If this goes on Pinot will win the Tour because he's the only one left who's still healthy and fit.
Well that was a typical Contador injury, when he and the team talked a lot about one being a problem it was usually not a big deal (remember how he was supposed to loose 3 seconds per km in the itt, compared to his performance without the injury). When they didn't talk a lot about an injury it was usually a lot more problematic.I remember that - popped it back in and still won the Giro.
oh dear you misunderstood me.How many years back are we allowed to go before it doesn't count as the last few years? Because in the last decade there's Schleck to Galibier, 2010 Giro Aprica, 2011 Giro Rifugio Gardeccia, Quintana in the Route du Sud, Contador to Fuente Dé, Quintana to Semnoz, Quintana to Val Martello, Aru to Cercedilla, Landa to Aprica, Nibali to Risoul, 2016 Vuelta Formigal, Contador's career-ender at Angliru, Yates' win at Sappada, Froome's odyssey to Monte Jafferau, Carapaz' Giro-winning ride in Aosta, the Courchevel raid in the Dauphiné when Froome and Contador lost the GC to Andrew Talansky, the last stage of Paris-Nice 2017, the race-settling final stage of País Vasco in Eibar last year...
There are a lot of races with plenty of panache. You're saying that the panache is what makes things exciting, but 99% of Froome's career has been predicated on the "rinse and repeat BS" that you deride, because he's been on a team that has built a strategy around the simple bludgeoning tactic of "have strongest rider in race. Have strongest backup team in race. Ride on the front until everybody drops". Froome himself has a few other stages where he's surprised people - the descent attack on the Peyresourde, for example - but for the most part he's used the same rinse and repeat tactic himself, and has only been interesting when his support team has been weaker so he's raced more mano a mano (putting his authority down on Contador on Las Allanadas in the Ruta del Sol, winning on Col du Béal in the Dauphiné) or he has been put in a position of weakness (Jafferau) - and it's no coincidence that races and performances like that have been better received by the fans than the average Froome show of power even though you could certainly argue that a few of them (Pierre Saint Martin, for example) were more impressive than any of his more well-received results.
Sure, plenty of people who are celebrating Jumbo's dominance are only happy because it feels different, not because it is different. It's still the same tactic, just used by a different team, sure. But for a lot of people they're just happy it's a different team that's doing it because it isn't just the same old same old. You know, just like how F1 had had several years of the same teams dominating and people were bored of them and Vettel stealing the title from Alonso and Webber on the last day in 2010 was received well, but two-three years later when Vettel had become the dominant champion people were sick to their heart of him... and then people were glad when he was going to finally be challenged when Mercedes got their act together, and now F1 viewing figures are in the toilet because we've had several years of Mercedes winning everything, and since Rosberg retired and Hamilton insisted on a clear #2 driver rather than a #1B, we don't even get the opportunity for some insubordination in the ranks.
No, I didn't misunderstand you. If you ever peruse the Race Design Thread you'll find most traceurs agree with your proposed solutions and often races and stages that follow those principles are the best received there.oh dear you misunderstood me.
u took my example of Froome’ s win and went on an anti-Froome rant deciding that my post was about being pro-Froome. U completely misunderstood my point. And I fully agree that in 99% of cases he has benefitted and been a proponent of rinse and repeat.
my whole argument is that MTFs are too often boring beyond belief with very little time differences and no one risking anything. My complaint is not pro or against any rider. It is about this idea and modern day’s view that stage races should just pile on more and more MTFs.
I have then offered three solutions to encourage more exciting riding.
those who have taken offense here have not once addressed my offered solutions.
they have instead fixated on the fact that somehow they believe I am supporting a rider they do not like or something.
pretty tiresome really.
Again, proposed solutions:
1. More mountain stages ending after descent to encourage attacks from further out with added incentive that - should they fail - attacking rider will likely not lose time for their efforts.
2. More up and down hilly, or mid-mountain, stages with no flat in between to help break up the trains.
3. Fewer riders per team.
4. And I will add another. More ITT KMs to increase time differences. That will force climbers to attack from further out. Closeness in GC rarely leads to exciting, attacking riding.
The implication was that by not carrying on riding with a potentially complicated injury, in what he is clearly treating as a 5 day tune up race, to protect his 21st place, 2 weeks away from the Tour de France, he was showing a lack of grit.Yes. A historically important WT stage race.