Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[RownhamHill]

Did some searching, posted back in 2009:

Haven't got time to find it now, but I posted (in this thread I think, but could have been somewhere else on the clinic) something from the Guardian from the 2010 tour about Thomas, which mentioned how (until then) he'd never been seen as a potential GT gC rider in the same way Pete Kennaugh and Ben Swift had been. . .

On Froome as well, I'm pretty sure in the Richard Moore book about the creation of Team Sky, which got published in about 2010 I think (pretty early on), Froome is described as a 'diamond in the rough' - I'd never heard of him at the point I read that.

 

[the sceptic]

I guess this is an excuse to post this old classic.

 

[VO2 Max]

I'd never heard of him

...is a pretty good summary for almost all of us. I knew of him only because I've followed Geraint Thomas's career from u16 and obviously they were at Barloworld together. In 2009 I rode the British RR champs at which Froome received basically no attention from anyone; I only knew he was there because he came past me on the inside on the pavement during the neutralised zone. (Apparently later on he was in a break with Wiggins on the day's big climb but I was about half an hour off the back by then!) Four years later he's the greatest rider the world has ever known

 

[Digger]

...is a pretty good summary for almost all of us. I knew of him only because I've followed Geraint Thomas's career from u16 and obviously they were at Barloworld together. In 2009 I rode the British RR champs at which Froome received basically no attention from anyone; I only knew he was there because he came past me on the inside on the pavement during the neutralised zone. (Apparently later on he was in a break with Wiggins on the day's big climb but I was about half an hour off the back by then!) Four years later he's the greatest rider the world has ever known

well I am sorry you don't believe in miracles - better tactics and bike handling

 

[nomapnocompass]

Whether or not Sky initially believed Froome to be a super talent is debatable. However what is not up for debate is that they clearly considered him of little or no value prior to his miraculous breakthrough ride in the 2011 Vuelta. In Froome's own book he details how he only got a spot in that race due to another rider pulling out and how around that time Sky were offering him a very poor contract of around €60k/yr to continue with the team. If Sky thought Froome to be a rider with massive potential then one would guess they would try to nurture that talent rather than dispose of it.

 

[Parker]

I guess this is an excuse to post this old classic.

Out of interest, what do you think that graph represents?

Lionel Birnie (who wrote the article and made the graph) has often complained that people misinterpret it.

 

[The Hitch]

It shows Froome was nothing without dope.

Not hard to figure out really

 

[Parker]

It shows Froome was nothing without dope.

Not hard to figure out really

No, that's what you infer from it.

That's not the purpose of the graph. Now try and have have a crack at why Sky produced it and what it is meant to show.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Out of interest, what do you think that graph represents?

Lionel Birnie (who wrote the article and made the graph) has often complained that people misinterpret it.

The graph represents nothing. To have any meaning, whatsoever, it would track individual cyclists performance compared to their age. A single data point is meaningless.

John Swanson

 

[Benotti69]

No, that's what you infer from it.

That's not the purpose of the graph. Now try and have have a crack at why Sky produced it and what it is meant to show.

Sky didn't produce the graph.

Lionel Beirne did, as we are informed a few posts above. Do you follow the thread or only certain posters?

He used to illustrate what Sky had given him as how they saw certain aspects of their riders.

 

[the sceptic]

No, that's what you infer from it.

That's not the purpose of the graph. Now try and have have a crack at why Sky produced it and what it is meant to show.

So whats wrong with the graph?

 

[Digger]

So whats wrong with the graph?

it's being mean to froome

 

[Parker]

So whats wrong with the graph?

Where did I say there was something wrong with it? I didn't

I was asking what you think it is meant to represent.


(And yes, I know Lionel Birnie made it, but it is a rough copy of a graph Sky showed him).

 

[the sceptic]

Where did I say there was something wrong with it? I didn't

I was asking what you think it is meant to represent.


(And yes, I know Lionel Birnie made it, but it is a rough copy of a graph Sky showed him).

The graph roughly maps the trajectory of a cyclist’s career,” says Brailsford. “There are different phases of a pro’s career. As people go from phase to phase, what does it mean in terms of potential, salary, the coaching and support you need and lifestyle?
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...d-of-dave-brailsford-2615#bbJUxp2xAWUmwkwF.99

Its not rocket science is it? Froome was a nobody, who was about to get dumped. No one saw any potential in him before he juiced up for the 2011 vuelta.

 

[kingjr]

Its not rocket science is it? Froome was a nobody, who was about to get dumped. No one saw any potential in him before he juiced up for the 2011 vuelta.

It says next to the Graph 'Level of Performance'.

It says nothing about potential. We know Froome was rubbish at Sky pretty much until the Vuelta 2011, the Graph represents that.

 

[the sceptic]

It says next to the Graph 'Level of Performance'.

It says nothing about potential. We know Froome was rubbish at Sky pretty much until the Vuelta 2011, the Graph represents that.

5. Riders in this area are borderline for us. As you get older, the potential for improvement disappears and so it’s much more a judgement call. A rider might bring something to the team in terms of his personality that makes him a good guy to have around.

Froome was a nobody, with no future at sky. Brailsford even said himself that he wanted to develop riders who are "ahead of the curve". But as we can see, Froome is about as far behind as its possible to get. Froome would have gotten dumped by sky, why would they want him?

There is only one way a rider can jump all the way from the bottom to the top of the graph.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Also funny that Wiggins is on the downward slope right before having one of the best seasons in cycling history and his own best ever by a landslide

 

[McLovin]

Its not rocket science is it? Froome was a nobody, who was about to get dumped. No one saw any potential in him before he juiced up for the 2011 vuelta.

So he juiced up alone? Or without team's accept or help? Because then.....this contradicts about 1000 pages here and some 3 years of talking.

 

[kingjr]

Froome was a nobody, with no future at sky. Brailsford even said himself that he wanted to develop riders who are "ahead of the curve". But as we can see, Froome is about as far behind as its possible to get. Froome would have gotten dumped by sky, why would they want him?

I agree with you. I just wanted to point out that the graph on its own only shows how good a rider is at that point, not how good he could be.

 

[The Hitch]

It says next to the Graph 'Level of Performance'.

It says nothing about potential. We know Froome was rubbish at Sky pretty much until the Vuelta 2011, the Graph represents that.

The graph shows brailsford didn't rank froome.

Brailsford now tells the media that he knew all along froome was a great talent.

It's just another example of brailsfraud lying.

 

[The Hitch]

I agree with you. I just wanted to point out that the graph on its own only shows how good a rider is at that point, not how good he could be.

How good someone is is directly related to how good they will be.especially in mid 20s. A continental rider at 25 isn't going to just become Mig Indurain at 26

 

[kingjr]

The graph shows brailsford didn't rank froome.

Brailsford now tells the media that he knew all along froome was a great talent.

Brailsford is talking out of his a$$ of course. He probably believed he had talent when he signed him up but had lost faith in him over the course of time, and who could blame him. I think he didn't have the first clue what was going on with Froome at the Vuelta.

 

[Parker]

The graph shows brailsford didn't rank froome.

No it doesn't. And that's my point. People wave it around without understanding what it means (look at the sceptic avoiding by question for an explanation).

It just shows that Froome hadn't had any results at that point. We didn't need a behind the scenes graph to know that. It shows that he was either underdeveloped or not good. (Similarly EBH is either an early developer or brilliant). It's a graph used over time to track a rider's progression and helps inform wages.

Just to the left of Froome on the graph at the bottom is PK (Kennaugh). Did Brailsford not rate him either?

 

[kingjr]

How good someone is is directly related to how good they will be.especially in mid 20s. A continental rider at 25 isn't going to just become Mig Indurain at 26

If they had made this graph in 2008 the picture would've been quite different. The question for me is not so much why he is so good today, but why he was so bad in 09/10 and pretty much up to Summer 2011.

 

[The Hitch]

No it doesn't. And that's my point. People wave it around without understanding what it means (look at the sceptic avoiding by question for an explanation).

It just shows that Froome hadn't had any results at that point. We didn't need a behind the scenes graph to know that. It shows that he was either underdeveloped or not good. (Similarly EBH is either an early developer or brilliant). It's a graph used over time to track a rider's progression and helps inform wages.

Just to the left of Froome on the graph at the bottom is PK (Kennaugh). Did Brailsford not rate him either?

You do realize kennaugh is above the estimated trajectory for a cyclist.