Contador vs. Froome

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

At least Armstrong was charismatic in its own sinister and psychopathic way.

Froome's dominante of the Tour is pretty grey and unlegendary. He wont have my hate, not my love.

Actually Armstrong's Tour podcast was quite good. Sooner or later we have to move on otherwise we all become angry old people. Does the world need more of those ? Froome's result sheet is not unlegendary and you could argue that Indurain's five Tour wins were even less unlegendary unless you love TTs and nothing else.

I think you confused Big Mig with Wiggins. Miguelon was no stranger for attacks, and he wasn't a boring rider by any means.

There was no confusion. Wiggins isn't even in the conversation and to talk of him with indurain, Contador and Froome gives me head spins. Indurain was immensely strong and successful but boring he was compared to other Tour greats but he found a method of winning and was successful at it and rode to his strengths like most other riders. If Indurain was winning like that today the TV audience would plummet.

 

[KyoGrey]

Re: Re:

At least Armstrong was charismatic in its own sinister and psychopathic way.

Froome's dominante of the Tour is pretty grey and unlegendary. He wont have my hate, not my love.

Actually Armstrong's Tour podcast was quite good. Sooner or later we have to move on otherwise we all become angry old people. Does the world need more of those ? Froome's result sheet is not unlegendary and you could argue that Indurain's five Tour wins were even less unlegendary unless you love TTs and nothing else.

I agree with you and see posts that disagree...they must not have been watching the TdF in BigMig's era. The most boring ones with regards to suspense. He would kill everybody in the ITT and had no opposition to speak off, except Rominger. The rest was racing for spots and stage wins. Those TdF would drive you nuts today. Luxembourg ITT, stage 8 I believe, or 9, game over. Not to say that he couldn't climb, but borefest-wise, Indurain's wins were the...boringest .

The only boring part of the Tours 1992-1996 was that the winner was very likely to be Indurain (not counting 1991), just like in this period of Froome dominance.

But apart from that, the 90's Tours were high up in the competitiveness and excitement, from the brutal and grueling parcours that separated greatness from mediocrity unlike today, to the general attacking attitude of most teams and relevant figures of the peloton and even up to the wide range of interesting personalities and interests that populated the sport.

How boring can the Tour de France be now that I could even pay money for a generally disgousting figure like Virenque to be riding nowadays. And I'm talking about Virenque, not even about more interesting riders like Chiapucchi, Bugno, Rominger, Jalabert, Zulle, Pantani or the Gewiss monsters...

 

[KyoGrey]

One can even say that there were a series of events that changed forever our sport with regards to comptetiveness and excitement, in 1998-1999.

- The absolute failure of riders and teams to form a united negotiating front that stablished clear and universal rules in the wake of the Festina scandal paved the way to randomness, opacity and inconsistency with regards to doping controls that allowed future structures with UCI preference like US Postal and Sky to impose dominance on the rest.

- The Italian mafia throwing away Pantani from the 1999 Giro and thus ending his career and ultimately, his life.

- Lance Armstrong being able to make his comeback to cycling after recovering from testicular cancer and acquring the exclusive services of Mr.Ferrari and demigod favour of the UCI via Verbrugghe/Zorzoli thanks to the shared profits of the Livestrong melodrama.

Without these 3 events the Tours of the early and mid 2000's would've been spectacular with Ullrich as a probable multiTour winner but all the options wide open for a good bunch of other riders.
The best Spanish climber (Heras) was bought by Armstrong, the best Italian climber (Simoni) simply refused to participate in the Tour farce, and two up-and coming roosters, one (Basso) was terrified by the texan and the other (Mayo) was busted out under his orders for "flying too near of the sun".
And there were still Beloki, Vino, Kloden, Mancebo and the last years of the old late 90's elite.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Re:

One can even say that there were a series of events that changed forever our sport with regards to comptetiveness and excitement, in 1998-1999.

- The absolute failure of riders and teams to form a united negotiating front that stablished clear and universal rules in the wake of the Festina scandal paved the way to randomness, opacity and inconsistency with regards to doping controls that allowed future structures with UCI preference like US Postal and Sky to impose dominance on the rest.

- The Italian mafia throwing away Pantani from the 1999 Giro and thus ending his career and ultimately, his life.

- Lance Armstrong being able to make his comeback to cycling after recovering from testicular cancer and acquring the exclusive services of Mr.Ferrari and demigod favour of the UCI via Verbrugghe/Zorzoli thanks to the shared profits of the Livestrong melodrama.

Without these 3 events the Tours of the early and mid 2000's would've been spectacular with Ullrich as a probable multiTour winner but all the options wide open for a good bunch of other riders.
The best Spanish climber (Heras) was bought by Armstrong, the best Italian climber (Simoni) simply refused to participate in the Tour farce, and two up-and coming roosters, one (Basso) was terrified by the texan and the other (Mayo) was busted out under his orders for "flying too near of the sun".
And there were still Beloki, Vino, Kloden, Mancebo and the last years of the old late 90's elite.

Rather off topic, but a very good post.

It is possible though that there could have been even less action in those Tours. If there was no US Postal then maybe T-Mobile signs at least one of those Armstrong domestiques, and what might have eventuated is a T-Mobile train of sorts. Especially given the advantage that Ullrich had in the time trials, he would likely have ridden fairly defensively in the mountains imo. Whereas Lances attacks were pretty spectacular (particularly in 2000 and 2001).

The one hope though would be Vino. I doubt that he would ever partake in this choo-choo train nonsense

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

At least Armstrong was charismatic in its own sinister and psychopathic way.

Froome's dominante of the Tour is pretty grey and unlegendary. He wont have my hate, not my love.

Actually Armstrong's Tour podcast was quite good. Sooner or later we have to move on otherwise we all become angry old people. Does the world need more of those ? Froome's result sheet is not unlegendary and you could argue that Indurain's five Tour wins were even less unlegendary unless you love TTs and nothing else.

I agree with you and see posts that disagree...they must not have been watching the TdF in BigMig's era. The most boring ones with regards to suspense. He would kill everybody in the ITT and had no opposition to speak off, except Rominger. The rest was racing for spots and stage wins. Those TdF would drive you nuts today. Luxembourg ITT, stage 8 I believe, or 9, game over. Not to say that he couldn't climb, but borefest-wise, Indurain's wins were the...boringest .

The only boring part of the Tours 1992-1996 was that the winner was very likely to be Indurain (not counting 1991), just like in this period of Froome dominance.

But apart from that, the 90's Tours were high up in the competitiveness and excitement, from the brutal and grueling parcours that separated greatness from mediocrity unlike today, to the general attacking attitude of most teams and relevant figures of the peloton and even up to the wide range of interesting personalities and interests that populated the sport.

How boring can the Tour de France be now that I could even pay money for a generally disgousting figure like Virenque to be riding nowadays. And I'm talking about Virenque, not even about more interesting riders like Chiapucchi, Bugno, Rominger, Jalabert, Zulle, Pantani or the Gewiss monsters...

Some great riders there but Rominger was the only one that usually threatened Indurain. You could also argue that the nature of the sport allowed for some pretty outlandish attacking cycling.

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

One can even say that there were a series of events that changed forever our sport with regards to comptetiveness and excitement, in 1998-1999.

- The absolute failure of riders and teams to form a united negotiating front that stablished clear and universal rules in the wake of the Festina scandal paved the way to randomness, opacity and inconsistency with regards to doping controls that allowed future structures with UCI preference like US Postal and Sky to impose dominance on the rest.

- The Italian mafia throwing away Pantani from the 1999 Giro and thus ending his career and ultimately, his life.

- Lance Armstrong being able to make his comeback to cycling after recovering from testicular cancer and acquring the exclusive services of Mr.Ferrari and demigod favour of the UCI via Verbrugghe/Zorzoli thanks to the shared profits of the Livestrong melodrama.

Without these 3 events the Tours of the early and mid 2000's would've been spectacular with Ullrich as a probable multiTour winner but all the options wide open for a good bunch of other riders.
The best Spanish climber (Heras) was bought by Armstrong, the best Italian climber (Simoni) simply refused to participate in the Tour farce, and two up-and coming roosters, one (Basso) was terrified by the texan and the other (Mayo) was busted out under his orders for "flying too near of the sun".
And there were still Beloki, Vino, Kloden, Mancebo and the last years of the old late 90's elite.

I don't see that swapping Armstrong's victories for Ullrich is any sort of win. It's just more of the same but in that regard Contador and Froome are part of the equation as well depending on what you believe. I don't even think of such things anymore, if I did I wouldn't be watching the sport. I just try and enjoy the sport at face value. All I can say is that I am looking forward to the Vuelta and how both Contador and Froome back up after the Tour.

 

[KyoGrey]

Re: Re:

I don't see that swapping Armstrong's victories for Ullrich is any sort of win. It's just more of the same but in that regard Contador and Froome are part of the equation as well depending on what you believe. I don't even think of such things anymore, if I did I wouldn't be watching the sport. I just try and enjoy the sport at face value. All I can say is that I am looking forward to the Vuelta and how both Contador and Froome back up after the Tour.

Don't get me wrong, I also enjoy watching cycling today, just wanted to point out some key points of divergence.

Not sure about Contador riding the Vuelta, though. He is having problems with the team.

Contador wants to ride Vuelta and full $ contract for next year.

Trek wants him to ride american races and contract for only the first half of next year or reduced $ for full year.

I think he should only ride is his condition is OK.

 

[Pennino]

Re: Re:

I don't see that swapping Armstrong's victories for Ullrich is any sort of win. It's just more of the same but in that regard Contador and Froome are part of the equation as well depending on what you believe. I don't even think of such things anymore, if I did I wouldn't be watching the sport. I just try and enjoy the sport at face value. All I can say is that I am looking forward to the Vuelta and how both Contador and Froome back up after the Tour.

Don't get me wrong, I also enjoy watching cycling today, just wanted to point out some key points of divergence.

Not sure about Contador riding the Vuelta, though. He is having problems with the team.

Contador wants to ride Vuelta and full $ contract for next year.

Trek wants him to ride american races and contract for only the first half of next year or reduced $ for full year.

I think he should only ride is his condition is OK.

I thought it was the other way around? Trek isn't keen on a contract for only half a season, which was what Berto apparently had asked for. But I may be wrong.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I don't see that swapping Armstrong's victories for Ullrich is any sort of win. It's just more of the same but in that regard Contador and Froome are part of the equation as well depending on what you believe. I don't even think of such things anymore, if I did I wouldn't be watching the sport. I just try and enjoy the sport at face value. All I can say is that I am looking forward to the Vuelta and how both Contador and Froome back up after the Tour.

Don't get me wrong, I also enjoy watching cycling today, just wanted to point out some key points of divergence.

Not sure about Contador riding the Vuelta, though. He is having problems with the team.

Contador wants to ride Vuelta and full $ contract for next year.

Trek wants him to ride american races and contract for only the first half of next year or reduced $ for full year.

I think he should only ride is his condition is OK.

I thought it was the other way around? Trek isn't keen on a contract for only half a season, which was what Berto apparently had asked for. But I may be wrong.

That's what I heard as well.

 

[Chomsky]

Froome and Contador have competed as GC riders in 5 Tour De Frances. Froome has won 4 Contador zero. The closest Contador has been to Froome is 6 minutes 27 seconds. It has not even been remotely competitive.

Why is this even a discussion? Not only has Froome destroyed Contador in the Tour but he is a better climber, better time trialist, better descender, better tactician, much more intelligent, has more patience and a much better bike handler. The two are not in the same league.

*Baiting removed by King Boonen*

The Vuelta and Giro are nice and beautiful races but it is not the same as the Tour. GC riders in the Vuelta and the Giro are there because teams have better options for the Tour. Just because one can win the Vuelta or Giro does not mean they could even get top 10 at the Tour. 40 years ago Vuelta and Giro had a lot more meaning but in modern cycling Vuelta and Giro wins mean very little. A top 10 at the Tour is more significant and much harder than winning a Vuelta ir Giro against signigantlt weaker competition.

 

[hrotha]

It's a discussion because, of all those Tours, only in 2013 and 2017 Contador didn't come from the Giro, and this year he's obviously and understandably past his prime. Of course there's no debate if you just make up a perfect Froome who's a better tactician than the guy who pulled Fuente Dé and Formigal (incidentally, the tactical move that cost Froome a Vuelta) and who has more patience despite the several times he's freaked out very visibly (like last year on Mont Ventoux).

 

[Derry]

Re:

Froome and Contador have competed as GC riders in 5 Tour De Frances. Froome has won 4 Contador zero. The closest Contador has been to Froome is 6 minutes 27 seconds. It has not even been remotely competitive.

Why is this even a discussion? Not only has Froome destroyed Contador in the Tour but he is a better climber, better time trialist, better descender, better tactician, much more intelligent, has more patience and a much better bike handler. The two are not in the same league.

*Baiting removed by King Boonen*

The Vuelta and Giro are nice and beautiful races but it is not the same as the Tour. GC riders in the Vuelta and the Giro are there because teams have better options for the Tour. Just because one can win the Vuelta or Giro does not mean they could even get top 10 at the Tour. 40 years ago Vuelta and Giro had a lot more meaning but in modern cycling Vuelta and Giro wins mean very little. A top 10 at the Tour is more significant and much harder than winning a Vuelta ir Giro against signigantlt weaker competition.

What an ingnorant post. I'll even skip your post about the Giro d'Italia and the Vuelta a Espana. Are you even serious?

There is no point of comparing Froome and Contador when racing the same grand Tour. Contador is 3 years older and obviously past his peak period. He was destroying the competition in Grand Tours when Froome was holding on to a car to even get up an hill, different times.

And calling Froome more tactician and intelligent is beyond any logic. Finally I would say that Froome is hardly a better time trialist in grand tours.

 

[Forever The Best]

Hi Lance.
As for the topic 3 from all GTs is much better than 4 TDF imo. Though if Froome wins Vuelta this year and does the Giro-Tour double next year (he probably won't even ride the Giro though) I would put him ahead of Contador.

 

[KyoGrey]

Re:

Froome and Contador have competed as GC riders in 5 Tour De Frances. Froome has won 4 Contador zero. The closest Contador has been to Froome is 6 minutes 27 seconds. It has not even been remotely competitive.

Why is this even a discussion? Not only has Froome destroyed Contador in the Tour but he is a better climber, better time trialist, better descender, better tactician, much more intelligent, has more patience and a much better bike handler. The two are not in the same league.

*Baiting removed by King Boonen*

The Vuelta and Giro are nice and beautiful races but it is not the same as the Tour. GC riders in the Vuelta and the Giro are there because teams have better options for the Tour. Just because one can win the Vuelta or Giro does not mean they could even get top 10 at the Tour. 40 years ago Vuelta and Giro had a lot more meaning but in modern cycling Vuelta and Giro wins mean very little. A top 10 at the Tour is more significant and much harder than winning a Vuelta ir Giro against signigantlt weaker competition.

Untrue.

(Not counting big 4 Contador, Froome, Nibali, Quitnana as winners/fighters of multiple GT's that could count in both categories).

From Tour 2012 onwards (Froome evolution into GC winner Contador comeback):

Notable Podium-men of Giro's and Vuelta's: Purito, Urán, Aru, Landa, Chaves, Valverde, Dumoulin.

Notable top-10s of Tour de France: Van den Broeck, Van Garderen, Pinot, Rolland, Kreuziger, Mollema, Fuglsang, Peraud, Bardet, Zubeldia, Porte, Martin, the Yates brothers and Meintjes.


Conclusion: Not only people that were fighting to win the Giro/Vuelta globally annihilate the notable top-10s that regularly go to the Tour, but they also tend to be much more entertaining that the wheelsuckers that generally drag themselves in the choo-choo train of Le Grand Bouclé.

Whilst the Tour de France still rests allmighty in the top of the sport, it could be said that the last 5 years have been very good for the Giro and the Vuelta in terms of participation in comparison with other eras.


P.D: Love the part about Froome being the better tactician ...or descender...or intelligent. :lol:

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

Froome and Contador have competed as GC riders in 5 Tour De Frances. Froome has won 4 Contador zero. The closest Contador has been to Froome is 6 minutes 27 seconds. It has not even been remotely competitive.

Why is this even a discussion? Not only has Froome destroyed Contador in the Tour but he is a better climber, better time trialist, better descender, better tactician, much more intelligent, has more patience and a much better bike handler. The two are not in the same league.

*Baiting removed by King Boonen*

The Vuelta and Giro are nice and beautiful races but it is not the same as the Tour. GC riders in the Vuelta and the Giro are there because teams have better options for the Tour. Just because one can win the Vuelta or Giro does not mean they could even get top 10 at the Tour. 40 years ago Vuelta and Giro had a lot more meaning but in modern cycling Vuelta and Giro wins mean very little. A top 10 at the Tour is more significant and much harder than winning a Vuelta ir Giro against signigantlt weaker competition.

Untrue.

(Not counting big 4 Contador, Froome, Nibali, Quitnana as winners/fighters of multiple GT's that could count in both categories).

From Tour 2012 onwards (Froome evolution into GC winner Contador comeback):

Notable Podium-men of Giro's and Vuelta's: Purito, Urán, Aru, Landa, Chaves, Valverde, Dumoulin.

Notable top-10s of Tour de France: Van den Broeck, Van Garderen, Pinot, Rolland, Kreuziger, Mollema, Fuglsang, Peraud, Bardet, Zubeldia, Porte, Martin, the Yates brothers and Meintjes.


Conclusion: Not only people that were fighting to win the Giro/Vuelta globally annihilate the notable top-10s that regularly go to the Tour, but they also tend to be much more entertaining that the wheelsuckers that generally drag themselves in the choo-choo train of Le Grand Bouclé.

Whilst the Tour de France still rests allmighty in the top of the sport, it could be said that the last 5 years have been very good for the Giro and the Vuelta in terms of participation in comparison with other eras.


P.D: Love the part about Froome being the better tactician ...or descender...or intelligent. :lol:

Froome is a better descender now, but he wasn't always. He show cased some decent descending this year.

 

[rick james]

Re:

Froome and Contador have competed as GC riders in 5 Tour De Frances. Froome has won 4 Contador zero. The closest Contador has been to Froome is 6 minutes 27 seconds. It has not even been remotely competitive.

Why is this even a discussion? Not only has Froome destroyed Contador in the Tour but he is a better climber, better time trialist, better descender, better tactician, much more intelligent, has more patience and a much better bike handler. The two are not in the same league.

*Baiting removed by King Boonen*

The Vuelta and Giro are nice and beautiful races but it is not the same as the Tour. GC riders in the Vuelta and the Giro are there because teams have better options for the Tour. Just because one can win the Vuelta or Giro does not mean they could even get top 10 at the Tour. 40 years ago Vuelta and Giro had a lot more meaning but in modern cycling Vuelta and Giro wins mean very little. A top 10 at the Tour is more significant and much harder than winning a Vuelta ir Giro against signigantlt weaker competition.

 

[LaFlorecita]

*Removed by King Boonen*.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Even if he make some downright wrong statements, Im unsure if that can be categorized as trolling just because one heavily disagrees with it. So no, I definitely don't think that warrants a ban, but maybe other moderators will look at it differently.

 

[Gigs_98]

Wait, people wanted a ban for that post? Are you guys serious?

 

[Ruby United]

Re:

Even if he make some downright wrong statements, Im unsure if that can be categorized as trolling just because one heavily disagrees with it. So no, I definitely don't think that warrants a ban, but maybe other moderators will look at it differently.

Agree. The amount of banning and censorship in this forum is beyond ridiculous. Sometimes it is hard to present your own opinion due to the constant fear of saying something that a mod arbitrarily renders as 'trolling' or worse.
I agree the mods have the right to do so; I just wish they would be more lenient and understanding of different opinions. Let conversation flow.
Ironically, this post may be taken down by a mod.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Even if he make some downright wrong statements, Im unsure if that can be categorized as trolling just because one heavily disagrees with it. So no, I definitely don't think that warrants a ban, but maybe other moderators will look at it differently.

Agree. The amount of banning and censorship in this forum is beyond ridiculous. Sometimes it is hard to present your own opinion due to the constant fear of saying something that a mod arbitrarily renders as 'trolling' or worse.
I agree the mods have the right to do so; I just wish they would be more lenient and understanding of different opinions. Let conversation flow.
Ironically, this post may be taken down by a mod.

It won't get taken down but we'd prefer that these kind of comments go in the "Moderators" topic so as not to derail the on-topic discussion in the thread. I will copy and reply to you in more detail there. If anyone else wants to continue this discussion please do it in that thread.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

Froome and Contador have competed as GC riders in 5 Tour De Frances. Froome has won 4 Contador zero. The closest Contador has been to Froome is 6 minutes 27 seconds. It has not even been remotely competitive.

Why is this even a discussion? Not only has Froome destroyed Contador in the Tour but he is a better climber, better time trialist, better descender, better tactician, much more intelligent, has more patience and a much better bike handler. The two are not in the same league.

*Baiting removed by King Boonen*

The Vuelta and Giro are nice and beautiful races but it is not the same as the Tour. GC riders in the Vuelta and the Giro are there because teams have better options for the Tour. Just because one can win the Vuelta or Giro does not mean they could even get top 10 at the Tour. 40 years ago Vuelta and Giro had a lot more meaning but in modern cycling Vuelta and Giro wins mean very little. A top 10 at the Tour is more significant and much harder than winning a Vuelta ir Giro against signigantlt weaker competition.

What an ingnorant post. I'll even skip your post about the Giro d'Italia and the Vuelta a Espana. Are you even serious?

There is no point of comparing Froome and Contador when racing the same grand Tour. Contador is 3 years older and obviously past his peak period. He was destroying the competition in Grand Tours when Froome was holding on to a car to even get up an hill, different times.

And calling Froome more tactician and intelligent is beyond any logic. Finally I would say that Foome is hardly a better time trialist in grand tours.

Could you please back that up with data?
Hardly better....Ahem ahem

 

[Derry]

Re: Re:

Froome and Contador have competed as GC riders in 5 Tour De Frances. Froome has won 4 Contador zero. The closest Contador has been to Froome is 6 minutes 27 seconds. It has not even been remotely competitive.

Why is this even a discussion? Not only has Froome destroyed Contador in the Tour but he is a better climber, better time trialist, better descender, better tactician, much more intelligent, has more patience and a much better bike handler. The two are not in the same league.

*Baiting removed by King Boonen*

The Vuelta and Giro are nice and beautiful races but it is not the same as the Tour. GC riders in the Vuelta and the Giro are there because teams have better options for the Tour. Just because one can win the Vuelta or Giro does not mean they could even get top 10 at the Tour. 40 years ago Vuelta and Giro had a lot more meaning but in modern cycling Vuelta and Giro wins mean very little. A top 10 at the Tour is more significant and much harder than winning a Vuelta ir Giro against signigantlt weaker competition.

What an ingnorant post. I'll even skip your post about the Giro d'Italia and the Vuelta a Espana. Are you even serious?

There is no point of comparing Froome and Contador when racing the same grand Tour. Contador is 3 years older and obviously past his peak period. He was destroying the competition in Grand Tours when Froome was holding on to a car to even get up an hill, different times.

And calling Froome more tactician and intelligent is beyond any logic. Finally I would say that Foome is hardly a better time trialist in grand tours.

Could you please back that up with data?
Hardly better....Ahem ahem

He has been quite consistent over all those years.
Tour 2007: 4th in a 56k panclake flat TT
Giro 2008: 2th, 8 seconds behind Bruseghin in a 38k time trial, 4th on the Kronzplats mountain TT
Vuelta 2008: 4th on a flat 42k TT, 2th on a mountain ITT
Tour 2009: 1st in a nearly flat 40k flat TT beating Cancellara and 2th in the short opening time trial behind Cancellara
Tour 2010: 6th in a flat prologue in Rotterdam, 35th in the second TT (wind directions changed that day)
Giro 2011: 1st in the mountain TT, 3rd in a pancake flat TT
Tour 2011: 3rd in a 41k time trial behind Martin and Evans, didn't have great legs that Tour after winning the Giro.
Vuelta 2012: 2nd in a 40k time trial, beating Froome
Tour 2013: 2nd in a hilly TT (9 seconds behind Froome), in the mountain stages Froome was much better. 15th in a 33 flat TT
Vuelta 2014: 4th in a 37k TT behind Martin, Uran and Cancellara, beating Froome.
Giro 2015: 3rd in the 59k TT behind Kiriyenka and Sanchez
Tour 2015: 46th in the prologue in Utrecht, Froome 39th.
Vuelta 2016: 8th in a 37k TT, won by Froome.
Tour 2017: 6th in the Marseille tt, only a few seconds behind Froome. Prolugue 68th.

Take away the prolgues and he always finished top 5 in his better years. Even in the last two years - while clearly struggling in general - it was quite good.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Of course Froome is a superior time trialist in GT's, there can't be any debate about that no matter how hard you are trying to argue Contador's case here.

 

[Bullrun]

Re: Re:

Reference 1:

Even at 34, Contador is still king of the Spanish peloton. Though battered in this Tour, he still drives the narrative in the Spanish media. He’s the rider Spanish fans still love.

http://www.velonews.com/2017/07/tour-de-france/contador-landa-spains-past-future-link_443790/amp

Just read https://as.com/ciclismo/ or http://www.esciclismo.com/actualidad.asp on a regular basis and you'll see what I mean. One vague quote from an english journo who doesn't speak spanish probably isn't a reference?

Of course Contador is well liked, but he ain't no Valverde.

Actually funnily enough I feel like Contador is to Valverde in spain to what Froome is to Wiggins in the UK. Though I have not been in spain in a long time so just my impression. If someone here is still living in spain then it would be interesting to know.

I live in Spain most of the year and I agree.

Valverde (and Purito, who was also more popular than Contador) is a pretty charismatic guy while Contador is as dull as they come. Their interviews and public appearances - Valverde is pretty fluent, will often say something vaguely witty and offer a genuine laughter while Contador just drones those professional sportsman clichés with unseemly grammar. Even in comparison with other contemporary Spanish sports starts outside of cycling - Nadal, Alonso, Garcia, the footballers, etc- who tend to come across as cosmopolitan and personable, or at least colourful, Contador seems to be one of those athletes from a more ancient, greyer, backward, era. And that matters in Spain, possibly more than in most countries.

I think there are other factors that help -he never raced for a Spanish team (not when it mattered) and clinic reasons (not per se, but, well, the follow-up) - but the difference in public persona/charisma is by far the biggest one.

I's say Froome's public personality is more bland in the sense of self-possessed while Contador is a bit more dull in a simple-minded sense but it's basically the Wiggins/Froome situation indeed. And I rarely read Marca's comments these days but he used to be and probably still is very actively disliked there - I wouldn't be surprised if a very sizeable number would root for foreigner riders over Contador. The average Spanish who watches the Tour and the Vuelta is less negative. I guess that's a difference re: Froome and the Brits - my perception is that not many the UK actively dislike Froome, except the contingent that hates Sky in general (mostly old timers that liked the niche feeling and are annoyed Sky popularized the sport among hoi polloi).

As for cycling, I think they have pretty equivalent legacies at this point. I think people are overestimating the importance of winning the 3 GTs (btw, the most common definition of Triple Crown is winning Giro, Tour and Worlds, not Vuelta). Nobody seriously considers Gimondi or Nibali over Coppi, Indurain or even LeMond. I'd put them around the same with Froome having more opportunities to add to his palmares (apparently, these things often change in unpredictable ways). Peak Contador vs peak Froome is very close, but I think I'd pick Froome for most parcours. The best Froome is definitely more well rounded than the best Contador - capable of successfully attacking the GC in descents or flats with crosswinds - Contador has the long-range solo attacks but that's a non-factor at the Tour nowadays.