Rabobus

[Mambo95]

Well it's quite an achievement to have kept the same main sponsor for such a long time - no one else compares to Rabobus on that score.

Lampre (since 1992) have Rabobank (1996) beaten on that score.

Credit also to FdJ and Cofidis (both 1997) and Euskaltel (1998).

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

You could say that about half the WorldTour teams FFS.

Oh and some guy called Menchov didn't do too bad.

indeed.
How many currently running teams have actually won a GT?

+rabo budget = pro team, pc team, offroad.

 

[Mambo95]

How many currently running teams have actually won a GT?

Seven, I think -

Rabobank (Menchov)
Saxo Bank (Sastre, Schleck)
Lampre (Scarponi, Simoni)
Movistar (Valverde, Pereiro, Delgado, Olano, Indurain)
Astana (Contador)
Liquigas (Basso, Nibali, DiLuca)
BMC (Evans)

 

[blaxland]

You could say that about half the WorldTour teams FFS.

Oh and some guy called Menchov didn't do too bad.

True but they still didnt win......................

 

[Havetts]

True but they still didnt win......................

2007 Vuelta, 2009 Giro say hello.

 

[Mambo95]

True but they still didnt win......................

Apart from the three GTs Menchov won....

 

[blaxland]

indeed.
How many currently running teams have actually won a GT?

+rabo budget = pro team, pc team, offroad.

I agree, no doubt that Rabobank have done lots for the sport of cycling world wide,and over a long period of time.But if i where the main sponsor i would want to win a Grand Tour or two by now"and coming second or third doesnt count.

 

[blaxland]

Apart from the three GTs Menchov won....

My bad.....Was meaning the TDF...cause sponsorship wise this is the only race that counts..

 

[Havetts]

I agree, no doubt that Rabobank have done lots for the sport of cycling world wide,and over a long period of time.But if i where the main sponsor i would want to win a Grand Tour or two by now"and coming second or third doesnt count.

The thing is.. Only with one rider, Alberto Contador, you'd have the guarantee of winning atleast 1 GT per year. Ofcourse you'd want it to happen, but is it realistic to demand it?

 

[wirral]

Because they consistently start their sprint lead out somewhere between 4 to 10 km out and then are burnt out by the 2 km marker leaving their named sprinter to fend for himself. This behaviour could be engrained into them by the conditions in Holland, in particular the open flat landscape with cross winds. They need to be "deprogrammed" and reset up with 2 modes, "cross wind mode" and "bunch finish mode". Then they would get less stick on here.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

I agree, no doubt that Rabobank have done lots for the sport of cycling world wide,and over a long period of time.But if i where the main sponsor i would want to win a Grand Tour or two by now"and coming second or third doesnt count.

does the same apply to cofidos, euskatel, fdj, lampre, quickstep?

Seems like rabo because they have been more prominent in the peloton, cop more slack for failures, when in fact they have done a pretty good job a la DT's thread.

 

[hrotha]

Lampre (since 1992) have Rabobank (1996) beaten on that score.

Lampre didn't have a team in 1996-1998.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

The thing is.. Only with one rider, Alberto Contador, you'd have the guarantee of winning atleast 1 GT per year. Ofcourse you'd want it to happen, but is it realistic to demand it?

what people also forget that is rabobank are very much concerned with getting dutch winners in the system, not just buying the best GC guy. No doubt they like getting good internationals also, but it's clear thier main priority is getting those dutch guys to contend for the big races.

In this perspective I think they are doing a great job. Some serious talent amongst it now. 10 years ago had someone said rabo would have 3 different dutch guys who have top 10 in GTs (within 18 months) I wouldn't have believe it.

--

btw i agree thatthier tactics and management has been flawed over the years.

 

[Mambo95]

Lampre didn't have a team in 1996-1998.

That's a fair point. I hadn't noted that.

 

[The Hitch]

huh? Gesink is 25 lol and you act like his career is over, get a grip.
He has had a prety good career thus far, last year was affected greatly with injuries and personal issues, so I fail to see how gesink is considred a lost case.

Funny how people don't mind hyping guys like Froome and rolland, despite doing very little in their career. But when a guy like Gesink, who has heaps of results and is younger (same age as rolland) has an unlucky season it would appear rabo fail at devolping riders. Ignorance.

Please get some perspective
e.

froome has podiumed a gt and won a stage though i agree the condor is better than rolland

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

froome has podiumed a gt and won a stage though i agree the condor is better than rolland

point is, these guys did little in thier career in the last few years while gesink has been fairly consistant with good results: And while froome has a better result under his belt, no way has he been a better rider.

Stage wins in many races, Podiums in WT stage races, good results in one day racing + podiums, winner of a WT one day race (strong field undeniable) 3 top 10s at GT etc etc. This amongst heaps of crashes.

And yet this 25 year old, coming of a very unlucky season is being labbeled as a failure of the rabo devolepment team?

Just lacks perspective imo. Lots of 25 year olds would kill for Gesink's success. He just needs to stay on his bike, think we can all agree he would have a much better palmeres at this point had he done so.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Plus even in a 'failure' year like last year Gesink managed to rack up 800+ cq points...

Erm, how much did Rolland and Froome do?

 

[The Hitch]

point is, these guys did little in thier career in the last few years while gesink has been fairly consistant with good results: And while froome has a better result under his belt, no way has he been a better rider.

Stage wins in many races, Podiums in WT stage races, good results in one day racing + podiums, winner of a WT one day race (strong field undeniable) 3 top 10s at GT etc etc. This amongst heaps of crashes.

And yet this 25 year old, coming of a very unlucky season is being labbeled as a failure of the rabo devolepment team?

Just lacks perspective imo. Lots of 25 year olds would kill for Gesink's success. He just needs to stay on his bike, think we can all agree he would have a much better palmeres at this point had he done so.

Im not dumping on jesink, i think he's a top talent who will win a gt or 2, important just explaining why many see froome as better.

I mean gesink u 24 showed way more than a contador u24 but once contador got going with his breakout performance there was no stopping. similarly froome pre 2011 may be crap but the top level he has shown is imo higher than gesink so it wouldnt be surprising to see him too continue to outperform the condor.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Im not dumping on jesink, i think he's a top talent who will win a gt or 2, important just explaining why many see froome as better.

I mean gesink u 24 showed way more than a contador u24 but once contador got going with his breakout performance there was no stopping. similarly froome pre 2011 may be crap but the top level he has shown is imo higher than gesink so it wouldnt be surprising to see him too continue to outperform the condor.

I know you're not, was more generallizing.

I think it depends, one race isn't enough for me.
A lot of it is speculation, that was not a strong field at the vuelta, no way.

Gesink was unlucky not to have a Vuelta podium himself, but we've all been down this route enough.
I don't believe Froome has shown a higher level, certainly in TTing, but that's it imo. Time will tell tho.
And of course you could be right, Froome might become something special, but remember ac had reasons to later a showing.

PS: I can understand why some might think froome is a better prospect, but I simply don't agree. But I cann see the reasoning none the less.

 

[The Hitch]

Plus even in a 'failure' year like last year Gesink managed to rack up 800+ cq points...

Erm, how much did Rolland and Froome do?

1,386

10 char

 

[Havetts]

779 for Froome
541 for Rolland

---
1320 for em together..

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

@hitch, don't count em together. I mean as individuals duh..

So even in a fail year Gesink is more consisent than those two. Plus in top form I'm convinced Gesink is better than Froome. He would have had a Vuelta podium finish himself in a much stronger field as well if he wasn't so unlucky. He was 30 seconds from Valverde in a field which contained Evans, Basso, Sammy Sanchez, Mosquera, Danielson and even Cobo (and cobo wasnt even that bad that year).

Refuse to believe that's 'lesser' than what Froome did in the vuelta

 

[Parrulo]

@hitch, don't count em together. I mean as individuals duh..

So even in a fail year Gesink is more consisent than those two. Plus in top form I'm convinced Gesink is better than Froome. He would have had a Vuelta podium finish himself in a much stronger field as well if he wasn't so unlucky. He was 30 seconds from Valverde in a field which contained Evans, Basso, Sammy Sanchez, Mosquera, Danielson and even Cobo (and cobo wasnt even that bad that year).

Refuse to believe that's 'lesser' than what Froome did in the vuelta

ya i also think gesink is better then froome.

and rabo doesn't fail, yes some of their tactics aren't the best and they are too focused on the tour when they could be getting great results at the giro and vuelta as well, but their talent is just coming through. for example last year boom was finally able to deal with the distance on the classics with some improvement he can be fighting for roubaix this year(specially if it's muddy). gesink, kruijwik and mollema are still young and have proven themselves already in GT's and 1 week races and that's only with dutch guys. imo they are doing a fantastic job developing talent.

 

[The Hitch]

@hitch, don't count em together. I mean as individuals duh..

So even in a fail year Gesink is more consisent than those two. Plus in top form I'm convinced Gesink is better than Froome. He would have had a Vuelta podium finish himself in a much stronger field as well if he wasn't so unlucky. He was 30 seconds from Valverde in a field which contained Evans, Basso, Sammy Sanchez, Mosquera, Danielson and even Cobo (and cobo wasnt even that bad that year).

Refuse to believe that's 'lesser' than what Froome did in the vuelta

I was joking duh .

Though its unfair to just say - gesink was injured.

Rolland rides for a conti team and more importantly froome was very sick much of the year. So its not as weak gesink vs strong froome would as you make it out to be.

As far as your " well gesink would have podiumed " argument goes. ok then.froome would have WON if he wasn't doming for wiggins. either take the podium + stage win vs 5th or the win + stage win vs podium. up to you but you can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

It's not unfair to say Gesink was injured (in the vuelta case)

it's unfair to say 'he was only 6th and clearly came up short' like some people do. That Vuelta had 1 easy mountain stage left, where all the favorites finished together in a group of what, 15 men? An uninjured Gesink would have finished in that group 99/100 times and finished 2nd or 3rd in the GC. In a field much much much stronger than Vuelta 2012.

Also, Gesink fought for the GC the same way Froome did imho. Gesink was the most aggresive against Valverde on the early mountain stages and the only one to put serious pressure against him. Only late in the Vuelta S.Sanchez recovered a lot of time, but he lost too much in the earlier stages.