Rate the 2019 Tour de France

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Rank the Tour

  • 10

    Votes: 3 2.3%
  • 9

    Votes: 14 10.9%
  • 8

    Votes: 45 35.2%
  • 7

    Votes: 29 22.7%
  • 6

    Votes: 18 14.1%
  • 5

    Votes: 8 6.3%
  • 4

    Votes: 5 3.9%
  • 3

    Votes: 3 2.3%
  • 2

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • 1

    Votes: 2 1.6%

  • Total voters
    128
  • Poll closed .
One of the most boring tours I’ve watched in a long time. This tour will be remembered why a close GC does not mean excitement. I have never been so bored watching a mountain stage than this year’s tour. The entire top 6 were lumbering bores.
 
The shortened last two mountain stages really spoiled a great Tour for me, I believe the result would have looked quite different if the weather didn't interfere, and the probability that Bernal wouldn't have won it isn't all that small. There is nobody to blame for that though.
 
Re:

geisterhome said:
The shortened last two mountain stages really spoiled a great Tour for me, I believe the result would have looked quite different if the weather didn't interfere, and the probability that Bernal wouldn't have won it isn't all that small. There is nobody to blame for that though.
Mother nature!

I'll give the Tour a 6 or a 7. Strictly on racing, its probably a 5, but it deserved way better and while its frustrating with all those what-ifs, its something that you speak and think about in the aftermath, its not easy to forget.
 
Re:

WildspokeJoe said:
6/10

The fact that the two key mountain stages were cancelled and shortened makes giving this tour a high rating impossible. Alaphilippe was exceptional but no one else showed any panache.
Pinot, Yates and Ewanhad great tours I thought. De gendt also showed courage. Nibali gutted out a stage win when he was not in good shape.
 
At least Brailsford decided to employ less alien strategy (perhaps dictated by new antidoping measures), yet, from the perception point of view the only uncertainity was actually related to what happened to their No.2 and No.3 Tour guys BEFORE the race. Imagine both Egan and G. having no issues and showing stellar form pre-race... the same situation (Alaf leading and multiple contenders with couple of seconds between them ) would look very differently - not like an open battle for yellow but rather calculated INEOS tactical play to save energy for the last crucial days, and kill Alaf and everyone in one blow. Which is what they had in mind and what they managed to execute (although healthy Tibopino could pose problems... imagine they cancel it on Iseran after he attacked and had some 20-30 sec). Overall, there were other nice stages, breakaways, Alaf factor, sprints not dominated by one guy, the only hard to understand issue is why this bunch of morons is not challenging Sagan's jersey (these Matthewses of this world... although I understand they have only a small chance, but hey... going into breaks may even bring a stage win). Not bad at all, overall I'd say definitely well above 7, but it cannot reach 8 with the two crucial final mountain stages crippled.
 
Re: Re:

Bolder said:
WildspokeJoe said:
6/10

The fact that the two key mountain stages were cancelled and shortened makes giving this tour a high rating impossible. Alaphilippe was exceptional but no one else showed any panache.
Pinot, Yates and Ewanhad great tours I thought. De gendt also showed courage. Nibali gutted out a stage win when he was not in good shape.
They all rode well but none of them had a signature moment. Perhaps if the stage had not been canceled and Yates won a third stage. Pinot is still not a contender for the top step.Nibali's ride was gutsy but if Movistar actually rode like a team he wouldn't have stayed away. You're right that Ewan had an excellent tour debut and I should have included him with Alaphilippe.
 
I haven't seen the final 2 stages in the Alps but from what I've heard they were highly anticlimactic (though I could have figured that out myself because of the cancellations). I'm gonna go with a 5,5 or 6.

Possibly it would have been lower if I had seen those 2 Alps stages but because I haven't, I'll probably remember more of the good things that happened: the stage De Gendt won, echelons in Albi, Alaphilippe's amazing rides throughout the Tour, the ITT,...
 
6

Very good first two weeks, and it could have been an 8 (or even 9) until Pinot was injured and the two last mountain stages were shortened. The last weekend was an enormous anti-climax.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Here are my Tours since 2010:

2010
2013
2015
2019
2011
2018
2014
2012
2016
2017

Needs to be said that 2019 definitely had the potential to top that list if a) Pinot not DNF'ed, and more crucially, b) had these 2 last stages ridden the way they were supposed to. So in the end, at least for me, at pretty meh Tour.
For me it's
2011
2010
2015
2013
2019
2018
2014
2017
2012
2016
I think you underrate 2011 a bit. I know the first first two weeks were a bit meh but the last week was just so much better than anything we got in all those other tours that it more than makes up.
2015 is a bit underrated I think as it's basically 2013 but with a battle for the win (albeit not a great one). I originally also put 2019 over 2013 but I just think 2013 had way more stages with actually good racing and although it was dominated by froome at least froome wasn't dominant in every single gc relevant stage.
And then of course we have the trinity of sh*tiness of 2012, 2016 and 2017. Really none of those races deserve not to be the worst of the decade
 
Yeah, I probably am. 2011 should be a bit higher, but I didnt get to watch so much of the race either. I just remember the the awful Pyrenees and thought it didnt deserve a higher placement.

And now that I think about it, 2016 was definitely worse than 2017. Thats the two most boring GTs I have seen and thats quite a feat having watched the Tour and the Giro in 2012.
 
I think 2014 is quite underrated. It had an excellent first week thanks to the epic cobbles stage and the MTFs had decent action too, with a few of them being ridden hard from the bottom of the final climb.

On the other hand I think 2018 was an awful race and worse than 2017, with only the stage to Laruns saving it from being equal with 2016.

My list would be this:
2011
2010
2014
2013
2019
2015
2017
2018
2012
2016
 
Re:

WildspokeJoe said:
6/10

The fact that the two key mountain stages were cancelled and shortened makes giving this tour a high rating impossible. Alaphilippe was exceptional but no one else showed any panache.
Bernal attacked from 42 km out. If that's not panache I don't know what is. The fact the stage was cut short is irrelevant to the actual move.
 
Re: Re:

jflemaire said:
WildspokeJoe said:
6/10

The fact that the two key mountain stages were cancelled and shortened makes giving this tour a high rating impossible. Alaphilippe was exceptional but no one else showed any panache.
Bernal attacked from 42 km out. If that's not panache I don't know what is. The fact the stage was cut short is irrelevant to the actual move.
Unless he was a foil for Thomas. And that we'll never know!
 
Re: Re:

Carols said:
jflemaire said:
WildspokeJoe said:
6/10

The fact that the two key mountain stages were cancelled and shortened makes giving this tour a high rating impossible. Alaphilippe was exceptional but no one else showed any panache.
Bernal attacked from 42 km out. If that's not panache I don't know what is. The fact the stage was cut short is irrelevant to the actual move.
Unless he was a foil for Thomas. And that we'll never know!
Remember Thomas tried to go first, but was followed by Kruijswijk. Bernal then countered. But you are right, we’ll sadly never if he’d have held on. Being the strongest rider in the final week, and having Yates with him makes me think he’d have stood a great chance.
 
Re: Re:

Pricey_sky said:
Carols said:
jflemaire said:
WildspokeJoe said:
6/10

The fact that the two key mountain stages were cancelled and shortened makes giving this tour a high rating impossible. Alaphilippe was exceptional but no one else showed any panache.
Bernal attacked from 42 km out. If that's not panache I don't know what is. The fact the stage was cut short is irrelevant to the actual move.
Unless he was a foil for Thomas. And that we'll never know!
Remember Thomas tried to go first, but was followed by Kruijswijk. Bernal then countered. But you are right, we’ll sadly never if he’d have held on. Being the strongest rider in the final week, and having Yates with him makes me think he’d have stood a great chance.
Yes the tdf had a disappointing ending. If the last 2 mountain stages were raced as they should have been: Bernal might have held on in stage 19, but he would have had to go very deep. Then he might have blown up on stage 20 (he's only 22 after all).
I like Bernal and it's good for cycling that he won. It's just that he'll be remembered for a few years as the winner of the shortened tdf.
 
Re: Re:

jflemaire said:
WildspokeJoe said:
6/10

The fact that the two key mountain stages were cancelled and shortened makes giving this tour a high rating impossible. Alaphilippe was exceptional but no one else showed any panache.
Bernal attacked from 42 km out. If that's not panache I don't know what is. The fact the stage was cut short is irrelevant to the actual move.
I think panache also has a lot to do with how risky a move is. If bernal does that in a team where he is the clear Leader he should get a lot of respect but in reality the risk ineos took was very calculated and they basically already had a 1-2 in the gc when bernal attacked
 
Re: Re:

jflemaire said:
WildspokeJoe said:
6/10

The fact that the two key mountain stages were cancelled and shortened makes giving this tour a high rating impossible. Alaphilippe was exceptional but no one else showed any panache.
Bernal attacked from 42 km out. If that's not panache I don't know what is. The fact the stage was cut short is irrelevant to the actual move.
The fact the stage was cut short doesn't really allow us to evaluate the move.
Looking at the course he attacked toward the summit of the penultimate climb. From 89km to 119km it was down hill. I have said in earlier posts that Bernal was a deserving winner. He was just lacking flair. I'll give you three Tour moments that I thought had real Panache.

The first is Chris Froome downhill attack on stage 8 in 2016 tour. Even though he won the stage by only a few seconds he put stamp on the race with the audacious downhill attack. The second is Lance Armstrong on alpe d'huez in 2001. Telekom did everything to make the race as hard as possible. But when the time was right Armstrong attacked from the front and won the day. The third example is Bernad Hinault on stage 13 in the 86 Tour. He took 5 minutes from LeMond on the previous stage but instead of sitting back and following wheels he attacked. It ultimately failed but it was a bold move. LeMond won the Tour but Hinault made the race.
 

nevele neves

BANNED
Jun 3, 2019
315
83
880
Re: Re:

WildspokeJoe said:
jflemaire said:
WildspokeJoe said:
6/10

The fact that the two key mountain stages were cancelled and shortened makes giving this tour a high rating impossible. Alaphilippe was exceptional but no one else showed any panache.
Bernal attacked from 42 km out. If that's not panache I don't know what is. The fact the stage was cut short is irrelevant to the actual move.
The fact the stage was cut short doesn't really allow us to evaluate the move.
Looking at the course he attacked toward the summit of the penultimate climb. From 89km to 119km it was down hill. I have said in earlier posts that Bernal was a deserving winner. He was just lacking flair. I'll give you three Tour moments that I thought had real Panache.

The first is Chris Froome downhill attack on stage 8 in 2016 tour. Even though he won the stage by only a few seconds he put stamp on the race with the audacious downhill attack. The second is Lance Armstrong on alpe d'huez in 2001. Telekom did everything to make the race as hard as possible. But when the time was right Armstrong attacked from the front and won the day. The third example is Bernad Hinault on stage 13 in the 86 Tour. He took 5 minutes from LeMond on the previous stage but instead of sitting back and following wheels he attacked. It ultimately failed but it was a bold move. LeMond won the Tour but Hinault made the race.
Hinault made that race interesting. LeMond the previous year vs Hinault might have been better action, if only we could have found out.
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
jflemaire said:
WildspokeJoe said:
6/10

The fact that the two key mountain stages were cancelled and shortened makes giving this tour a high rating impossible. Alaphilippe was exceptional but no one else showed any panache.
Bernal attacked from 42 km out. If that's not panache I don't know what is. The fact the stage was cut short is irrelevant to the actual move.
I think panache also has a lot to do with how risky a move is. If bernal does that in a team where he is the clear Leader he should get a lot of respect but in reality the risk ineos took was very calculated and they basically already had a 1-2 in the gc when bernal attacked
Yes and no. There was still Thomas as the fall-back option but no guarantee based on the Pyrenees that he could follow all the way to the finish, or counter any attacks if Bernal got reeled in on the final climb. The safe move, and Sky’s usual method in previous seasons, would be to have one of Bernal or Thomas ride on the front and set up a final attack by the one leader.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY