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 Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
vladimir said:Could have been a nine if the two last stages in the Alps were raced as scheduled, and if Pinot didn't get injured. Now I have to settle for seven.
Mother nature!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.
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.
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.
For me it'sValv.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.
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.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.
jflemaire said: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.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.
Carols said:jflemaire said: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.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.
Unless he was a foil for Thomas. And that we'll never know!
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).Pricey_sky said:Carols said:jflemaire said: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.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.
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.
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 attackedjflemaire said: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.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.
jflemaire said: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.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.
Hinault made that race interesting. LeMond the previous year vs Hinault might have been better action, if only we could have found out.WildspokeJoe said:jflemaire said: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.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.
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.
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.Gigs_98 said: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 attackedjflemaire said: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.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.