Mikel Landa Discussion Thread

Page 89 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Depends, remember Abarcá were left with an either/or choice between Olano and Jiménez, and chose Chava, who is very much the antithesis of conservative cycling. Maybe Chava was more Echavarrí's guy than Unzué's, but they stood by him through a lot.
It had little to do with their racing styles. I really don't think Banesto had a choice, they had to keep Jiménez and get rid of Olano.

On the one hand a large part of the decision was Olano's ludicrous salary. Jiménez at his peak was being paid nearly €700.000 (or so he bragged) which is less than half what Olano made in 98 due to the bidding war with Kelme and others for Olano in late 96.

Saiz offered Olano just as much for 99 and Banesto couldn't match it. Remember, this was the peak of the contract war between them that started when ONCE signed the jewels of the Banesto amateur team (Sastre and the extremely promising Miguel Morras whose career was over almost immediately due to injury) so Banesto had already tied up large fees for 99 on Zulle and Garmendia (!!) just to piss off Saiz.

Then there's the PR angle. That also meant they couldn't keep Olano.

Cadena Ser are the trash that they are. In the 90s they had a huge number of listeners. They will make up whatever *** story they feel will give them ratings. Before the 1997 Tour the crap they fed was that Olano was the new Indurain and everyone should follow every excruciating detail of his life on Cadena Ser because he would be the new great champion.

After that season ended they shifted to Olano is the most overrated sportsperson in the history of the planet and deserves nothing short of death, while Jimenez is the new savior and god of our planet, kneel before him you puny mortals.

It was unfair and complete crap, but the fact is that people ate it up. Chaba became beloved by the masses as much as Olano was hated. Besides, nobody wanted to support Olano limiting losses on the climbs and winning those boring time trials. A hard working introverted athlete suffering to results is boring. Chaba's smile, jokes, panache and flair in the mountains are what people liked.

So PR wise it would be suicide to take Olano over Chaba.

They certainly couldn't keep both due to finances or PR and to top it all off it was a team chemistry nightmare.
Chaba went around yelling "Make firewood out of the apple tree" (Olano's surname is Manzano, "apple tree") at the 98 Vuelta and even supposedly had a t-shirt of it made later that season. You can't keep both guys after something like that.

I really don't see it as a choice, but as something they had to do.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Stupid Puerto, essentially killing ONCE and Kelme and robbing us for those great stories in the future.

Jimenez sounded like a man I'd like to race...
Like Kelme also snatching riders from Banesto's youth team. A certain Alejandro Valverde kid.

At that point Banesto just went "screw this" and announced they wouldn't keep the amateur team going after ongoing contracts ran out.

Puerto actually started because of another guy named Manzano...maybe Jiménez was right in a way, eh? :lol:
 
Re: Re:

GuyIncognito said:
Libertine Seguros said:
Depends, remember Abarcá were left with an either/or choice between Olano and Jiménez, and chose Chava, who is very much the antithesis of conservative cycling. Maybe Chava was more Echavarrí's guy than Unzué's, but they stood by him through a lot.
It had little to do with their racing styles. I really don't think Banesto had a choice, they had to keep Jiménez and get rid of Olano.

On the one hand a large part of the decision was Olano's ludicrous salary. Jiménez at his peak was being paid nearly €700.000 (or so he bragged) which is less than half what Olano made in 98 due to the bidding war with Kelme and others for Olano in late 96.

Saiz offered Olano just as much for 99 and Banesto couldn't match it. Remember, this was the peak of the contract war between them that started when ONCE signed the jewels of the Banesto amateur team (Sastre and the extremely promising Miguel Morras whose career was over almost immediately due to injury) so Banesto had already tied up large fees for 99 on Zulle and Garmendia (!!) just to piss off Saiz.

Then there's the PR angle. That also meant they couldn't keep Olano.

Cadena Ser are the trash that they are. In the 90s they had a huge number of listeners. They will make up whatever ****** story they feel will give them ratings. Before the 1997 Tour the crap they fed was that Olano was the new Indurain and everyone should follow every excruciating detail of his life on Cadena Ser because he would be the new great champion.

After that season ended they shifted to Olano is the most overrated sportsperson in the history of the planet and deserves nothing short of death, while Jimenez is the new savior and god of our planet, kneel before him you puny mortals.

It was unfair and complete crap, but the fact is that people ate it up. Chaba became beloved by the masses as much as Olano was hated. Besides, nobody wanted to support Olano limiting losses on the climbs and winning those boring time trials. A hard working introverted athlete suffering to results is boring. Chaba's smile, jokes, panache and flair in the mountains are what people liked.

So PR wise it would be suicide to take Olano over Chaba.

They certainly couldn't keep both due to finances or PR and to top it all off it was a team chemistry nightmare.
Chaba went around yelling "Make firewood out of the apple tree" (Olano's surname is Manzano, "apple tree") at the 98 Vuelta and even supposedly had a t-shirt of it made later that season. You can't keep both guys after something like that.

I really don't see it as a choice, but as something they had to do.
Interesting post. Also am I the only one who thinks the bolded doesn't reflect Jimenez very good? Or do I understand what Jimenez was saying wrong?

EDIT: Was trying to mean 'The bolded doesn't reflect Jimenez very good imo' just forgot to add the ' doesn't ' :redface:
 
Jun 18, 2015
774
1
0
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Stupid Puerto, essentially killing ONCE and Kelme and robbing us for those great stories in the future.

Jimenez sounded like a man I'd like to race...
Still hurts in Spain. :(
 
Re: Re:

staubsauger said:
Escarabajo said:
I came to check info about Landa and I found this discussion. LOL!!!

Nothing about Landa. :D
I actually re-opened the thread 3 times yesterday, with always just the same result! :lol:
Looks as if this is turning into anything but Landa. :D
Anyway i do think that he made a mistake in going to Movistar with already 2 leaders present. He is not going to get the best support for the Giro Vuelta combo(may not need since the Dumoulin managed to win one and almost win another without support) and one of the 2 said leaders will be with him for the 2nd GT and have no qualms in doing their own race without looking into his interests. Quintana is a proven GT winner and the best climber while Valverde is the LA of Movistar. Landa is 3rd in line for the leadership. A team with no leader is better like Trek or Astana but i suspect he wanted to move back to Spain and be in a Spanish team
 
Re: Re:

Forever The Best said:
GuyIncognito said:
You're not the only one.
Chaba was a wild child. But that rebellious attitude was also part of the reason he was loved.
Thanks for the answer. :)

About Landa, he is gonna ride Lombardia, right?
Also I fear that Movistar may turn Landa into a conservative rider. :Neutral:
And you didnt fear that with Sky or how am I gonna interpret that one?
 
Re: Re:

IndianCyclist said:
staubsauger said:
Escarabajo said:
I came to check info about Landa and I found this discussion. LOL!!!

Nothing about Landa. :D
I actually re-opened the thread 3 times yesterday, with always just the same result! :lol:
Looks as if this is turning into anything but Landa. :D
Anyway i do think that he made a mistake in going to Movistar with already 2 leaders present. He is not going to get the best support for the Giro Vuelta combo(may not need since the Dumoulin managed to win one and almost win another without support) and one of the 2 said leaders will be with him for the 2nd GT and have no qualms in doing their own race without looking into his interests. Quintana is a proven GT winner and the best climber while Valverde is the LA of Movistar. Landa is 3rd in line for the leadership. A team with no leader is better like Trek or Astana but i suspect he wanted to move back to Spain and be in a Spanish team
I think with Trek he would be living in Spain most of the time.
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Forever The Best said:
GuyIncognito said:
You're not the only one.
Chaba was a wild child. But that rebellious attitude was also part of the reason he was loved.
Thanks for the answer. :)

About Landa, he is gonna ride Lombardia, right?
Also I fear that Movistar may turn Landa into a conservative rider. :Neutral:
And you didnt fear that with Sky or how am I gonna interpret that one?
Yes, I did. I even feared that he may be a dom of Thomas on this Giro. Though then again, I didn't like Landa that much before this Tour so I didn't care that much.
 
Re: Re:

IndianCyclist said:
staubsauger said:
Escarabajo said:
I came to check info about Landa and I found this discussion. LOL!!!

Nothing about Landa. :D
I actually re-opened the thread 3 times yesterday, with always just the same result! :lol:
Looks as if this is turning into anything but Landa. :D
Anyway i do think that he made a mistake in going to Movistar with already 2 leaders present. He is not going to get the best support for the Giro Vuelta combo(may not need since the Dumoulin managed to win one and almost win another without support) and one of the 2 said leaders will be with him for the 2nd GT and have no qualms in doing their own race without looking into his interests. Quintana is a proven GT winner and the best climber while Valverde is the LA of Movistar. Landa is 3rd in line for the leadership. A team with no leader is better like Trek or Astana but i suspect he wanted to move back to Spain and be in a Spanish team

I don't say this to be harsh, but Valverde may never ride at the top top level again...we just don't know and neither does Moviestar. This gives them a strong option.
 
I can't get the fear of some posters here about Landa having to play second fiddle to Quintana. Valverde has been doing it for a few years and it's not like he had to bury himself and give up all his chances. One of Valverde's strongest performances working for Nairo was in AdH 2015 and he finished the stage with Froome. And in Cumbres Verdes 2014 he won the stage! I can't see Unzué asking Landa to do something different.
 
So Landa says he quits Sky because it was 'too controlled'. I understand that. What I do not understand is why he joined in the first place, if he says that kind of racing doesn't fit him. Everybody knew what would happen when Landa joined Sky. But he didn't know himself? Are you kidding me?

I don't think it's the real reason. I think it's more like, I've earned enough €€€ now riding for Froome. Now it's safe to try for myself
 
Dekker_Tifosi said:
So Landa says he quits Sky because it was 'too controlled'. I understand that. What I do not understand is why he joined in the first place, if he says that kind of racing doesn't fit him. Everybody knew what would happen when Landa joined Sky. But he didn't know himself? Are you kidding me?

I don't think it's the real reason. I think it's more like, I've earned enough €€€ now riding for Froome. Now it's safe to try for myself
He probably got the guarantee for Giro leadership and hoped he wouldn't have to slave in the Tour right after that
 
Dekker_Tifosi said:
So Landa says he quits Sky because it was 'too controlled'. I understand that. What I do not understand is why he joined in the first place, if he says that kind of racing doesn't fit him. Everybody knew what would happen when Landa joined Sky. But he didn't know himself? Are you kidding me?
Landa says crap like that all the time. Consider how he said he didn't want to return to the Tour as anything but the sole leader again, but then signed for Movistar. Or how, after the 2015 Giro, he said he'd act differently if the situation repeated itself, but then rode mostly as a faithful domestique at this year's Tour. He has a big mouth and always talks the talk without really going through with the walk the walk bit.
 
Dekker_Tifosi said:
So Landa says he quits Sky because it was 'too controlled'. I understand that. What I do not understand is why he joined in the first place, if he says that kind of racing doesn't fit him. Everybody knew what would happen when Landa joined Sky. But he didn't know himself? Are you kidding me?

I don't think it's the real reason. I think it's more like, I've earned enough €€€ now riding for Froome. Now it's safe to try for myself
Yeah and he also might be sensing that Froome is more beatable than he was two years ago but of course Froome is still the most ruthless GT rider out there and still very hard to beat. I think Quintana and a few other riders will get their chance in the next season or two but only if they can reproduce their top level form, something that neither Nibali or Quintana could do this year and Landa rode the Tour like he was motor pacing Froome. Would like to see Landa let off the leash now to see what he can do and he should know the workings of Sky pretty well by now like Porte. But I guess Landa won't be team leading again, at the Tour unless Movistar decide to go in with two leaders and see what happens which is possible.
 
I really want to like Mikel Landa but with every interview he's becoming more and more whiny...
Like a crybaby.
The potential is there and I hate to say it, but he's just a one time podium finisher at the Giro.
Its as if Sky has not held up their part of the bargain or something. What did he do in 2016? Should Dave B come in interviews and disgrace him for being *** at the Giro? Ridiculous.
 
Yes of course Landa knew the deal when he went to Sky. He took guaranteed Giro co-leadership and the big Murdoch cheque and he knew the consequences of that decision. That's a slightly different thing from actually experiencing the consequences though and I would welcome it if that experience convinced Landa that playing second fiddle for a pile of money wasn't a deal he wanted to repeat. So I welcome his comments about Sky, even if they display a certain tendency to forget the nature of his previous decisions. Everyone's hindsight is shaped by self-justification some of the time.

What does make me a bit dubious is his decision to sign for another team where someone else is top of the pecking order. We are talking about someone who could be undisputed leader at more than half of the teams in the WT. Yet he again chooses a team where he's not the main man.
 
He quit Astana because it wasn't for him, he quit Sky because it wasn't for him, any odds of him quitting Movistar in 2 years time for the same reason?

He knew what to expect from Sky when he signed, and they more than held their end of the bargain giving him leadership/co-leadeship of the Giro these past few years. He will get the same opportunities at Movistar, but for his 2nd GT of the year he may well have to work for Nairo, just like he worked for Froome.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS