Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

Page 1210 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
One "minor" point, Thomas finished 67th aged 24 and 31st aged 25 in the Tour prior to the 2012 OGs, so he's definitely not starting his post-track career as a "zero".
But before that, he was, right?

So how come he isn't winning? Or is Ellingworth just blowing smoke? I mean. If you can win, then just do it dude. Rake in dem dere fat contrax.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
But before that, he was, right?

So how come he isn't winning? Or is Ellingworth just blowing smoke? I mean. If you can win, then just do it dude. Rake in dem dere fat contrax.
It's meant to be Porte's turn first you see ;)

You got a point though, Wigans (although he was at Garmin at the time) and Froome didn't have to worry about progression, so why are they forcing Porte and Thomas to do so? Can't they just cut straight to the chase as well :confused:
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
42x16ss said:
It's meant to be Porte's turn first you see ;)

You got a point though, Wigans (although he was at Garmin at the time) and Froome didn't have to worry about progression, so why are they forcing Porte and Thomas to do so? Can't they just cut straight to the chase as well :confused:
Yeah that's pretty much my confusion.

Noone ever said, "Wiggo needs to do 1 week races to get good".

OR

"Once Froome gets a few one week races under his belt he should be good to go".

It's just, "we're not sure if we want Wiggo. Oh look, he just came 4th at the Tour".

Or

"We're gonna let Froome go. Oh look, he nearly won the Vuelta but for a time bonus".
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
But before that, he was, right?
I don't know. It depends how you define "Zero" in this context. There's a huge range of achievement levels on the road between winning the Tour and being the worst pro rider in the world.

Dear Wiggo said:
So how come he isn't winning?
My guess would be that he's got too high a proportion of fast-twitch fibres and probably doesn't recover well enough to be fully competitive over three weeks.

Thomas was lead out man for EBH in the 2011 Tour and Cav in the 2011 World RR. Wiggo was "last but 3" in Cav's train in that race suggesting that Thomas is naturally faster than Wiggo over short distances

Whatever lack of competition Wiggo had in the IP, he was very good at putting back to back performances together in consecutive days, suggesting his recovery is "good". (2004 = 4:15, 4:17, 4:16; 2008 = 4:15, 4:16, 4:16).

Or put more simply: Thomas isn't as good a rider as Wiggins.

Who knows for sure? There are far more talented riders than there are major races to be won, so only the select few will ever be big time winners.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
I don't know. It depends how you define "Zero" in this context. There's a huge range of achievement levels on the road between winning the Tour and being the worst pro rider in the world.



My guess would be that he's got too high a proportion of fast-twitch fibres and probably doesn't recover well enough to be fully competitive over three weeks.

Thomas was lead out man for EBH in the 2011 Tour and Cav in the 2011 World RR. Wiggo was "last but 3" in Cav's train in that race suggesting that Thomas is naturally faster than Wiggo over short distances

Whatever lack of competition Wiggo had in the IP, he was very good at putting back to back performances together in consecutive days, suggesting his recovery is "good". (2004 = 4:15, 4:17, 4:16; 2008 = 4:15, 4:16, 4:16).

Or put more simply: Thomas isn't as good a rider as Wiggins.

Who knows for sure? There are far more talented riders than there are major races to be won, so only the select few will ever be big time winners.
I do wonder about that. Wiggo was allegedly 82kg at his IP peak, and doing 560W for his 4:15.

G was lighter, and pretty sure he tweeted doing 5 x 5 @ 560W in training...

That's a 5 minute effort at Wiggo's 4 minute IP pace with a 5 minute recovery then going again.

Maybe he was just trolling?

Pretty sure it was Geraint. Damned if I could find the tweet again.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
Who knows for sure? There are far more talented riders than there are major races to be won, so only the select few will ever be big time winners.
And even then you could have bad luck and end up with a career of top-20's.

Seperately, can Sky return to their 2013/2012 performance at the Vuelta? If so, how many will be re-blessed with super power? Fascinating stuff.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
I don't know. It depends how you define "Zero" in this context. There's a huge range of achievement levels on the road between winning the Tour and being the worst pro rider in the world.



My guess would be that he's got too high a proportion of fast-twitch fibres and probably doesn't recover well enough to be fully competitive over three weeks.

Thomas was lead out man for EBH in the 2011 Tour and Cav in the 2011 World RR. Wiggo was "last but 3" in Cav's train in that race suggesting that Thomas is naturally faster than Wiggo over short distances

Whatever lack of competition Wiggo had in the IP, he was very good at putting back to back performances together in consecutive days, suggesting his recovery is "good". (2004 = 4:15, 4:17, 4:16; 2008 = 4:15, 4:16, 4:16).

Or put more simply: Thomas isn't as good a rider as Wiggins.

Who knows for sure? There are far more talented riders than there are major races to be won, so only the select few will ever be big time winners.
So it's just pure fluke that when gb had an Olympics the riders they had possessed the physical capabilties to transform over night to gt winners, but now that gb doesn't have the Olympics all their riders have normal physical ability.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Pretty sure it was Geraint. Damned if I could find the tweet again.
Twitter just sucks in that regard.

I tend to take people at their word that they read something (as long as its not super-crazy) on twitter, due to the lack of search functionality, and the ways that a few people seem to delete tweets after a while
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
The Hitch said:
So it's just pure fluke that when gb had an Olympics the riders they had possessed the physical capabilties to transform over night to gt winners, but now that gb doesn't have the Olympics all their riders have normal physical ability.
Which riders turned into gt winners overnight?
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
Which riders turned into gt winners overnight?
Very good question. Didn't Wiggins transform in 2009, and Froome in 2011? Defintely no other GB riders you can say that have won, or are capable or winning a GT/

Or we are just adhereing to the luddite opinion that performances throughout a career should be flat, a nice gentle curve, predictable, consistent, and that spikes in performance are always down to drugs?

I wish I could think in such simplistic terms. There are so many nuances that effect an athletes performance over the course of a career. Such blanket statements are just bile.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
Very good question. Didn't Wiggins transform in 2009, and Froome in 2011? Defintely no other GB riders you can say that have won, or are capable or winning a GT/

Or we are just adhereing to the luddite opinion that performances throughout a career should be flat, a nice gentle curve, predictable, consistent, and that spikes in performance are always down to drugs?

I wish I could think in such simplistic terms. There are so many nuances that effect an athletes performance over the course of a career. Such blanket statements are just bile.
The bolded:

Maybe a bit off topic but Ronaldinho as example maybe?

A blessed talent who went from worlds best to average in a relatively early age... I doubt that doping was the determing benchmark of his skills (however could have influence in some ways as speed, endurance etc.)
But he also seemed to loose more than those skills..
EDIT: The Andy of football.......

The difference is that in cycling we have much more suspicion as to change in ability -For good reasons i would say.. The logic of followers in cycling that says: Jumps in performance indicates doping is... well logical?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
JimmyFingers said:
Very good question. Didn't Wiggins transform in 2009, and Froome in 2011? Defintely no other GB riders you can say that have won, or are capable or winning a GT/

Or we are just adhereing to the luddite opinion that performances throughout a career should be flat, a nice gentle curve, predictable, consistent, and that spikes in performance are always down to drugs?

I wish I could think in such simplistic terms. There are so many nuances that effect an athletes performance over the course of a career. Such blanket statements are just bile.
Wiggins did dope in 2009 of course, that is obvious to everyone. However he transformed further in 2012. The timing was perfect with the home olympics coming up. What better way to win over a bunch of people who had never watched cycling before than dominating the entire year and winning the TDF?

Sky doped in 2012 Jimmy. They doped a lot. More than any other team in recent memory. There is no other logical explanation.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
Which riders turned into gt winners overnight?
Wiggins transformed over the course of three months from a guy who had barely scraped the top 100 in a mountain stage at the top level to a guy who finished 4th in Le Tour.

Froome transformed over the course of 3 weeks from a guy who finishes 8 minutes down on an intermediate stage in the Tour de Pologne and is about to lose his pro ride, perhaps to be picked up for minimum domestique WT wage at Lampre or Garmin if he's lucky, to a guy who would have won a GT if not for bonus seconds and if his team had shown a bit more faith in him.

So while they didn't actually WIN the GTs that they transformed at, they did transform overnight figuratively into the kind of riders capable of winning GTs, which they at no point prior to that had been.

Just because it took a bit of time after that for them to actually win the GT does not change how sudden the transformations were from their short-distance-TT-specialist/pack fodder selves into their prospective-GT-winners selves. You can argue the semantics of Hitch using "GT winner" rather than "GT contender" if you really want to, but we all know that with Froome at least there is quite a specific date we can point to and say "before this: pack fodder Froome. After this: Chris The Destroyer"
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Catwhoorg said:
Twitter just sucks in that regard.

I tend to take people at their word that they read something (as long as its not super-crazy) on twitter, due to the lack of search functionality, and the ways that a few people seem to delete tweets after a while
Yeah I started to narrow it down - Dowsett or Thomas but I think they may have deleted it to be honest?

Twitter seriously is crap.
 
The only caveat about power figures on twitter* is that the riders may well be spewing their usual crap. Inflating or deflating figures for their own reasons.


*or books, or interviews, or just about anywhere really.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Wiggins transformed over the course of three months from a guy who had barely scraped the top 100 in a mountain stage at the top level to a guy who finished 4th in Le Tour.

Froome transformed over the course of 3 weeks from a guy who finishes 8 minutes down on an intermediate stage in the Tour de Pologne and is about to lose his pro ride, perhaps to be picked up for minimum domestique WT wage at Lampre or Garmin if he's lucky, to a guy who would have won a GT if not for bonus seconds and if his team had shown a bit more faith in him.

So while they didn't actually WIN the GTs that they transformed at, they did transform overnight figuratively into the kind of riders capable of winning GTs, which they at no point prior to that had been.

Just because it took a bit of time after that for them to actually win the GT does not change how sudden the transformations were from their short-distance-TT-specialist/pack fodder selves into their prospective-GT-winners selves. You can argue the semantics of Hitch using "GT winner" rather than "GT contender" if you really want to, but we all know that with Froome at least there is quite a specific date we can point to and say "before this: pack fodder Froome. After this: Chris The Destroyer"
I agree re Froome but not that Wiggins became a GT winner overnight. Maybe I'm pedantic but there's no need to exaggerate what happened to Wiggo to make a case against him. Becoming a contender aged 29 is suspicious enough!
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
I agree re Froome but not that Wiggins became a GT winner overnight. Maybe I'm pedantic but there's no need to exaggerate what happened to Wiggo to make a case against him. Becoming a contender aged 29 is suspicious enough!
Seriously?

What did Wiggins do that is relevant to a grand tour that you could say predicted his 4th place against a rampant Contador, a doped Armstrong and an off the hook like he's never been since Schleck?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Catwhoorg said:
The only caveat about power figures on twitter* is that the riders may well be spewing their usual crap. Inflating or deflating figures for their own reasons.

*or books, or interviews, or just about anywhere really.
Or, as I put it, "trolling". Whether other riders, or just readers, matters not.

Agreed.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Why are we going over this question again? It's like the first 10.000 posts don't exist. Which, is the point. Enough already.
My question was about the definition of "winner" and "overnight" not the identity of the riders "in the dock".
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Seriously?

What did Wiggins do that is relevant to a grand tour that you could say predicted his 4th place against a rampant Contador, a doped Armstrong and an off the hook like he's never been since Schleck?
Nothing. That's why I said that "becoming a contender aged 29 is suspicious enough".

However, 4th (or even 3rd) place is not winning. Neither is 2008 to 2012 (when Wiggo did win a GT) overnight.

The devil is always in the detail!
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
Nothing. That's why I said that "becoming a contender aged 29 is suspicious enough".

However, 4th (or even 3rd) place is not winning. Neither is 2008 to 2012 (when Wiggo did win a GT) overnight.

The devil is always in the detail!
Wallace and Gromit said:
I agree re Froome but not that Wiggins became a GT winner overnight. Maybe I'm pedantic but there's no need to exaggerate what happened to Wiggo to make a case against him. Becoming a contender aged 29 is suspicious enough!
Ah. So, Froome coming second in the Vuelta overnight is "overnight GT winner" but 4th at the Tour for Wiggins, in the company of known and now convicted dopers isn't.

Because pedantry.

Gotcha. .
 
Catwhoorg said:
The only caveat about power figures on twitter* is that the riders may well be spewing their usual crap. Inflating or deflating figures for their own reasons.


*or books, or interviews, or just about anywhere really.
Which, brings up a post by veloclinic where he does a sanity check against a power story posted on SRM's site. SRM data appears to be fundamentally wrong.

http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/92487826308/5-w-kg-is-the-new-normal-get-over-it

Strava's numbers are far, far worse. Pretty graphs though.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS