I dont like lot of things of Froome, but I will fight with all my strenth againt that becouse is fakse and it is a big mistake. It is the previous era wich is false. Froome was maybe not a supertalent, vey good rider for 3 week races with hot, but not so talented as other big names in History, but he won, and he won with the rules ok, not as his previous era who was very different. Lot opf people beileve you know a lot about cycling by sayin g things like that but it is not true. He did a very good first Tour when he was not to ride it..and he was quite bad later and even his team wanst thinking to sign him again before his good Vuelta. He got his place just becouse his merit, the team was with Wiggo. The route started at Alicente, a hot place...he find his level, it was a period, but he always got good result tre precious years, Good and bad result, but he gort always good result...every rider has a development and an stry behind....Pogacar has one, simnilar to Pinot..Evenepoel has another, and Froome has another...Ypour cannot say one is more logical without study all factors.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram