Rank the last ten editions of the Tour de France

[Teddy Boom]

Re:

I loved 2009. I know most don't. I'm a huge Cav fan, I loved seeing AC dominate of course, I liked watching LA lose.

2009 was the year of Thor's brilliant mountain breakaway to secure Green too. 2009-2011 were head and shoulders above what we see now. At least in my opinion, there were many more classy rolleurs animating the in between stages, as well as good GC battles.

What's so great about 2015?

 

[dastott]

Must say I enjoyed 2013 for the variety of the parcours (TTs and climbs) and some outstanding individual performances. The courses of 2015 and 2017 made it hard to enjoy them as much, despite the closer results. None come anywhere near to 1989, and likely never will. In the modern era, 2007 was interesting.

 

[perico]

Re: Re:

2016. Cavendishs 4 wins in a very sprinter unfriendly route was by far the most exciting and best performance of the last 11 tours.

The GC was very weak between 2006 and 2012 with such a week field it is hard to take those tours seriously. There is not a GC contender during those tours that could reasonably contend for a poduim against todays GC field while now it is just the opposite with 20 or so riders that could have easily poduimed in any of those weak rider tours if not won outright. You had riders like Voeckler, Sastre, Perrerrio, Contador, Evans who have never ever before or since contended at the Tour winning or coming clise because of the depleted field. Fine riders in their own right but never tour contenders.

I don't buy this weak GT field stuff honestly. What you're saying basically is Lance and Ullrich would have smoked any of these guys? I don't believe it would have been that simple even. AC Tour 09 or Giro 11 would have been hard for them to handle. Other than those two, I don't see how the winners or contenders (Sastre, Rasmussen, Schleck, Evans, etc.) were weaker than other competition around in the early 00's like Basso, Beloki, Mayo, Vino.


Also, how you can vote 2016 is beyond me. I fell asleep damn near every day watching that.

Chomsky always plays the weak field to put down Contador's wins.

 

[dacooley]

astonishingly poor tour mountain stages wise. there were many other lame editions like 2012, 2014, 2015, 08, 09 but this one will probably remembered like the most uneventhful in terms of mountain showdowns. taking aru stage win and froome's bonk on peyragudes, we'll have all other stages ended in a draw. time trials and even flats were more decisive this time, which is not a good thing.

 

[zlev11]

2011
2010
2008
2014
2015
2017
2013
2009
2012
2016

2011 and 2010 were the best, also the first two Tour's I watched live (i've gone back and watched the 12-hour DVD's of 2008 and 2009). I doubt i would have become a big cycling fan that watches every single race throughout the year if 2012 or 2016 were the first Tour I watched, those were super lame. 2009 is bad but at least Contador vs. Lance was exciting. I liked this year more than 2013 because at least Froome lost the jersey for a couple stages, but Ventoux 2013 was still better than anything during this TDF. 2014 is high up simply because the first week was incredible.

 

[chiocciolis_calves]

The 2010 Tour is consistently overrated. Schleck was so terribly boring. Just because a race was close does not make it exciting.

 

[lenric]

Really liked 2010's one, but gotta rate 2011's higher.
Yeah, sure, 2010 had Alberto and Andy at their best fighting for the first place, the chain-gate drama and all that, but 2011 was the excitement of seeing if one of the best GC riders ever would achieve the double, his long-range attack, along with Andy Schleck, to distance an underdog... which had promised for years to win a GT, but ultimately failed. That last chance, win it or lose it, it was good to see. And then the 18th and 19th stages were awesome.

Then we had Sky and every Tour ever since has been shitty.

 

[Chomsky]

Re: Re:

2016. Cavendishs 4 wins in a very sprinter unfriendly route was by far the most exciting and best performance of the last 11 tours.

The GC was very weak between 2006 and 2012 with such a week field it is hard to take those tours seriously. There is not a GC contender during those tours that could reasonably contend for a poduim against todays GC field while now it is just the opposite with 20 or so riders that could have easily poduimed in any of those weak rider tours if not won outright. You had riders like Voeckler, Sastre, Perrerrio, Contador, Evans who have never ever before or since contended at the Tour winning or coming clise because of the depleted field. Fine riders in their own right but never tour contenders.

I don't buy this weak GT field stuff honestly. What you're saying basically is Lance and Ullrich would have smoked any of these guys? I don't believe it would have been that simple even. AC Tour 09 or Giro 11 would have been hard for them to handle. Other than those two, I don't see how the winners or contenders (Sastre, Rasmussen, Schleck, Evans, etc.) were weaker than other competition around in the early 00's like Basso, Beloki, Mayo, Vino.


Also, how you can vote 2016 is beyond me. I fell asleep damn near every day watching that.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming the field was exceptionally weak between 2006 and 2012. You had riders who had never contended at the Tour before or after winning or contending.

2006 Perrirro
2007 Rasmussen, Levi and Contador
2008 Sastre his best TDF was with. In his waning years he suddenly comes 5th to Rasmussen in 2007.
2009 Lance at 38 not having ridden in 4 years comes in third in a support role.

2009 Contador he has never contended since. The closest he has been to yellow at the Tour since 2009 was 6 minutes 27 seconds. His tour this year was,arguably his best Tour ever. Coming in just inside 10 minutes to yellow a slightly better than 2015.
He has done well in ITTs but has always lost time in the mountains the last 8 years occassionaly being able to stay with the top 10 on a climb. His best finish on a tour mountain stage the last 8 years when not in a break was 6th in 2013. This year he got an 8th and 10th.

While it's generally wise never to believe anything Contador said with his long history of problems with veracity. But this time he might actually might be telling the truth when he said he was in the best form of his life at this year's Tour. Certainly his ITT indicates he is in great form and his climbing is no worse than average and maybe a bit better than what we have seen from him the last 8 years at the tour.

2009 and 2010 2 Schleck Never been contenders outside this weak era.

2011 and 2012 Evans and Wiggins Again good riders but not TDF contenders.

Looking at the riders that contended during the era after the Puerto cleansing it us pretty overwhelming that it was an extremely weak era. The tour should consider stripping the titles from that entire era as beating no one is not winning.

 

[jsem94]

So a rider has to be able to sustain a GT career at the top level for longer than 7 years to be a "contender"? Wow. I guess 7(9) GTs also doesn't matter because he didn't win it against "solid" competition. Then Froome's GTs shouldn't count either because he is winning against low quality riders as riders who only contested GTs in the weak era must be weak and Froome's biggest rivals emerged in that era. Also, it's not like he's won all bouts against them. Contador beat him in the 2014 Vuelta, Nairo slightly edged him in last years Vuelta

Also, Evans was in pink in 2002 and everyone knew he had the material to win GTs, he just needed to be more ruthless. When he started being more aggressive and initiative he started actually winning races.

Also, isn't this era equally weak? JC Peraud, Bardet and Pinot grabbing podiums at the Tour. The only "quallity" rider is Froome then I guess, who only manages to beat Uran by a minute over 21 stages and actually lost time to him in the mountains. Wow, what an era we live in.


Actually, scratch all of that. I should know better than to be trolled hard.

 

[Jagartrott]

I voted 2014 because the rainy cobbles stage was so awesome.
I didn't see 2011 because I was abroad without internet, and from 2010 I mostly remember ridiculous sur-place riding between Schleck and Contador.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Re:

Are Chomsky and Taxus the same person?

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

Are Chomsky and Taxus the same person?

Nah, he loves Lance and thinks that Cavendish is the best rider in GT's. He is a classic delusional american cycling fan. I think he is still mad how Contador embarrassed Lance like no one else.

 

[Chomsky]

Re: Re:

Are Chomsky and Taxus the same person?

Nah, he loves Lance and thinks that Cavendish is the best rider in GT's. He is a classic delusional american cycling fan. I think he is still mad how Contador embarrassed Lance like no one else.

I do like Cavendish but I cannot say the same for Lance or Contador.

Both Lance and Contador are products of Bruyneel. They both have major character flaws. They both appear to be horrible human beings. The only thing positive I can say about Lance compared to Contador is I would find him more trustworthy, honest than Contador and a bit more honorable.

But neither are people I would put at the top of my list to support. But, Cavendish yes. Please put me on the Cavendish fan club. A rider who always do more with less. Who wins by skill not because of raw power. A guy who was washed up before he even raced. He was told repeatedly he did not have the power numbers to be a sprinter. But he has persevered. He is a guy I can root for. He might be a little outspoken like Lance but I do not see the malicious intent behind his words.

 

[hrotha]

Cav isn't exactly nice and hey, HTC/T-Mobile.

 

[Netserk]

I think the bottom four editions are 2009, 2012, 2016 & 2017, but I'm not sure about the order. I guess '17 is the least bad one of them.

Edit: and please, ignore Chomsky and don't derail the thread. It's not like he can be reasoned with.

 

[perico]

Re: Re:

Are Chomsky and Taxus the same person?

Nah, he loves Lance and thinks that Cavendish is the best rider in GT's. He is a classic delusional american cycling fan. I think he is still mad how Contador embarrassed Lance like no one else.

I do like Cavendish but I cannot say the same for Lance or Contador.

Both Lance and Contador are products of Bruyneel. They both have major character flaws. They both appear to be horrible human beings. The only thing positive I can say about Lance compared to Contador is I would find him more trustworthy, honest than Contador and a bit more honorable.

Maybe this should be moved, but outside of clinic issues, the guy who tried to ruin the LeMonds financially, tarnished and attacked the integrity of ex-teammates and their spouses, threatened the Leipheimers, etc..., is more honerable and trustworthy than a guy who has done nothing to court controversy (outside of clinic speculation) except attack Schleck when the race was already on when he slipped a chain.

And of course Schleck didn't compete outside of that era. Dude broke his hip before the 2012 TDFand developed a degenerative bone disease that forced early retirement, while his brother was never going to win the TDF. He was a good climber like many who at some point finished 3rd. Interesting you failed to mention Menchov, Basso, Valverde, and others who competed in the same era during their prime. Nor do you mention Nibali, who was top 10 in those Tours.

 

[DFA123]

Was 2010 the last time there were four proper mountain stages in the Pyrenees? It seems to just be two there these days, which is probably why the racing has been so poor in recent years. The density of climbs there just offers so many more good posibilities than the Alps, both for attacking racing and using several consecutive stages to destroy the legs.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

Was 2010 the last time there were four proper mountain stages in the Pyrenees? It seems to just be two there these days, which is probably why the racing has been so poor in recent years. The density of climbs there just offers so many more good posibilities than the Alps, both for attacking racing and using several consecutive stages to destroy the legs.

There were 3 stages in 2011, 3 in 2012, 2 in 2013, 3 in 2014, 3 in 2015, 3 in 2016 (you could theoretically argue that the stage Matthews won also was a stage in the Pyrenees since it started with the port d'envalira) and 2 in 2017. Ironically I think 3 of the 4 best Pyrenees stages in that time period were in the years with only 2 Pyrenees stages.

 

[mariposa]

I have watched all the Tours on the list.
I voted for 2008 mainly because I watched a lot of the race live and really wanted Sastre to win. I also enjoyed 2009 particularly as Contador won and Armstrong didn't. I followed the last week live that year.
I have to confess that I have enjoyed the racing less in recent years and I have only been to watch live on a couple of occasions when it has come close enough for me to travel there and back in a day. I think the Sky dominance has made things a bit too predictable for me. I prefer to go to watch La Vuelta because the racing has in my opinion been more exciting and watching live is much more chilled out and enjoyable.

 

[burning]

Acceptable/fine tier:

2010
2011

In 2010, we had a very good cobblestone stage, Madeleine stage was pretty good, Vino was awesome in Mende and the next stage, and we at least saw action in 2/3 of the 4 Pyrenees stages. (The official world trackstand championship was pretty hilarious, but I can understand if someone says there was no action that day)
2011, horrible 2 weeks, great last 5 stages before Paris.

At least something interesting happened in a couple stages tier (I count full *** performances interesting):
2013
2008
2015
2014

2013: 3 full *** performances, very good crosswind stage and the stage where Sky blow up was pretty interesting for a while.
I don't know why people like 2008 so much, the only good GC action happened in Alpe in mountains and while Saunier/Ricco were entertaining, they were never relevant to the GC, so I don't see the difference between Ricco winning stages or Voeckler storming everyone in 2012. However, the race was better than most editions, which says a lot.
2015: 1 full *** performance, very good crosswind stage, and Quintana at least tried something to win the Tour, even though it was very very late.
2014: Great 1st week, nothing else relevant happened after Contador crashed out.

Please kill me tier:
2012
2009
2017
2016

2012: Well, people tried to do something in 3 mountain stages, but it did not work at all. Also, bonus points for Froome being hilarious on Toussuire and Peyragudes.
2009: 2 full *** performances, and an entertaining stage where Johan was losing his sh*t, but that's all.
2017: The 100km stage was good, but none of the 4 riders were ever relevant anyway. Also, there was a moderately good crosswind stage.
2016: 0 full *** performance, a moderately good crosswind stage, and the most exciting part of the Tour was Froome running, that package deserves the last spot.

This was pretty depressing to be honest, and trend is definitely getting worse.

 

[Escarabajo]

To this date the only stages I go back to watch again from previous Tours are from 2011 last week, 2013 and 2015. The last 2 because of Quintana. But the 2011 last week was too good for me. Before that it was Joux Plane 2006. Before that it was 2003.

I guess those are the ones I consider worthy of watching again. Easy rating for me.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Was 2010 the last time there were four proper mountain stages in the Pyrenees? It seems to just be two there these days, which is probably why the racing has been so poor in recent years. The density of climbs there just offers so many more good posibilities than the Alps, both for attacking racing and using several consecutive stages to destroy the legs.

There were 3 stages in 2011, 3 in 2012, 2 in 2013, 3 in 2014, 3 in 2015, 3 in 2016 (you could theoretically argue that the stage Matthews won also was a stage in the Pyrenees since it started with the port d'envalira) and 2 in 2017. Ironically I think 3 of the 4 best Pyrenees stages in that time period were in the years with only 2 Pyrenees stages.

So they should definitely go back to four. Tourmalet followed immediately by Luz Ardiden is a nice combo that hasn't been used for too long. And a Pierre St Martin - Port Larrau - Ahuski combination would also be great. There is definitely a need for several consecutive mountain stages, where the climbs come one after another without the rubbish long descents and valleys. The Pyrenees is the only place that can provide that.

Long days in the Alps are too controllable these days... A tough climb; then 25km through a valley where the train regroups and everyone rests, then another shallow climb where drafting plays a massive part.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Re:

Was 2010 the last time there were four proper mountain stages in the Pyrenees? It seems to just be two there these days, which is probably why the racing has been so poor in recent years. The density of climbs there just offers so many more good posibilities than the Alps, both for attacking racing and using several consecutive stages to destroy the legs.

There were 3 stages in 2011, 3 in 2012, 2 in 2013, 3 in 2014, 3 in 2015, 3 in 2016 (you could theoretically argue that the stage Matthews won also was a stage in the Pyrenees since it started with the port d'envalira) and 2 in 2017. Ironically I think 3 of the 4 best Pyrenees stages in that time period were in the years with only 2 Pyrenees stages.

So they should definitely go back to four. Tourmalet followed immediately by Luz Ardiden is a nice combo that hasn't been used for too long. And a Pierre St Martin - Port Larrau - Ahuski combination would also be great. There is definitely a need for several consecutive mountain stages, where the climbs come one after another without the rubbish long descents and valleys. The Pyrenees is the only place that can provide that.

Long days in the Alps are too controllable these days... A tough climb; then 25km through a valley where the train regroups and everyone rests, then another shallow climb where drafting plays a massive part.

Tbf you can't generally say that there are always valleys between climbs in the alps. That was a flaw of the route but nothing that can't be avoided.

 

[Netserk]

Such valley; very train; much boring

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Was 2010 the last time there were four proper mountain stages in the Pyrenees? It seems to just be two there these days, which is probably why the racing has been so poor in recent years. The density of climbs there just offers so many more good posibilities than the Alps, both for attacking racing and using several consecutive stages to destroy the legs.

There were 3 stages in 2011, 3 in 2012, 2 in 2013, 3 in 2014, 3 in 2015, 3 in 2016 (you could theoretically argue that the stage Matthews won also was a stage in the Pyrenees since it started with the port d'envalira) and 2 in 2017. Ironically I think 3 of the 4 best Pyrenees stages in that time period were in the years with only 2 Pyrenees stages.

So they should definitely go back to four. Tourmalet followed immediately by Luz Ardiden is a nice combo that hasn't been used for too long. And a Pierre St Martin - Port Larrau - Ahuski combination would also be great. There is definitely a need for several consecutive mountain stages, where the climbs come one after another without the rubbish long descents and valleys. The Pyrenees is the only place that can provide that.

Long days in the Alps are too controllable these days... A tough climb; then 25km through a valley where the train regroups and everyone rests, then another shallow climb where drafting plays a massive part.

Tbf you can't generally say that there are always valleys between climbs in the alps. That was a flaw of the route but nothing that can't be avoided.

Sure, it can be avoided. But it's difficult to avoid it on consecutive days, and it's even more difficult to avoid it if you want to use the marquee climbs there like Galibier and Alpe d'Huez.

Pyrenees is just better terrain for bike racing.