Millar says Wiggo Top 5 TDF...in other words...

[kurtinsc]

I wouldn't mind having more ITT kilometers. However, there is no point in increasing that at the expense of climbing. Wiggins needs to earn it, whereas you want to hand it to him. With Schleck, S. Sanchez (and Contador) in the race, 5 minutes or more are well within reach if they really gave it a go.

I think your confusing what I might WANT to have happen with what I believe might possibly happen.

I have no desire to see parcours like 2009 again... but they have happened. And we have had 100+ km's of ITT in a TDF before. So to me it seems that a course like that is possible. And if it is... I think Wiggins would have a shot to win if Contador isn't there.

That being said... I'm not in favor of that kind of course. I'd like to see more ITT kilometers, but I'd like a fairly tough climbing course as well with varied types of climbs. Some with lots of ups and downs, some with mostly flat with a long consistent climb to finish it off, some with several big climbs ending with a descent, some long, some short, etc.

I dont' want to see all the mountain stages looking very similar... even if that format is very difficult. I sort of think the idea of a GT is to test riders over a variety of types of stages... not ride the Alpe d'Huez 10 times.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

it's a nice way of saying he can't win...



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/robert-millar-believes-wiggins-can-hit-top-five-at-tour-de-france

The headline and the actual comments from Robert Millar are rather different;

“If he can produce the same kind of climbing that we've seen at the Dauphine: controlled and not going into the red until near the end of the stages, then he'll ride in the top ten easily, top five if he is very good and from there to the podium is only a case of how well you recover and use your strength.”

But Millars comments are spot on - Wiggins can't go with the accelerations that will come at the Tour but if he hangs on like he did at Suisse (I'd say the mechanics had to prise his hands off the bike with a crowbar) then he should be in the 5-10 position with an outside chance of a top 5.

 

[Spine Concept]

I think your confusing what I might WANT to have happen with what I believe might possibly happen.

I have no desire to see parcours like 2009 again... but they have happened. And we have had 100+ km's of ITT in a TDF before. So to me it seems that a course like that is possible. And if it is... I think Wiggins would have a shot to win if Contador isn't there.

That being said... I'm not in favor of that kind of course. I'd like to see more ITT kilometers, but I'd like a fairly tough climbing course as well with varied types of climbs. Some with lots of ups and downs, some with mostly flat with a long consistent climb to finish it off, some with several big climbs ending with a descent, some long, some short, etc.

I dont' want to see all the mountain stages looking very similar... even if that format is very difficult. I sort of think the idea of a GT is to test riders over a variety of types of stages... not ride the Alpe d'Huez 10 times.

That's what you said, however, I'm in doubt about what you meant. Seeing as it was a direct response to other people's convictions about Wiggins winning possibilities and the rather extreme parcours you used to illustrate your point. I might be wrong about your intentions, but that's how it came across.

Anyway, regarding the rest, on the 2009 TDF parcours Andy would still make up the 5 minutes on Wiggins if he really went for it. Furthermore, I rate Menchov higher than Wiggins climbing wise and on par as far as very long time trials go. Thus, I still don't think he'd have a shot at winning it. He'd have a shot at podium though.

I do agree on the variation, which is why an overload of ITT kilometers wouldn't be appealing either. I think it's safe to say Wiggins will never win the TDF unless the highly unlikely scenario of that terrible idea for a parcours becomes a reality.

 

[kurtinsc]

That's what you said, however, I'm in doubt about what you meant. Seeing as it was a direct response to other people's convictions about Wiggins winning possibilities and the rather extreme parcours you used to illustrate your point. I might be wrong about your intentions, but that's how it came across.

Anyway, regarding the rest, on the 2009 TDF parcours Andy would still make up the 5 minutes on Wiggins if he really went for it. Furthermore, I rate Menchov higher than Wiggins climbing wise and on par as far as very long time trials go. Thus, I still don't think he'd have a shot at winning it. He'd have a shot at podium though.

I do agree on the variation, which is why an overload of ITT kilometers wouldn't be appealing either. I think it's safe to say Wiggins will never win the TDF unless the highly unlikely scenario of that terrible idea for a parcours becomes a reality.

I don't think the KM of ITT is the problem, but rather the type of ITT km.

I'd love to see the tour have 4 ITT's.

A 7km prologue (just to put some small time gaps in play from the start)
A 55 km flat ITT
a 35 km hilly ITT
a 20 km mountain ITT

None of those are the same thing, despite all being ITT's. 117 km of ITT, but each stage tests a different set of skills. I'm not talking about having two 55 km flat ITT's like we had at times in the Indurain years.

 

[luckyboy]

That is too much ITTing. We have seen in smaller stage races with Martin and Wiggins recently that a disproportionate amount of TTing can swing the favour for GC to TT riders.

 

[Spine Concept]

I don't think the KM of ITT is the problem, but rather the type of ITT km.

I'd love to see the tour have 4 ITT's.

A 7km prologue (just to put some small time gaps in play from the start)
A 55 km flat ITT
a 35 km hilly ITT
a 20 km mountain ITT

None of those are the same thing, despite all being ITT's. 117 km of ITT, but each stage tests a different set of skills. I'm not talking about having two 55 km flat ITT's like we had at times in the Indurain years.

Many still might call that tt overkill, but take out the hilly ITT and I quite like it to be honest. The hilly one wouldn't be decisive enough for climbers - and non tt specialists - with GC ambition and it would play right into the tt specialist's hands. Would hate the Indurain years one.

 

[kurtinsc]

That is too much ITTing. We have seen in smaller stage races with Martin and Wiggins recently that a disproportionate amount of TTing can swing the favour for GC to TT riders.

Based on what?

Just for sake of argument... why should someone who is the best climber of the GC guys but the 10th best TT rider have a better or worse shot of winning then the best TT rider who's the 10th best climber?

When you don't have someone who's both the best in climbing and time trialing, it would seem to me that the more ITT km you have, the more it forces climbers to attack. This can only make the race more interesting. I'm not sure why this would be considered bad.

Now you still need enough climbing stages that are selective enough to allow the time differences to be made up if someone is a dominant climber. I didn't think Paris-Nice had tough enough climbs to allow that to happen. I view Dauphine-Libere as different though. Wiggins isn't the best climber... but he IS a capable climber. He outclimbed other good climbers on some of those stages. Tony Martin and other pure ITT guys weren't hanging around.

Yes, Wiggins was probably peaking while many of the other good climbers were building form for the TDF... but that's not the fault of the parcours of the race. An on-form Gesink, Evans, VDB2 or Sanchez probably would have beaten him on that course.

 

[Spine Concept]

Based on what?

Just for sake of argument... why should someone who is the best climber of the GC guys but the 10th best TT rider have a better or worse shot of winning then the best TT rider who's the 10th best climber?

When you don't have someone who's both the best in climbing and time trialing, it would seem to me that the more ITT km you have, the more it forces climbers to attack. This can only make the race more interesting. I'm not sure why this would be considered bad.

Now you still need enough climbing stages that are selective enough to allow the time differences to be made up if someone is a dominant climber. I didn't think Paris-Nice had tough enough climbs to allow that to happen. I view Dauphine-Libere as different though. Wiggins isn't the best climber... but he IS a capable climber. He outclimbed other good climbers on some of those stages. Tony Martin and other pure ITT guys weren't hanging around.

Yes, Wiggins was probably peaking while many of the other good climbers were building form for the TDF... but that's not the fault of the parcours of the race. An on-form Gesink, Evans, VDB2 or Sanchez probably would have beaten him on that course.

While I agree with your stance I think it has to do with the general consensus on what aspect of cycling is more appealing - to be the decisive factor in winning a GT. The best climbers duking it out on the slopes of a mountain and all that encompasses competitive climbing or TT specialists trying to out-ride others in time trials. A simple poll on this forum would reveal this I reckon.

 

[Garrigou]

Based on what?

Yes, Wiggins was probably peaking while many of the other good climbers were building form for the TDF... but that's not the fault of the parcours of the race. An on-form Gesink, Evans, VDB2 or Sanchez probably would have beaten him on that course.

Why would Wiggins peak for the Dauphine rather than the Tour?

I agree wholeheartedly with your point as regards GTs trying to balance the parcours to create a more even battle between stronger climbers and stronger TT-ers. Sure, some of the mountain top head-to-heads make for great viewing, but if nearly every GT is going to be won primarily on Power-to-Weight ratios, then anyone over 5'9 in height may as well give up now.
The rouleurs should have enough of a chance to take some time from the climbers that the climbers have to put in some serious (and lengthier) attacks - instead of the formulaic "grab 20-60 seconds in the final 3kms of the final climb" which (in tours with 4-6 mountain top finishes) is becoming a slightly tedious recipe for success.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

While I agree with your stance I think it has to do with the general consensus on what aspect of cycling is more appealing - to be the decisive factor in winning a GT. The best climbers duking it out on the slopes of a mountain and all that encompasses competitive climbing or TT specialists trying to out-ride others in time trials. A simple poll on this forum would reveal this I reckon.

...Or you can look at the history books and find the numner of TdF winners who can't TT. It's a Grand Tour.

The Giro missed the mark because it was hopelessly biased towards the same type of rider, and the other two GTs followed suit for some inexplicable reason.

 

[Spine Concept]

...Or you can look at the history books and find the numner of TdF winners who can't TT. It's a Grand Tour.

The Giro missed the mark because it was hopelessly biased towards the same type of rider, and the other two GTs followed suit for some inexplicable reason.

I didn't understand what you meant with this bit. It depends on how far back you want to dig into the history books I guess. Other than Carlos Sastre, and Oscar Pereiro all of the winners in the last two decades were top time trialists as well.

As far as the Giro goes, I found that a bit counterintuitive seeing as their biggest hopes lay on Nibali's shoulder's, a renowned time trialist whilst not being the best climber out of the top tier. The Tour might have followed suit because they felt that A. Schleck is probably the only rider who can challenge Contador if there are more mountains and less time trialing. Otherwise Contador would win by an even bigger margin. Can't say the same about the Vuelta though.

 

[El Pistolero]

I didn't understand what you meant with this bit. It depends on how far back you want to dig into the history books I guess. Other than Carlos Sastre, and Oscar Pereiro all of the winners in the last two decades were top time trialists as well.

As far as the Giro goes, I found that a bit counterintuitive seeing as their biggest hopes lay on Nibali's shoulder's, a renowned time trialist whilst not being the best climber out of the top tier. The Tour might have followed suit because they felt that A. Schleck is probably the only rider who can challenge Contador if there are more mountains and less time trialing. Otherwise Contador would win by an even bigger margin. Can't say the same about the Vuelta though.

Does it matter? Contador is a far better time trial specialist than Nibali, so it would have worked even more against them if they added more time trials. And it was known for a long time that Contador was going to enter the Giro by the way(not to the public). He didn't enter because of his doping case like many people here think.

 

[Winterfold]

Meh - how many of you climbing fans are real grimpeurs? Or just spectators?

There is nothing lazy or easy about winning a TOur length ITT - try doing a mere 16km at 45kmh plus then come back and tell us how you feel about difficulty...

 

[Spine Concept]

Does it matter? Contador is a far better time trial specialist than Nibali, so it would have worked even more against them if they added more time trials. And it was known for a long time that Contador was going to enter the Giro by the way(not to the public). He didn't enter because of his doping case like many people here think.

Where did I say anything about Nibali beating Contador? Conti is the best stage racer on the planet, period. He's the better climber and time trialist then any other GC candidate. Furthermore, we all know he didn't go all out in the mountains. He could have crushed the opposition even more if he wanted to. Thus, it's a moot point really; it wouldn't have worked more against them had they added more mountains or time trials.
However, when someone is more renowned for his TT abilities rather than climbing it is counterintuitive to draw out such a mountainous parcours and especially so many MTF's where Nibali struggled. That's just my opinion though, you are entitled to yours.

 

[El Pistolero]

Where did I say anything about Nibali beating Contador? Conti is the best stage racer on the planet, period. He's the better climber and time trialist then any other GC candidate. Furthermore, we all know he didn't go all out in the mountains. He could have crushed the opposition even more if he wanted to. Thus, it's a moot point really; it wouldn't have worked more against them had they added more mountains or time trials.
However, when someone is more renowned for his TT abilities rather than climbing it is counterintuitive to draw out such a mountainous parcours and especially so many MTF's where Nibali struggled. That's just my opinion though, you are entitled to yours.

We're talking about Zomegnan though. He doesn't mind if Contador wins. He's glad he lured the best stage racer to his event.

What I was saying was there was no course they could have developed this year for an Italian victory. Barring bad luck Contador would have always won, so that's why I think it doesn't matter. And the Italians also have Scarponi, a better climber imo.

 

[Spine Concept]

We're talking about Zomegnan though. He doesn't mind if Contador wins. He's glad he lured the best stage racer to his event.

What I was saying was there was no course they could have developed this year for an Italian victory. Barring bad luck Contador would have always won, so that's why I think it doesn't matter. And the Italians also have Scarponi, a better climber imo.

This is a different standpoint than what I was commenting on though. With Conti there it was always going to be a race for 2nd place onwards barring, as you mentioned, a misfortune involving him. It would be foolish to think otherwise with the facts pointing against you.

I was trying to get my point across using the most simple form of reasoning. If you want to draw out a parcours where Nibali's chances for success are likely to be higher you do not immediately think of the this year's Giro. As ironic as that sounds seeing as he finished third, you can understand what I'm saying - I hope. However, I do agree about Zomegnan though, Nibbs never had a chance of winning with Conti there no matter how he laid it out.

Finally, I mentioned Nibbs as being the Italian favorite because although Scarponi might be the better climber the former has won a GT.

 

[Eric8-A]

Did anybody remember Wiggo saying after the '09 Tour that he felt he was able to win the Tour by 2012? Or was it just me?

 

[kurtinsc]

Why would Wiggins peak for the Dauphine rather than the Tour?

Pretty simply because he can win the D-L, but his best case scenario if focusing on the Tour is probably 5th. Peaking for the DL and riding the Tour on a slight descent of form might lower that top point to about 7th.

I'm just saying comparing where he was in March (when many stage racers peak to some degree for either P-N or T-A) in comparison to other GC guys to where he was in the D-L... he seems closer toward his top level then many others in the race.

Could be wrong... he might be even better at the Tour.

 

[Winterfold]

"We have a plan for the Tour de France and the Dauphine was part of the plan. I'm not 100% yet," said Wiggins,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cycling/13743749.stm

 

[kurtinsc]

"We have a plan for the Tour de France and the Dauphine was part of the plan. I'm not 100% yet," said Wiggins,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cycling/13743749.stm

This is what every D-L winner says... and most of the time they fade in the last week of the Tour. The only time Lance won the D-L AND rode against Ullrich in the tour, he had his closest shave among his 7 wins (Ullrich was 7th at the TDS that year). Valverde made a habit of looking incredible at the D-L and fading bad at the Tour as well.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

I didn't understand what you meant with this bit. It depends on how far back you want to dig into the history books I guess. Other than Carlos Sastre, and Oscar Pereiro all of the winners in the last two decades were top time trialists as well.

As far as the Giro goes, I found that a bit counterintuitive seeing as their biggest hopes lay on Nibali's shoulder's, a renowned time trialist whilst not being the best climber out of the top tier. The Tour might have followed suit because they felt that A. Schleck is probably the only rider who can challenge Contador if there are more mountains and less time trialing. Otherwise Contador would win by an even bigger margin. Can't say the same about the Vuelta though.

Ok and Pantani too of course. But Sastre came 12th in the decisive TT (with 3 Gerolsteiners above him) and Pereiro 4th in his. Pantani was 3rd. Where I was going with this is that you should not be able to win a GT without being able to TT. Just like you shouldn't be able to win without being able to climb with the best. The TTing should be just as decisive as the climbing. And a good descender should be rewarded also.

As for the Giro, it certainly wasn't set up for Nibali. For Nibali there would need to be no mtfs and a lot more TT. (And it would have been a better race too. Though with the same result in all probability). Scarponi?

 

[ferryman]

I didn't understand what you meant with this bit. It depends on how far back you want to dig into the history books I guess. Other than Carlos Sastre, and Oscar Pereiro all of the winners in the last two decades were top time trialists as well.

As far as the Giro goes, I found that a bit counterintuitive seeing as their biggest hopes lay on Nibali's shoulder's, a renowned time trialist whilst not being the best climber out of the top tier. The Tour might have followed suit because they felt that A. Schleck is probably the only rider who can challenge Contador if there are more mountains and less time trialing. Otherwise Contador would win by an even bigger margin. Can't say the same about the Vuelta though.

I can't agree with your Giro analysis. The route was perfect for a showdown SANS Contador.

 

[jamiephillips]

Worth mentioning that this is Robert Millar rather than David

Robert Millar = Genius!!

 

[ScottyMuser]

Ok and Pantani too of course. But Sastre came 12th in the decisive TT (with 3 Gerolsteiners above him) and Pereiro 4th in his. Pantani was 3rd. Where I was going with this is that you should not be able to win a GT without being able to TT. Just like you shouldn't be able to win without being able to climb with the best. The TTing should be just as decisive as the climbing. And a good descender should be rewarded also.

As for the Giro, it certainly wasn't set up for Nibali. For Nibali there would need to be no mtfs and a lot more TT. (And it would have been a better race too. Though with the same result in all probability). Scarponi?

Sorry, but disagree - for Nibs to have won, maybe even including Contador, al they needed was turn 1 or 2 of the MTFs into a Downhill finish - or, you know, include Crostis - Nibs stayed well within 30 secs IIRC of scarponi on that stage, could have taken 2+ mins on the others at crostis before.
Actually, thats a thought - why do GTs never really have a stage that finishes *at* the end of a downhill - they either always finish at the top, or 15km+ away, meaning that a descender like nibs wouldn't easily stay away after the hill. Surely, if it is meant to be testing all round ability, the ability to descend like a falcon should be admired and tested?

 

[ScottyMuser]

I can't agree with your Giro analysis. The route was perfect for a showdown SANS Contador.

well, it would have been if not for the UCI *grrr mumble mumble* deciding they didn't like descents and cancelling Crostis. With that in there like on the route, it would have prefecty setup scarponi vs nibbles.