Contador vs. Froome

[Netserk]

Re:

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.

In time trials:
Contador '09 > Froome '13

 

[deValtos]

Back to things that matter, Froome's middle name is Clive. That's a point in favour of Chris Clive Froome.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

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.

In time trials:
Contador '09 > Froome '13

Not historically obviously, recently.

 

[Angliru]

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.

The Giro and Vuelta are actually more important now that it is mandatory that the elite world tour teams participate. Plus with the point system some teams depend on these races for their continued survival.

 

[Hayabusa]

For me Froome has been a better rider than Contador over the last 5 years (and I don't think it's been that close).

Over their career however, Contador is the more successful rider currently. I think for Froome to overtake Contador, he needs another Tour and one other GT win (with Alberto not winning another GT).

 

[dacooley]

not easy to compare since we seemingly have only 3 or 3 and a half full-of-value seasons when both had really been competing one against another on relatively equal ground: since the 2012 Vuelta until the 2016 dauphine. before 2012 Froome was a mediocre noname rider from contador's perspective and starting from the 2016 vuelta contador seems to be looking just a shade of old self. when it comes to comparing them in the period of 2015-2016 I'd go with Froome, but as to overall parmares contador is leading quite comfortably so far.

 

[movingtarget]

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.

Generally speaking the Tour does have the better field but sometimes like this year's Giro and even the Vuelta the fields are good. The Vuelta will have Froome and Nibali and the Yates bros among others and the Giro had Quintana, Nibali, Landa, Thomas, Zakarin, Pinot and Dumoulin. When you consider that Porte was one of the favourites for the Tour and has never podiumed a GT and George Bennett would have finished in the top 10 without his illness, it indicates that the fields are fairly close these days. And the Giro was definitely a harder route. Contador still wouldn't have podiumed at the Giro and Froome would have also been in doubt to win it with the harder stages and more climbing. And I doubt Uran or Bardet would have won the Giro either.

 

[The Hegelian]

I think we were all denied the moment of truth - the 2014 tdf when both crashed out.

Contador looked in awesome form, Froome more or less at the height of his powers. I personally thought that Contador would out climb Froome - but it could have quite easily gone the other way.

At respective peaks, I would have Contador as the better climber, Froome the better tt'er. Panache wise - obviously Contador. Aesthetics likewise. But consistency - Froome. Tactically - Contador; the DS (McGee?) won him that Vuelta in 2012, but Contador was rallying the troops. He's often won in weaker teams, and even when his own team is supporting someone else ('09 tour). Froome has had the luxury of always having the strongest team - but bear in mind he could already have 5 tours if Sky didn't back Wiggins in 2012.

 

[Red Rick]

Contador might have won 5 tours between 2007-2011. In any case, I do think he gets a little too much credit for beating an ancient Armstrong essentially one on one.

I don't really think you can compare them tactically.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

Contador might have won 5 tours between 2007-2011.

I think this is an extremely important point. Many people point out that froome is the stronger rider because he has won more tours and thats the race which really matters and really shows who is the strongest. However if Contador had not been in the wrong team in 2008 and hadn't got caught in 2010 there is a pretty big chance he would have won five tours before froome even became a gt rider and that argument wouldn't exist.
What I'm trying to say is that you should rather use the more tour wins argument as an argument for why froome is more successful not for why he is stronger

 

[dacooley]

flawed argument. if ac hadn't been in the wrong team, he would almost certainly have not won his first grand tour. on top of that, considering froome the 2012 or contador the 2008 tour winners in hindsight is a bit farcical. the history went the other path, it ended and it's over, we have other well-deserved winners.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

flawed argument. if ac hadn't been in the wrong team, he would almost certainly have not won his first grand tour.

Wasn't he in different teams in 2007 and 2008?

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

flawed argument. if ac hadn't been in the wrong team, he would almost certainly have not won his first grand tour.

Wasn't he in different teams in 2007 and 2008?

08 Astana is more related to Discovery compared to 07 Astana. Only top rider from 07 Astana was Kloden in that team as Vino was out. Also, Johan and DS' were mostly from Discovery if I recall correctly.

Also, I would not thought in my life that I will agree with dacooley, but he's right here. 2008 and 2012 Tour were won by someone else, it's done and dusted, and the moral victory or whatever is just useless crap.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Re:

flawed argument. if ac hadn't been in the wrong team, he would almost certainly have not won his first grand tour.

Wasn't he in different teams in 2007 and 2008?

08 Astana is more related to Discovery compared to 07 Astana. Only top rider from 07 Astana was Kloden in that team as Vino was out. Also, Johan and DS' were mostly from Discovery if I recall correctly.

Also, I would not thought in my life that I will agree with dacooley, but he's right here. 2008 and 2012 Tour were won by someone else, it's done and dusted, and the moral victory or whatever is just useless crap.

I'm not saying Contador is the moral winner of these years. The only thing I'm trying to say is that Contador was the kind of dominant gc rider back then that Froome has been in the last 5 years, which is why people shouldn't use the "only" two tour wins of Contador as an argument for how he was never strong enough to win numerous tours

 

[Climbing]

Re:

I think we were all denied the moment of truth - the 2014 tdf when both crashed out.

Contador looked in awesome form, Froome more or less at the height of his powers. I personally thought that Contador would out climb Froome - but it could have quite easily gone the other way.

At respective peaks, I would have Contador as the better climber, Froome the better tt'er. Panache wise - obviously Contador. Aesthetics likewise. But consistency - Froome. Tactically - Contador; the DS (McGee?) won him that Vuelta in 2012, but Contador was rallying the troops. He's often won in weaker teams, and even when his own team is supporting someone else ('09 tour). Froome has had the luxury of always having the strongest team - but bear in mind he could already have 5 tours if Sky didn't back Wiggins in 2012.

Yeah, would have been a nice contest for 2nd place :lol:

 

[Old&slow]

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 Froome is hardly a better time trialist in grand tours.

Contador fans are the definition of insanity. Ignore all reality and make excuse after excuse.

The reality is plain. Contador had 5 years and 5 attempts to race against Froome. As the poster above so intelligently pointed out the score is:

Froome 4

Conatdor 0.

The results were not even close. Contadors best finish on a mountain stage the last 8 years at the tour when not in a breakaway was 6th place. His closest finish to Froome was 6 minutes and 27 seconds to yellow. That is his highwater mark against Froome. In other words Contador is in water above his head and he cannot swim.

The better question is not who is a better rider between Froome and Contador but who is the second, third, fourth and fifth best GC riders behind Froome the last 5 years. Guess what Contador is not even in the the discussion.

The Tour and the lesser tours are completely different. The Vuelta has tired out of form riders. The Giro has riders not near as strong or as in good form. The form needed to with either will never win the Tour. Contador is a fine rider but he has a low low ceiling with a high floor that can ride at a strong level all year long but not an elite level. He can compete against lesser riders but not against the best who are in peak form. He is a Giro/Vuelta rider only not a Tour rider that can compete against the best of the best. That is his legacy.

Contador had his chance the last 5 years against Froome to prove he belonged in the conversation and he failed miserably. It is time for him to go away and leave his fans continue to make up more and greater insane reasons for his failures.

 

[del1962]

Here is my take on ranking GT, I personally think TDF is greater than Giro + Vuelta, Froomes 2013 out ranks Nibali's 2013 even if he had beaten the old man in the Vuelta.

So grading TDF 4, Giro 2 and Vuelta 1

Froome 16 points
7 win Contador 15 points
9 win Contador 21 points

 

[KyoGrey]

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.

Untrue again IMO. My God, don't wan't to sound grumpy or anything similiar, but where do you get this type of conclusions? The comparison with Wiggins/Froome is a reach with no base at all.

Just to make things clear, from a man who doesn't have a preference between both riders:

Contador is the most popular rider to the general public by far. In fact, he is the only well known rider of this generation for the generalistic sport fans who don't watch cycling races due to his condition of multi-Tour winner and appearances on TV shows etc. People that would react to the name of Valverde with "Hmm, who's that guy, the one that always finishes 3rd?"

For people that like cycling, which are a lot of people in Spain: They generally like BOTH Contador and Valverde and they like them A LOT. It's like asking if you love more your papa or your mama, it all depends when you ask me.

As for charisma, doping related issues etc:

- Both Contador and Valverde can be mildly charismatic, but nothing spectacular or out of this world. Contador has this great subtle-smiling teasing/trolling way of talking and Valverde just flat out speaks his mind without thinking in this Murcian accent that can make you laugh. In fact you are totally wrong with the backwards/cosmopolitan comparison: Valverde stands out almost as a hick, Contador just as a normal guy from the Madrid suburbs who is now living the millionaire life in Switzerland.

- Contador will always have on his back the "solomillo" issue, which has generated a lot of jokes, but Valverde carries the big bag of being Valv.piti and having been suspended for 2 years. So they are both discredited in some way obviously, but Spanish cycling fans tend to disregard this more than Anglo fans, some of who even believe even today that there is no generalised doping in professional sports and that their champions win "a pan y agua" because you know..."our guys do it the right way".

- Not having riden for Abarca (Caisse/Movistar) can be viewed as a minus for some fans, but as a plus for another good portion of fans, as this team is not really liked by a lot of people due to their conservative way of riding and derailing of careers of some good young Spanish talents.

P.D: Nobody seriously considers Indurain over Lemond? WTF :lol:

 

[Valv.Piti]

I think the argument about Contador's ceiling or top-level is good, thats what I've felt is the biggest difference pre and post Contador. He doesn't have the super peak he has had before, the level in the Dauphine is pretty much the level we will see in TdF. He is still extremely competitive in week long stage races, but in races where everybody is peaking he has big problems.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Contador does not have a "low low ceiling"
You don't win GTs with a "low low ceiling" (although this poster seems to ignore his Giro and Vuelta wins).

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

I think we were all denied the moment of truth - the 2014 tdf when both crashed out.

Contador looked in awesome form, Froome more or less at the height of his powers. I personally thought that Contador would out climb Froome - but it could have quite easily gone the other way.

At respective peaks, I would have Contador as the better climber, Froome the better tt'er. Panache wise - obviously Contador. Aesthetics likewise. But consistency - Froome. Tactically - Contador; the DS (McGee?) won him that Vuelta in 2012, but Contador was rallying the troops. He's often won in weaker teams, and even when his own team is supporting someone else ('09 tour). Froome has had the luxury of always having the strongest team - but bear in mind he could already have 5 tours if Sky didn't back Wiggins in 2012.

Yes the one that got away. The in form Nibali who slaughtered the remainder of the field after Contador and Froome crashed out. We were denied a great battle. Nibali already had a good lead. I think that was Nibali's best GTwin because he did it with such ease and won by such a margin. People argue that he only beat Peraud and Pinot but it was a dominant performance and I don't think it can be said with certainty that Froome or Contador would have won for sure even though Contador looked great beforehand.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

I think we were all denied the moment of truth - the 2014 tdf when both crashed out.

Contador looked in awesome form, Froome more or less at the height of his powers. I personally thought that Contador would out climb Froome - but it could have quite easily gone the other way.

At respective peaks, I would have Contador as the better climber, Froome the better tt'er. Panache wise - obviously Contador. Aesthetics likewise. But consistency - Froome. Tactically - Contador; the DS (McGee?) won him that Vuelta in 2012, but Contador was rallying the troops. He's often won in weaker teams, and even when his own team is supporting someone else ('09 tour). Froome has had the luxury of always having the strongest team - but bear in mind he could already have 5 tours if Sky didn't back Wiggins in 2012.

Froome hasn't had any year where he tt'ed as well as Contador did in '09. It's an even, at best.

 

[ferryman]

Re: Re:

I think we were all denied the moment of truth - the 2014 tdf when both crashed out.

Contador looked in awesome form, Froome more or less at the height of his powers. I personally thought that Contador would out climb Froome - but it could have quite easily gone the other way.

At respective peaks, I would have Contador as the better climber, Froome the better tt'er. Panache wise - obviously Contador. Aesthetics likewise. But consistency - Froome. Tactically - Contador; the DS (McGee?) won him that Vuelta in 2012, but Contador was rallying the troops. He's often won in weaker teams, and even when his own team is supporting someone else ('09 tour). Froome has had the luxury of always having the strongest team - but bear in mind he could already have 5 tours if Sky didn't back Wiggins in 2012.

Yeah, would have been a nice contest for 2nd place :lol:

Brilliant Would have been a fascinating race if Contador hadn't crashed out.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

I think we were all denied the moment of truth - the 2014 tdf when both crashed out.

Contador looked in awesome form, Froome more or less at the height of his powers. I personally thought that Contador would out climb Froome - but it could have quite easily gone the other way.

At respective peaks, I would have Contador as the better climber, Froome the better tt'er. Panache wise - obviously Contador. Aesthetics likewise. But consistency - Froome. Tactically - Contador; the DS (McGee?) won him that Vuelta in 2012, but Contador was rallying the troops. He's often won in weaker teams, and even when his own team is supporting someone else ('09 tour). Froome has had the luxury of always having the strongest team - but bear in mind he could already have 5 tours if Sky didn't back Wiggins in 2012.

Yeah, would have been a nice contest for 2nd place :lol:

Thanks for the gif - I forgot how sweetly he rode those cobbles.

 

[ferryman]

Contador vs Froome is the title, I will take that as a legacy title given that Alberto is on the wane but so is Froome. I'll tell you what though, give me 3 TDFs, 3 Giros, and 3 Vueltas any day. Not even remotely a fuckin debate!!!.