Nibali at the same level as Froome/Contador?

[Publicus]

Probably, but he would have been 6 min. down, and best case scenario shooting for a podium spot.

I thought by now you would known Dauphiné is just a warm-up race.

I do. It was a warm up FOR Froome and Contador as well. Or does that only count when Nibali does poorly?

 

[Cookster15]

He would have gapped Nibali at every MTF

Not sure how you come to this conclusion based on how dominant Nibali has been this tour? Yes the remaining competition is not the strongest but Nibali has not even had to ride near his limit and he has 7 minutes lead with TT to come. No doubt it will be over 8 minutes come the Champs-Elysées.

The last time Froome and Nibali went head to head in a GT was 2012 TDF. In 2012 at 27 years of age Nibali finished 3 minutes down on Froome on a course that favored Froome with only 2 MTFs and 2 long TTs. At 29 Nibali is stronger this tour that is plainly obvious. I doubt that Froome would be any stronger than in 2012. Dauphine means nothing as we don't know where each rider is in their prep for the Tour which is the big goal.

It seems clear to me Nibali is on a similar level this Tour to Froome and Contador. He may not have beat them but he would be close enough to say "similar level".

 

[cineteq]

I do. It was a warm up FOR Froome and Contador as well. Or does that only count when Nibali does poorly?

There you go, so can this race be taken seriouly or as a reference?

 

[BlurryVII]

Not sure how you come to this conclusion based on how dominant Nibali has been this tour? Yes the remaining competition is not the strongest but Nibali has not even had to ride near his limit and he has 7 minutes lead with TT to come. No doubt it will be over 8 minutes come the Champs-Elysées.

The last time Froome and Nibali went head to head in a GT was 2012 TDF. In 2012 at 27 years of age Nibali finished 3 minutes down on Froome on a course that favored Froome with only 2 MTFs and 2 long TTs. At 29 Nibali is stronger this tour that is plainly obvious. I doubt that Froome would be any stronger than in 2012. Dauphine means nothing as we don't know where each rider is in their prep for the Tour which is the big goal.

It seems clear to me Nibali is on a similar level this Tour to Froome and Contador. He may not have beat them but he would be close enough to say "similar level".

First of all Froome showed his best condition in 2013 not in 2012 but he was still really good.
In the Tour 2012, Froome couldn't go ballistic because of Wiggo, if he was the leader of Sky back then, he'd have put 5, 6 minutes into Nibali.

 

[SeriousSam]

The last time Froome and Nibali went head to head in a GT was 2012 TDF. In 2012 at 27 years of age Nibali finished 3 minutes down on Froome on a course that favored Froome with only 2 MTFs and 2 long TTs. At 29 Nibali is stronger this tour that is plainly obvious. I doubt that Froome would be any stronger than in 2012.

You mean Nibali was only 3 minutes down on a hard working super-domestique that wasn't allowed to climb faster than Bradley Wiggins? Meanwhile, Nibali at 29 is now stronger whereas Froome, 29, who utterly dominated the 2013 Tour climbing like Armstrong is probably at his 2012 level?

 

[Cookster15]

First of all Froome showed his best condition in 2013 not in 2012 but he was still really good.
In the Tour 2012, Froome couldn't go ballistic because of Wiggo, if he was the leader of Sky back then, he'd have put 5, 6 minutes into Nibali.

The best answer is we don't know. To make claims Froome would have gapped Nibali at every MTF is wrong.

 

[BlurryVII]

The best answer is we don't know. To make claims Froome would have gapped Nibali at every MTF is wrong.

Dude... the gap would have been much bigger in Paris for sure.

Froome had to work super hard for Wiggo, he never went full out and still dropped Nibali a couple of times. And Nibali was sttrugling all the way till Paris, he was dropped on almost every MTF, especially on Peyragurdes where Froome hit the brakes a couple of times to wait for Wiggins.... that was ridiculous how he couldn't go to his full potential

You guys still playing the ignorant role using the "We don't know" just like in this TDF.

 

[Cookster15]

Dude... the gap would have been much bigger in Paris for sure.

Froome had to work super hard for Wiggo, he never went full out and still dropped Nibali a couple of times. And Nibali was sttrugling all the way till Paris, he was dropped on almost every MTF, especially on Peyragurdes where Froome hit the brakes a couple of times to wait for Wiggins.... that was ridiculous how he couldn't go to his full potential

You guys still playing the ignorant role using the "We don't know" just like in this TDF.

Nibali is much better now than 2012.

 

[rhubroma]

1. Both riders were there at the start of the race.
2. On stage 5, had Froome not been injured or had crashed he would've been distanced big time anyway.
3. On stage 8, Nibali was up there witn Contador at a mountain finish.
4. Contador probably could have dropped Nibali in the Alps, and won a stage, but he had no chance whatsoever of winning this Tour

Number 3 can hardly be considered an actual measure of what AC would have done in the mountains. Whereas number 4 is just stupid. He had a good chance, but it would have been tough.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

i think the key question that everyone wants to know is whether nibali, at his best, which we can assume he is, would beat contador at his best and froome at his best.

froome would not have been at his 2013 level. i'm sure of it. but if we assume he were at his 2013 levels, we could simply compare vam and power estimates and come up with a reasonable conclusion.

the argument becomes of course, which contador numbers to use.

one problem with that is that nibali hasn't been pushed to the limit and we can't assume he's gone as deep as he could have.

 

[BlurryVII]

i think the key question that everyone wants to know is whether nibali, at his best, which we can assume he is, would beat contador at his best and froome at his best.

froome would not have been at his 2013 level. i'm sure of it. but if we assume he were at his 2013 levels, we could simply compare vam and power estimates and come up with a reasonable conclusion.

the argument becomes of course, which contador numbers to use.

one problem with that is that nibali hasn't been pushed to the limit and we can't assume he's gone as deep as he could have.

That's interesting. In terms of average power numbers, Contador 2009 comes out on top (He's got to be one of the strongest Tour winner & climber ever), and he still couldn't push on la Colombière when teammate Klöden (Love this rider <3<3<3) dropped and on the Ventoux because they were playing the Armstrong podium game then comes Froome 2013 who was monstrous on AX 3 then a bit weaker by the 3rd week and much further behind Nibali 2014, (assuming he is at his best) and taking into account his hautacam performance.

 

[willbick]

i've seen nothing this season from Froome that would suggest he would've d1cked on the likes of valverde, pinot, TJVG the way Nibali has done

 

[cineteq]

i think the key question that everyone wants to know is whether nibali, at his best, which we can assume he is, would beat contador at his best and froome at his best.

Everyone? Not really. That sounds like something you might want to watch on 2014 TdF video game.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

Everyone? Not really. That sounds like something you might want to watch on 2014 TdF video game.

what is the purpose of this communication?

all i did was clarify what i think the op question was getting at, vs. other possible interpretations.

it's an interesting question.

 

[pigoonse]

It was a warm up race for Froome and Contador too. You folks do yourself and your credibility a disservice pretending otherwise.

I agree that the 2011 Giro is immaterial to the question at hand. Nibali has progressed since then.

Who the **** is pretending otherwise. Dauphine was a warm-up for all of them. Nibali admits he was not on form though - Contador and Froome were in a game of dueling egos. Nibs was not even in the game. Did you watch Dauphine?

 

[karlboss]

If Nibali is within 30 seconds of Martin, I'll say Nibali would have won anyway. 30 seconds to a minute debatable, over 1 minute I'll say Froome and Contador would have beaten him.
reasoning: stage 5 he'd have had a break, climbing is all about power to weight, and Nibali's weight is down. So if he's within 30 seconds of Martin there is no doubt he'd have had the power to climb with or very very close to Contador and Froome and had enough of a lead after stage 5. If it's 30 seconds to one minute, then I think Froome and Contador would have TT'd better indicating they'd have climbed better, but well enough to get 2:30 back I don't know. Over one minute, there is no doubt they'd have been all over him.

 

[Publicus]

Who the **** is pretending otherwise. Dauphine was a warm-up for all of them. Nibali admits he was not on form though - Contador and Froome were in a game of dueling egos. Nibs was not even in the game. Did you watch Dauphine?

Lots of Nibali fans apparently, since they seem to want to discount his performance there (it was a tune up race, the Tour is for real) and at the same time (at least implicitly) hold Froome and Contador constant (i.e., they couldn't have improved having peaked for the Dauphine). My point is, as great as Nibali is looking against the current field, he looked positively like crap against Contador and Froome just a month earlier. It is just as likely he would have gotten his **** handed to him by one or both in the mountains if one or both had continued in this race. It is less likely that he would have been dishing out punishment to one or both. Alas, it is all but speculation until next year.

EDIT: and for clarity sake, I wasn't just copying you by happenstance, you made precisely this implicit argument:

Nibali made it clear that the Dauphine was a warm-up race - so the argument that so and so was stronger in the Dauphine is meaningless, imo, having seen Nibs' improvements since the Italian Nationals going forward until now.

 

[Publicus]

If Nibali is within 30 seconds of Martin, I'll say Nibali would have won anyway. 30 seconds to a minute debatable, over 1 minute I'll say Froome and Contador would have beaten him.
reasoning: stage 5 he'd have had a break, climbing is all about power to weight, and Nibali's weight is down. So if he's within 30 seconds of Martin there is no doubt he'd have had the power to climb with or very very close to Contador and Froome and had enough of a lead after stage 5. If it's 30 seconds to one minute, then I think Froome and Contador would have TT'd better indicating they'd have climbed better, but well enough to get 2:30 back I don't know. Over one minute, there is no doubt they'd have been all over him.

I think the problem with this argument is that it isn't a fictional apples-to-apples comparison. In reality, Nibali hasn't been pushed, in any stage, since Stage 8 when Contador tested his legs. The lack of cumulative fatigue that he might have endured had Froome and Contador stayed healthy is therefor missing. This isn't an attempt to diminish completing a GT, it's plenty hard enough, but Nibali himself admits he's never really been pushed to the limit this tour. So regardless of where he finishes relative to Tony Martin, who arguably has put FAR more into this Tour than Nibali (arguably, it is of course debatable), isn't really a good yardstick of how he would have finished against Contador and Froome if they had managed to stay healthy (since he's undoubtably fresher now than he would have been if they'd stayed in the race).

 

[orangerider]

Nibali wouldn't be able to respond to Froome and Contador attacks over and over again. A few of the initial ones perhaps, but not all. He's not that kind of rider. Since Nibali is clearly in superior shape to everyone else right now, Nibali would've been isolated by himself trying to respond, while Froome and Contador dual'd up the hills more or less together. Nibali would have his energy sapped by continuing to progress upwards by himself. So instead of going into the red, he would drop down to the Pinot or Tejay group to work mutually together to claw their way back up. Probably would save his excess energy for some kind of late downhill attack to gain some seconds on the favorites and take a stage win or two. Worthy of third place overall for sure.

That's just how it would've been.

 

[SafeBet]

My point is, as great as Nibali is looking against the current field, he looked positively like crap against Contador and Froome just a month earlier.

I see your point and it could be valid, but in Dauphine Nibali was beaten by riders he's now completely demolishing (Bardet for one) so the argument that he likely improved more than anybody else makes some sense.

I'm aware there's no way to prove it. It's absolutely possible that Froome and Contador would have improved as much as or even more than Nibali, hence my stance on this issue: I don't know, so not going to vote

 

[Publicus]

I see your point and it could be valid, but in Dauphine Nibali was beaten by riders he's now completely demolishing (Bardet for one) so the argument that he likely improved more than anybody else makes some sense.

I'm aware there's no way to prove it. It's absolutely possible that Froome and Contador would have improved as much as or even more than Nibali, hence my stance on this issue: I don't know, so not going to vote

We aren't talking about the guys that are just happy to finish in the top 10 in ANY race. We're talking about the top GC contenders; his peers. Froome and Contador. It is against them that his progress can only be measured. They all were trying to time their peak for the Tour. I can't know whether they achieved that, but looking at Contador on Stage 8 vs Nibali, I had the sense, and it is possible just my mind playing tricks on me, he looked like he hadn't really put in a serious attack and Nibali was at his limit. So, at least to me, it seems that Contador improved his Dauphine form as much as, if not more than, Nibali.

But as you say, we really can't know, since it is impossible to prove. Speculation is fun though, no?

 

[dduff442]

Nibali wouldn't be able to respond to Froome and Contador attacks over and over again. A few of the initial ones perhaps, but not all. He's not that kind of rider. Since Nibali is clearly in superior shape to everyone else right now, Nibali would've been isolated by himself trying to respond, while Froome and Contador dual'd up the hills more or less together. Nibali would have his energy sapped by continuing to progress upwards by himself. So instead of going into the red, he would drop down to the Pinot or Tejay group to work mutually together to claw their way back up. Probably would save his excess energy for some kind of late downhill attack to gain some seconds on the favorites and take a stage win or two. Worthy of third place overall for sure.

That's just how it would've been.

This post is this entire thread in a nutshell. It's all pure fantasy.

 

[IronCQ]

If you are a fan, regardless of any fact or reality issue, you will always jump on your favourite rider and say the others are crap (well, top 10 in 1-3week races is crap, we all know uh?) . But if you deal with reality (sometimes it happens) , you have a rider here who won 2 out of 3 GTs he entered last, being 2nd in the third. I dont see any problem in saying he is on the same level. I wonder what Nibs could have done to prove this more. Anyway, I'm ok with all the opinions here as far as they are respectful of riders efforts and sacrifices, but in 2014, in Le Tour, yes, Nibali on the same level or even a bit more:he is the king in yellow, 15 (?) days with the jersey, i guess this still count something in the real world.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Looking at numbers, Nibali's win this year is the most dominant since Armstrong in 2004 and if we dont include Armstrong we have to go back to Ullrich in 1997 to find a more dominant win. However, Nibali's competition is probably among the worste since 1997 as well.

 

[sir fly]

After today's time trial, I think Froome and Contador would have beaten Nibali in the discipline, but if the margin would have been enough to nullify the cobbles and how the mountains would have panned out, I have no idea.