Predict the Top 5 GC in Tour de France

[gregrowlerson]

Re: Re:

Since Kreuziger is cleared to ride and allowed to go full ***, he will podium TDF!

1. Niballi or someone else from Astana
2. Valverde
3. Kreuziger
4. Quintana
5. Froome

Surprisingly not the worst prediction ever! He soft pedalled many stages in the Giro's final week, so could be a little bit fresher than Contador.

This really is the most unpredictable Tour that I can remember.

Ilness is not a good training for any race


Also how he would beat Quintana and Froome is beyond me (altough I would like to see it )

Didn't do Aru's Giro much harm

I can't see him beating those guys either, but yeah, it will be amusing if it happens.

"Maximum number of smilies allowed is 5." Wow, who knew? lol

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

Riding on cobbles is all about taking risks. When your bike handling skills are good, those risks pose less of a problem, but they are still there. It's absolutely 10000% *** to say he did not have the legs.
He struggled on the wet cobbles, build a bridge and GET OVER IT, it does not take away that he was in absolute monster shape.

I don't seem to be getting through here: I've stated that you cannot say that Contador had better legs than Nibali based on one cherry-picked stage. I can just go cherry-picking another stage that 'proves' otherwise. Fact is that Contador lost 2min30 that he had to make up on a Nibali that, by every quantitative indicator, rode a *very* strong Tour. To be implying that no-one with cycling knowledge thinks that Nibali would have won that Tour is pretty damn arrogant.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Riding on cobbles is all about taking risks. When your bike handling skills are good, those risks pose less of a problem, but they are still there. It's absolutely 10000% *** to say he did not have the legs.
He struggled on the wet cobbles, build a bridge and GET OVER IT, it does not take away that he was in absolute monster shape.

I don't seem to be getting through here: I've stated that you cannot say that Contador had better legs than Nibali based on one cherry-picked stage. I can just go cherry-picking another stage that 'proves' otherwise. Fact is that Contador lost 2min30 that he had to make up on a Nibali that, by every quantitative indicator, rode a *very* strong Tour. To be implying that no-one with cycling knowledge thinks that Nibali would have won that Tour is pretty damn arrogant.

You stated he cannot have been in amazing shape because he lost 2.5 minutes on the cobbles. I called you out on your *** but you can't accept it I guess.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Riding on cobbles is all about taking risks. When your bike handling skills are good, those risks pose less of a problem, but they are still there. It's absolutely 10000% *** to say he did not have the legs.
He struggled on the wet cobbles, build a bridge and GET OVER IT, it does not take away that he was in absolute monster shape.

I don't seem to be getting through here: I've stated that you cannot say that Contador had better legs than Nibali based on one cherry-picked stage. I can just go cherry-picking another stage that 'proves' otherwise. Fact is that Contador lost 2min30 that he had to make up on a Nibali that, by every quantitative indicator, rode a *very* strong Tour. To be implying that no-one with cycling knowledge thinks that Nibali would have won that Tour is pretty damn arrogant.

Do you also think Contador was in worse (climbing) shape than Boom, since the latter did much better on the cobbles, or is it possible that how well one does on cobbles isn't a very good indication of one's climbing shape?

 

[Miburo]

Re: Re:

Riding on cobbles is all about taking risks. When your bike handling skills are good, those risks pose less of a problem, but they are still there. It's absolutely 10000% *** to say he did not have the legs.
He struggled on the wet cobbles, build a bridge and GET OVER IT, it does not take away that he was in absolute monster shape.

I don't seem to be getting through here: I've stated that you cannot say that Contador had better legs than Nibali based on one cherry-picked stage. I can just go cherry-picking another stage that 'proves' otherwise. Fact is that Contador lost 2min30 that he had to make up on a Nibali that, by every quantitative indicator, rode a *very* strong Tour. To be implying that no-one with cycling knowledge thinks that Nibali would have won that Tour is pretty damn arrogant.

Did i ever use one stage only to say Contador was better. Last time for you, if you don't get it now, idk man.

Did nibali ever beat contador in a GT? no he didn't, he always got crushed.

Was contador the best climber in every race he rode that year? Yes he was.

Did Contador look amazing on stage 8? Yes he did.

Based on all these things it's reasononable to assume contador was gonna win the tour. It wasn't going to be easy for sure, i never said that.

Now tell me how that is cherry picking? It seems to me like a very reasonable conclusion.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Riding on cobbles is all about taking risks. When your bike handling skills are good, those risks pose less of a problem, but they are still there. It's absolutely 10000% *** to say he did not have the legs.
He struggled on the wet cobbles, build a bridge and GET OVER IT, it does not take away that he was in absolute monster shape.

I don't seem to be getting through here: I've stated that you cannot say that Contador had better legs than Nibali based on one cherry-picked stage. I can just go cherry-picking another stage that 'proves' otherwise. Fact is that Contador lost 2min30 that he had to make up on a Nibali that, by every quantitative indicator, rode a *very* strong Tour. To be implying that no-one with cycling knowledge thinks that Nibali would have won that Tour is pretty damn arrogant.

Do you also think Contador was in worse (climbing) shape than Boom, since the latter did much better on the cobbles, or is it possible that how well one does on cobbles isn't a very good indication of one's climbing shape?

Good point.
I don't think anyone here is 100% sure Contador would have beaten Nibali. I personally think he would have, because he was in his best ever shape, so I think he would have absolutely crushed everyone uphill. My main point is that you cannot use the cobble stage to prove Nibali was in way better shape, because, like Netserk pointed out, cobbles aren't a good indicator of climbing form.

 

[del1962]

Re: Re:

Riding on cobbles is all about taking risks. When your bike handling skills are good, those risks pose less of a problem, but they are still there. It's absolutely 10000% *** to say he did not have the legs.
He struggled on the wet cobbles, build a bridge and GET OVER IT, it does not take away that he was in absolute monster shape.

I don't seem to be getting through here: I've stated that you cannot say that Contador had better legs than Nibali based on one cherry-picked stage. I can just go cherry-picking another stage that 'proves' otherwise. Fact is that Contador lost 2min30 that he had to make up on a Nibali that, by every quantitative indicator, rode a *very* strong Tour. To be implying that no-one with cycling knowledge thinks that Nibali would have won that Tour is pretty damn arrogant.

Did i ever use one stage only to say Contador was better. Last time for you, if you don't get it now, idk man.

Did nibali ever beat contador in a GT? no he didn't, he always got crushed.

Was contador the best climber in every race he rode that year? Yes he was.

Did Contador look amazing on stage 8? Yes he did.

Based on all these things it's reasononable to assume contador was gonna win the tour. It wasn't going to be easy for sure, i never said that.

Now tell me how that is cherry picking? It seems to me like a very reasonable conclusion.

Contador wasn't the best climber in every race he rode, not until the Dauphenine until Froome crashed

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Contador wasn't the best climber in every race he rode, not until the Dauphenine until Froome crashed

But Froome crashed and was in worse shape later on in the race. So Contador was the best climber in that race

 

[Miburo]

Froome was better in one stage and contador in 2 other stages. No clue how the crash affected froome but contador still was the best climber, whether or not froome wasn't as good doesn't change that.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

You stated he cannot have been in amazing shape because he lost 2.5 minutes on the cobbles. I called you out on your *** but you can't accept it I guess.

Well, he didn't look like he had only been avoiding risks when he crossed the line.
In assessing Contador's strength, if someone uses an uphill sprint as proof, why would that cobble stage mean nothing at all?

Do you also think Contador was in worse (climbing) shape than Boom, since the latter did much better on the cobbles, or is it possible that how well one does on cobbles isn't a very good indication of one's climbing shape?

Not a very good indication, indeed. But can indicate something about strength and stamina if you only compare GC favourites. Riding on cobbles doesn't only relate to bike handling and risk taking.

Did nibali ever beat contador in a GT? no he didn't, he always got crushed.

What years are we talking about? Do you think that's a good comparison with 2014 Nibali (again, look at the numbers)?

 

[bassano]

Re: Re:

Riding on cobbles is all about taking risks. When your bike handling skills are good, those risks pose less of a problem, but they are still there. It's absolutely 10000% *** to say he did not have the legs.
He struggled on the wet cobbles, build a bridge and GET OVER IT, it does not take away that he was in absolute monster shape.

No ***, he do not have legs, like Miburo said in another post it is very different riding on cobbles then in mountain, it takes different type of power, it is like Cancellara is able to destroy everyone in roubaix not because he is better climber but better cobble rider, same is with Nibali and Contador here, in mountains they are moreless on simillar level on power but on cobbles Nibali was much better, nobody is saying this year will be the same, just one stage is statistically not enough to say Nibali will be so superior as last year again but it is a good assumption

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

You stated he cannot have been in amazing shape because he lost 2.5 minutes on the cobbles. I called you out on your *** but you can't accept it I guess.

Well, he didn't look like he had only been avoiding risks when he crossed the line.
In assessing Contador's strength, if someone uses an uphill sprint as proof, why would that cobble stage mean nothing at all?

You can use that cobble stage to assess his strength.
His strength on the cobbles, that is.
It makes way more sense to use an uphill sprint to assess climbing shape than a cobbled stage.
Especially since Contador didn't even really sprint. He just rode Nibali off his wheel.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Riding on cobbles is all about taking risks. When your bike handling skills are good, those risks pose less of a problem, but they are still there. It's absolutely 10000% *** to say he did not have the legs.
He struggled on the wet cobbles, build a bridge and GET OVER IT, it does not take away that he was in absolute monster shape.

No ***, he do not have legs, like Miburo said in another post it is very different riding on cobbles then in mountain, it takes different type of power, it is like Cancellara is able to destroy everyone in roubaix not because he is better climber but better cobble rider, same is with Nibali and Contador here, in mountains they are moreless on simillar level on power but on cobbles Nibali was much better, nobody is saying this year will be the same, just one stage is statistically not enough to say Nibali will be so superior as last year again but it is a good assumption

So basically we agree

 

[harryh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTIOjmfeXu0

 

[bassano]

Re: Re:

So basically we agree

Sort of

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Do you also think Contador was in worse (climbing) shape than Boom, since the latter did much better on the cobbles, or is it possible that how well one does on cobbles isn't a very good indication of one's climbing shape?

Not a very good indication, indeed. But can indicate something about strength and stamina if you only compare GC favourites. Riding on cobbles doesn't only relate to bike handling and risk taking.

In 2010:
Schleck+0'00''
Evans+0'00''
Hesjedal+0'00''
Wiggins+0'53''
JVDB+0'53''
Vino+0'53''
Menchov+0'53''
Contador+1'13''
Kreuziger+1'46''
Samu+2'08''

Do you really think that indicated something about strength and stamina? Or do you think the strength on cobbles of the riders' team mattered more?

 

[Walkman]

Re: Re:

Riding on cobbles is all about taking risks. When your bike handling skills are good, those risks pose less of a problem, but they are still there. It's absolutely 10000% *** to say he did not have the legs.
He struggled on the wet cobbles, build a bridge and GET OVER IT, it does not take away that he was in absolute monster shape.

I don't seem to be getting through here: I've stated that you cannot say that Contador had better legs than Nibali based on one cherry-picked stage. I can just go cherry-picking another stage that 'proves' otherwise. Fact is that Contador lost 2min30 that he had to make up on a Nibali that, by every quantitative indicator, rode a *very* strong Tour. To be implying that no-one with cycling knowledge thinks that Nibali would have won that Tour is pretty damn arrogant.

Did i ever use one stage only to say Contador was better. Last time for you, if you don't get it now, idk man.

Did nibali ever beat contador in a GT? no he didn't, he always got crushed.

Was contador the best climber in every race he rode that year? Yes he was.

Did Contador look amazing on stage 8? Yes he did.

Based on all these things it's reasononable to assume contador was gonna win the tour. It wasn't going to be easy for sure, i never said that.

Now tell me how that is cherry picking? It seems to me like a very reasonable conclusion.

If he was so amazing, how come he couldn't get more than three seconds on Nibali?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Did i ever use one stage only to say Contador was better. Last time for you, if you don't get it now, idk man.

Did nibali ever beat contador in a GT? no he didn't, he always got crushed.

Was contador the best climber in every race he rode that year? Yes he was.

Did Contador look amazing on stage 8? Yes he did.

Based on all these things it's reasononable to assume contador was gonna win the tour. It wasn't going to be easy for sure, i never said that.

Now tell me how that is cherry picking? It seems to me like a very reasonable conclusion.

If he was so amazing, how come he couldn't get more than three seconds on Nibali?

Did you actually watch the stage? He was cruising because he thought he could grab the stage, when he went around the last corner he saw someone had already finished, so he just rode Nibali off his wheel while he was barely breathing

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

Do you also think Contador was in worse (climbing) shape than Boom, since the latter did much better on the cobbles, or is it possible that how well one does on cobbles isn't a very good indication of one's climbing shape?

Not a very good indication, indeed. But can indicate something about strength and stamina if you only compare GC favourites. Riding on cobbles doesn't only relate to bike handling and risk taking.

Do you really think that indicated something about strength and stamina? Or do you think the strength on cobbles of the riders' team mattered more?

The question was not what matters more, the question was whether it indicates anything.

Did you actually watch the stage? He was cruising because he thought he could grab the stage, when he went around the last corner he saw someone had already finished, so he just rode Nibali off his wheel while he was barely breathing

He should have done some more breathing to take more than 3 seconds back then.
Seriously, you're speculating and treating it as a fact. You don't know how either Contador or Nibali felt.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

He should have done some more breathing to take more than 3 seconds back then.
Seriously, you're speculating and treating it as a fact. You don't know how either Contador or Nibali felt.

Yawn... this is getting boring

 

[bassano]

Re: Re:

Did you actually watch the stage? He was cruising because he thought he could grab the stage, when he went around the last corner he saw someone had already finished, so he just rode Nibali off his wheel while he was barely breathing

Yeah, Nibali said after stage to RAI, that he felt OK but he had too hard gear to follow Contador so he let go because there was no point to loosing energy for few seconds, in this explanation contador did not caused him problems at all, he just easily followed his wheel up to end ofc it is same speculation as your feelings because if he had a little problem and he did not want to go red, he will never admit poker face is important part of races and Nibali is good in it, same as Contador e.g. on FInestre this year when as only one followed Landa up to crack
If Contador was so OK as you are saying why he was not able to drop Nibali much earlier then 50m to go to get more seconds? Or wait maybe he could not

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Did you actually watch the stage? He was cruising because he thought he could grab the stage, when he went around the last corner he saw someone had already finished, so he just rode Nibali off his wheel while he was barely breathing

Yeah, Nibali said after stage to RAI, that he felt OK but he had too hard gear to follow Contador so he let go because there was no point to loosing energy for few seconds, in this explanation contador did not caused him problems at all, he just easily followed his wheel up to end ofc it is same speculation as your feelings because if he had a little problem and he did not want to go red, he will never admit poker face is important part of races and Nibali is good in it, same as Contador e.g. on FInestre this year when as only one followed Landa up to crack
If Contador was so OK as you are saying why he was not able to drop Nibali much earlier then 50m to go to get more seconds? Or wait maybe he could not

OK.

Different question for you: did you read my post or Contador's post-stage comments for that matter?

Anyway I will repeat what I posted a few minutes ago:
He thought he was racing for the stage win, so was preparing for a sprint, but then he saw someone had already finished so decided to take a few seconds.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Do you also think Contador was in worse (climbing) shape than Boom, since the latter did much better on the cobbles, or is it possible that how well one does on cobbles isn't a very good indication of one's climbing shape?

Not a very good indication, indeed. But can indicate something about strength and stamina if you only compare GC favourites. Riding on cobbles doesn't only relate to bike handling and risk taking.

Do you really think that indicated something about strength and stamina? Or do you think the strength on cobbles of the riders' team mattered more?

The question was not what matters more, the question was whether it indicates anything.

So what did it indicate about Samu? About Contador? About Hesjedal? About Evans?

 

[Rollthedice]

It's all over, done, finito. I personally don't think that Nibali might have outclimbed Bertie in TdF but I think he would have limited his losses and keep the yellow until Paris. He was very good in the last week, his TT was good while not pushing to the max and taking risks. Those 2:35 minutes he had in front at the point Contador crashed could have been enough.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

So what did it indicate about Samu? About Contador? About Hesjedal? About Evans?

I'd say that Contador was probably not in the best form of his life. He barely made inroads into Schleck in the TT that year, for example. My original argument was that if uphill finishes with 3 seconds gained can tell you something, then you cannot disregard a stage where a race favourite takes 2min30 on another favourite. You make it sound as if cobbles are 100% uncorrelated to anything else. I don't think so.