Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.

[Pennino]

Re: Re:

The same way Nibali it is another with good weather. Nibali was 3rd in a Giro without any simple raindrop. For me that has more merit than the Giro he won with extreme cold, anow and rain condition. and his Tour was quite rainy as well. In this Gro he was better than Pinot the same he was better in le Tour than Pinot, one of his main rivals, so I cant see any declining...just better or worse result depend circunstances..

That's where your argument derails, my good friend. I agree with the cold weather argument, and this is also true for Il Grandissimo Tibopino. According to stats, watts, e tutti quanti, Pinogiro slightly improved since '14, but not that much. When comparing TdF '14 vs. Giro '17, the time gap has decreased a ton, from over 8 minutes to seconds between TP and VN. I see declining for Il Squalo. In '14 Thibaut distanced Nibali once, Port de Bales, that's it. In '17, different story.

Back on topic: Dawg was lucky that Porte crashed, he was more vulnerable than ever, the rest of the contenders were shy but Porte knew Sky and Froome, he would have attacked. Woudda, shoudda, it didn't happen.

Just like the run atop the Chalet Renard never happened, because Sky (Portal) made a claim to the organizers and got a flat stage ruling on a MTF. The worst thing that could have happened to Chris Froome, although his fans, Phil, and Paul will remember that forever. It didn't happen. Fact. And the legend discussion that took place a few posts ago should have put emphasize on the narrative that makes a legend. The epic.

Hinault was a legend after the '80 LBL, having the out of a ravine episode at the '77 Dauphine, two TdF, several monuments, that ride in the snow. the sleet, viewers like me catching glimpses between interruptions, drinking a hot chocolate, it felt so miserable even in my living room .

How about Eugene Christophe? Never won a Tour. What a story. He's still mentioned in this forum probably ten times per year, one century later.

Portal and Sky stole that from CF. By placing their win at all cost philosophy in the way.

If I were Froome, I would start to go for monuments too, get a AGR, GDL, Strade, be a MAN, not just a robot, which is what pretty much anyone outside of the UK perceives.

Great post! Being on Sky winning the Tour isn't an achievement that will create a legacy unfortunately for him. It's just the logical output of their input, the calculated return on investment. And that's so laughably sad.

 

[Eclipse]

I don't think Froome has hit the same insane peaks he did in 2013 but I do think that might be a concious shift in his training because I think he does value adding another GT to his palmares if possible. This Vuelta will probably tells us quite a lot about where Froome is at in terms of his overall form vs his career highest. Then next year will be another big Tour attempt no matter the results and then there's a tiny tiny chance he might try sneak in a Giro in 2019

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

The same way Nibali it is another with good weather. Nibali was 3rd in a Giro without any simple raindrop. For me that has more merit than the Giro he won with extreme cold, anow and rain condition. and his Tour was quite rainy as well. In this Gro he was better than Pinot the same he was better in le Tour than Pinot, one of his main rivals, so I cant see any declining...just better or worse result depend circunstances..

That's where your argument derails, my good friend. I agree with the cold weather argument, and this is also true for Il Grandissimo Tibopino. According to stats, watts, e tutti quanti, Pinogiro slightly improved since '14, but not that much. When comparing TdF '14 vs. Giro '17, the time gap has decreased a ton, from over 8 minutes to seconds between TP and VN. I see declining for Il Squalo. In '14 Thibaut distanced Nibali once, Port de Bales, that's it. In '17, different story.

Back on topic: Dawg was lucky that Porte crashed, he was more vulnerable than ever, the rest of the contenders were shy but Porte knew Sky and Froome, he would have attacked. Woudda, shoudda, it didn't happen.

Just like the run atop the Chalet Renard never happened, because Sky (Portal) made a claim to the organizers and got a flat stage ruling on a MTF. The worst thing that could have happened to Chris Froome, although his fans, Phil, and Paul will remember that forever. It didn't happen. Fact. And the legend discussion that took place a few posts ago should have put emphasize on the narrative that makes a legend. The epic.

Hinault was a legend after the '80 LBL, having the out of a ravine episode at the '77 Dauphine, two TdF, several monuments, that ride in the snow. the sleet, viewers like me catching glimpses between interruptions, drinking a hot chocolate, it felt so miserable even in my living room .

How about Eugene Christophe? Never won a Tour. What a story. He's still mentioned in this forum probably ten times per year, one century later.

Portal and Sky stole that from CF. By placing their win at all cost philosophy in the way.

If I were Froome, I would start to go for monuments too, get a AGR, GDL, Strade, be a MAN, not just a robot, which is what pretty much anyone outside of the UK perceives.

Great post! Being on Sky winning the Tour isn't an achievement that will create a legacy unfortunately for him. It's just the logical output of their input, the calculated return on investment. And that's so laughably sad.

If it was simply a case of budget how do you explain two of the smallest budget teams in World Tour finished 2nd & 3rd in Tour de France this year? Clearly when you have lowest budget teams doing so well, the difference is not budget, the difference is how effectively you use it and how the team pulls together.

As Froome says about capping rider salaries to make World Tour team more equal, all you do is disincentivize winning for everyone, not necessarily make the playing field fairer because the team budgets are capped.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

If it was simply a case of budget how do you explain two of the smallest budget teams in World Tour finished 2nd & 3rd in Tour de France this year? Clearly when you have lowest budget teams doing so well, the difference is not budget, the difference is how effectively you use it and how the team pulls together.

This is a trivial argument.
Uran was a total surprise, no-one expected him to be at this level and he did not have (or need) support from a strong team. He was almost always isolated but was lucky enough never to get into trouble and could merrily follow wheels of other teams. AG2R fielded a bunch of decent but not great climbers and one trump card on the flat (Naesen). Organise a TTT, and you'll immediately expose their weakness. Of course some teams are more efficient in allocating and using their budget, but take away half of Sky's budget, and they would never be able to field a team with 3 potential team leaders (Kwiatkowski, Thomas, Landa) as mere helpers.

 

[samhocking]

That's not what Charly Wegelieus said happened. They worked all winter to win Tour de France with Uran. He said he was disappointed Uran didn't win because they thought he would and expected it because they worked so hard and Uran rode the plan to perfection.

The fact remains, Froome gained time in the ITT where budget makes very little difference. Add to that Bardet doesn't even touch his TT bike in training by his own admission (I find timetrialling boring and hate it), clearly he can make gains that cost nothing.

For some perspective, Katusha's budget is €4m less than Sky, roughly Froome's salary at Sky.

 

[Pennino]

Re: Re:

The same way Nibali it is another with good weather. Nibali was 3rd in a Giro without any simple raindrop. For me that has more merit than the Giro he won with extreme cold, anow and rain condition. and his Tour was quite rainy as well. In this Gro he was better than Pinot the same he was better in le Tour than Pinot, one of his main rivals, so I cant see any declining...just better or worse result depend circunstances..

That's where your argument derails, my good friend. I agree with the cold weather argument, and this is also true for Il Grandissimo Tibopino. According to stats, watts, e tutti quanti, Pinogiro slightly improved since '14, but not that much. When comparing TdF '14 vs. Giro '17, the time gap has decreased a ton, from over 8 minutes to seconds between TP and VN. I see declining for Il Squalo. In '14 Thibaut distanced Nibali once, Port de Bales, that's it. In '17, different story.

Back on topic: Dawg was lucky that Porte crashed, he was more vulnerable than ever, the rest of the contenders were shy but Porte knew Sky and Froome, he would have attacked. Woudda, shoudda, it didn't happen.

Just like the run atop the Chalet Renard never happened, because Sky (Portal) made a claim to the organizers and got a flat stage ruling on a MTF. The worst thing that could have happened to Chris Froome, although his fans, Phil, and Paul will remember that forever. It didn't happen. Fact. And the legend discussion that took place a few posts ago should have put emphasize on the narrative that makes a legend. The epic.

Hinault was a legend after the '80 LBL, having the out of a ravine episode at the '77 Dauphine, two TdF, several monuments, that ride in the snow. the sleet, viewers like me catching glimpses between interruptions, drinking a hot chocolate, it felt so miserable even in my living room .

How about Eugene Christophe? Never won a Tour. What a story. He's still mentioned in this forum probably ten times per year, one century later.

Portal and Sky stole that from CF. By placing their win at all cost philosophy in the way.

If I were Froome, I would start to go for monuments too, get a AGR, GDL, Strade, be a MAN, not just a robot, which is what pretty much anyone outside of the UK perceives.

Great post! Being on Sky winning the Tour isn't an achievement that will create a legacy unfortunately for him. It's just the logical output of their input, the calculated return on investment. And that's so laughably sad.

If it was simply a case of budget how do you explain two of the smallest budget teams in World Tour finished 2nd & 3rd in Tour de France this year? Clearly when you have lowest budget teams doing so well, the difference is not budget, the difference is how effectively you use it and how the team pulls together.

As Froome says about capping rider salaries to make World Tour team more equal, all you do is disincentivize winning for everyone, not necessarily make the playing field fairer because the team budgets are capped.

It's not simply a question about budget at all. It's about their whole mentality: 'we need to win, the only thing that matters is winning', building their whole structure on that. It's annoying, it's boring. And that whole science thing makes it incredibly sad.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re:

The fact remains, Froome gained time in the ITT where budget makes very little difference.

Do you really think that?
The bike, the suit, the helmet, they can make a significant difference.
If the 'vortex suit' calculation is anywhere near realistic, riders could gain half a minute on a 20 km course.

Regardless. If you can assemble a team so powerful that you can fully control the mountain stages, suffocating any attack, it suffices to have a good, lean TT'er that can also hold onto the train in the mountains. It's how Wiggins got his Tour win. It would not have worked in a team like AG2R.

 

[wouterkaas]

Re: Re:

The fact remains, Froome gained time in the ITT where budget makes very little difference.

Do you really think that?
The bike, the suit, the helmet, they can make a significant difference.
If the 'vortex suit' calculation is anywhere near realistic, riders could gain half a minute on a 20 km course.

Regardless. If you can assemble a team so powerful that you can fully control the mountain stages, suffocating any attack, it suffices to have a good, lean TT'er that can also hold onto the train in the mountains. It's how Wiggins got his Tour win. It would not have worked in a team like AG2R.

Froome rode in a Le Coq Sportif TT suit given to him by the organization, so he didn't benefit from the special suit.

 

[Eclipse]

Re: Re:

The fact remains, Froome gained time in the ITT where budget makes very little difference.

Do you really think that?
The bike, the suit, the helmet, they can make a significant difference.
If the 'vortex suit' calculation is anywhere near realistic, riders could gain half a minute on a 20 km course.

Regardless. If you can assemble a team so powerful that you can fully control the mountain stages, suffocating any attack, it suffices to have a good, lean TT'er that can also hold onto the train in the mountains. It's how Wiggins got his Tour win. It would not have worked in a team like AG2R.

Agree 100% with this.

Yes a team can have an individual rider perform well and secure a decent finish without a budget on the level of Sky's but a team with a small budget simply can't exercise the same level of control over a race in all phases. Put anyone else in charge of actually defending the leaders jersey and watch how fast they lose it against a coordinated Sky effort.

A budget is the difference between recovering from a mechanical at a key moment in a race and getting blown out for minutes.

A budget is the difference between your teams mountain assault fizzling out too early for your rider to feel comfortable launching an attack and being delivered to right where you want to go from.

A budget is the difference between feeling comfortable forcing echelons to try and take time and praying you hold on to try not to lose it.

Froome is an extremely strong rider, probably the best in the world but his consistency at the Tour is massively helped by the support that his team offers him and that's something heavily influenced by budget

 

[samhocking]

I agree, but to say a riders Tour 'legacy' is based on some kind of basic return on investment calculation or affording the strongest team is a little absurd. Put all of Froomes domestiques into AG2R to support Bardet and Bardet still looses the Tour in the two timetrials, so it's not as simple as a ROI argument for success or not. It's a complete team effort. The riders are just one other piece of a much bigger jigsaw in what it takes to win. Science also is just one small part.

 

[samhocking]

End of the day, Bardet & Uran played to their strengths. Yes, any attacks they could make were thwarted by Froome's team mates or himself the majority of the time, but switch the entire Sky team and staff into AG2R or Cannondale and Bardet & Uran loose the Tour in the timetrials, all other things between Uran, Bardet & Froome being equal. i.e. Froome would follow like Uran or close down a Bardet attack like Bardet did on Froome etc etc.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

The fact remains, Froome gained time in the ITT where budget makes very little difference.

Do you really think that?
The bike, the suit, the helmet, they can make a significant difference.
If the 'vortex suit' calculation is anywhere near realistic, riders could gain half a minute on a 20 km course.

Regardless. If you can assemble a team so powerful that you can fully control the mountain stages, suffocating any attack, it suffices to have a good, lean TT'er that can also hold onto the train in the mountains. It's how Wiggins got his Tour win. It would not have worked in a team like AG2R.

Froome rode in a Le Coq Sportif TT suit given to him by the organization, so he didn't benefit from the special suit.

And in the first TT, tyre pressures, tyre choice and bike handling would have provided far more gains than a vortex skinsuit. Neither pressure, tyre choice or wet bike handling cost a thing to perfect.

 

[samhocking]

Sky's bikes are off-the-shelf. The wheels are off-the-shelf, the helmets are off-the-shelf, none of which you could possibly say are significantly faster than other teams. Gains even simply though spending more money are really not that much any more as everything has to be production versions. Once you have an aero TT bike with all the kit, a skinsuit and an aero helmet and tested yourself in a wind tunnel, there's really only few seconds here and there when all combined, but really not much more to be found working within the UCI regulations. End of the day riders like Alf Engers and Anquetil's records stood well into present day and they didn't have aero bars, helmets, discs or anything so it's largely marketing and gains on paper only.

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

I agree, but to say a riders Tour 'legacy' is based on some kind of basic return on investment calculation or affording the strongest team is a little absurd. Put all of Froomes domestiques into AG2R to support Bardet and Bardet still looses the Tour in the two timetrials, so it's not as simple as a ROI argument for success or not. It's a complete team effort. The riders are just one other piece of a much bigger jigsaw in what it takes to win. Science also is just one small part.

Of course there will be a legacy. One Tour win is remembered by many cycling fans, four is forgotten by no one. Whether people like they way they win doesn't matter. Contador will have a very different legacy to Froome but Froome's achievements will still be remembered and it's not as if he is the first multiple Tour winner to have a strong team. History has plenty of examples starting with the greatest of all time Eddy Merckx.

 

[Jspear]

Re:

End of the day, Bardet & Uran played to their strengths. Yes, any attacks they could make were thwarted by Froome's team mates or himself the majority of the time, but switch the entire Sky team and staff into AG2R or Cannondale and Bardet & Uran loose the Tour in the timetrials, all other things between Uran, Bardet & Froome being equal. i.e. Froome would follow like Uran or close down a Bardet attack like Bardet did on Froome etc etc.

Of course all this is hypothetical and doesn't really matter, but...I don't think so. I think if you gave Froome's domestiques to Bardet, he would have gained a good chunk of time on Froome. Froome seemed vulnerable several times in the mountains. Luckily for him he had his train to keep things in check. Yes Bardet would have lost the same amount of time in the TT's, but perhaps he could have done a bit better in the mountains. I'm not saying it would have been enough to win, but I think he could have dropped Froome a couple of times with the Sky team.

With a 2013 Froome, he would have won regardless of his team.

 

[Ruby United]

We all knew he was going, but now he has confirmed he will be at the Vuelta.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/40738725

 

[Ruby United]

Re: Re:

End of the day, Bardet & Uran played to their strengths. Yes, any attacks they could make were thwarted by Froome's team mates or himself the majority of the time, but switch the entire Sky team and staff into AG2R or Cannondale and Bardet & Uran loose the Tour in the timetrials, all other things between Uran, Bardet & Froome being equal. i.e. Froome would follow like Uran or close down a Bardet attack like Bardet did on Froome etc etc.

Of course all this is hypothetical and doesn't really matter, but...I don't think so. I think if you gave Froome's domestiques to Bardet, he would have gained a good chunk of time on Froome. Froome seemed vulnerable several times in the mountains. Luckily for him he had his train to keep things in check. Yes Bardet would have lost the same amount of time in the TT's, but perhaps he could have done a bit better in the mountains. I'm not saying it would have been enough to win, but I think he could have dropped Froome a couple of times with the Sky team.

With a 2013 Froome, he would have won regardless of his team.

I disagree.
(Assuming Bardet had the Sky train) why would the Sky train have helped drop Froome anymore than Bardet?
Meaning, Froome was as strong as Bardet on the mountains, so if Bardet had had the Sky train Froome would have just followed Bardet. Why would he have dropped?
I think your are misunderstanding what the Sky train was there to do this year.
The Sky train train controls the peleton, brings back breaks, brings back attacks, protects the team leader, maintains a high pace and helps the team leader in case of accidents/mechanicals (as occurred this year).
The Sky train didn't help Froome drop Bardet, so why would it help Bardet drop Froome?

You are correct, though, that Bardet may have won the Tour with the Sky train. But that would have been by riding hard when Froome had that big mechanical and not letting Froome get back up. It also would have meant that Froome would have been more susceptible to attacks and Bardet could have played the 1-2 with Landa.

But in terms of dropping Froome with the Sky train? That is wrong.

 

[Robert5091]

We all knew he was going, but now he has confirmed he will be at the Vuelta.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/40738725

Non-news news, but who's in the Sky team will be interesting.

 

[Valv.Piti]

We all knew he was going, but now he has confirmed he will be at the Vuelta.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/40738725

Non-news news, but who's in the Sky team will be interesting.

Nieve, Rosa and Poels should provide a good core of climbing domestiques, if on form. Nieve is a given, but Poels has been injured for a long time and Rosa is super inconsistent. I also think solid guys such as Puccio and Moscon will ride. Maybe Elissonde?

 

[silvergrenade]

We all knew he was going, but now he has confirmed he will be at the Vuelta.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/40738725

Non-news news, but who's in the Sky team will be interesting.

8 from these 11 I'd say:
Bolded who will certainly be there:
Moscon
Stannard
Poels
Kennaugh
Cappucino Puccio
Deignan
Lopez
Rosa
Boswell
Elisonde
Nieve

 

[rick james]

Froome
Poels
Nieve
Rosa
Deignan
Lopez
Puccio
Moscon
Stannard

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

End of the day, Bardet & Uran played to their strengths. Yes, any attacks they could make were thwarted by Froome's team mates or himself the majority of the time, but switch the entire Sky team and staff into AG2R or Cannondale and Bardet & Uran loose the Tour in the timetrials, all other things between Uran, Bardet & Froome being equal. i.e. Froome would follow like Uran or close down a Bardet attack like Bardet did on Froome etc etc.

Of course all this is hypothetical and doesn't really matter, but...I don't think so. I think if you gave Froome's domestiques to Bardet, he would have gained a good chunk of time on Froome. Froome seemed vulnerable several times in the mountains. Luckily for him he had his train to keep things in check. Yes Bardet would have lost the same amount of time in the TT's, but perhaps he could have done a bit better in the mountains. I'm not saying it would have been enough to win, but I think he could have dropped Froome a couple of times with the Sky team.

With a 2013 Froome, he would have won regardless of his team.

I disagree.
(Assuming Bardet had the Sky train) why would the Sky train have helped drop Froome anymore than Bardet?
Meaning, Froome was as strong as Bardet on the mountains, so if Bardet had had the Sky train Froome would have just followed Bardet. Why would he have dropped?
I think your are misunderstanding what the Sky train was there to do this year.
The Sky train train controls the peleton, brings back breaks, brings back attacks, protects the team leader, maintains a high pace and helps the team leader in case of accidents/mechanicals (as occurred this year).
The Sky train didn't help Froome drop Bardet, so why would it help Bardet drop Froome?

You are correct, though, that Bardet may have won the Tour with the Sky train. But that would have been by riding hard when Froome had that big mechanical and not letting Froome get back up. It also would have meant that Froome would have been more susceptible to attacks and Bardet could have played the 1-2 with Landa.

But in terms of dropping Froome with the Sky train? That is wrong.

I think there was a couple times where Sky was keeping things at a decent tempo and it was taking everything Froome had to keep up. If Bardet had been a little more brave, I think he could have dropped Froome once or twice. Yes, there were plenty of stages where they were equally strong.

 

[filipepc]

First of all, i think without crashes Froome will easily wind the vuelta.

Everything goes arround that if we think. Some are saying that is a strong field and so on, but the truth is that is a strong field for a top 5 or top 10, winning is much diferent.

There is a line that separe doing a good vuelta to winning.

In this days you just have 2 or 3 riders that in top form could match Froome, and besides Nibali i don´t see the others. So i think that he will do the double. Een if this double isn´t as doing Giro/Tour. It is completly diferent...
In the vuelta almost all the field as done 1 GT and are obvious tired too. When you do the Giro with bad weather and then go to the Tour with so many guys that just prepare for that and are fresh it is almost impossible nowdays.

So i think even if it is not equal it is good to do a double and Froome this year put all in that.

About is team, this year because he really think he will do it, the team will be much stronger than last year. With the sky train Froome last year would have won.
I don´t like their way of riding, because it turns cycling like a robotic thing, but they are very good and intelligent the way they ride.

I think Froome will try to go with the best riders he can...

So, i Still think Henao is going, and with Nieve, Powels, Rosa, it´s enough to do that train and almost garantee the victory.

I hope the vuelta can be more open that the Tour, but, with a stong sky train it is impossible, and Froome just have to delivery it.

 

[Nirvana]

The Nibali seen at the Giro that couldn't even drop Pozzovivo and Zakarin will be no match for Froome given also that the Vuelta route suit his diesel climbing less.
The only problem for him will be Kruijswijk if he'll reach 2016 Giro form.

I can't see anyone else giving him problems, even if with the form of life.

 

[sienna]

We all knew he was going, but now he has confirmed he will be at the Vuelta.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/40738725

Non-news news, but who's in the Sky team will be interesting.

If Sky fails next year, ie. no Yellow in Paris, where do they go?
Try to replace Froome, change their focus or drop out of the sport?