I’m not opposed to hypotheticals per se. But there is way too much randomness and luck involved in cycling to present the statement “if Vingegaard had not been riding for Jumbo-Visma he would have lost 5 minutes on the cobbles” as a meaningful argument.I was not taking the piss. I presented a hypothesis to discuss how both riders actually would stack up if both had equally bad teams and how it would have altered the race at key moments. You countered that with a hypothetical that brings no value to this discussion what so ever. So let's say you were discussing a hypothetical decision with your partner, what could have happened in your life if you had quit your current job years ago, for a job that paid less, but made you happier. To which your partner responds "we also might have been hit with a nuclear bomb". Well, sure, it's possible, but it adds no value to the discussion. Also, considering you quitting your job would likely have no influence on nuclear bombs getting dropped, it's safe to say that since that timeframe has passed, that was never going to happen anyway, since it actually didn't happen. So what is the value of such a response? None.
I can understand you don't like hypothetical discussions, but this is a forum where people give their opinions and many of those will be "what if".
What we can be sure of is that Vingegaard + Jumbo was significantly better than Pogacar + UAE. But considering how weak UAE was, and how strong Jumbo was, for me it is not a forgone conclusion to assume Vingegaard by himself was better than Pogacar by himself (had he used his brain). People seem to forget Pogacar completely imploded on Granon. Not only Vingegaard dropped him, but he also got passed by by riders you would otherwise not even consider finishing ahead of him on a stage like that. Quintana, Bardet, Thomas, Gaudu, Yates... all caught up with him and left him for dead. Does that sound like Pogacar was at the top of his game? So claiming, like some have been doing here, that team tactics, team strength, wasting energy not just that day but the two weeks leading up to that day, had only a minor effect on the outcome is nothing short of laughable. So it is also rather likely that Pogacar was not at the top of his game on Hautacam or during the TT.
That doesn't mean Vingegaard doesn't deserve the victory. He and the team made perfect use of the situation and their strengths. If not stronger, at the very least they were smarter, so good job. But as to assume that had Pogacar played his cards differently, he could never have beaten Vingegaard anyway, i don't share that sentiment. That's all.
As I said previously I dont disagree that Pogacar made several mistakes during the race and didnt manage himself carefully. Of course he bonked hard on Granon and his performance was not a result of his ‘usual’ climbing level, but the fact that Vingegaard put minutes into everyone else as well, after attacking from far out and expending huge amounts of energy, speaks to his phenomenal shape and climbing abiltity in the Tour ‘22. Hautacam and the final tt likewise.
I dont have a lot more to add to this discussion so I will leave it at that. I just find your initial comment, about Vingegaard’s victory being more a result of Pogacar losing the race than Vingegaard winning it, somewhat disrespectful of the huge amount of effort put into the preparation and the subsequent incredible performance of Vingegaard and Jumbo. Imo Vingegaard very much won the race by his own (and his team’s) strength despite the mistakes of Pogacar.