Is Andy Schleck being criticised too much lately?

[cineteq]

Let me guess, it was all planned by Evans. I'll let Schleck gain 2 minutes on the way to the Galibier cause then I can take it back in the TT? You are stupid if you think that.

Am I?
You better think twice before calling somebody stupid next time.

 

[Forunculo]

Provided he would have finished with his brother, you'll have to subtract 2:07

Quick calculation looks likes this:
F. Schleck
Rolland +0.05
A. Schleck +0.20
Evans +0.30
Sanchez +1.17
Contador +1.34

Galibier 2011 was the best stage I've seen of Andy even if he wasn't at 100% this Tour, I think his true level is Tour 2010. The problem is that is an island at the ocean.

Frank best stage was at Tour 2009 when the Schlecks and Contador finnish together.

You must substract more time to Evans, Rolland, Contador and Samu. they didn't arrive with Frank.

 

[Ryaguas]

Andy IS arguably the best climber in the world. He hasn't shown the opposite. Too bad he's dreadful in any of the other disciplines which are required to be a GT champion.

wow... lets take it easy here... if you say that Andrew is the best climber in the world... then you are doing it wrong

 

[Ferminal]

I thought Purito and Contador were the two best climbers in the world?

 

[Ryaguas]

I thought Purito and Contador were the two best climbers in the world?

werent Rujano and Contador?

 

[Ferminal]

werent Rujano and Contador?

No Rujano was 3rd. Modesty.

 

[T-Nielsen]

No Rujano was 3rd. Modesty.

I forget, where did Horner come in on that list ?

 

[The Hitch]

. Also, TT guys let him go since he's null in that discipline.

Yeah. Lets just disqualify the entire epic 65k solo marathon on the queen stage of the biggest race, by saying he was let go

Typical cinteteq logic.

 

[Ryaguas]

I forget, where did Horner come in on that list ?

He is in the top only when He is doing beetroot juice

 

[The Hitch]

Provided he would have finished with his brother, you'll have to subtract 2:07

What a ridiculously stupid logic. Havvets did not have to think twice. If it walks like a duck....


I mean, first of all, what kind of twisted logic is this to take away the mans best stage, pretend it never happened, then point to the results on mountains without that stage and declare triumphantly to have evidence to show that he wasn't the best climber.

And secondly, why the **** would you give him the same time as Frank ****ing Schleck about the 5th or 6th best climber in the race.

If Andy did not attack 65km out, he would have attacked on the Galibier and taken time out of everyone there.

But its a moot point because he did have the balls to attack 65 k out and mauled everyone.

 

[El Pistolero]

What a ridiculously stupid logic. Havvets did not have to think twice. If it walks like a duck....


I mean, first of all, what kind of twisted logic is this to take away the mans best stage, pretend it never happened, then point to the results on mountains without that stage and declare triumphantly to have evidence to show that he wasn't the best climber.

And secondly, why the **** would you give him the same time as Frank ****ing Schleck about the 5th or 6th best climber in the race.

If Andy did not attack 65km out, he would have attacked on the Galibier and taken time out of everyone there.

But its a moot point because he did have the balls to attack 65 k out and mauled everyone.

It's indeed stupid to discount that stage. But, I'm not 100% convinced if he would have dropped everyone at the Galibier. Either way, it wouldn't have changed the winner of the race.

 

[cineteq]

What a ridiculously stupid logic. Havvets did not have to think twice. If it walks like a duck....


I mean, first of all, what kind of twisted logic is this to take away the mans best stage, pretend it never happened, then point to the results on mountains without that stage and declare triumphantly to have evidence to show that he wasn't the best climber.

And secondly, why the **** would you give him the same time as Frank ****ing Schleck about the 5th or 6th best climber in the race.

If Andy did not attack 65km out, he would have attacked on the Galibier and taken time out of everyone there.

But its a moot point because he did have the balls to attack 65 k out and mauled everyone.

Finally you got it, that was exactly my point, to illustrate how silly was to say that Schleck was the best climber based on time added difference.

 

[No_Balls]

It is very strange to say Andy is the best climber in world thanks to one stage during the space of a whole season. Of course, he COULD be the best given that he is never racing and thus have no change of showing it.

If you actually never races (apart from two races in a season) i can get that logic.

Finally you got it, that was exactly my point, to illustrate how silly was to say that Schleck was the best climber based on time added difference.

Why not? It is the same logic used by the TT-demons from a bygone era. In La Plagne -95 the leading Maillot Jaune let Zülle slip away with 8 minutes until the foot of the last climb, before cutting the difference to nearly two minutes at the end.

Obviously they let Andrew Schleck go thinking they could cut the difference before the end but he (Andy) benefited from the disarray in the Peloton before the climb. I hardly thinks this will happen again.

And why is L´Alpe D´Huez the very next day suddenly forgotten?