VeloFidelis said:
Gadzooks!, a historian... Thanks for the lesson. Have you really been paying attention for 35 years? Wow! That brings back some memories. Like getting my daily TDF results via Telex from a friend in Belgium back in the 70's. How'd you get yours?
If you really have been around that long, how can make such a hapless comment.
The hapless comment aside, you really caught me out... I have studied history on the University (go figure as nowadays I'm an IT manager^^). That said my study didn't cover sport
How did I follow the TdF? Dutch televison and newspapers. I started watching when I was eight, so thats 31 years ago. I dare say I know enough of the TdF's starting with 68 (Janssens year!) to have a decent conversation with you
Tell me who are you betting the farm on?... Lance or Alberto?
I'm no betting man, but common sense says AC. However I really can't count out Lance.
And you're sure it is a forgone conclusion well before the Ventoux?
I'm pretty sure it will be either Lance or AC.
Have you ever climbed Ventoux? I have... and please pardon my naivete in thinking it will play a decisive part in this years tour. It seems to be a pretty strong opinion among the GC contenders. By the way, can you name another Tour ever, where the Queen stage was the day before Paris?
I would agree that it really is decisive, I just do not believe the climbers will be able to crack the train. About the queen stage.... well I do remember a lot of important last day/second last day TT's. So mountains no, but decisive stages, yes.
So let's look at your formula for this forgone conclusion, and I won't back any further than your 35 years. You of course picked Merckx over Thevenet in 75, but a kidney shot is hard to call... hmmm, not part of the formula. [/
Van Impe in 76... not exactly formula. Hinault... OK, formula working, but tough about that 1980 abandon to Zoetemelk...didn't see that coming.
Actually that one was not completely surprising as there were rumors of hinault being injured weeks before the TdF (I'm Dutch so we really were in to that year). And when Zoetemelk survived the Pyrenees the Raleigh train crushed everything in the Alps.
Fignon for a few years while Hinault was having surgery... more formula. But Lemond in 86? ...rivals on the same team? Tell me your you had Lemond all the way. I'm sure of it.
I rooted for Bernard
But as this time I suspected it would be Greg. But I would say that one was completely formula, La Vie Claire murdered the opposition. Actually, Fignon might be more exception than rule, as both in 83 as 84 he wasn't the main favorite; in 84 everyone was banking on Hinault, Fignon was seen as a Pingeon/Walkowiak.
Roche in 87, Delgado in 88, Lemond over Fignon by seconds in in 89?... all totally predictable.
Definite not formula, though Delgado 88 was expected. However that year the main team was PDM, not Reynolds/Banesto
Indurain in 91 coming from 10th the year before ... obvious choice.
Yes he was an obvious choice, insiders had his name in Neon on their sheets. I was actually sceptical, but the insiders were spot on.
Super domestique Riis to topple Indurain? Ullrich to step over team mate Riis?
Riis was a surprise(or at least Mig's collapse was), but he definitely used the formula. Telekom was insane those two years. Ulli wasn't a surprise at all the next year, everyone besides Riis knew he would win
Pantani, ahh... you are correct, the little climber without a team, and tired from a Giro victory, pulled a rabbit out of hat on a cold day in the mountains and and took over 7 minutes back from Jan. Of course getting the dose right surely helped.
I think that beside Lemond in 97 he had the weakest team I ever saw for a winner (Roche had Carrera with Visentini, Bontempi and others)
Then there was Armstrong is 99. We ALL saw that coming right? Personally, I had Ullrich over Basso in 06, as did the formula I am sure, but hey, a drug scandal? Who'd have thought? But Landis... I mean Periero was the obvious go to guy. The formula was working again in 07 when Alberto and Johan stomped the entire field by a whopping 23 seconds, and of course we all had Sastre dialed in from the start for last years Tour.
Actually beside his collapse in one stage (and his silly recovery) Landis did succesfully use the "team" card. in 2007 it was rabo who put the hammer down which they did quite well (only AC/leppy survived the onslaught). Sastre's win was based on the team... but I would count it as atypical.
You are correct. The Tour has had it's many dominant riders with teams built for their success, but only Induain and Armstong's wins were all consecutive, and some of those were tight. Surprises have consistently been part the Tour whether it's crashes, scandals, or heroic efforts.
Agreed, but as I said, it's not "insane" to think it's in the bag for Astana.
I also agree that Astana is in the Cat Bird seat with their TTT victory, and Lance and Johan do not make many mistakes. But 37 year old legs against the 26 year old winner of the last three Grand Tours. You're going to make the call on that? Yeah it seems obvious, but... Whose going to crack? Whose going to crash? Whose going to ask for their B sample to be tested?
The drama and that unpredictability of the Tour, even when it looks very predictable to those well informed bloggers here, is what makes it one of the most watched and most love sporting events on the planet. I, for one like it the way and will continue to tune in to see how it plays out. And despite your obvious resignation, I suspect you will too.
Oh yes, I really enjoy it, just wanted to point out that it is somewhat predicatble. About AC vs. Lance... I really don't know. Sense says AC, but fun says Lance (wouldn't it be hilarious?).
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram