it's not a very nice thing to do. You would think once Froome felt he couldn't win, he'd like his friend Porte to win.
Froome tried to win by allying with others against Porte. His legs weren't good at the final but he rode like a champ that day and tried everything to win.
 
Re: Re:

Forever The Best said:
LaFlorecita said:
I can understand why Porte feels betrayed if it's true that Froome was trying to get others to gang up on him. It's a race, but on a personal level it's not a very nice thing to do. You would think once Froome felt he couldn't win, he'd like his friend Porte to win.
Froome tried to win by allying with others against Porte. His legs weren't good at the final but he rode like a champ that day and tried everything to win.

As much as he tries to, Porte can't stop the frustration showing sometimes and I think it's understandable re the Dauphine where most people expected him to win. He is a good one week racer that for multiple reasons just can't make the next step with GTs. Porte is running out of time and he obviously realizes it. Not many riders get GT results over the age of 34 or more. He will be 33 this year and still hasn't cracked the podium. The form he had last year may never return. Just ask Stephen K re the 2016 Giro.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
Parker said:
Jspear said:
Forever The Best said:
While I dislike Froome, Froome rode like a champ on the stage to Solaison and tried everything to win. It was a joy to see. This is racing, not a tea party. Porte should stop whining.

I'm all for racing hard as well...but I do wonder what benefit Froome gained by asking the other strong riders to attack Porte. It did him no good.
Porte had a one minute lead on GC. Froome was in second. To win Froome, or anyone else, had to crack Porte. No-one was likely to do it alone. (With about 7km to go, Froome was the virtual leader, so the opportunity was created - which Fuglsang eventually took for himself)

I still think it was pointless for Froome to do that when he didn't have the form to win. He knew he didn't have the form. He's a computer. He knew he was going for the Tour-Vuelta and that his form wasn't very good.

Not only he didn't had the form but also acted in a negative way towards R. Porte. He didn't help him when were opponents as Fulgsan and Aru ahead but attacked Porte in the final meters of the penultimate climb without certainty of caugthing anyone. Only because Kwiatkowski, who was behind both, reached Froome, was the move profitable.

To this adds the unreasonable rumours about the move of C. Froome to BMC in days prior the race wich the signature of a new contract with Sky quickly showed it had only the goal of make R. Porte uncomfortable and devaule team BMC overall.

This is a example of unfair play in cycling. C. Froome raced to inflict a moral blow to one rider and not to win and after having the opportunaty to make him loose, he seized it. An ex teammate and said friend of him! Deplorable.
 
Re: Re:

jfazendeiro said:
Jspear said:
Parker said:
Jspear said:
Forever The Best said:
While I dislike Froome, Froome rode like a champ on the stage to Solaison and tried everything to win. It was a joy to see. This is racing, not a tea party. Porte should stop whining.

I'm all for racing hard as well...but I do wonder what benefit Froome gained by asking the other strong riders to attack Porte. It did him no good.
Porte had a one minute lead on GC. Froome was in second. To win Froome, or anyone else, had to crack Porte. No-one was likely to do it alone. (With about 7km to go, Froome was the virtual leader, so the opportunity was created - which Fuglsang eventually took for himself)

I still think it was pointless for Froome to do that when he didn't have the form to win. He knew he didn't have the form. He's a computer. He knew he was going for the Tour-Vuelta and that his form wasn't very good.

Not only he didn't had the form but also acted in a negative way towards R. Porte. He didn't help him when were opponents as Fulgsan and Aru ahead but attacked Porte in the final meters of the penultimate climb without certainty of caugthing anyone. Only because Kwiatkowski, who was behind both, reached Froome, was the move profitable.

To this adds the unreasonable rumours about the move of C. Froome to BMC in days prior the race wich the signature of a new contract with Sky quickly showed it had only the goal of make R. Porte uncomfortable and devaule team BMC overall.

This is a example of unfair play in cycling. C. Froome raced to inflict a moral blow to one rider and not to win and after having the opportunaty to make him loose, he seized it. An ex teammate and said friend of him! Deplorable.
So? The reality is that Kwiato reached him. So it was profitable. Thats all that matters. He was the virtual yellow.
Also, Froome didnt add any rumours himself. Porte knew Froome would never leave Sky and Froome knew he would never leave Sky unless Sky themselves wish for him to leave.
Whats unfair? Where does morality fit in your agenda? What a load of wallop! :lol: :lol:
 
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
Re: Re:

jfazendeiro said:
This is a example of unfair play in cycling. C. Froome raced to inflict a moral blow to one rider and not to win and after having the opportunaty to make him loose, he seized it. An ex teammate and said friend of him! Deplorable.

That stage by Froome was literally the definition of racing to win. It probably looks weird since 95% of the peloton forgot how to do that in the last few years.