Teams & Riders Nairo Quintana discussion thread

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Yeah, 2007 Rasmussen is a bit of an outlier. Assuming he would have finished the Tour strongly and been able to ride for the next few years at the same level, I think Contador almost certainly would still be chasing his first Tour win.

You think he wouldn't have won the 2009 TDF?

So based on your assessment of Froome v Schleck, you must think that Contador's level has massively dropped off since his ban.

I thought that is basically accepted as a fact?

2009 Tour would definitely have been his best chance. But against a rider as strong as 2007 Rasmussen, with most of Contador's team riding against him, I think it would have been very tough.

I agree that Contador's level has dropped significantly since 2011, but I'm pretty sure some fans have suggested otherwise before.

Anyway, to go slightly back to the subject of the thread. I think Quintana at his best would comfortably beat riders like Schleck, Leipheimer and Menchov. He's simply a better climber and mentally tougher than all of them.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Comparing fields from different era's is impossible, as you have riders abilities varying from year to year. Very few top riders actually keep their top level each season.

What I do feel, that in the modern era, the differences, especially in mountain stages, are much smaller. It's hard to actually create a big gap. Anyone in that field of closeness in the mountains that has any sort of time trial has an advantage, as the gaps made in the time trial are huge.

 

[portugal11]

On a good day (tour de france days), schleck is a slightly better climber than quintana.

 

[LeSensei]

Quintana is an overestimated rider. He was acknowledgely supposed to be some kind of Messiah of modern cycling and so far the only 2 Grand Tours he has won, he has someone other than himself to thank for.

What the hell did Movistar think? That he could just come from the beach into the Giro and win it easily, then go to the Tour rested and sharp? He was clearly and deliberately out of shape in the Giro which is a disgrace for a race that celebrates the 100 anniversary. That bold move, in an attempt to get them the double will most likely leave them empty. Deserved.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Quintana is an overestimated rider. He was acknowledgely supposed to be some kind of Messiah of modern cycling and so far the only 2 Grand Tours he has won, he has someone other than himself to thank for.

What the hell did Movistar think? That he could just come from the beach into the Giro and win it easily, then go to the Tour rested and sharp? He was clearly and deliberately out of shape in the Giro which is a disgrace for a race that celebrates the 100 anniversary. That bold move, in an attempt to get them the double will most likely leave them empty. Deserved.

So, which argument do you want to go with? Is he 'overestimated'? Or is he a rider capable of finishing 2nd in a GT, winning a stage and outclimbing everyone, while 'clearly and deliberately out of shape'? Not sure those two statements are all that compatible.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

Quintana is an overestimated rider. He was acknowledgely supposed to be some kind of Messiah of modern cycling and so far the only 2 Grand Tours he has won, he has someone other than himself to thank for.

What the hell did Movistar think? That he could just come from the beach into the Giro and win it easily, then go to the Tour rested and sharp? He was clearly and deliberately out of shape in the Giro which is a disgrace for a race that celebrates the 100 anniversary. That bold move, in an attempt to get them the double will most likely leave them empty. Deserved.

So, which argument do you want to go with? Is he 'overestimated'? Or is he a rider capable of finishing 2nd in a GT, winning a stage and outclimbing everyone, while 'clearly and deliberately out of shape'? Not sure those two statements are all that compatible.

Yes, what a bunch of rubbish honestly. If he really came in fro from the beach, deliberately out of shape, and still was the best climber in the race you'd think he was some kind of messiah.

 

[lenric]

Don't know what's more ludicrous: whether stating that Evans was podium fodder at best, or that Quintana is overrated.

 

[Cookster15]

Re: Re:

Ladies and gentlemen. We've made it. We're here

It's a weak era debate.

Not sure there's much to debate really. When guys like Perreiro, Sastre and Evans start winning the biggest race in cycling - guys who've been around the block for ages and have never looked like anything more than podium fodder at best - you know it's a weak era.

It was even weak enough to convince Armstrong out of retirement, because he was putting out higher numbers in training as a 37 year old.

There's no way that anyone from that period, other than obviously Contador (who is head and shoulders above anyone else), will be looked upon as a great GT rider in the future.

Not too many eras is cycling when there has been more than one "great GT rider" in your definition. Cadel Evans was never "podium fodder". Of course he was no Alberto Contador but certainly above Schleck and Sastre and to group Evans with Oscar Pierero is laughable. I think Evans would have won the 2008 Tour if not for his fall on stage 9 and the resulting injuries he had to carry the rest of the race, a weak Lotto and thus the extra energy he had to expend against team CSC with both Schlecks and Sastre. He might also have come close to winning the 2009 Vuelta if not for a puncture at an inopportune moment. He also came within 1 mountain of winning the 2002 Giro as a neo pro.

Evans certainly did far more to impress at all three Grand Tours over a much longer period of time than Brad Wiggins ever did. Armstrong's reasons for thinking a comeback was feasible cannot be discussed here, without those factors he was only a classics rider.

 

[Cookster15]

Re:

Don't know what's more ludicrous: whether stating that Evans was podium fodder at best, or that Quintana is overrated.

Did you just change your avatar?

 

[MovistarRider]

Re:

Quintana is an overestimated rider. He was acknowledgely supposed to be some kind of Messiah of modern cycling and so far the only 2 Grand Tours he has won, he has someone other than himself to thank for.

What the hell did Movistar think? That he could just come from the beach into the Giro and win it easily, then go to the Tour rested and sharp? He was clearly and deliberately out of shape in the Giro which is a disgrace for a race that celebrates the 100 anniversary. That bold move, in an attempt to get them the double will most likely leave them empty. Deserved.

Surely this has to be up there with the biggest nonsense ever written that my eyes have witnessed.

You're claiming that Nairo is an overestimated rider, fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But after that you're saying that he came straight from the beach to the Giro without any sort of training to aim for the double. Something you don't understand. But he still finishes second in the GC, wins the Blockhaus stage and was leading the GC for several days. Isn't that then impressive for a so called overestimated rider who came unprepared to the Giro?

I seriously cannot follow your logic. I'm not even sure that you yourself can follow whatever your saying. The hate for Nairo is getting out of control in this forum

 

[lenric]

Re: Re:

Don't know what's more ludicrous: whether stating that Evans was podium fodder at best, or that Quintana is overrated.

Did you just change your avatar?

Couple of days ago.

 

[perico]

Re: Re:

Contador's rivals at his prime were worse climbers than Quintana's because back then the routes didn't pander to the pure climbers quite as much as they've been doing for years now. Shocker.

They were better time-trialists. They were more complete. They were better GT riders.

Who exactly are you referring to? I think, of all his challengers, only Evans potentially fits that description. Rasmussen, A Schleck, F Schleck, Scarponi, Ricco were all poor TTists for the most part and certainly not more complete than Quintana. And if you're referring to Leipheimer, Menchov or 2009 Armstrong, it's laughable to call them better GT riders.

Quintana would probably have won 4 or 5 GTs inthe 2007-2011 if he was active then. It's easily the weakest period in GT history since probably the 1960s.

I would say that Rasmussen and Schleck weren't worse climbers than Froome and Nibali. I think Rasmussen 2007 was better than Froome. I think Schleck was even with Froome with Froome being better on unipurto mountain satges but Schleck being better on the 3rd week, especially on the 200+km multi mountain stages. Quintana and Schleck were even climbers and both being stronger in final week in a multi mountain stage but Schleck is much better in one-day races.
Also as hrotha said, Leipheimer, Menchov and Evans were much more complete than Quintana, Aru, Pinot etc.
Also lol at 2007-2011 being the weakest when the records of Beille, Zoncolan, Tre Cime, Galibier, the all time vAM record of Verbier, Contador and Schleck climbing the Ventoux extremely fast while freewheeling against the headwind coming from that time.

Yeah, 2007 Rasmussen is a bit of an outlier. Assuming he would have finished the Tour strongly and been able to ride for the next few years at the same level, I think Contador almost certainly would still be chasing his first Tour win. But, as it stands, he didn't finish and so he is really just a footnote to the era, like Ricco or Kohl.

So based on your assessment of Froome v Schleck, you must think that Contador's level has massively dropped off since his ban. He's the one constant from both periods - and Froome destroys him in the TdF way more than Schleck did.

Rasmussen wasn't considered a threat and was given a 5 minute buffer. Had he been marked he never would've been in a position to win, much like Pereiro the previous year.

 

[perico]

Re: Re:

Ladies and gentlemen. We've made it. We're here

It's a weak era debate.

Not sure there's much to debate really. When guys like Perreiro, Sastre and Evans start winning the biggest race in cycling - guys who've been around the block for ages and have never looked like anything more than podium fodder at best - you know it's a weak era.

It was even weak enough to convince Armstrong out of retirement, because he was putting out higher numbers in training as a 37 year old.

There's no way that anyone from that period, other than obviously Contador (who is head and shoulders above anyone else), will be looked upon as a great GT rider in the future.

Not too many eras is cycling when there has been more than one "great GT rider" in your definition. Cadel Evans was never "podium fodder". Of course he was no Alberto Contador but certainly above Schleck and Sastre and to group Evans with Oscar Pierero is laughable. I think Evans would have won the 2008 Tour if not for his fall on stage 9 and the resulting injuries he had to carry the rest of the race, a weak Lotto and thus the extra energy he had to expend against team CSC with both Schlecks and Sastre. He might also have come close to winning the 2009 Vuelta if not for a puncture at an inopportune moment. He also came within 1 mountain of winning the 2002 Giro as a neo pro.

Evans certainly did far more to impress at all three Grand Tours over a much longer period of time than Brad Wiggins ever did. Armstrong's reasons for thinking a comeback was feasible cannot be discussed here, without those factors he was only a classics rider.

At the same time, without his crash on the descent of the stage before Alpe d'huez, Vande Velde could have likely won, and if you think about it, the strongest rider in the race that year in the mountains was Andy by far, who without his bonk, may have won. He was unreal.

 

[Red Rick]

Pretty sure Rasmussen only got 3" on Tignes, and only lost the 1'30" or something in the first TT. Not to mention Tignes made him ride less aggro in the rest of the Tour.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Rasmussen was most likely the best rider in that TdF, he was absolutely incredible on Tignes. It was not like he was gifted anything contrary to Pereiro, he really earned his time and backed it up, especially on Aubisque.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Pretty sure Rasmussen only got 3" on Tignes, and only lost the 1'30" or something in the first TT. Not to mention Tignes made him ride less aggro in the rest of the Tour.

You mean 3 minutes!

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

Pretty sure Rasmussen only got 3" on Tignes, and only lost the 1'30" or something in the first TT. Not to mention Tignes made him ride less aggro in the rest of the Tour.

You mean 3 minutes!

No, he got 3 seconds because the competition was loafing around. The other 3 minute something he earned himself.

I mean yes I meant 3'

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Quintana is an overestimated rider. He was acknowledgely supposed to be some kind of Messiah of modern cycling and so far the only 2 Grand Tours he has won, he has someone other than himself to thank for.

What the hell did Movistar think? That he could just come from the beach into the Giro and win it easily, then go to the Tour rested and sharp? He was clearly and deliberately out of shape in the Giro which is a disgrace for a race that celebrates the 100 anniversary. That bold move, in an attempt to get them the double will most likely leave them empty. Deserved.

Is this a new word to define riders?

 

[Red Rick]

Defining riders is overestimated anyway.

 

[kingjr]

Re:

Defining riders is overestimated anyway.

<3

 

[gregrowlerson]

Re:

Rasmussen was most likely the best rider in that TdF, he was absolutely incredible on Tignes. It was not like he was gifted anything contrary to Pereiro, he really earned his time and backed it up, especially on Aubisque.

Exactly. On that stage to Tignes he did most of the work in the break, and was on his own from the bottom of the long final climb. It was almost akin to the Landis stage. The peloton rode pretty hard that day too; look at how there were riders all over the place on that rather shallow climb. If they had ridden even harder - hard enough to give Rasmussen no time at all - then Rasmussen probably would have gained more time on Aubisque and PDB.

As for this thread, it's been very entertaining to read over the last few pages. Clearly the era in question was not a weak one. The era was so strong that even Andreas Kloden cannot get a mention

If Quintana does made the TDF podium and do this new 'double', then I think it would be a great achievement, and a successful season.

And it would be, in any era.

 

[LeSensei]

I mean overrated not overestimated hehe. About Quintana, the beach thing was a reference to Alberto Contador in case you guys didn't notice.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

In that case Froome is overestimated as well, as he only won TDF's against all these overestimated riders.

So that makes everyone overestimated. They wouldn't even finish top 10 with some decent generation here.

 

[portugal11]

Quintana isn't overrated. He just isn't the mythical climber like was contador or pantani in their best years and some fans (nairo's fanboys) like to put him in the same league of pantani and contador and he isn't even close to their climbing ability. That's the true.

 

[carton]

Re:

That's the true.

Yep, Contador and Pantani are the "true". No objections there.

"Three minutes is too much," stated Discovery Team Manager Johan Bruyneel to Jean-François Quénet of Cyclingnews. "Alberto did all he could, we must accept the defeat. It will be necessary to go flat-out in the time trial because we never know."

The Chicken destroyed all and sundry in that Tour. That shouldn't really be up for debate.