Rate the Giro 2018

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

Yeah but nobody else did

Right, so when you wrote that "Froome's time was still faster than 2011". What you meant was the Froome's time was faster than most riders in 2011, but a minute slower than the rider who climbed the fastest?

Seems a little misleading.

Faster than all but one, faster than the main GC guys etc. Not that misleading. Perhaps I should have said faster than the main contenders but it was implied.

 

[thanosk]

This race should really have been a 9.
Great stages (mostly). Great scenery. Great racing and great drama.

But the problem is that the result is provisional so the whole race is up in the air.
It is a sad sad state of affairs when the governing body of cycling has managed to make such a mess of such a great race.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Dumounlin was ALMOST as strong as Froome, he just lost under 45 seconds on Finestre and nothing once he went to the front alone with 20 km or something to go. The chase was simply messing around too much in my opinion, the FDJ-riders werent really helping too much.Id be very intrigued to see what had happened if Dumoulin chased Froome solo for 80 km. Where they (Dumoulin) messed up was the downhill from Finestre and Sestriere in general.

Agree with this.
Especially in the downhills. He is supposed to be one of the best in this discipline. He was the best time trial rider among the GC.

Something tells me that he thought that he was going to get proper help in the valleys and that it was too early for Froome to attack and therefore he would collapse later. It did not help that Froome had shown weakness in previous stages and that could have stuck in his back of his mind.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Dumoulin basically acknowledged that already, that he hoped for. Froome collapse and that he tought working together would be better. He simply made an errormand misjudged that. Chasing alone would have been better. It's not out of tbe question he would have dropped Lopez on the Finestre already and Pinot on the descent if he went full. Then he just had Carapaz and that might have worked.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Re: Re:

An excellent Giro, only 2010 and 2015 were better in recent times.
I gave it an 8, it would have probably been a 9 if Froome hadn't completely destroyed the competition and gained only 1 to 2 minutes in the Finestre stage. hence being forced to go all out again yesterday.

Yeah agree. My 8 is a high 8 though, but I felt it missed a little something on the last stage in Aosta which had some great potential, but the race was pretty much over so it became a bit of a snooze.

I agree with you entirely.

 

[Pricey_sky]

Re: Re:

To the mods: I realise it is difficult to navigate for you, choosing which posts to delete and which to not these days, but don't all the posters who say the race is a farce, call Froome names (like Puff Daddy or Alien) or give this Giro 1 star in this thread deserve a ban if you want to adhere to the rule that you can't talk doping in this area of the forum?

Because as it is for the moment, the line has been completely wiped out and people are talking doping just as much in here as in any other cycling-related forum on the internet, although maybe a bit more subdued but the innuendoes are there in great abundancy.

Which I personally don't mind, but it seems to be contrary to the idea with this forum.

Right now, it seems to be the people admiring Froome's ride on the 19th stage that are ridiculed and in the minority.

You are correct, I posted yesterday in the TDF bold predictions thread that any more clinic references or sly innuendos will not be tolerated and result in a ban.

If you’d like to discuss further please do so in the moderators thread.

As for those admiring Froome’s ride in the minority, I don’t think that’s the case, more than 75% have the race 8+, with half going for 9 or 10/10. With Froome’s ride such a big part of that, I think there are more admirers than you think.

 

[Jagartrott]

Even apart from Froome, there are reasons why this shouldn't get a 9 or 10.

1) sprints were meh; 7 mass sprints, 2 winners, lackluster competition for the jersey
2) downhill was almost completely unimportant; way too many uphill finishes
3) almost no successful breakaways, and those that managed to stick, where spoiled because a) the Nieve win was already clear from the moment he went solo, (b) the Chavez win was a gift, ultimately
4) battle for mountain jersey was inexistent, partly because of lack of breakaways
5) lack of riders from smaller teams that spring a surprise

 

[veji11]

Re: Re:

To the mods: I realise it is difficult to navigate for you, choosing which posts to delete and which to not these days, but don't all the posters who say the race is a farce, call Froome names (like Puff Daddy or Alien) or give this Giro 1 star in this thread deserve a ban if you want to adhere to the rule that you can't talk doping in this area of the forum?

Because as it is for the moment, the line has been completely wiped out and people are talking doping just as much in here as in any other cycling-related forum on the internet, although maybe a bit more subdued but the innuendoes are there in great abundancy.

Which I personally don't mind, but it seems to be contrary to the idea with this forum.

Right now, it seems to be the people admiring Froome's ride on the 19th stage that are ridiculed and in the minority.

You are correct, I posted yesterday in the TDF bold predictions thread that any more clinic references or sly innuendos will not be tolerated and result in a ban.

If you’d like to discuss further please do so in the moderators thread.

As for those admiring Froome’s ride in the minority, I don’t think that’s the case, more than 75% have the race 8+, with half going for 9 or 10/10. With Froome’s ride such a big part of that, I think there are more admirers than you think.

Not to start a debate but isn't then a rate the giro thread problematic when at the heart of the matter is the very provisional character of the result ? There should at least have been an express caveat in the thread. The rule separating clinic matters and other matters is good one for practical purposes allowing discussions to be focused without delving into the endless debates there could be.

Nevertheless the very exceptional situation here might have required a differenlty worded thread. by the way calling for the ban of people giving this race a 1 is more than adhering to the clinic separation rule, it is basically invalidating the very option offered to give this race a 1 and quite inelegant. Should voters lie ? Should all regular participants to these forums wanting to give it a 1 or low mark for the forementioned reason just abstain to vote ? If this is the case it would have been clearer to state so in the first post of the thread.

Clarity is best in this case, not calling for the ban of voters who used an option offered to them. Of course name calling is another matter altogether.

 

[Netserk]

I find it difficult to see what's problematic about calling the race a farce (is it okay if it is because of start in Isreal?). Or for that matter to state that it affected one's enjoyment of the race that there is an on-going doping case with the winner, which could (at the very least theoretically) strip the win from him. Surely they are valid opinions, and the latter doesn't discuss nor speculate about [it - edited by mod], it only refers to what impact a case might have on the race, and as such what impact it had on the viewer.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

Yeah but nobody else did

Right, so when you wrote that "Froome's time was still faster than 2011". What you meant was the Froome's time was faster than most riders in 2011, but a minute slower than the rider who climbed the fastest?

Seems a little misleading.

a little?

 

[Durden93]

Re:

Even apart from Froome, there are reasons why this shouldn't get a 9 or 10.

1) sprints were meh; 7 mass sprints, 2 winners, lackluster competition for the jersey
2) downhill was almost completely unimportant; way too many uphill finishes
3) almost no successful breakaways, and those that managed to stick, where spoiled because a) the Nieve win was already clear from the moment he went solo, (b) the Chavez win was a gift, ultimately
4) battle for mountain jersey was inexistent, partly because of lack of breakaways
5) lack of riders from smaller teams that spring a surprise

These are actually great points. The only disagreement I’d have is I’d actually prefer a great rivalry between two sprinters as opposed to multiple sprinters with one win each.