Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

The significance and specially entertainment value of Froome's two unconventional attacks are greatly overblown due to a chronic lack of meaningful GC-relevant action in the Tour. He did those attacks because he knew he was lacking a bit in climbing ability compared to previous years and was not yet aware of Quintana being out of form. At that point he thought he needed every second he could get and acted accordingly.

All credit to Froome for developing himself and learning new skills on the bike, but if someone thinks those two shortish attacks makes him a more entertaining and attacking GC-rider than Contador, they should watch the 2011 Giro again and specially the stage to Gardeccia. More action, agressiveness and risk taking in a leaders jersey during one single stage than in Froome's entire career.

Froome has been relatively aggressive in the yellow jersey and tried to put even more time into his competitors and win the stage: Ventoux 2013, Alpe d' Huez 2013, Semnoz 2013, PSM 2015, crosswind-stage in 2016.

Thats more aggressivness than in that one Gardeccia-stage for sure. Besides, I don't think its risk-taking when everybody know you are the strongest by far and can toy with your opponents. But all hail Contador, I guess.

I very much agree on your first part, tho. Those 2 attacks in the TdF were overblown due to the fact we didn't have anything else to talk about.

 

[Red Rick]

I think there's a lot of difference between being aggressive when you risk a lot or not. Froome is very aggressive on MTF's when he's the strongest, usually after using up his entire train so most of the hard work has already been done and it's only a matter of who's the strongest man in the race. I don't think this is a particularly impressive form of aggression. Same for Contador attacking on Verbier, Nibali attacking in the 2014 Tour or the end of the 2013 Giro.

Other instances of him attacking are often in low risk situation, even the echelon with Sagan was very low risk. Froome isn't very aggressive when he's not in very good form, and even in the Vuelta this year when he had to make up more than a minute on Quintana he didn't do much more than a few attacks on the last climb. He almost never risks blowing up and losing minutes. I've seen him blow himself up twice, and both were little more than 1km from the finish. What I do have to give Froome is that he's not been in positions in the Tour where he had to do any risky attacking to win it, and I don't really doubt he'd try then what he hasn't tried in the Vuelta.

Both Nibali and Contador have shown way more willingness to attack in creative and high risk spots. You could argue this is desperation, that his is because they're not competitive, but at least they try to win with what little they have. Attacking from 50k out in the final stage of PN, or from even further out in Lombardia 2011 or in that Tour is a way better sign of aggression than the same formulaic attack in the last half of a MTF when your team has recked all domestiques and it's just a W/kg slugfest. Even Quintana, who is usually pretty conservative, has shown willingness to go for broke as a last resort in ways that Froome never has. Esteban Chaves attacked from far out this Vuelta more than once, despite not being the strongest, and despite possibly losing big time should he have gotten caught.

In short, I like unpredictable racing, and as such I like creative and imaginative moves, and Froome's decision tree for a race is one of the smallest of all GC riders.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

I think there's a lot of difference between being aggressive when you risk a lot or not. Froome is very aggressive on MTF's when he's the strongest, usually after using up his entire train so most of the hard work has already been done and it's only a matter of who's the strongest man in the race. I don't think this is a particularly impressive form of aggression. Same for Contador attacking on Verbier, Nibali attacking in the 2014 Tour or the end of the 2013 Giro.

Other instances of him attacking are often in low risk situation, even the echelon with Sagan was very low risk. Froome isn't very aggressive when he's not in very good form, and even in the Vuelta this year when he had to make up more than a minute on Quintana he didn't do much more than a few attacks on the last climb. He almost never risks blowing up and losing minutes. I've seen him blow himself up twice, and both were little more than 1km from the finish. What I do have to give Froome is that he's not been in positions in the Tour where he had to do any risky attacking to win it, and I don't really doubt he'd try then what he hasn't tried in the Vuelta.

Both Nibali and Contador have shown way more willingness to attack in creative and high risk spots. You could argue this is desperation, that his is because they're not competitive, but at least they try to win with what little they have. Attacking from 50k out in the final stage of PN, or from even further out in Lombardia 2011 or in that Tour is a way better sign of aggression than the same formulaic attack in the last half of a MTF when your team has recked all domestiques and it's just a W/kg slugfest. Even Quintana, who is usually pretty conservative, has shown willingness to go for broke as a last resort in ways that Froome never has. Esteban Chaves attacked from far out this Vuelta more than once, despite not being the strongest, and despite possibly losing big time should he have gotten caught.

In short, I like unpredictable racing, and as such I like creative and imaginative moves, and Froome's decision tree for a race is one of the smallest of all GC riders.

This

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

I think there's a lot of difference between being aggressive when you risk a lot or not. Froome is very aggressive on MTF's when he's the strongest, usually after using up his entire train so most of the hard work has already been done and it's only a matter of who's the strongest man in the race. I don't think this is a particularly impressive form of aggression. Same for Contador attacking on Verbier, Nibali attacking in the 2014 Tour or the end of the 2013 Giro.

Other instances of him attacking are often in low risk situation, even the echelon with Sagan was very low risk. Froome isn't very aggressive when he's not in very good form, and even in the Vuelta this year when he had to make up more than a minute on Quintana he didn't do much more than a few attacks on the last climb. He almost never risks blowing up and losing minutes. I've seen him blow himself up twice, and both were little more than 1km from the finish. What I do have to give Froome is that he's not been in positions in the Tour where he had to do any risky attacking to win it, and I don't really doubt he'd try then what he hasn't tried in the Vuelta.

Both Nibali and Contador have shown way more willingness to attack in creative and high risk spots. You could argue this is desperation, that his is because they're not competitive, but at least they try to win with what little they have. Attacking from 50k out in the final stage of PN, or from even further out in Lombardia 2011 or in that Tour is a way better sign of aggression than the same formulaic attack in the last half of a MTF when your team has recked all domestiques and it's just a W/kg slugfest. Even Quintana, who is usually pretty conservative, has shown willingness to go for broke as a last resort in ways that Froome never has. Esteban Chaves attacked from far out this Vuelta more than once, despite not being the strongest, and despite possibly losing big time should he have gotten caught.

In short, I like unpredictable racing, and as such I like creative and imaginative moves, and Froome's decision tree for a race is one of the smallest of all GC riders.

if you have already won two Tours in a pretty much standard way of racing used by many previous Tour winners why would you change the third time ? Winning a GT is about efficiency and recovery and they are rarely won with a creative move. Sometimes a stage will be won in that fashion but most of the time the team leader uses up his team and then attacks to see if anyone can respond. Froome tends to build his lead from one or two big efforts in the mountains and rely on a high level in the TTs. He never needed to be too creative and he did what worked for him. Contador has a different approach to most GT riders and Nibali is probably somewhere in between the two. Sometimes it comes down to circumstances and Chaves sensed an opportunity in the Vuelta and was not far behind Contador on GC and Contador had showed some signs of weakness even though he was still aggressive. I thought the Vuelta was Orica's most impressive performance in a GT so far and Chaves responded to the belief in him. Contador was obviously upset to finish off the podium as his riding made the race more exciting than it could have been. I thought Tinkoff were poor in the Tour and the Vuelta except for a handful of stages.

Froome and Contador will both retire with very good GT records eventually but they are very different types of riders which is not such a bad thing. I think Contador is more in the Hinault/Merckx type of mold, very aggressive, a more natural climber than both and not quite as good in the TT while Froome is no Indurain but is probably closer to Armstrong in the team tactics, very good TT and taking a lot of time or most of his time on a few stages but of course Armstrong often also won by bigger margins.

 

[Red Rick]

I don't blame Froome for riding the way he did in his Tour victories. It was sensible tactics. Just as Nibali's and Contador's tactics were very sensible in the Tours they won. However, riding sensibly when you're the best guy in the race and/or have the strongest team, isn't a very hard thing to do, and therefor I don't think it's a thing that qualifies as being a very aggressive rider. I'm not saying he HAS to win a GT by making a long range attack. I'm saying I'd gain respect for him if he tried it when it was his only chance to win. He hasn't.

 

[Gigs_98]

I think there is a big misunderstanding in this discussion.
The Contador fans like me posted here because we wanted to defend Contador after a poster wrote that Froome is way more aggressive than Contador which (in my opinion) is wrong. But I think some people here thought that by defending Contador we wanted to say that Froome is a boring rider. Ofc I can only talk about myself, but at least for me this is not the case. I don't blame Froome for not doing long range attacks in the tour. He would have been incredibly stupid to do one, just like Contador or Nibali would be completely stupid to do a long range attack when they are already in front. However there is the possibility that Froome is not the kind of rider who does long range attacks when he has to, just like there is the possibility that Froome is the kind of rider. We simply don't know because he never was in a situation in which he had to take huge risks to win.
However we do know that Nibali and Contador are the kind of riders who try suicidal long range attacks, because they already were in such a situation, which is why I think it's false to say that Froome is more aggressive than Contador.

 

[kingjr]

Re:

I think there's a lot of difference between being aggressive when you risk a lot or not. Froome is very aggressive on MTF's when he's the strongest

Like in 2013 on the last 2 MTF's right?

 

[Netserk]

I think there is a big misunderstanding in this discussion.
The Contador fans like me posted here because we wanted to defend Contador after a poster wrote that Froome is way more aggressive than Contador which (in my opinion) is wrong. But I think some people here thought that by defending Contador we wanted to say that Froome is a boring rider. Ofc I can only talk about myself, but at least for me this is not the case. I don't blame Froome for not doing long range attacks in the tour. He would have been incredibly stupid to do one, just like Contador or Nibali would be completely stupid to do a long range attack when they are already in front. However there is the possibility that Froome is not the kind of rider who does long range attacks when he has to, just like there is the possibility that Froome is the kind of rider. We simply don't know because he never was in a situation in which he had to take huge risks to win.
However we do know that Nibali and Contador are the kind of riders who try suicidal long range attacks, because they already were in such a situation, which is why I think it's false to say that Froome is more aggressive than Contador.

In the Tour.

In the Vuelta however, he needed to do more than what he did in both 2014 and 2016 to actually win the race.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

I think there's a lot of difference between being aggressive when you risk a lot or not. Froome is very aggressive on MTF's when he's the strongest

Like in 2013 on the last 2 MTF's right?

He was trying to win it all. Regardless, he had a 6 minute gap or something on Quintana. He was risking nothing, which is my point.

 

[Red Rick]

We simply don't know because he never was in a situation in which he had to take huge risks to win.

In the Tour.

In the Vuelta however, he needed to do more than what he did in both 2014 and 2016 to actually win the race.

This. I give him a pass for 2011 as there was no terrain to work with.

 

[Tonton]

Re: Re:

I think there's a lot of difference between being aggressive when you risk a lot or not. Froome is very aggressive on MTF's when he's the strongest

Like in 2013 on the last 2 MTF's right?

He was trying to win it all. Regardless, he had a 6 minute gap or something on Quintana. He was risking nothing, which is my point.

True. All Froome had to do was manage his huge lead, as well as manage PR. Let's remember that he conveniently "faded" after the Ventoux stage bludgeoning of his foes and the outcry and suspicion that ensued. I'll leave it at that. But it had to be mentioned for the sake of the discussion.

 

[kingjr]

Re: Re:

True. All Froome had to do was manage his huge lead.

Which he could have done easily by just following wheels.

 

[Flamin]

I think there is a big misunderstanding in this discussion.
The Contador fans like me posted here because we wanted to defend Contador after a poster wrote that Froome is way more aggressive than Contador which (in my opinion) is wrong. But I think some people here thought that by defending Contador we wanted to say that Froome is a boring rider. Ofc I can only talk about myself, but at least for me this is not the case. I don't blame Froome for not doing long range attacks in the tour. He would have been incredibly stupid to do one, just like Contador or Nibali would be completely stupid to do a long range attack when they are already in front. However there is the possibility that Froome is not the kind of rider who does long range attacks when he has to, just like there is the possibility that Froome is the kind of rider. We simply don't know because he never was in a situation in which he had to take huge risks to win.
However we do know that Nibali and Contador are the kind of riders who try suicidal long range attacks, because they already were in such a situation, which is why I think it's false to say that Froome is more aggressive than Contador.

In the Tour.

In the Vuelta however, he needed to do more than what he did in both 2014 and 2016 to actually win the race.

Why in 2016? He wasn't in that situation until Formigal happened, afterwards there was nothing left to win the race.

 

[Red Rick]

I think there is a big misunderstanding in this discussion.
The Contador fans like me posted here because we wanted to defend Contador after a poster wrote that Froome is way more aggressive than Contador which (in my opinion) is wrong. But I think some people here thought that by defending Contador we wanted to say that Froome is a boring rider. Ofc I can only talk about myself, but at least for me this is not the case. I don't blame Froome for not doing long range attacks in the tour. He would have been incredibly stupid to do one, just like Contador or Nibali would be completely stupid to do a long range attack when they are already in front. However there is the possibility that Froome is not the kind of rider who does long range attacks when he has to, just like there is the possibility that Froome is the kind of rider. We simply don't know because he never was in a situation in which he had to take huge risks to win.
However we do know that Nibali and Contador are the kind of riders who try suicidal long range attacks, because they already were in such a situation, which is why I think it's false to say that Froome is more aggressive than Contador.

In the Tour.

In the Vuelta however, he needed to do more than what he did in both 2014 and 2016 to actually win the race.

Why in 2016? He wasn't in that situation until Formigal happened, afterwards there was nothing left to win the race.

The Aitana stage was actually pretty hard before the Aitana. Plenty of terrain to at least try something. Froome was never winning the Vuelta on the Aitana, and he didn't even go for it early on the Aitana.

 

[Flamin]

I think there is a big misunderstanding in this discussion.
The Contador fans like me posted here because we wanted to defend Contador after a poster wrote that Froome is way more aggressive than Contador which (in my opinion) is wrong. But I think some people here thought that by defending Contador we wanted to say that Froome is a boring rider. Ofc I can only talk about myself, but at least for me this is not the case. I don't blame Froome for not doing long range attacks in the tour. He would have been incredibly stupid to do one, just like Contador or Nibali would be completely stupid to do a long range attack when they are already in front. However there is the possibility that Froome is not the kind of rider who does long range attacks when he has to, just like there is the possibility that Froome is the kind of rider. We simply don't know because he never was in a situation in which he had to take huge risks to win.
However we do know that Nibali and Contador are the kind of riders who try suicidal long range attacks, because they already were in such a situation, which is why I think it's false to say that Froome is more aggressive than Contador.

In the Tour.

In the Vuelta however, he needed to do more than what he did in both 2014 and 2016 to actually win the race.

Why in 2016? He wasn't in that situation until Formigal happened, afterwards there was nothing left to win the race.

The Aitana stage was actually pretty hard before the Aitana. Plenty of terrain to at least try something. Froome was never winning the Vuelta on the Aitana, and he didn't even go for it early on the Aitana.

Well, where was he gonna go, on his own, against Movistar? Not far eh.

 

[Red Rick]

He had teammates up the road. Was quite a big deal when the stage was still going

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

I don't blame Froome for riding the way he did in his Tour victories. It was sensible tactics. Just as Nibali's and Contador's tactics were very sensible in the Tours they won. However, riding sensibly when you're the best guy in the race and/or have the strongest team, isn't a very hard thing to do, and therefor I don't think it's a thing that qualifies as being a very aggressive rider. I'm not saying he HAS to win a GT by making a long range attack. I'm saying I'd gain respect for him if he tried it when it was his only chance to win. He hasn't.

I actually thought that Nibali's 2014 Tour win was much more boring than Froome's 2016 win simply because he had no real opposition. He probably could have won by 12 minutes instead of 7. Every time he attacked on a mountain he simply rode away from them and the race was over very early in the peace. So you can ride the perfect race with the perfect result and still bore people. Apart from the Ventoux debacle which was always going to be neutralized and with Quintana being out of sorts until late in the race, Froome also had the 2016 Tour under control even though the margin of his lead was not big until he built on it in the final TT. The fact that he backed up so well in the Vuelta probably means he finished the Tour with something in reserve.

Sky and Froome don't see much value in long range attacks it seems and compared to previous decades most potential top 10 riders on GC these days refuse to take the risk. You see it more often in the shorter stage races like the Dauphine and even there it's not common. The sport probably needs more Chiappucci's even though some of today's cycling managers much more prefer conservative racing and certainty in results and maybe also sponsors are more demanding with what they expect for their input. And how long would a Chiappucci survive for today if he wasn't winning ?

 

[hazaran]

Nibali was outright greedy in that tour, winning what, 4 stages? It made for an unbelievably boring Armstrong-style tour, although the latter had the tact to let some token competition win sometimes. I think at one time Liggett called it "another day in the office for Astana".

Even Sky nowadays don't usually bother to chase breakaways when they have Froome in yellow, just tapping out a tempo. They learned that from the "day after tomorrow" in 2013 where they chased everything and ended up with Froome totally isolated and 100k to go.

 

[dacooley]

in short a cyclist should be always willing to fell off a cliff by making a suicidal early move just to try to win the race by any means in order to be well liked and get considered 'a really agressive rider'.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

in short a cyclist should be always willing to fell off a cliff by making a suicidal early move just to try to win the race by any means in order to be well liked and get considered 'a really agressive rider'.

You're welcome to contribute to the thread instead of making the same fallacy over and over again.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

in short a cyclist should be always willing to fell off a cliff by making a suicidal early move just to try to win the race by any means in order to be well liked and get considered 'a really agressive rider'.

Since I guess falling off cliffes is what usually happens when riders attack, probably yes

 

[Flamin]

Re:

He had teammates up the road. Was quite a big deal when the stage was still going

When? I remember that Sky tried it multiple times early on the stage, but every move was quite easily shut down by Movistar.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

He had teammates up the road. Was quite a big deal when the stage was still going

When? I remember that Sky tried it multiple times early on the stage, but every move was quite easily shut down by Movistar.

I think they ended up with 2 guys up the road after Valverde let himself be caught from the chasing group in order to yell at his teammates.

 

[Red Rick]

Ffs people, there is a report function. Use it.

 

[Flamin]

Re: Re:

He had teammates up the road. Was quite a big deal when the stage was still going

When? I remember that Sky tried it multiple times early on the stage, but every move was quite easily shut down by Movistar.

I think they ended up with 2 guys up the road after Valverde let himself be caught from the chasing group in order to yell at his teammates.

Looked it up and it was eventually David López who managed to get into the break, but that was already halfway the stage and clearly miles away from being a dangerous situation for Movistar. I'd say Sky and Froome did what they had to do, which was attacking on the descent of the first climb. Nairo followed like a shadow, meaning the race was over.