Re:
Commentators saying these kind of things just renders the statements meaningless. It actually diminishes Froome, because anyone with an ounce of fairness dismisses it for the hyperbole it is. It is why I cringe at most British commentators for their blatant bias.
As for Serious Sam's claim of 'who the best GT rider is right now, or has been in the last few years', I am not sure you can say Froome has the strongest case. Let's look at the results of the GTs again. He's won…one. The same as Quintana. Fewer than Nibali. Fewer than Contador. Start counting any recent year you like, and he still hasn't superseded AC's GT results. I know 'the Tour's the thing' in some minds, but it is not the only GT. Should've would've could've doesn't cut it.
Do I think Froome is AC's main rival ? Yes, on best form, I think he is. But he's still only translated 'all that potential' into one GT win. And though he's clearly one of the top current stage racers, it has to be acknowledged that there are weaknesses in his skill set which make him look particularly vulnerable compared to some of the others. If it were only about power or the ability to go genius, then they would race on standing bikes in the gym and compare numbers, but they don't.
What great champions are able to do is perform and deliver again and again and again under different circumstances; win when they aren't on form; win when they haven't got the team they might wish for; win under hideous pressure; win in shitty weather; win almost as an act of will. The rest is potential. There are loads of guys with all the potential in the world who never quite make it for whatever reason.
I wish all those commentators who should know better would try and tame their inner fanboy and let history be the judge based on results over the long haul.
Commentators saying these kind of things just renders the statements meaningless. It actually diminishes Froome, because anyone with an ounce of fairness dismisses it for the hyperbole it is. It is why I cringe at most British commentators for their blatant bias.
As for Serious Sam's claim of 'who the best GT rider is right now, or has been in the last few years', I am not sure you can say Froome has the strongest case. Let's look at the results of the GTs again. He's won…one. The same as Quintana. Fewer than Nibali. Fewer than Contador. Start counting any recent year you like, and he still hasn't superseded AC's GT results. I know 'the Tour's the thing' in some minds, but it is not the only GT. Should've would've could've doesn't cut it.
Do I think Froome is AC's main rival ? Yes, on best form, I think he is. But he's still only translated 'all that potential' into one GT win. And though he's clearly one of the top current stage racers, it has to be acknowledged that there are weaknesses in his skill set which make him look particularly vulnerable compared to some of the others. If it were only about power or the ability to go genius, then they would race on standing bikes in the gym and compare numbers, but they don't.
What great champions are able to do is perform and deliver again and again and again under different circumstances; win when they aren't on form; win when they haven't got the team they might wish for; win under hideous pressure; win in shitty weather; win almost as an act of will. The rest is potential. There are loads of guys with all the potential in the world who never quite make it for whatever reason.
I wish all those commentators who should know better would try and tame their inner fanboy and let history be the judge based on results over the long haul.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram