At carton: The fortunes almost always favors the bold. I am not sure where you got that from.
After what I saw and Ineos saw on Tuesday it was to be expected that they wanted to take opportunity of the weaknesses of riders like Yates and Remco. And I predicted and expected the attacks. You cannot miss the opportunity. That was always Contador's and Froome's mojo and I agree 100%. Attack while you are strong and your enemies weak. I have seen many times riders waiting and waiting to later find out that they are not as strong and the other riders are stronger. Quintana was very strong in the first week last year. Well he was stupid for not attacking from day 2. Test your rivals. You can weak them, tire them and eliminate them. Otherwise they will eat you alive later on. That or destiny punishes you with illness or a crash. Even if you are weak later on, you won't regret it. If yo do otherwise you will regret it. My 2 cents!
I've argued this before, but that is pure fantasy, IMHO.
Contador and Froome took most of their leads against the clock. Their big attacks happened when they had to gain back time, not to pad their leads. I'll stick to the Tour for brevity: 2007 Contador was behind Rasmussen all the way and won when he was pulled out -it's a hard one to take anything away from. Verbier was Contador's one major attack of 2009 Tour, when he was basically tied with Armstrong and was penciled in to lose time in Annecy. It wasn't a leader pressing an advantage. Bagnères-de-Luchon, was, at best, a counter, he basically attempted one more famous counter and then rode Andy's wheel until clinching it in the time trial, like he did the year before. Those are Contador's tours, though I have always argued you should pick either 2007 or 2010, you can't pick both. He won all of them in the final time trial, saving it against Evans, winning it against Schleck, destroying the world in Annecy. Froome, I'd argue, was far more given to press his lead early - but he also had a stronger team to shell rivals and pace him home if something went wrong. Also, if you look back at Froome's attacks, almost every time he went in 2013-16 Quintana had gone ahead of him and he had a full measure of the man. I'll argue it to death: the reason Quintana has never won a Tour is that he attacked way too much and way too early.
Again, there's a reason Indurain won more Grand Tours than Herrera, Chiappucci, Pantani, Schleck, Quintana and Landa combined. Looking back at the recent grand tours:
2017 Vuelta. Froome dominated the race start to finish, yet only won by 2 minutes, having taken most of his final lead against the clock.
2018 Giro. Yates seized the early opportunities, faded, Froome came back to win.
2018 Tour. Thomas dominated the race start to finish, yet only won by 2 minutes, having only attacked in the last two KM of stages.
2018 Vuelta. Yates learned to keep his cool early and followed attacks, was able to hold on against a resurgent Lopez and Mas.
2019 Giro. Roglic seized the early opportunities, faded, Carapaz ended up winning after an early when no one could take time out of him in the mountains.
2019 Tour. Alaphillipe (and Pinot, but let's not go there) seized the early opportunities, faded, Bernal came back to win.
2019 Vuelta. Quintana seized the early opportunities, faded. Roglic learned to keep his cool early and followed attacks, took almost his entire lead against the clock.
2020 Giro. Almeida and Keldermann seized the early opportunities, faded, Tao came back to win, holding wheels and cementing his win against Hindley against the clock.
2020 Tour. Roglic and Pogacar worked well together to distance the rest, and Pogacar won mano and mano in an upset in the ITT.
2020 Vuelta. Roglic seized the early opportunities, faded, ended up edging Carapaz by 20', having taken 40' off him against the clock.
Of course, that's the way I'm calling it, others would spin the same yarn differently. And yes, there have been some bold attacks that paid off -but that's almost always been making the most out of someone else who was fading, often in conjunction with some strategic or tactical brilliancy. It's beautiful when it works. But most of the time they fall flat, lost to history. It's pure survivorship bias, IMHO. Oh, the guy who held back would have won had he gone harder earlier. But that's the reason he was there at the end. The ones that went hard early faded. People believe what they want to believe. And yeah, I believe that cycling, and particularly stage racing, is a thinking man's game, much like chess. On most games at the top level guys are so evenly matched that if you overplay an advantage you end up losing.
So yeah, fortune rarely favors the bold in stage racing. I really want to believe it does, though, so I think I know why so many do. But maybe I'm the one who is mistaken.