Re: Re:
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.
staubsauger said:Gigs_98 said: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.staubsauger said:He would've won that Vuelta against Purito and Valverde.
It was Contador who exposed him with his powerful attacks.
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.