Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Hawkwood]

What struck me with his downfall was how mentally broken he looked. Like he'd be found out. He was shaking his head saying 'no' to the mechanic. He just didn't want to ride. He wanted to escape.

But more stinking was his team. I'm not sure they actually cared the he was gone. Brailsford was more in awe of Nibali than worrying about Froome and his broken blouse.

Brailsford and G were extremely upbeat, at one point I wondered whether they were even going to mention Froome. Seems like they switched to Plan B with undue haste.

 

[Ripper]

Froome is just a manufactured pedaling machine. The ugliest rider in the peloton, no style, and obviously no skill. He fell twice. He can't do it. Sky would be 1-9 in the standings if this were a stationary bike race. But add in tactics, and they fail miserably. Funny thing is, Wiggins is probably the Sky man with the best tactical race sense, yet another reason it was stupid to leave him off the roster.

Mick and Bernie, actually. And of course, no Mick anymore.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

What struck me with his downfall was how mentally broken he looked. Like he'd be found out. He was shaking his head saying 'no' to the mechanic. He just didn't want to ride. He wanted to escape.

But more stinking was his team. I'm not sure they actually cared the he was gone. Brailsford was more in awe of Nibali than worrying about Froome and his broken blouse.

You certainly can make a lot out of what looks like a fairly straightforward scenario: Team leader injured, only starts stage out of optimism, pulls out after further crash damage and looks unhappy about it. New team leader agreed in advance, and said new leader along with some helpers carry on in the race, without waiting for a man who was clearly finished for the race.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Brailsford and G were extremely upbeat, at one point I wondered whether they were even going to mention Froome. Seems like they switched to Plan B with undue haste.

It's not hard to see why G was upbeat. He's in cracking form and is now Porte's wingman with a much better opportunity to showcase his talents than before. Plus he got to dish out a world of pain to Contador with his late break.

 

[Hawkwood]

It's not hard to see why G was upbeat. He's in cracking form and is now Porte's wingman with a much better opportunity to showcase his talents than before. Plus he got to dish out a world of pain to Contador with his late break.

I think he was dishing out pain to Porte as well, just in a more positive way!

 

[MBotero]

You certainly can make a lot out of what looks like a fairly straightforward scenario: Team leader injured, only starts stage out of optimism, pulls out after further crash damage and looks unhappy about it. New team leader agreed in advance, and said new leader along with some helpers carry on in the race, without waiting for a man who was clearly finished for the race.

Good point,Froome was done after the first crash in the previous day,he started the stage just to save the appearances

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Chris Cound apparently has bilharzia in his wrist now. Oh, the humanity.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Good point,Froome was done after the first crash in the previous day,he started the stage just to save the appearances

No. He started the stage in the hope he could get through with minimal losses and that his wrist would recover to be functional on the next few flattish stages. He didn't have any appearances to save - I don't think anyone outside of the Clinic would have judged him badly if he'd not started yesterday citing his wrist injury. Anyone who's ridden a bike with a sprained wrist knows it's difficult to steer and deal with rough roads.

In hindsight, he was actually done after Tuesday's crash, but you never know how an injury will react in a competitive situation until you actually get stuck in.

 

[MBotero]

No. He started the stage in the hope he could get through with minimal losses and that his wrist would recover to be functional on the next few flattish stages. He didn't have any appearances to save - I don't think anyone outside of the Clinic would have judged him badly if he'd not started yesterday citing his wrist injury. Anyone who's ridden a bike with a sprained wrist knows it's difficult to steer and deal with rough roads.

In hindsight, he was actually done after Tuesday's crash, but you never know how an injury will react in a competitive situation until you actually get stuck in.

Well,after Liege-Baston-Liege withdraw and then Tour de Romandie TUE his image was a little tarnished,he played the hero which end up with 2 more crashes and maybe with bigger injuries.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I moved this discussion from the Nibali thread because it was moving off topic.

Yeah, see, the conditional doesn't really work with racing. Froome wasn't healthy, so he stuffed it. And he wasn't healthy because he crashed three times. And he crashed three times, many would argue, because he doesn't have the sense to position himself intelligently.

You can call it whatever you like, but the real reality is that Froome is no Chris Horner. He doesn't read a race to win it, he just destroys the field. Whether or not that's down to dope is irrelevant. Please show me some evidence of this tactical intelligence. Even pre-2011 -- anything that says "Gosh that Chris Froome read that one right."

As I write below, I have never considered Froome to be the sharpest tool in the shed. And I am not intimately familiar with Froome's history, so I am not the best at disproving your points. However, ditching Wiggins on Angliru was a pretty good tactical move, knowing that he was the better bet to win the Vuelta at that point. Or sending Porte back for energy bars last year in the TDF? No matter what I list, you will discount it because you have already made up your mind. Belief dependent reality. My greater point is that Froome will never be given credit for things like bravery or tactical sense, because many (most?) people believes that he is solely a product of dope, whereas Nibali and Contador are not treated in a similar regard. Contador has crashed frequently in the tour and his positioning is not characterized as lack of intelligent positioning as you stated for Froome. That is the double standard of the clinic.

How would him having finished with Thomas and Froome equate to Froome being at the front? And how would that be an example of Froome showing tactical nous?

I have stated that Froome is probably the weakest tactical rider to win the TDF in the last couple decades. Please don't put words in my mouth, because I did not equate Froome performing well on the cobbles to exhibiting nous. I just responded to the poster who said Froome was incapable of being at the front of the race. Finishing ahead of every GC guy except Nibali was a great performance by Thomas and Porte. IMO, that is pretty good evidence that finishing at the front is not beyond their capability if the right situation arises. See Andy Schleck in 2010.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

However, ditching Wiggins on Angliru was a pretty good tactical move, knowing that he was the better bet to win the Vuelta at that point.

I would have to look at the race itself to respond, but I would not assume automatically that
1. it was Froome's decision
2. selfishness should be counted as tactical nouse

Or sending Porte back for energy bars last year in the TDF?

As opposed to what? You can't present dubious arguments and discount disagreement via a "belief dependent reality" catch phrase - that's disingenuous at best.

Team leaders do not return to the car to get supplies when a domestique is riding with them. That's team racing 101, not an example of tactical nouse.

Seriously. What? When did you start watching cycling?

 

[djpbaltimore]

I would have to look at the race itself to respond, but I would not assume automatically that
1. it was Froome's decision
2. selfishness should be counted as tactical nouse



As opposed to what? You can't present dubious arguments and discount disagreement via a "belief dependent reality" catch phrase - that's disingenuous at best.

Team leaders do not return to the car to get supplies when a domestique is riding with them. That's team racing 101, not an example of tactical nouse.

Seriously. What? When did you start watching cycling?

This has been mostly a hypothetical argument, feel free to look at the actual discussion. I'll ask you the same question. If Froome and Nibali roles here reversed yesterday would you be giving credit to Froome? I doubt many here would. But that is just my opinion.

I find it funny whenever a person can not respond intelligently to an argument that they resort to personal attacks. If that is your best argument, you have none.

 

[SeriousSam]

Djpbaltimore is clearly right to some extent. His point essentially boils down to the fact that the clinic isn't immune to confirmation bias. That said, I don't know of a single occurrence where Froome displayed above average tactics.

I concede that I'd probably interpret some of what I regard as Froome's tactical blunders differently if a rider like Nibali and Contador had made them, though. That could be confirmation bias, but it could also be justified in light of what we already know about the riders (Froome awful at tactics, Nibali great)

 

[djpbaltimore]

Djpbaltimore is clearly right to some extent. His point essentially boils down to the fact that the clinic isn't immune to confirmation bias. That said, I don't know of a single occurrence where Froome displayed above average tactics.

I concede that I'd probably interpret some of what I regard as Froome's tactical blunders differently if a rider like Nibali and Contador had made them, though. That could be confirmation bias, but it could also be justified in light of what we already know about the riders (Froome awful at tactics, Nibali great)

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. I was not trying to portray Froome as a tactical mastermind by any means. I think I would've made a better argument if I had stuck to the idea of gutsiness or bravery as attributes rather than tactical astuteness.

 

[proffate]

This has been mostly a hypothetical argument, feel free to look at the actual discussion. I'll ask you the same question. If Froome and Nibali roles here reversed yesterday would you be giving credit to Froome? I doubt many here would. But that is just my opinion.

Handling rain and cobbles requires a combination of power and finesse. Nibali has proven he has both --- he can attack up or downhill, contends the monuments and other hard one-day races. Froome only has power; he's never shown any ability beyond climbing and TT. So if Froome did crush the cobbles, it would only be down to crazy, unbelievable power, which could only be ill-gotten.

 

[Athame]

Froome only has power; he's never shown any ability beyond climbing and TT. So if Froome did crush the cobbles, it would only be down to crazy, unbelievable power, which could only be ill-gotten.

couple solid non sequiturs there. anyway, ... didn't expect him to do well there.

 

[Athame]

Handling rain and cobbles requires a combination of power and finesse. Nibali has proven he has both --- he can attack up or downhill, contends the monuments and other hard one-day races.

__________________ +1

 

[djpbaltimore]

Handling rain and cobbles requires a combination of power and finesse. Nibali has proven he has both --- he can attack up or downhill, contends the monuments and other hard one-day races. Froome only has power; he's never shown any ability beyond climbing and TT. So if Froome did crush the cobbles, it would only be down to crazy, unbelievable power, which could only be ill-gotten.

I don't disagree with anything you say about Nibali. I give him full credit for his performance.

But was Schleck's performance in the cobbles in 2010 due to crazy, unbelievable power? Or was is it the benefit of good positioning, being ahead of the crash (sorry Frank!), and drafting off of Cancellara? Some of it is luck and some of it is very rudimentary tactical awareness. I feel a similar scenario could've happened with Froome this year.

 

[mrhender]

This has been mostly a hypothetical argument, feel free to look at the actual discussion. I'll ask you the same question. If Froome and Nibali roles here reversed yesterday would you be giving credit to Froome? I doubt many here would. But that is just my opinion.

I find it funny whenever a person can not respond intelligently to an argument that they resort to personal attacks. If that is your best argument, you have none.

Allow me to jump-in on this for a "short" remark..

If the purpose with this phrase is to expand objecitvity/fairness of the discussion regarding Froome then I applaud it.
But in my opinion this discussion is a circle that only gets bigger by DIA but does not have a chance to breach.. (getting bigger does not equal larger quality of discussion, but more likely the opposite)

Let me ellaborate:

Problem is that psychological behavior has (in studies) shown that you often discard the wievs that don't fit your own -or attack them..
It is no secret that Froome is not the most popular rider in especially the Clinic (for various reasons -The most obvious is that people who knows the history of cycling do not like a guy coming from nowhere sweeping floors with the best dopers they have "come to live with" or even support.. And yes I meant the best dopers(but also the best cyclists)
Therefore as result, often posters having valid points about "hipocrasy" often suffers from well played out arguments that tears the notion of "fairness" in the case of Froome down.. (He provides too much to pursue)

Also it is interesting that the "To support or not to support dopers" thread which IMO is one of the most interesting becomes a battlefield for those hanging on to straws because they "want" to beleive their favorite rider, or the ones that enjoy unfolding their vast amount of "ammo" that a guy like Froome/or others provides them with..

Tearing down an argument does not necessarily make you right...
I like to think that I respect all posters, and especially those who provides and stands up for their own beliefs rather than attacking others..

I'am already way of topic (sorry about that) so to finalize the above standing in Froome context I would say this:

The question is not "what if it was the other guy"..
We have to accept and understand that people here have different agendas and most importantly different perceptions..
If no-one was here to add perspective to the discussion of Froome then it would probably be boring Or maybe a lot great posters would add some value to other discussions..
My guess is that he will gain some leeway after recent events, since he now seems to be more a "human beeing" (not a joke) than before..
Furthermore I think he's done with SKY after this season. And as much as i don't like the guy, I don't blame him if he himself pulls the plug.. (but the team already did that I think)

P.S I myself would not score many points in regard of the post I just wrote.. But I learn along the way..

 

[noddy69]

I don't disagree with anything you say about Nibali. I give him full credit for his performance.

But was Schleck's performance in the cobbles in 2010 due to crazy, unbelievable power? Or was is it the benefit of good positioning, being ahead of the crash (sorry Frank!), and drafting off of Cancellara? Some of it is luck and some of it is very rudimentary tactical awareness. I feel a similar scenario could've happened with Froome this year.

Schleck's performance was down to doping....similar to Nibali's. Nibs will crush the TT, spring up the mountain and has danced over the cobbles....Clean cycling my backside !

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Well,after Liege-Baston-Liege withdraw and then Tour de Romandie TUE his image was a little tarnished,he played the hero which end up with 2 more crashes and maybe with bigger injuries.

Froome was in the Tour to win. The only reason he pulled out was because he was physically incapable of continuing.

In his mass home market, i.e. Britain, concern over LBL and Romandie is somewhere less than negligible. However, his role in excluding Wiggo from the Tour squad is widely known and not popular. So if Froome was planning in advance on improving his image by crashing out of the Tour, why the chuff would he go to the bother of getting Wiggo excluded? The best way he'd have bolstered his image with the masses would be to have Wiggo onboard or win the Tour without him.

 

[thehog]

Froome was in the Tour to win. The only reason he pulled out was because he was physically incapable of continuing.

In his mass home market, i.e. Britain, concern over LBL and Romandie is somewhere less than negligible. However, his role in excluding Wiggo from the Tour squad is widely known and not popular. So if Froome was planning in advance on improving his image by crashing out of the Tour, why the chuff would he go to the bother of getting Wiggo excluded? The best way he'd have bolstered his image with the masses would be to have Wiggo onboard or win the Tour without him.

I some ways I think Froome wanted to crash. He really was looking for a way out. And I think it's worked out nicely.

End of last year the Dawg was talking about 7 Tour titles, more recently about no testing on Tenerife; he'd just become a joke in the peloton and amongst the fans who mew anything about bike racing.

It's funny now the Tour is not missing him. Everything thing feels better. Even if Porte does well he's a lot more realistic than Froome. I honestly don't think I could have watched another win by Froome. I would have lost all faith in cycling. I think even Brailsford wants to cut the Dawg loose as well. He's a liability to Sky.

 

[Granville57]

End of last year the Dawg was talking about 7 Tour titles, more recently about no testing on Tenerife; he'd just become a joke in the peloton and amongst the fans who mew anything about bike racing.

I see what you did there.

 

[ChrisE]

Allow me to jump-in on this for a "short" remark..

If the purpose with this phrase is to expand objecitvity/fairness of the discussion regarding Froome then I applaud it.
But in my opinion this discussion is a circle that only gets bigger by DIA but does not have a chance to breach.. (getting bigger does not equal larger quality of discussion, but more likely the opposite)

Let me ellaborate:

Problem is that psychological behavior has (in studies) shown that you often discard the wievs that don't fit your own -or attack them..
It is no secret that Froome is not the most popular rider in especially the Clinic (for various reasons -The most obvious is that people who knows the history of cycling do not like a guy coming from nowhere sweeping floors with the best dopers they have "come to live with" or even support.. And yes I meant the best dopers(but also the best cyclists)
Therefore as result, often posters having valid points about "hipocrasy" often suffers from well played out arguments that tears the notion of "fairness" in the case of Froome down.. (He provides too much to pursue)

Also it is interesting that the "To support or not to support dopers" thread which IMO is one of the most interesting becomes a battlefield for those hanging on to straws because they "want" to beleive their favorite rider, or the ones that enjoy unfolding their vast amount of "ammo" that a guy like Froome/or others provides them with..

Tearing down an argument does not necessarily make you right...
I like to think that I respect all posters, and especially those who provides and stands up for their own beliefs rather than attacking others..

I'am already way of topic (sorry about that) so to finalize the above standing in Froome context I would say this:

The question is not "what if it was the other guy"..
We have to accept and understand that people here have different agendas and most importantly different perceptions..
If no-one was here to add perspective to the discussion of Froome then it would probably be boring Or maybe a lot great posters would add some value to other discussions..
My guess is that he will gain some leeway after recent events, since he now seems to be more a "human beeing" (not a joke) than before..
Furthermore I think he's done with SKY after this season. And as much as i don't like the guy, I don't blame him if he himself pulls the plug.. (but the team already did that I think)

P.S I myself would not score many points in regard of the post I just wrote.. But I learn along the way..

What you talking about, Willis?

 

[Red Rick]

I some ways I think Froome wanted to crash. He really was looking for a way out. And I think it's worked out nicely.

End of last year the Dawg was talking about 7 Tour titles, more recently about no testing on Tenerife; he'd just become a joke in the peloton and amongst the fans who mew anything about bike racing.

It's funny now the Tour is not missing him. Everything thing feels better. Even if Porte does well he's a lot more realistic than Froome. I honestly don't think I could have watched another win by Froome. I would have lost all faith in cycling. I think even Brailsford wants to cut the Dawg loose as well. He's a liability to Sky.

I completely agree