Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 777 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 4, 2015
658
0
0
For starters of course Froome knew who nibali was, the point is that he wasn't following cycling so didn't know he'd transferred to Astana. Know froome knows what everyone is doing what training, where and that gives him an idea on who to look out for during races a huge advantage imo. Along with froome only starting to race at a high level in Europe in 2007 so didn't know tactics. Basically froome breakthrough in 2011 was only 4 years after turning full time pro. So really he wasn't 26 cycling years but 22 so normal. So yes froome is unusual because he come from different background and is probably the best talent out there. To go from dirt roads in Kenya to winning the tour is one of the greatest sporting stories achievements and it really isn't cool to permanently without solid evidence accuse him of illegal methods regardless of what you think of him.
 
Apr 7, 2015
656
0
0
Everybody knows that races are won by the rider with the most knowledge about the history of the sport. Imagine when Froome learns about that Italian dude Coppi.

This also explains why French riders can never win anything of importance. They know to much about the history of the sport at a young age, so they have no room for improvement in their mid-twenties.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
dag gone cool

........ramon if i were cool.............would i be logged into the clinic? we all

have our opinions da dawg looks dodgy to me.......but i can't be sure.......

Mark L
 

snccdcno

BANNED
Aug 22, 2014
389
0
4,280
Putting aside that I don't think that is actually particularly helpful why would he have a huge advantage? Because everyone else isn't paying attention to any of that stuff as they are drinking coffee or whatever.
 
Jul 4, 2015
658
0
0
Re:

snccdcno said:
Putting aside that I don't think that is actually particularly helpful why would he have a huge advantage? Because everyone else isn't paying attention to any of that stuff as they are drinking coffee or whatever.
No but before hé didnt pay attention now he does hence he personnaly improves. Of course contador and nibali pay attention to rivals but they have been doing it for years. That's maybe why froome catch up. Of course I don't know if it is a huge advantage but definitely a little advantage a "marginal gain" if you want
 
Jul 4, 2015
658
0
0
I'm not suggesting it improves physical capacities of course not, however it will imo help you use your physical capabilities better, and thus it does make a difference after all cycling is tactics as well as pure power otherwise might as well do it in a lab.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
lollercopters.

People who have never thrown a leg over a top tube telling us all about the strageties and the tic tacs.

trollercopters.
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
I am not *100%* sure but I'd say most pros only turn pro at 21-22. So Froome is not that different.
I would say that at that time Froome knew how to ride a bike (kind of) but not really how to race to any consistency. Contador, for comparison, also turned pro at 21 but he had been racing in Europe since he was 15 and I think he was already quite developed in terms of a racing brain and knowing tactics by the time he turned pro. Nibali too was on a similar path. Froome was more like a headless chicken pointed forward and then just told to keep going until he learned how to race more effectively.
 
Jul 4, 2015
658
0
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
lollercopters.

People who have never thrown a leg over a top tube telling us all about the strageties and the tic tacs.

trollercopters.
No I'm not, I'm just using commons sense knowing about your opponents is useful in a race I believe but maybe you know otherwise.
 
Re: Re:

Savant12 said:
LaFlorecita said:
I am not *100%* sure but I'd say most pros only turn pro at 21-22. So Froome is not that different.
I would say that at that time Froome knew how to ride a bike (kind of) but not really how to race to any consistency. Contador, for comparison, also turned pro at 21 but he had been racing in Europe since he was 15 and I think he was already quite developed in terms of a racing brain and knowing tactics by the time he turned pro. Nibali too was on a similar path. Froome was more like a headless chicken pointed forward and then just told to keep going until he learned how to race more effectively.
But the Nibali-Astana story was about the Tour of Oman in 2013
Froome was a class above Nibali in the Tour one year earlier and similarly crushed him in that Tour of Oman
Despite being at a clear disadvantage by racing like a headless chicken?
(although I disagree with anyone claiming he doesn't race "pointed forward and then just told to keep going" anymore)
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
"being locked by his brother in a pen full of angry ostriches".

In his book it was one angry Turkey.

Its pretty clear they just make these stories up as they go along.


Being chased by hippos, yeah doubt that one too.

To be fair a lot of sports biographies do the same sort of thing.

I think about a dozen different rugby players all claimed to be the one who made the same smart alec comment at Fran Cottons bedside during a Lions tour. (The one about no-one having a big enough heart to replace his)
 
The Tour of Oman, 2013, first stage. ‘Who was that Astana guy? He’s quick!’ ‘Mate, it’s [Vincenzo] Nibali.’
The quote comes from Stage 1, which was a short, flat sprinters stage. Was Froome just picking random jersey’s out in the peloton and asking “who is that”? Why would he even ask who a rider is on a flat stage of 150km?
 
Oct 10, 2015
2,059
0
0
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
I am not *100%* sure but I'd say most pros only turn pro at 21-22. So Froome is not that different.
Agree! Froome turned Pro when pretty much most riders do, he raced as a junior just like most riders do so I also understand why people want to argue that he didn't know how to ride/race a bike and that's one of the reasons it took him so long to get that breakthrough that happened in 2011.
 
thehog said:
The Tour of Oman, 2013, first stage. ‘Who was that Astana guy? He’s quick!’ ‘Mate, it’s [Vincenzo] Nibali.’
The quote comes from Stage 1, which was a short, flat sprinters stage. Was Froome just picking random jersey’s out in the peloton and asking “who is that”? Why would he even ask who a rider is on a flat stage of 150km?
the specifics don't matter because it never actually happened.
 
zlev11 said:
thehog said:
The Tour of Oman, 2013, first stage. ‘Who was that Astana guy? He’s quick!’ ‘Mate, it’s [Vincenzo] Nibali.’
The quote comes from Stage 1, which was a short, flat sprinters stage. Was Froome just picking random jersey’s out in the peloton and asking “who is that”? Why would he even ask who a rider is on a flat stage of 150km?
the specifics don't matter because it never actually happened.
Agreed. More BS from the Sky propaganda machine.
 
Re:

Ramon Koran said:
Know froome knows what everyone is doing what training, where and that gives him an idea on who to look out for during races a huge advantage imo.
Iirc in one of the most quoted pieces from his book, froome says pretty much the opposite. He says he has no idea what Contador is doing for training but likes to imagine that Contador just drinks coffee and does no training.
 
Re: Re:

StryderHells said:
LaFlorecita said:
I am not *100%* sure but I'd say most pros only turn pro at 21-22. So Froome is not that different.
Agree! Froome turned Pro when pretty much most riders do, he raced as a junior just like most riders do so I also understand why people want to argue that he didn't know how to ride/race a bike and that's one of the reasons it took him so long to get that breakthrough that happened in 2011.
Am just checking out the top 15 on CQ ranking

Valverde: turned pro in 2002, at 21 years 8 months old
Kristoff: 2010, 22yrs 5mo
Sagan: 2010, 19yrs 11mo
Froome: 2008, 22yrs 7mo
Contador: 2003, 20yrs 1mo
Aru: 2013, 22yrs 6mo
Rodriguez: 2001, 21yrs 5mo
Quintana: 2011, 20yrs 10mo
Van Avermaet: 2007, 21yrs 7mo
Pinot: 2010, 19yrs 6mo
Nibali: 2005, 20yrs 2mo
Greipel: 2005, 22yrs 5mo
Degenkolb: 2011, 22yrs 0mo
Porte: 2010, 24yrs 11mo but he did tri first
Dumoulin: 2012, 21yrs 2mo

So while Froome turned pro slightly later than the average successful pro, the difference really isn't that large and definitely not 4 years later "Basically froome breakthrough in 2011 was only 4 years after turning full time pro. So really he wasn't 26 cycling years but 22 so normal." <-- suggesting a normal pro turns pro at 18
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Ramon Koran said:
Know froome knows what everyone is doing what training, where and that gives him an idea on who to look out for during races a huge advantage imo.
Iirc in one of the most quoted pieces from his book, froome says pretty much the opposite. He says he has no idea what Contador is doing for training but likes to imagine that Contador just drinks coffee and does no training.
Perfect way to motivate yourself "my rivals are doing nothing while I am working my ass off" :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

Savant12 said:
LaFlorecita said:
I am not *100%* sure but I'd say most pros only turn pro at 21-22. So Froome is not that different.
I would say that at that time Froome knew how to ride a bike (kind of) but not really how to race to any consistency. Contador, for comparison, also turned pro at 21 but he had been racing in Europe since he was 15 and I think he was already quite developed in terms of a racing brain and knowing tactics by the time he turned pro. Nibali too was on a similar path. Froome was more like a headless chicken pointed forward and then just told to keep going until he learned how to race more effectively.
I am sure you have a point there but it wasn't really what Ramon posted. He suggested that Froome turned pro way later than others (4yrs) so it was normal that he only had his breakthrough at 26
By the way, it is completely normal for a rider to start winning big races at 26, however it isn't when the same rider had to hang onto motorbikes to get over climbs a year earlier and his biggest win up to that point was the Atomic Jock race or stage 3 of the Tour of the Cape :confused:

Gung Ho Gun said:
But the Nibali-Astana story was about the Tour of Oman in 2013
Froome was a class above Nibali in the Tour one year earlier and similarly crushed him in that Tour of Oman
Despite being at a clear disadvantage by racing like a headless chicken?
(although I disagree with anyone claiming he doesn't race "pointed forward and then just told to keep going" anymore)
Lol I had not even thought about it that way. Way to go, Dawg :rolleyes: (or maybe "G" is just making *** up)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY