Male Cyclist of the year (2014)?

[Zam_Olyas]

I would hope that you mean "whipped" and not "wiped".

*wrong post*

 

[sagard]

People act as like two and a half minutes were like ten minutes. There were 6 mountain stages (!) to recover time. While Nibali is better than 2-3 years ago, a Contador in top shape is simply superior in the mountains. 6 mountain stages where he would have put the world on fire....every stage.

To take back 40 seconds on the hardest climbs and 20 on the easier ones ( Risoul) would have been sufficient. But you can bet your house that he would have attacked before the last climb on the Pla d'Adet stage.
But that's a bit too simple to just count like everything was linear.

If you are superior in the mountains ( it hasn't to be worlds above but everyone who thinks Contador in top shape is not stronger than Nibali is delusional) and attack every day....the one who is inferior might either crack or not crack at some point during the race.
It wasn't necessary for Contador to completely crack him in order to win, but the chances of that happening (Nibali cracking) were not bad.
Still, 30 seconds on Chamrousse...30 on Hautacam...35 on Pla d'Adet...25 on Port de Bales...20 on Risoul and 15 on La Planche would have put him equal....
I' m sure Nibali was going to feel the pain either on Pla d'Adet or Hautacam...the pain from trying not to lose too much time every day.
It would have been a completely different race.

Dominance always makes an impression on those who watch, even if it's against 2nd tier GT riders. You can't quite imagine a Nibali struggling because you saw him at ease. Don't let that impression condition yourself psychologically. Keep a clear head and think with reason.

The problem is that there easily could have been a stage or two like the Vuelta. Contador drags Nibali to 500 meters and Nibali jumps and takes five seconds.

But really who cares. Contador got rider of the year and Nibali dominated the tour. I'm sure they are both happy.

 

[The Hitch]

I would hope that you mean "whipped" and not "wiped".

Of course he meant "whipped".

cineteq and maxmartin had him covered on the other front.

 

[cineteq]

But those who have form at the dauphine are far far more.likely to then have form at the tour.

So it's not irrelevant and shouldn't be dismissed as some nib fans desperately try to.

The funny thing by your own logic, La Vuelta should also be an indicator of Contador's form. Oops! The ones who's been here long enough know you have nothing than fluffy arguments.

And that sets you apart from the *** Nibali fanbois in this thread, they would even point to this year as proof Nibali is a far superior stage racer.

Now I'm sure you're blonde. Move on.

 

[The Hitch]

The funny thing by your own logic, La Vuelta should also be an indicator of Contador's form.

No.

He was coming of a very very serious injury his performance was not indicative of what his absolute best would be.

Do you understand or is that too complicated?

 

[Red Rick]

I would hope that you mean "whipped" and not "wiped".

Oh man

Of course he meant "whipped".

cineteq and maxmartin had him covered on the other front.

What Hitch said.








I couldn't believe I actually posted that

 

[Netserk]

The funny thing is that Contador's performance on La Farrapona (on a much, much harder stage) was better than the record time on PdBF (which Nibali didn't get close to this year). Now imagine how much better he would've done in the Tour where he didn't return from a broken leg.

 

[Red Rick]

The funny thing is that Contador's performance on La Farrapona (on a much, much harder stage) was better than the record time on PdBF (which Nibali didn't get close to this year). Now imagine how much better he would've done in the Tour where he didn't return from a broken leg.

What, the VAM's on the last 5km? That's really hard to compare

 

[Netserk]

What, the VAM's on the last 5km? That's really hard to compare

Not really. Pretty similar length of effort.

Unless you think the false flat before the steep part was an advantage for Contador.

Edit: and it's the last 6km. PdBF was shorter than that...



Edit2: Contador on La Farrapona (last 6.05km @9.14% = 553 vertical meters, altitude 1715m) 17'45'' = 6.41 W/kg (Stage profile; Climb profile)

Froome on La Planche des Belles Filles (5.85km @8.58% = 502 vertical meters, altitude 1035m) 16'19'' = 6.46 W/kg (Stage profile; Climb profile)

Nibali on La Planche des Belles Filles (5.85km @8.58% = 502 vertical meters, altitude 1035m) 16'45'' = 6.29 W/kg (Stage profile; Climb profile)

 

[cineteq]

No.

He was coming of a very very serious injury his performance was not indicative of what his absolute best would be.

Do you understand or is that too complicated?

Oops you did it again. You're telling me then La Vuelta's field was very weak since Contador's injury was very serious, yet he was able to win, right?

Of course, I do support the story Contador was perfectly fine and he showed how fit he was to win La Vuelta, thus his form would've been similar to the Tour's.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Of course he meant "whipped".

cineteq and maxmartin had him covered on the other front.

Lol too funny

 

[LaFlorecita]

The funny thing is that Contador's performance on La Farrapona (on a much, much harder stage) was better than the record time on PdBF (which Nibali didn't get close to this year). Now imagine how much better he would've done in the Tour where he didn't return from a broken leg.

 

[Tonton]

Contador coudda, woudda, shoudda, that's all conjectures. Fact: he was 2:30 and change behind Nibali when he abandoned.

So Contador is the 2014 Rider of the Year. Good for him. But why do fantasy cycling and give him the TdF too , like he had it under control, and he woudda done this, coudda won that, shoudda won? Nonsense.

 

[ILovecycling]

Contador coudda, woudda, shoudda, that's all conjectures. Fact: he was 2:30 and change behind Nibali when he abandoned.

So Contador is the 2014 Rider of the Year. Good for him. But why do fantasy cycling and give him the TdF too , like he had it under control, and he woudda done this, coudda won that, shoudda won? Nonsense.

that wouldnt have been a problem at all

 

[Angliru]

Of course he meant "whipped".

cineteq and maxmartin had him covered on the other front.

I know that. Just thought it was a interestingly funny typo. The juvenile in my found it grossly humorous.

 

[Jspear]

As I said dauphine depends on the rider, there is no doubt it shows a pretty good indicator for who is going to be on form. Was more the point that you stated that after the 2012 dauphine, cineteq was claiming that wiggins was not going to win the tour. Not that far fetched a comment. Wiggins had been on form all season, which is different to previous tour contenders (wiggins almost won everything so far that season). Others rising to form, while thinking wiggins can't maintain form. I'm pretty sure nibali would of been the favourite on the who's going to win the tour poll. I know I didn't expect wiggins to win. Obviously not going to try defend the froome comment. More defending what I don't think was nibali favouritism.

When was the last GT that nibali and contador have faced off against each? (Serious question)



1 example of what he can do. I'm not saying every climb ride tempo. Just depends on circumstances. More contador attacks from afar, just reel him in. If it's in the last couple Kms follow. But no harm in letting contador dangle off the front of the peloton if you can manage it. Overall point was nibali is a smart rider and will be able to ride tactically with a 2 and half lead

2011 Giro.

Your last paragraph: Tactics only work so long as you are strong enough. Nibali is smart and he is good at tactics (he was able to build that gap that he did on stage 5), but when it came to the mountains (where AC would have made back his time), before Nibali could have played the tactical game he would have had to be able to simply keep up with AC. And if you want to bring their teams into the equation I think Tinkov was plenty stronger. AC would have had some pretty good support as well.

 

[Red Rick]

Oops you did it again. You're telling me then La Vuelta's field was very weak since Contador's injury was very serious, yet he was able to win, right?

Of course, I do support the story Contador was perfectly fine and he showed how fit he was to win La Vuelta, thus his form would've been similar to the Tour's.

Now i'm starting to doubt you can actually read.

 

[offbyone]

I can't wrap my mind around this one. If someone crashes out and you don't, you've beaten them? What? No, they eliminated themselves. Be it because of luck, stupidity or whatever else. You did NOT beat them. That requires them to race against you till the end.
Nibali beat Contador on stage 2
Nibali beat Contador on stage 5
Contador beat Nibali on stage 8
Nibali did not beat Contador on stage 10 or any other from that point on, however well he raced. Contador wasn't in the race anymore, hence he could not beat him.
I see how those who disagree with the above keep avoiding the question about Kittel and Cheng Ji? They are better GT riders than Contador and Froome because they were lucky enough not to crash out? Are we now going to rank GC riders on luck and not on skills? Contador crashed out in 2014, ergo Nibali beat him, ergo he is the better GC rider? Come on!

The short answer. Yes.

Riders who crash out likely made a bike handling error. If they get stuck behind another crash, then they likely made the error of not being at the front of the race.

If you lose a race because of this, then yes it means you lost the race. It is real simple. Does this mean you are a worse tour rider then the winner? Who cares. The point is you lost that specific race and the other rider rode a better race. End of story.

Again, should we not credit Contador for any of his wins because someone who might have been better crashed out when contador won?

Your argument is like saying Contador probably would have beaten Eddy Merckx if he was only born 30 years earlier. Contador earned the palmares he won, nothing more.

 

[LaFlorecita]

The short answer. Yes.

Riders who crash out likely made a bike handling error. If they get stuck behind another crash, then they likely made the error of not being at the front of the race.

If you lose a race because of this, then yes it means you lost the race. It is real simple. Does this mean you are a worse tour rider then the winner? Who cares. The point is you lost that specific race and the other rider rode a better race. End of story.

Again, should we not credit Contador for any of his wins because someone who might have been better crashed out when contador won?

Your argument is like saying Contador probably would have beaten Eddy Merckx if he was only born 30 years earlier. Contador earned the palmares he won, nothing more.

vvv

Now i'm starting to doubt you can actually read.

.....

 

[offbyone]

vvv

.....

Intelligent response.

I understand you are blinded by your Contador fan boyism, but you should recognize that you invalidate the quality of his wins by questioning the validity of his rivals' wins.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Intelligent response.

I understand you are blinded by your Contador fan boyism, but you should recognize that you invalidate the quality of his wins by questioning the validity of his rivals' wins.

I just wish you'd try to read and understand my posts.

Nibali won, Contador crashed out.

I don't know if Contador would have won had he stayed in the race. I personally think he had a good chance, but I'm not sure.

My only point: Nibali did not "beat" Contador. For rider A to beat rider B, they both have to race the entire race. Nibali got a better result, sure, but he did not beat Contador, that requires them to race against each other.

 

[offbyone]

I just wish you'd try to read and understand my posts.

Nibali won, Contador crashed out.

I don't know if Contador would have won had he stayed in the race. I personally think he had a good chance, but I'm not sure.

My only point: Nibali did not "beat" Contador. For rider A to beat rider B, they both have to race the entire race. Nibali got a better result, sure, but he did not beat Contador, that requires them to race against each other.

First of all, I have no respect for posters like yourself who insult other posters that are engaging in thoughtful discussion.

Again I think this is a faulty way to measure palmares. It opens up the door for presumption and excuse making. Contador has so many impressive palmares, there is no reason for this.

I live in a world of facts. Here are some factual statements. Contador raced the 2014 tour de france. Contador did not win the 2014 Tour De France.

Contador lost the race. Just like Wiggins lost the Giro in 2013. He doesn't get off the hook because he dropped out. I don't care if you drop out because your sick, hurt, had bad luck, don't like the weather or whatever. You drop out, that means you lost.
Plus, all these excuses can be attributed to bad racing. When Contador crashed he wasn't at the front of the race. This is bad positioning. He also was eating on a wet descent I believe. Another risky move. These little things can add up. Grand Tours are so hard to win because you have to be nearly perfect the whole time. The rider who is closest to perfect wins. Small mistakes can cost the entire race or can create obstacles that are too big to overcome.

Most of the arguments which I have read, including from yourself, of how Contador should have won that tour revolve around his amazing conditioning. But you have to learn that a grand tour is about a lot more than legs. They aren't racing in a bubble. In a grand tour you need to stand on more than your legs to win and you need to do it for 3 weeks straight.

 

[ILovecycling]

First of all, I have no respect for posters like yourself who insult other posters that are engaging in thoughtful discussion.

Again I think this is a faulty way to measure palmares. It opens up the door for presumption and excuse making. Contador has so many impressive palmares, there is no reason for this.

I live in a world of facts. Here are some factual statements. Contador raced the 2014 tour de france. Contador did not win the 2014 Tour De France.

Contador lost the race. Just like Wiggins lost the Giro in 2013. He doesn't get off the hook because he dropped out. I don't care if you drop out because your sick, hurt, had bad luck, don't like the weather or whatever. You drop out, that means you lost.
Plus, all these excuses can be attributed to bad racing. When Contador crashed he wasn't at the front of the race. This is bad positioning. He also was eating on a wet descent I believe. Another risky move. These little things can add up. Grand Tours are so hard to win because you have to be nearly perfect the whole time. The rider who is closest to perfect wins. Small mistakes can cost the entire race or can create obstacles that are too big to overcome.

Most of the arguments which I have read, including from yourself, of how Contador should have won that tour revolve around his amazing conditioning. But you have to learn that a grand tour is about a lot more than legs. They aren't racing in a bubble. In a grand tour you need to stand on more than your legs to win and you need to do it for 3 weeks straight.

yeah,thats bad Contador cant do this...oh I forgot, he could, 8 times.

you just cant admit it was just the

 

[offbyone]

yeah,thats bad Contador cant do this...oh I forgot, he could, 8 times.

you just cant admit it was just the

All you guys want to play the what if all the top riders were in top form and didn't have any problems game? Great. You can say maybe Contador would have won or actually maybe Froome or whoever. But all that means nothing. Contador was not on the podium.
You should celebrate his actual victories, he has enough spectacular ones that you don't need to live in fantasy land.

 

[Red Rick]

What's actually happening is that some people here are claiming stuff, and when other people simply point out that the arguments aren't true they either change it into something ridiculous to fit their own agenda, or they simply get butthurt.

/thead imo