Mikel Landa Discussion Thread

Page 119 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
True although to be fair, Landa has indeed been very unlucky throughout his career. Astana clearly wanted to make Aru their star for the future, undoubtedly giving him preferential treatment even when Landa had proven to be stronger. Like, calling Landa back on the Finestre stage is still unbelievable for me today.

The next year Landa lost his only ever chance to lead Sky at a gt due to a stomach bug, so in 2017 he was already degradated to co-leader alongside Thomas before only being a dom for Froome at the Tour, when he had the shape to at least podium both races. He therefore leaves Sky to join Movistar where he was again only co-leader next to Quintana and Valverde. Subsequently he rides the Giro to be the sole leader of the team again, just for Carapaz to arise as a genuine gt threat out of nowhere, taking pink due to being underrated so Landa is only 2nd in the pecking order again.

The thing is, as unlucky as he was, all of those stories only spurred on the talks of what Landa could achieve if only he was freed for once when the reality is, not that much more probably. We have seen that whenever he actually was "freed" he still couldn't drop anyone at will like the 2nd coming of Pantani, as some had hoped. It's just that he was always so overqualified in the role of the co-leader, the domestique or the stage hunter, that whenever he was in those positions he looked so much better than anyone else with a similar role, that people falsely concluded he was just the strongest climber of the race altogether.

It's weird. It's an unlucky career where so many things fell into place to consistently support this narrative of the legendary climber who could never really show what he was capable of and yesterdays crash will only add to that. I have written it before, I don't think he would have won this giro anyway, but I do think we will be missing out on some spectacular rides by him. Let's hope he will be back at his best in the Vuelta. Maybe this time he will end up co-leader to the suddenly emerging gc threat Hermann Pernsteiner. A man can dream.
Pinot and Landa, one sticks to the same team and has horrendous luck all his career, the other moves to every team under the sun and still can't escape his fate.
 
He was the best climber in the world in 2017. In 2016 he had a lot of illness and injury se we didn't see his best. But 2017 he was by far the strongest climber (up there with Porte and Froome). His level went down slightly at Movistar but at the 2019 Tour he was flying on the low altitude mountain stages, just again playing catch up.

Aside from the ridiculous bad luck, he always performs better in contract years, which this year is, so I was expecting big things. Of course it means doping but I couldn't pick any top level world tour GC rider who had a chance of being 'clean' (whatever this means).

If life was fair 2017 TDF would be a battle between him, froome and Porte
See but that's the thing, you say that based on what? In the gt's Landa rode that year there wasn't a single stage where he went head to head with the other potential best climbers in the world and won. He spent the Giro in breakaways, competing against guys like Tejay Van Garderen or Rui Costa. I think the only mountainous stage where he really went head to head against was the one to Oropa where he finished third behind Dumoulin and Zakarin. Where is the stage that actually proves he was the strongest climber in that race?

In the Tour the narrative is, he only finished a few seconds behind Bardet and Uran and he could have finished in front of them if only he hadn't worked for Froome. And yeah, possibly, I can't prove you wrong. But neither can you prove your point. Iirc Landa attacked on the Izoard and couldn't really make a difference. Baruil attacked a bit later and ended up winning the stage while Landa finished behind Froome, Bardet and Uran. That's the myth of Mikel Landa. Was he really the strongest climber in the race? Could he have battled it out with Froome? There is no clear evidence that he could have, but we will never be able to know for sure.
 
See but that's the thing, you say that based on what? In the gt's Landa rode that year there wasn't a single stage where he went head to head with the other potential best climbers in the world and won. He spent the Giro in breakaways, competing against guys like Tejay Van Garderen or Rui Costa. I think the only mountainous stage where he really went head to head against was the one to Oropa where he finished third behind Dumoulin and Zakarin. Where is the stage that actually proves he was the strongest climber in that race?

In the Tour the narrative is, he only finished a few seconds behind Bardet and Uran and he could have finished in front of them if only he hadn't worked for Froome. And yeah, possibly, I can't prove you wrong. But neither can you prove your point. Iirc Landa attacked on the Izoard and couldn't really make a difference. Baruil attacked a bit later and ended up winning the stage while Landa finished behind Froome, Bardet and Uran. That's the myth of Mikel Landa. Was he really the strongest climber in the race? Could he have battled it out with Froome? There is no clear evidence that he could have, but we will never be able to know for sure.
He climbed the Piancavallo only 35 seconds slower than the fastest gc guys, while being in the breakaway all day long, after also being in the breakaway on the previous day and loosing the sprint to TJVG. For me that performance showed that he was as strong as the gc riders.
 
See but that's the thing, you say that based on what? In the gt's Landa rode that year there wasn't a single stage where he went head to head with the other potential best climbers in the world and won. He spent the Giro in breakaways, competing against guys like Tejay Van Garderen or Rui Costa. I think the only mountainous stage where he really went head to head against was the one to Oropa where he finished third behind Dumoulin and Zakarin. Where is the stage that actually proves he was the strongest climber in that race?

In the Tour the narrative is, he only finished a few seconds behind Bardet and Uran and he could have finished in front of them if only he hadn't worked for Froome. And yeah, possibly, I can't prove you wrong. But neither can you prove your point. Iirc Landa attacked on the Izoard and couldn't really make a difference. Baruil attacked a bit later and ended up winning the stage while Landa finished behind Froome, Bardet and Uran. That's the myth of Mikel Landa. Was he really the strongest climber in the race? Could he have battled it out with Froome? There is no clear evidence that he could have, but we will never be able to know for sure.
Didn't they chase Landa in the breakaway Foix? Think it's fair to say he was screwed out of a podium at the very least.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
The thing is, as unlucky as he was, all of those stories only spurred on the talks of what Landa could achieve if only he was freed for once when the reality is, not that much more probably. We have seen that whenever he actually was "freed" he still couldn't drop anyone at will like the 2nd coming of Pantani, as some had hoped. It's just that he was always so overqualified in the role of the co-leader, the domestique or the stage hunter, that whenever he was in those positions he looked so much better than anyone else with a similar role, that people falsely concluded he was just the strongest climber of the race altogether.
So, essentially he was a big fish in a small pond when it came to being a co-leader, domestique, or stage hunter, but whenever he was freed, and allowed to swim in the big open ocean it turned out that... there's always a bigger fish. ?
 
Landa was the greatest climber in the world in 2017 no doubt, bunch of nerds here trying to justify how a zero charisma robot like froome was better. Landa, contador, pantani, Nibali, Pinot, these are the riders who make us switch on the TV to watch this beautiful sport and that's what Landismo is about, not who can make the most watts per kilo on stationary TT bike for 30 mins.
 
Didn't they chase Landa in the breakaway Foix? Think it's fair to say he was screwed out of a podium at the very least.
Yeah, he was screwed over big time there. But then again Sky likely only allowed for a rider as strong as him to be in the break because he rode for them. I disagree with their team tacitcs but overall that day he still profited from riding for sky.
 
He climbed the Piancavallo only 35 seconds slower than the fastest gc guys, while being in the breakaway all day long, after also being in the breakaway on the previous day and loosing the sprint to TJVG. For me that performance showed that he was as strong as the gc riders.
The gc guys probably had a harder first half of the stage because there were the "Movistar attacked while Dumoulin was having a nature break" shenanigans. In any case, he probably really was the strongest guy that day, but what I argued against wasn't that Landa had a great shape that Giro but that there is clear evidence for him being the worlds greatest climber that year. If anything that Piancavallo stage was hilarious for all gc riders collectively having a sh*t day, so I don't think performing better than them makes him better than Froome for instance. For reference, climbing Piancavallo 35 seconds slower than the fastest gc guy in this case also means, climbing Piancavallo 23 seconds slower than Bob Jungels. There is probably a reason you would rather state the first fact and not the second.

Landa was the greatest climber in the world in 2017 no doubt, bunch of nerds here trying to justify how a zero charisma robot like froome was better. Landa, contador, pantani, Nibali, Pinot, these are the riders who make us switch on the TV to watch this beautiful sport and that's what Landismo is about, not who can make the most watts per kilo on stationary TT bike for 30 mins.
Dude, did you just try to own a guy quoting lord of the rings on a cycling forum in his free time, by calling him a nerd?
 
I think Landa was virtual yellow at some point but Froome wasn't going to let that happen so he put some big accelerations in himself as well.
You are mixing / merging 2 different stages, because in fact both were won by Barguil!

Foix was when Landa was (about to be) virtual yellow jersey.

Col d'Izoard was when Froome attacked and closed a gap to Landa, which eventually led to Bardet saving his podium despite a horrible final tt.

At the latter incident Froome's attack made no sense at all. Barguil was gone already. Arguably just confirmed his lousy character.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
You are mixing / merging 2 different stages, because in fact both were won by Barguil!

Foix was when Landa was (about to be) virtual yellow jersey.

Col d'Izoard was when Froome attacked and closed a gap to Landa, which eventually led to Bardet saving his podium despite a horrible final tt.

At the latter incident Froome's attack made no sense at all. Barguil was gone already. Arguably just confirmed his lousy character.
Froome also attacked on the way to Foix.
 
Reactions: Pinot's goat

ASK THE COMMUNITY