Froome is Sky's best chance to win Le Tour

[cineteq]

It would be silly for Sky not to learn from this and approach the Tour the same way they did the Vuelta and convince themselves that only one of Froome/Wiggins will be their GC contender. If they are still both in contention, look to make the call after La Toussuire. If they are still inseparable, try and turn that into an advantage not a weakness.

In a perfect, black and white, world Sky will be doing this. Yet other factors play out: Wiggins' ego, Froome not being a pure Brit (politics) might prevent Froome from riding the Tour this year.

 

[El Pistolero]

In a perfect, black and white, world Sky will be doing this. Yet other factors play out: Wiggins' ego, Froome not being a pure Brit (politics) might prevent Froome from riding the Tour this year.

Coming from a country who has German royal family.

 

[will10]

Hindsight is always 20-20. I would wager at the start of the Vuelta there was absolutely no-one on here who would've said Froome would've finished 2nd overall ahead of Wiggins. Brad is the golden boy of British cycling with Cav - not going to try to deny that - so it's little wonder that Sky wanted to put all their eggs in his basket.

Even after the TT most of us were looking at Wiggins compared to the other GC guys and not paying much attention to Froome even though he had the leader's jersey. He was a complete unknown as to how he'd get on in the third week, and it would've been a gamble to have Brad work for Froome. It's all too easy to say they should've done after the event but that's forums for you I guess.

That said, Froome shouldn't have been setting the pace on the climb to Manzaneda - ultimately the time lost there cost him the overall.

 

[El Pistolero]

Hindsight is always 20-20. I would wager at the start of the Vuelta there was absolutely no-one on here who would've said Froome would've finished 2nd overall ahead of Wiggins. Brad is the golden boy of British cycling with Cav - not going to try to deny that - so it's little wonder that Sky wanted to put all their eggs in his basket.

Even after the TT most of us were looking at Wiggins compared to the other GC guys and not paying much attention to Froome even though he had the leader's jersey. He was a complete unknown as to how he'd get on in the third week, and it would've been a gamble to have Brad work for Froome. It's all too easy to say they should've done after the event but that's forums for you I guess.

That said, Froome shouldn't have been setting the pace on the climb to Manzaneda - ultimately the time lost there cost him the overall.

Long time trials rarely lie. They should have worked for Froome after that time trial and keep Brad protected as well.

 

[Kvinto]

I think each of them could go well at the TDF. Everyone last year thought Basso would podium, Nibali shall finish on the podium at least once ( though he might have to work on some minor things/ recapture his Vuelta/ Giro 2010 form, which i think he could if he goes to the TDF. Scarponi along with Basso both have not great ITT's but are two great climbers in their own ( huge gear )/ ( diesel ) way.

However the Giro had a shorter ITT compared to the Vuelta. The Vueltas' ITT was longer than the TDF's and was more balanced out ( it had a stage where Nibali gained time on a descent/ it only had one mountain on a mountain stage most of the time ) than the Giros'.

The fact that in 47 km Froome gained 2:02 minutes on Cobo ( who can time-trial ) means that he can contend in a GT ( especially one with near 100km of ITT's ). If he hadn't had to ride for Wiggins he would have kept that lead probably.

Not quite so. I can assure you that post-suspended Basso is still at least no worse tter than Cobo. Lets take Vuelta 2009 results (the most demonstrative example since both finished the race in top-10): prologue, one absolutely flat 30km tt and one 28km almost flat and Basso is slightly faster in every of these tts (I won’t even take head-to-head Basso vs Cobo tt results as an argument because it would be the kind of a low blow, since Basso was hands down better time trialist before suspension and the year 2010 wasn’t good for Cobo).

It’s not that easy with Scarponi because he has never ridden the Tour-like long flat tts (apart from this year’s Vuelta which I don’t take into consideration for obvious reasons) but I can assure you (again ) that Scarponi is at least no worse tter than post-suspended Basso since for the last two years Basso hasn’t won any tt against Scarponi.

Then back to Chris Froome, Bradley Wiggins, the Vuelta and the Tour. As I had pointed out earlier in the thread Wiggins started his Vuelta 6 weeks after his collarbone break. Where did Wiggins lose the Vuelta while Froome won it (lets say if Froome weren’t burdened with domestique duties he should (could) have won Vuelta)? Angliru (12,55km-9.9%, max 25,8%)? Pena Cabarga (5.9km-9.2%, max19%)? Are these ascents Tour-like? Apart of tt, what was the most Tour-like stage at Vuelta 2011? Hmm, I guess La Farrapona. What was the competition there (apart of our dear Froomie and Wiggo)? Taaramae, De la Fuente, Cobo, Poels, Mollema, Menchov. What was the competition on Angliru? Cobo, Poels!!! and Menchov. Monfort, Mollema and Lagutin all in top-10, less than a minute behind Froome and +1:35 to Cobo. Yeah, superhuman performance, indeed… Look at the Tour and Vuelta fields, compare them.

Then an ultimate argument – 96km of time trialing at the 2012 Tour de France. Well, 52km flat time trial is definitely a factor in the race, I can’t argue with this, but this is what the Tour does every year: sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, sometimes absolutely flat and windy, sometimes with 1-2 hills but it happens in every Tour. Then: 6km prologue, you won’t gain (lose) much time there being motivated (in the Vuelta 2009 4.8km prologue, the great prologue specialist Ivan Basso being motivated minimized his loses to Cancellara to 18sec, while in Amsterdam 8.4km prologue of Giro 2010 the same motivated Basso lost tremendous 24sec to Wiggins). And finally stage #9 38km tt. There is no profile yet but it is expected to be hilly. Just two examples of hilly tts and their results:

2009 Tirreno-Adriatico, stage 5, Loreto – Macerata, 30km

1 Andreas Klöden (Ger) Astana 41.32 (43.339 km/h)
2 Stijn Devolder (Bel) Quick Step 0.20
3 Thomas Lövkvist (Swe) Columbia-Highroad 0.21
4 Michele Scarponi (Ita) Androni Giocattoli
5 Mikhail Ignatiev (Rus) Katusha 0.32
6 Robert Gesink (Ned) Rabobank 0.40
7 Stefano Garzelli (Ita) Acqua & Sapone-Caffè Mokambo 0.41
8 Edvald Boasson Hagen (Nor) Columbia-Highroad 0.52
2009 Giro d’Italia, stage 12, almost legendary Cinque Terre ITT, 60km

1 Denis Menchov (Rus) Rabobank 1.34.29 (38.483 km/h)
2 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Astana 0.20
3 Stefano Garzelli (Ita) Acqua & Sapone - Caffe Mokambo 1.03
4 Janez Brajkovic (Slo) Astana 1.14
5 Franco Pellizotti (Ita) Liquigas1.27
6 Danilo Di Luca (Ita) LPR Brakes - Farnese Vini 1.54
7 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Garmin - Slipstream 1.59
8 Gabriele Bosisio (Ita) LPR Brakes - Farnese Vini 2.04
9 Jose Serpa (Col) Androni Giocattoli 2.13
10 Marzio Bruseghin (Ita) Lampre - N.G.C. 2.17
11 Ivan Basso (Ita) Liquigas

Of course we are yet to reveal what this tt will look like but if it is hilly then the results might be pretty surprising.

Important. Don’t get me wrong in the end, I’m not trying to disparage Froome’s talent. If the guy can tt and at the same time climb on the Angliru-like walls he definitely has an awesome GT potential but still the Vuelta 2011 was not a race that unambiguously makes Chris a Tour 2012 favourite or just better than Wiggins. Probably in several years (maybe even in 2013) he will become the biggest British Tour hope but imo it won’t happen this year.

 

[spalco]

i still think wiggins is better than froomy.it is good to have two strong cards to play

I agree, and besides, Wiggins also deserves another shot at the race as the leader for what he's done for the team and British cycling in general.

Froome will get his chance to prove or disprove his doubters eventually.

 

[gustienordic]

I agree, and besides, Wiggins also deserves another shot at the race as the leader for what he's done for the team and British cycling in general.

Froome will get his chance to prove or disprove his doubters eventually.

I think they are fundamentally different types of climbers. Wiggins is better on the very long grinding climbs we more often see in the tour while Froome can hang on in the steep climbs we saw in the vuelta. I may be mistaken, but I think Froome is more suited to the Giro and Vuelta. I'm not sure if he is as consistent as Wiggins in the TT. If Wiggins can stay out of trouble this year, a podium is obtainable. His climbing is getting better, and he can make up time on almost anyone in the TT.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Against the 2nd & 3rd riders at the Giro, and Menchov.

There were plenty of names there - they're just conveniently forgotten as they performanced poorly.

yeah they rode the giro, and rode it hard

look at nibbles, jrod etc. They all struggled with the giro-vuelta double. anton?

I know being ignorant is a specialty of yours, but it was a weak field (if not the weakest in recent memory. Maybe 10' was worse).

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Again. Big difference between Cobo and Froome. Froome is a great tter and Cobo isnt.

Oh and @ youngest i have high expectations for Velits at the Tour yes.



And Cobo. Cobo won on time bonuses and cos Froome was working for Wiggins. Froome was the better rider.

on angry lu he wasn't, regardless of wiggo.

That is where he lost the vuelta after all.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

on angry lu he wasn't, regardless of wiggo.

That is where he lost the vuelta after all.

Makes you wonder how much he will lose in a proper hard TDF mountain stage.

Cobo can drop everyone but the very best climbers if he reaches his 2011 Angliru and 2008 Hautacam level. Froome, on the other hand, was only impressive on the flat, on short climbs and on windy climbs with false flat sections where Wiggins excelled.

IF both reach a similar level at the Tour (unlikely, I guess) it's Froome who will get dropped by Cobo, time and again.

 

[PCutter]

Despite this year's tour having lots of ITT km's the climbs also include a number of very steep ramps (rather than hitting the legendary Col's), something which Wiggo still has a number of question marks about his ability in. Obviously if Conti rides, he'd own him on those ramps, and Cadel has shown in FW he can ride the steep grades, Wiggo...not so much.

 

[will10]

yeah they rode the giro, and rode it hard

look at nibbles, jrod etc. They all struggled with the giro-vuelta double. anton?

I know being ignorant is a specialty of yours, but it was a weak field (if not the weakest in recent memory. Maybe 10' was worse).

On paper: Nibali, Scarponi, Wiggins, Vandenbroeck, Menchov, Cobo, Brajkovic, Purito etc. is not a weak field, however much they may have "struggled" with a Giro Vuelta double.

This argument "oh they were only beating Poels and Mollema" is flawed. If we apply your logic, the field in the Tour was poor because Rolland won on Alpe D'Huez FFS

 

[CatDogQQ]

imo froome don't have any chanse to win this race. Ofc if he will training mountains skills may be he will sit before conta, evans and other good climbers. And on itt he will won about 1,30 min he will get some chanse to be in top 5. But i think that Wiggo have more chanse to be in top 5

 

[Kvinto]

On paper: Nibali, Scarponi, Wiggins, Vandenbroeck, Menchov, Cobo, Brajkovic, Purito etc. is not a weak field, however much they may have "struggled" with a Giro Vuelta double.

This argument "oh they were only beating Poels and Mollema" is flawed. If we apply your logic, the field in the Tour was poor because Rolland won on Alpe D'Huez FFS

Wiggins and Vandenbroeck both after Tour injuries
Menchov wasn't any near his Giro 2009 or Tour 2010 form and worked for Cobo half the race
Purito - the guy loses in time trials loads of time, he is never a proper GT contender
Brajkovic - lol
Who's left? Nibali - at the moment a rider of the bottom of Tour's top-10 at best, Scarponi, who rarely races abroad of Italy though his fail really surprised me and personally Cobo, along with our Froomie - the biggest breakthrough of Vuelta 2011
The field was weak, and so was the course.

 

[Kvinto]

BTW, about Poels or Mollema at Vuelta and Rolland on Alpe D'Huez. Just one question: Do you get the difference between winning a stage from breakaway and doing the same from the group of main favourites?

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

On paper: Nibali, Scarponi, Wiggins, Vandenbroeck, Menchov, Cobo, Brajkovic, Purito etc. is not a weak field, however much they may have "struggled" with a Giro Vuelta double.

This argument "oh they were only beating Poels and Mollema" is flawed. If we apply your logic, the field in the Tour was poor because Rolland won on Alpe D'Huez FFS

errr stupid argument. This wasn't a hyperthetical statement by WS, he said the giro riders were at the vuelta and thus froome / wiggo are clearly gods etc.
Whereas leaving out the cold hard facts that these riders who rode the giro clearly struggled to maintain form throughout the season and show the same form at the vuelta. It was clear to those with a reasonable amount of brain cells that the giro was simply to taxing on the riders. Maybe not you i suppose.

Anyway WS made an arrogant statement which was simply not true, nor applicable to the specific situation (something he does a lot) without identifyling the realities of the situation.

As for your rolland statement, not sure how that is applicable to the argument (maybe in la la land ? ) at hand. Last I checked rider down on GC (reduced GC men, tired riders after numersous attacks) winning a mtf does not equate to a poor field due to riders with already intense schedules and riders coming from injuries. What might look good on paper does not necessarly equate to what we see on the road. I'd worry less about my logic, and more about your ability (or should I say inability?) to understand a simple argument.

The tour btw, imo was poor and ruined because of the absurd amount of injuries in regards to heads of state, Leaving only a few viable riders to really contest the GC. Unsurprising that a rider like Rolland got some freedom anyway, with less riders contesting the win, other riders using huge energy reserves on prior climbs in the day and the remaining 'big names' basically only concerned with GC battles amongst themselves and not the stage win. But yeah, great point buddy. Bravo!!

 

[hatcher]

Glad I read this thread to learn that Froome was actually entirely unimpressive in the Vuelta.

Personally I expect Froome's climbing to stay somewhere around Wiggins' level; maybe slightly better, maybe slightly worse. I would however be very surprised if he comes within 30 seconds of Wiggins on any long TT next year, and that makes Wiggins far and away Sky's best hope.

edit: actually to be fair, the longer the thread went on the less impressive he became. He did get props at the start.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

yeah they rode the giro, and rode it hard

look at nibbles, jrod etc. They all struggled with the giro-vuelta double. anton?

I know being ignorant is a specialty of yours, but it was a weak field (if not the weakest in recent memory. Maybe 10' was worse).

Petitio principii.

You're working from the fact Froome & Cobo did well to prove it was a weak field. If you look at the list of names, it clearly wasn't.

As for ignorance, it's clear you're still upset I found it amusing that when I decided to get a rise out of the resident Australians, by saying only Australians care about the TDU, a load of Austrailians declared that plenty of other people cared. That's really your look-out. A complete lack of appreciation for the importance of provenance was quite amusing on that occasion.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

errr stupid argument. This wasn't a hyperthetical statement by WS, he said the giro riders were at the vuelta and thus froome / wiggo are clearly gods etc.
Whereas leaving out the cold hard facts that these riders who rode the giro clearly struggled to maintain form throughout the season and show the same form at the vuelta. It was clear to those with a reasonable amount of brain cells that the giro was simply to taxing on the riders. Maybe not you i suppose.

Anyway WS made an arrogant statement which was simply not true, nor applicable to the specific situation (something he does a lot) without identifyling the realities of the situation.

As for your rolland statement, not sure how that is applicable to the argument (maybe in la la land ? ) at hand. Last I checked rider down on GC (reduced GC men, tired riders after numersous attacks) winning a mtf does not equate to a poor field due to riders with already intense schedules and riders coming from injuries. What might look good on paper does not necessarly equate to what we see on the road. I'd worry less about my logic, and more about your ability (or should I say inability?) to understand a simple argument.

The tour btw, imo was poor and ruined because of the absurd amount of injuries in regards to heads of state, Leaving only a few viable riders to really contest the GC. Unsurprising that a rider like Rolland got some freedom anyway, with less riders contesting the win, other riders using huge energy reserves on prior climbs in the day and the remaining 'big names' basically only concerned with GC battles amongst themselves and not the stage win. But yeah, great point buddy. Bravo!!

You've worked yourself in to quite a state, and have thus imagined I said quite a few things I didn't.

I just noted the field had plenty of big name riders. Everything after that is a product of you going looking for argument.

As for Wiggins & Froome being Gods, please grow up. Few people on this board have been as critical of Wiggins as me.

 

[movingtarget]

Glad I read this thread to learn that Froome was actually entirely unimpressive in the Vuelta.

Personally I expect Froome's climbing to stay somewhere around Wiggins' level; maybe slightly better, maybe slightly worse. I would however be very surprised if he comes within 30 seconds of Wiggins on any long TT next year, and that makes Wiggins far and away Sky's best hope.

edit: actually to be fair, the longer the thread went on the less impressive he became. He did get props at the start.

There is just as much doubt about Wiggin's climbing. He did well in the Dauphine but that only lasts for a week or so. Yes I know he finished fourth before. Most people were impressed with Froome in the Vuelta because it was so unexpected. I think they are close on paper. If Froome is a protected rider I think he can do well. I still see Contador, Evans and Menchov if he can regain past form as the riders to beat. It would surprise me if Wiggins or Froome made the podium. Top five possible. I think the 2012 TDF is going to be interesting with a lot or riders possibly making the top five and of course the Schlecks will have to attack more than usual to have any chance with the TT situation.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

on angry lu he wasn't, regardless of wiggo.

That is where he lost the vuelta after all.

Why disregard Wiggo? Clearly for the best part of the climb, Froome paced the group including Wiggo and once Wiggo gave in, the Froome group started to take back time on Cobo.

And he lost the Vuelta here alone? Disregarding the dozen other stages or so where time was gained or lost? Why? What about the TTT where five of the nine Sky riders decided to freewheel home? What about all the little bits of time in the first week where he stayed with Wiggins up the steep ramps?

As for the quality of the field, there are clearly question marks but then there always are with the Vuelta. It's generally for second tier cyclists or those that have had their season disrupted + those that see it as good preparation for the Worlds.

Personally I don't think one good race is any reason to think Froome will ever win the big one and Sky's best chance is Wiggins in 2012.

 

[Froome19]

IMO sky's best chance to win is definitely Froome.
This is as whilst we know how good wiggins can be and he can be very good at tempo riding up mountains, he has proven that he does not have enough in order to keep it with the likes of contador, evans and schleck in the high mountains and in the time trials is not markedly better than evans/ contador, so how could he possibly have any chance of winning?

Whilst Froome on the other hand is more of an unknown quality, indeed IMO he did not truly show his limits in the vuelta as he was required to work for wiggins up to angliru, only when he was released from domestique duty could he really excel as he did in the tt and on stage 17. There's no doubt in my mind that he would have beaten cobo if not for having to work for wiggins.

Froome is first of all evidently getting better and certainly has a greater chance than wiggins of winning as wiggins has basically no chance of winning whilst froome still has something he can show us.

Of course if the question was who is more likely to get top five the answer would be different but from what Froome has shown so far in the fact that he was undoubtebly the best gc rider in his first gt the answer must be Froome.
Whether Froome can compete in the mountains is another case and I would be tempted to say yes as he was impressive on angliru and in the early mountains matched any of the other climbers as he was required to work twice as hard as he was working for Wiggins. Of course the standard of climbing will be higher in the tour with all the gc climbers bar mollema, cobo, wiggins and froome not being in great form (and rodriguez to a degree) and undoubtebly Contador and co will be better yet if Froome can be head and shoulders above everybody except Cobo and is still slightly unknown then there's is a great chance he can at least have a chance of matching contador and schleck

Also he seems to be more of a complete rider than wiggins with his acceleration and his ability on short explosive hills as he showed on stage 17.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Petitio principii.

You're working from the fact Froome & Cobo did well to prove it was a weak field. If you look at the list of names, it clearly wasn't.

As for ignorance, it's clear you're still upset I found it amusing that when I decided to get a rise out of the resident Australians, by saying only Australians care about the TDU, a load of Austrailians declared that plenty of other people cared. That's really your look-out. A complete lack of appreciation for the importance of provenance was quite amusing on that occasion.

Once again you show your ignorance . I have long Been an anti-tdu advocate , however your argument against the race was again arrogant and idiotic, much consistent to your standard of posting (just like the baseless olympics statement you made and myself and hitch proceeded to provide facts to show how wrong you were , unsurprisingly there, just like the tdu thread you failed to rebuttle, I can only assume because you had accepted how wrong you were)

Like I said the other day the tdu is a crap race, but there is criticsm and there is stupidity. Guess which category you fall under

As for your argument, again a list of names is just that. It can't be considered a strong field without considering the realities of the situation, which again you failed to address.

If your gonna mention the "giro podium" riders as an argument to glorify their performance, then others are also going to question the validity of that argument. And as I said when considering the situation behind your mentioned riders it isn't such a great feat that the Brits beat said riders.

They still have everything to prove. Vuelta convinced me thier as good as the 2nd string gt riders. Nothing more.

Next time don't make a baseless argument at face value if you can't handle people poking holes in your logic.

And again lol at you thinking I care for the tdu and am actually offended at that; im sure acf can inform you the opposite is true. My reaction to your post was how stupid it and arrogant it was.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Please calm down and re-read what I initially posted, and then tell me which bit you object to.

Against the 2nd & 3rd riders at the Giro, and Menchov. They were indeed there, a simple statement of fact.

There were plenty of names there Given the above, also a fact. - they're just conveniently forgotten as they performanced poorly. This is precisely what you are arguing in favour of doing.

You seem determined to extrapolate from 'conveniently' to assume I believe Froome is a 'God' and his performances need 'glorifying'. It's a quite childish approach.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

I'm calm, I often post with such aggresion.

I'll take the original post as what it was then, just a statement of fact. Doesn't really apply to youngest's question who they actually beat, in regards to top form riders and at the vuelta in peak form.

@captain_cavman
Angliru is no normal, pacing climb. Thier is no pacing team mates, on slopes with zoncolan and angliru your legs do the talking. I watched the stage, and in no way did wiggo alter froome's chances on this climb.

As for losing it there, I mean in that situation, at that time regardless of the two weeks before froome essentially lost it here. He survives, he wins. At that time, there was no considering what happend yesterday or the day before; it was best man takes all.

Froome started 48 seconds ahead of cobo and was 20 seconds behind on gc afterwards. So yes, I do believe he lost the race on this slope.

In regards to mountains, cobo was undoubtedly the better ridder. In the TT froome and co. cleaned up.