38 seconds were needed by Nibali to have a better season than both these in 2013. Didn't happen so I go with Contador, a double is a double.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re: Re:
Contador's 2008 Giro, OTOH, was far from spectacular climbing-wise. He could have actually been dropped by Sastre (and Andy Schleck apart from the Hautacam stage). I don't think he was at that level in that Giro, despite the dodgy (but less talented) field.
Sastre climbed Alpe d'Huez in 39'30" without a mountain train. Attacked almost from the very bottom.El Pistolero said:
Contador's 2008 Giro, OTOH, was far from spectacular climbing-wise. He could have actually been dropped by Sastre (and Andy Schleck apart from the Hautacam stage). I don't think he was at that level in that Giro, despite the dodgy (but less talented) field.
Re:
Team wins don't count, not even on the track. Team Pursuit and Team Sprint, don't make me laugh lol.
PremierAndrew said:
Team wins don't count, not even on the track. Team Pursuit and Team Sprint, don't make me laugh lol.
Interesting thread.
For starters I think that it is too easy to 'just' simplify matters by someone won this, and someone didn't win that. Surely the way in which they won (or didn't win) matters also, taking into account all circumstances.
To say that one will be automatically remembered more because they won (or because they won more) is often true, though not always. Look at the current NBA team the Golden State Warriors, of course most currently famous for failing, if you consider the '96 Bulls motto of "It don't mean a thing without the ring" to be 100% truth.
There is a lot of truth to it. But not total.
Those Warriors have won 'only' one championship in this era, but I guarantee that even if they win no more, that this team will be remembered more than the '94/95 Rockets, or the 89/90 Pistons; teams that won the championship twice.
73 wins - whilst basically ushering in a new style of play - does mean something.
Froome didn't transcend cycling with what he did in this years Vuelta (and his and his teams style are often compared to another from a previous era), but it is still to say that a first isn't just a first, and a second isn't just a second. Not always.
According to one poster Contador "easily" had the better season. Why? Because Froome didn't win the Vuelta? He lost the Vuelta because of a brief lapse in concentration and/or because his team were rubbish when he needed them most. Oh, and because there wasn't a lot of time trialling. Check out the parcours of the '08 Giro. Plenty of mountains yes, but a lot of time trialling. A proper amount of time trialling. That is the reason (along with smart tactical riding of not being aggressive early on as he worked his way into form) that Contador won the 2008 Giro, and Froome would have almost certainly won the 2016 Vuelta if he'd been blessed with a similar parcours.
Having said that, I am not really sure who had the better season; but I think that it's super close either way. Pais Vasco trumps DL to me, at least enough to cancel out the 3rd vs. 4th in the OTT. But the grand tour results are really line-ball.
I'm not even sure if these are these riders best seasons (although the OP isn't declaring them to be so either). One poster mentioned Froome's 2013, and as far as Contador goes, we have his peak powers of 2009 and 2011, plus 2014, which is my favourite season of his, for its variety of consistence of excellence, as well as for its achievement in a colossal backs to the wall scenario.
Does a win in T-A and second places in Catalunya and DL beat a Giro? In name/s, probably not. But look at the way in which Contador won that T-A (now that riding on the queen stage against Quintana was more impressive than any of Froome's riding in this Vuelta
), and his second place in the Dauphne was really more like a win; just like Froome in this Vuelta, he was the strongest rider in the race, but lost out due to a weak team/poor tactics (depending on who you like I guess). And the 2014 Vuelta clearly beats the 2008 Vuelta. Broken (or at least fractured) leg vs. beach vacation; both of which may have been embellished slightly, but still, that 2014 Vuelta victory was INCREDIBLE. It was more than just A Vuelta victory. Rather off topic, but I'd rate Contador's 2014 season as his best. But that is also on topic, because we are discussing the reasons of what - we think - makes a great cycling season.
But why are we all avoiding the elephant in the room?
Who is the better rider in echelons: Contador or Froome?
For starters I think that it is too easy to 'just' simplify matters by someone won this, and someone didn't win that. Surely the way in which they won (or didn't win) matters also, taking into account all circumstances.
To say that one will be automatically remembered more because they won (or because they won more) is often true, though not always. Look at the current NBA team the Golden State Warriors, of course most currently famous for failing, if you consider the '96 Bulls motto of "It don't mean a thing without the ring" to be 100% truth.
There is a lot of truth to it. But not total.
Those Warriors have won 'only' one championship in this era, but I guarantee that even if they win no more, that this team will be remembered more than the '94/95 Rockets, or the 89/90 Pistons; teams that won the championship twice.
73 wins - whilst basically ushering in a new style of play - does mean something.
Froome didn't transcend cycling with what he did in this years Vuelta (and his and his teams style are often compared to another from a previous era), but it is still to say that a first isn't just a first, and a second isn't just a second. Not always.
According to one poster Contador "easily" had the better season. Why? Because Froome didn't win the Vuelta? He lost the Vuelta because of a brief lapse in concentration and/or because his team were rubbish when he needed them most. Oh, and because there wasn't a lot of time trialling. Check out the parcours of the '08 Giro. Plenty of mountains yes, but a lot of time trialling. A proper amount of time trialling. That is the reason (along with smart tactical riding of not being aggressive early on as he worked his way into form) that Contador won the 2008 Giro, and Froome would have almost certainly won the 2016 Vuelta if he'd been blessed with a similar parcours.
Having said that, I am not really sure who had the better season; but I think that it's super close either way. Pais Vasco trumps DL to me, at least enough to cancel out the 3rd vs. 4th in the OTT. But the grand tour results are really line-ball.
I'm not even sure if these are these riders best seasons (although the OP isn't declaring them to be so either). One poster mentioned Froome's 2013, and as far as Contador goes, we have his peak powers of 2009 and 2011, plus 2014, which is my favourite season of his, for its variety of consistence of excellence, as well as for its achievement in a colossal backs to the wall scenario.
Does a win in T-A and second places in Catalunya and DL beat a Giro? In name/s, probably not. But look at the way in which Contador won that T-A (now that riding on the queen stage against Quintana was more impressive than any of Froome's riding in this Vuelta
), and his second place in the Dauphne was really more like a win; just like Froome in this Vuelta, he was the strongest rider in the race, but lost out due to a weak team/poor tactics (depending on who you like I guess). And the 2014 Vuelta clearly beats the 2008 Vuelta. Broken (or at least fractured) leg vs. beach vacation; both of which may have been embellished slightly, but still, that 2014 Vuelta victory was INCREDIBLE. It was more than just A Vuelta victory. Rather off topic, but I'd rate Contador's 2014 season as his best. But that is also on topic, because we are discussing the reasons of what - we think - makes a great cycling season.But why are we all avoiding the elephant in the room?
Who is the better rider in echelons: Contador or Froome?
gregrowlerson said:Interesting thread.
For starters I think that it is too easy to 'just' simplify matters by someone won this, and someone didn't win that. Surely the way in which they won (or didn't win) matters also, taking into account all circumstances.
To say that one will be automatically remembered more because they won (or because they won more) is often true, though not always. Look at the current NBA team the Golden State Warriors, of course most currently famous for failing, if you consider the '96 Bulls motto of "It don't mean a thing without the ring" to be 100% truth.
There is a lot of truth to it. But not total.
Those Warriors have won 'only' one championship in this era, but I guarantee that even if they win no more, that this team will be remembered more than the '94/95 Rockets, or the 89/90 Pistons; teams that won the championship twice.
73 wins - whilst basically ushering in a new style of play - does mean something.
Froome didn't transcend cycling with what he did in this years Vuelta (and his and his teams style are often compared to another from a previous era), but it is still to say that a first isn't just a first, and a second isn't just a second. Not always.
According to one poster Contador "easily" had the better season. Why? Because Froome didn't win the Vuelta? He lost the Vuelta because of a brief lapse in concentration and/or because his team were rubbish when he needed them most. Oh, and because there wasn't a lot of time trialling. Check out the parcours of the '08 Giro. Plenty of mountains yes, but a lot of time trialling. A proper amount of time trialling. That is the reason (along with smart tactical riding of not being aggressive early on as he worked his way into form) that Contador won the 2008 Giro, and Froome would have almost certainly won the 2016 Vuelta if he'd been blessed with a similar parcours.
Having said that, I am not really sure who had the better season; but I think that it's super close either way. Pais Vasco trumps DL to me, at least enough to cancel out the 3rd vs. 4th in the OTT. But the grand tour results are really line-ball.
I'm not even sure if these are these riders best seasons (although the OP isn't declaring them to be so either). One poster mentioned Froome's 2013, and as far as Contador goes, we have his peak powers of 2009 and 2011, plus 2014, which is my favourite season of his, for its variety of consistence of excellence, as well as for its achievement in a colossal backs to the wall scenario.
Does a win in T-A and second places in Catalunya and DL beat a Giro? In name/s, probably not. But look at the way in which Contador won that T-A (now that riding on the queen stage against Quintana was more impressive than any of Froome's riding in this Vuelta
But why are we all avoiding the elephant in the room?
Who is the better rider in echelons: Contador or Froome?
Hi, im presuming im the poster that you are signalling out,
The reason why I think Contadors 2008 season will be remembered more than Froome in 2016 is because if you go over the last 2 dacades, only 2 riders have won double grand tours in one season, alberto contador and marco pantani. This shows that what Contador did in 2008 was very rare especially in this current era of grand tour riders, who base there whole season around one race, compared to 30 years ago when riders would often race back to back grand tours.
And yes, Froome might have won the vuelta this year, but he didn't ride very smartly and made an ameture mistake which has cost him races in the past. Why was Froome and his team at the back of the bunch at the start of a short stage when a rider like contador was right at the front, given contadors history of attacking far out on short stages I just cannot understand what he and team sky were thinking? Froome crashing out in the 2014 tour was the same issue, he was at the back of the bunch and if he was near the front like the other GC riders he wouldn't of crashed.
Im my opinion a double will allways beat a single grand tour win + a few 1 week long stage races, because doubles in this day and age are so rare.
I think a better question would be Contador 2009 vs Froome 2016 because they are more similar.
gregrowlerson said:
The way Froome lost the vuelta is exactly the reason why in 2008 Contador had easily a better season. The double was in Froome's hands this year with the final ITT. He lost it because he was caught sleeping like an amateur. We can compare Froome's 2016 with Sastre's 2008 anyway.
On results Contador > Froome for those two years .... but ...
Froomes year was more impressive though. The 2008 Vuelta was a joke and Leipheimer should've crushed that. I still even remember the stage where he had to sit behind Mosquera when Contador attacked as Contador had publicly criticized him for "trying" in the TT earlier. Reminds me of the Froome/Wiggins fiasco.
Froomes year was more impressive though. The 2008 Vuelta was a joke and Leipheimer should've crushed that. I still even remember the stage where he had to sit behind Mosquera when Contador attacked as Contador had publicly criticized him for "trying" in the TT earlier. Reminds me of the Froome/Wiggins fiasco.
In terms of the rarity of the Giro-Vuelta double, it does strike me that for most of recent history, the top top riders (be it armstrong, Ullrich, Froome, Quintana bar one season in which he did Giro-Vuelta and a crash may have prevented the double) have overwhelmingly chosen to rise the tour over the giro. Of course then doing the Giro-Vuelta double is rarer, due to the sheer fact that the riders most capable of doing it have chosen not to do it.
On a more general point, it's clearly a subjective question. Personally, despite generally enjoying the Giro most of the three GT's, I feel the greater attention, prestige and (lets face it, competition) of the tour is such that merely winning it is not far off doing the Giro-Vuelta double (and to the lay man it is certainly better), which leads me to prefer Froome's season once you factor in the Vuelta.
On a more general point, it's clearly a subjective question. Personally, despite generally enjoying the Giro most of the three GT's, I feel the greater attention, prestige and (lets face it, competition) of the tour is such that merely winning it is not far off doing the Giro-Vuelta double (and to the lay man it is certainly better), which leads me to prefer Froome's season once you factor in the Vuelta.
Re: Peter Sagan vs. Mark Cavendish. Who has the best palmare
I don't have a dog in this race, but Leipheimer was effectively riding against Contador in that race. He specifically said so.
Which is why he finished within 1 min
roundabout said:
I don't have a dog in this race, but Leipheimer was effectively riding against Contador in that race. He specifically said so.
Which is why he finished within 1 min
Climeon said:
Quintana only won the Giro because he attacked when the race was neutralized, he would have lost otherwise, he wasn't that good in the Giro. He certainly wouldn't have beaten Contador during that Vuelta, he was already lagging behind in the time trial before his crash. And the crash was purely his fault, probably because he was at his limit. There's no excuses for him, he just wasn't strong enough for the double that year.
Nibali also failed to do the double in 2010 and in 2013 although he came very close in 2013. Chaves failed to do so this year despite being very strong (you don't win Lombardia and the queen stage of the Giro otherwise). Purito failed to win the double in 2012 in what was by far his best year (he failed because of one Alberto Contador). Aru also failed to do the double in 2015 (again due to one Alberto Contador).
Now that I come to think of it, Froome also failed to do the Tour-Vuelta double due to a certain Alberto Contador.
So plenty of strong riders have tried to emulate Contador's double, but they all failed.
Cont. is by far a greater rider than Froome. In 5 years, Froome may have better results though, hard to say why, medical, and preperation...seem key with SKY.
Re: Re:
Not really. I just expressed the mood of the thread in an ironic way. AC should be a king. Froome should suck. That's the way thinking a lot of people stick to. It might be rude or but that's true. had AC won the Tour and end up the vuelta in second place, it would regarded like almost a feat but since it was froome, this detail turns assessment upside down. i'd call it a legalized hypocrisy.Angliru said:
Re:
quote by the mythical cobra ricco:
"contador didn't come from the beach. madrid is not at sea."
and i believe that too, no way he came unprepared, there were rumours that astana won't get aso invitation since a long time.
to be on topic, i think they are even. froome's season impressed me a little more though.
Miburo said:
quote by the mythical cobra ricco:
"contador didn't come from the beach. madrid is not at sea."
and i believe that too, no way he came unprepared, there were rumours that astana won't get aso invitation since a long time.
to be on topic, i think they are even. froome's season impressed me a little more though.
In 2008 we weren't quite familiar with Contador's liberality with the truth yet, so the whole "winning the Giro straight from the beach" thing still has some traction among many people.
Re:
You think that that was contador's real climbing? The one week beach thing, fair enough but he wasn't fully prepared.
hrotha said:
You think that that was contador's real climbing? The one week beach thing, fair enough but he wasn't fully prepared.
Re: Re:
Not fully prepared because he probably harboured some hopes of going to the Tour, but pretty prepared. At least 85% full fitness, else he was a moron.
Miburo said:
Not fully prepared because he probably harboured some hopes of going to the Tour, but pretty prepared. At least 85% full fitness, else he was a moron.
Wasn't the story that Astana got a last minute invitation to the Giro? Why should he have prepared for it?
Re:
Didn't remember that bit. Though that Giro was confirmed and it was the Tour in balance.LaFlorecita said:
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram