Thor confirms BMC! Better for Cadel?

[just some guy]

This is getting stupid.

Jobiwan is the only one talking sense.

ACF stop being defensive, you make it worse. of course Evans had luck. You make your own mostly but he also got lucky.

He won his team road the best race they could, you can only beat the riders riding end of story.

As I also said Cadel re Thor comments taken out of context by muppet media.

 

[Maxiton]

My point, which you seem to be working hard to not understand, is that Evans didn't crash because he used his team to keep him out of trouble. He used his team (the whole "cycling is a team sport" thing--remember?). His not crashing had nothing to do with luck. Again, and for the last time: Cadel's victory was the result of very intelligent racing with a team build around him. He didn't make any mistakes. You could call that luck, but you'd be wrong.

Also: to repeat an often used phrase hereabouts: did you actually watch the race? Evans was second to no one in the mountains. He conserved his energy, but he covered attack after attack and made a few decisive ones himself. He was very strategic in where he used his energy, but when he did, he always did what was needed for the moment. Bottle, Horner and Kloden wouldn't have been the slightest problem for him, or Menchov. And don't get me started with Gesink or Wiggo He certainly handled the Schlecks, and I haven't heard anyone here say that any of those riders are at the level of Andy. The only person who could have beaten Cadel this year would have been a rested, uninjured Contador. We might get to see that next year--and then, for reasons that belong in another part of the forum, we might not.

Bingo. Best post of the thread so far.

It's absurd to call Evans the Australian George Hincapie. Hincapie, at 38 years old, has one second place in Paris-Roubaix and one third place in the Ronde - the two races he most cared about winning - a single individual stage win in the Tour, and a solid but not astounding record otherwise. He spent almost his entire career playing second fiddle to Armstrong and riding on a team that really didn't care about the very classics he, Hincapie, was supposed to win.

Evans was world mountain bike champion in 1998, at 21 years old, and wore the maglia rosa for two stages in his first Giro d'Italia (eventually coming in 14th) in 2002, his second year as a road cycling pro. Three years later he came in 8th at the Tour, the following year 4th, the next year second, and the next year second. Following that, in 2009, he won the Worlds. Then Flèche Wallonne. And now, with BMC, the Tour. And he's four years younger than Hincapie.

In other words, they have nothing in common. Well, okay, they do have one thing in common. They each rode for a team that for different reasons wasn't wholly looking out for their best interests, and both of them would likely have had better results had that not been the case. Evans gave it five years with Lotto, Hincapie most of a career. So I suppose that's another difference.

The really remarkable, somewhat unbelievable thing is not that Evans won the Tour, but that this was his first win rather than his third or fourth.

The Evans we saw in this Tour was super strong, and while Contador was wounded, it's true, his closest rival, baby Schleck (along with his self-professed soulmate, Schleck the elder) certainly wasn't - and in a Tour essentially designed for the Schleck coronation Evans made mincemeat of him. Let's face it, the younger Schleck was totally outclassed by Evans in this Tour in every sense, and yet this is the same Schleck that came within 30 seconds and a dropped chain of beating Contador last year.

If Evans shows up for the Tour next year as well prepared as he was this year, he might win it again. Don't be surprised.

He wont win seven in a row!

True. But he probably also won't be indicted by a grand jury.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Interesting...


Cadel Evans: “Regarding Thor coming to the team, the main objective of (team president) Jim Ochowicz was to get some guys onto the team to get some results early so they wouldn't rely just on me for race wins at the start of the year,"


“I said: 'Look Jim, you want to bring a sprinter to the team, I don't want to ride with a sprinter, because I've done that and I've done my share. 'If I do the Tour I want to do it for the win.'

“I was fairly clear about that and Jim was accepting of that, so it's under that basis that Thor comes to our team.”



Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/9...printer-in-next-years-Tour.aspx#ixzz1UoYkUOuh

lol @ you saying thor was all about thor, seems like it's somebody else who is all about somebody else

But I guess this is fine, because your lover boy has this attitude. Interested in your reply. Hypocritical for the sake of cuddles-love?

even bigger LOL @ gilbert not being problematic in that sense.

---

anyway at the debate, maturity is evident when one member argues luck played a huge role (and it did, the amount of riders crashed out, ac riding giro(anyone doubt he would have won if he didn't?? +the knee and his badluck)) and the replies are OMFG soar loser etc.

Cuddles certainly deserved to win. But the stars certainly aligned also. You must acknowledge this. But yep, over the 3 weeks, in this tour it is difficult to pick a more worthy winner.

If AC rides next year (without giro) and no crashes ruin the race and evans win I will streak down flinders st naked.

 

[Tuarts]

Sorry if this has been made clear, but there's a lot of fan boy bickering to get through, why was Hushovd definitely 100% riding the Vuelta before the signing to BMC was confirmed? How do we (the fans) know this?

 

[auscyclefan94]

This is getting stupid.

Jobiwan is the only one talking sense.

ACF stop being defensive, you make it worse. of course Evans had luck. You make your own mostly but he also got lucky.

He won his team road the best race they could, you can only beat the riders riding end of story.

As I also said Cadel re Thor comments taken out of context by muppet media.

I'm making it worse??? LOL. Now that's funny. I am just picking up peoples inconsistencies. You seem to pick up on me when quite a few others have similar opinions to me... Tool!

 

[Michielveedeebee]

I'm making it worse??? LOL. Now that's funny. I am just picking up peoples inconsistencies. You seem to pick up on me when quite a few others have similar opinions to me... Tool!

No need to get agressive acf

 

[Parrulo]

I'm making it worse??? LOL. Now that's funny. I am just picking up peoples inconsistencies. You seem to pick up on me when quite a few others have similar opinions to me... Tool!

i find your hypocrisy amusing. i have seen you so many times act like a child and refuse to answer a topic because you feel like you are not being treated with enough respect. yet just because people disagree with you on this subject you feel like its your given right to go around calling them a "hater" or a "tool". . . .

also is that pic of a baby crying you? after like 9 years whining about cadel not winning a GT because he was unlucky i fairly sure your facial expression permanently became that.

funny enough every time he didn't won he was unlucky yet when he won luck was no factor in it. weren't brajkovic and gesink well placed when they had their fall?

btw just so you know i am not taking away anything from cadel's win he fully deserved it.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

Parrulo 1 - ACF 0

 

[just some guy]

Sorry if this has been made clear, but there's a lot of fan boy bickering to get through, why was Hushovd definitely 100% riding the Vuelta before the signing to BMC was confirmed? How do we (the fans) know this?

We don´t except his coach said they wanted too and was part of the plan leading up to worlds

 

[just some guy]

I'm making it worse??? LOL. Now that's funny. I am just picking up peoples inconsistencies. You seem to pick up on me when quite a few others have similar opinions to me... Tool!

Funny thing ACF is that I follow Evans as a rider have for many many years but your turning me off even discussing him as a rider here.

You know little about the sport or are way too emotionally involved and do need to pull you head in and think a little

 

[Cowgirlup]

Funny thing ACF is that I follow Evans as a rider have for many many years but your turning me off even discussing him as a rider here.

Amen to that. I have followed Evans for years, before he turned to road racing and I am truly embarrassed to have ACF as a fellow Evans fan.

 

[Ragerod]

Luck is a relative concept so even if Evans didn't have any good fortune he was still lucky because he didn't crash and Contador did but Contador was lucky because his crashes didn't cause race ending injuries, unlike Van den Broeck and Wiggins.

Evans made his own luck by staying near the front and through hard work by his team. Luck was not involved in Evans staying upright but he was fortunate because others did crash.

Personally I think only Contador is currently capable of winning a GT without being more fortunate than some of his rivals and it's not something to be ashamed of. There are so many variables in a three week race and plenty of opportunities for random events to occur that make it impossible for chance not to play a role in the outcome.

Hopefully that makes sense.

 

[peloton]

Funny thing ACF is that I follow Evans as a rider have for many many years but your turning me off even discussing him as a rider here.

You know little about the sport or are way too emotionally involved and do need to pull you head in and think a little

Amen to that. I have followed Evans for years, before he turned to road racing and I am truly embarrassed to have ACF as a fellow Evans fan.

+1
ACF is certainly not making Evans any favors, I was never a big Evans fan, but always respected him, that's gone now, thanks to ACF.

 

[Tuarts]

You change your views on a riders because of one person on an internet forum? That's stupid beyond reason, if you alter your view on something because of some obscure poster you'll never actually meet then you have more problems than you care to admit. There's an ignore button for a reason, use that rather than having an negative opinion.

 

[hrotha]

You change your views on a riders because of one person on an internet forum? That's stupid beyond reason, if you alter your view on something because of some obscure poster you'll never actually meet then you have more problems than you care to admit. There's an ignore button for a reason, use that rather than having an negative opinion.

I don't think they're doing it on purpose or that they're claiming it's rational, but it's a very common phenomenon. When someone or something is hyped to annoying levels, you develop a dislike for that someone or something, even if at a rational level you're aware you should be hatin' on the hypers instead.

edit: look at how frustrated people were with the commentators focusing all the time on Phinney yesterday. It's the same in Spain with Contador.

 

[Wallace]

+1
ACF is certainly not making Evans any favors, I was never a big Evans fan, but always respected him, that's gone now, thanks to ACF.

You know, if you stamp your little feet and make a pouty face, that'll really make ACF feel bad.

 

[just some guy]

You change your views on a riders because of one person on an internet forum? That's stupid beyond reason, if you alter your view on something because of some obscure poster you'll never actually meet then you have more problems than you care to admit. There's an ignore button for a reason, use that rather than having an negative opinion.

I don't think they're doing it on purpose or that they're claiming it's rational, but it's a very common phenomenon. When someone or something is hyped to annoying levels, you develop a dislike for that someone or something, even if at a rational level you're aware you should be hatin' on the hypers instead.

edit: look at how frustrated people were with the commentators focusing all the time on Phinney yesterday. It's the same in Spain with Contador.

Not going to change my view of a rider as I said - but your turning me off even discussing him as a rider here.

In my opinion as a real fan you should be able to see both the Positive and Negatives of a rider and be able to discuss it rather than taking your bat and ball and going home like a 2 year old.

 

[movingtarget]

No one is denying that. Just admit that he had a bit of luck, and we'll move on.

Even Armstrong was astounded that he had one crash during his seven Tour wins. Of course you need luck. But isn't about time Evans had some ? I actually think Andy's ride on Alpe was more because of his effort the day before not because of helping Contador. Even if Evans kept up with Contador and Schleck, I'm not sure he would have contributed. I think he would have sat in so he still would have gone okay on the final climb.

Even if the bike change helped him, he still had to use quite a bit of energy on the climb and descent to close the gap after the other BMC riders were dropped. Only Garmin came through on the descent to offer some assistance and it was token assistance. I think Casar helped a bit as well. Every time Evans was in trouble he fought back. There was no doubt in my mind that the strongest rider won the race as the last week showed. Even Andy admitted, his loss the year before was more disappointing.

 

[Tuarts]

I don't think they're doing it on purpose or that they're claiming it's rational, but it's a very common phenomenon. When someone or something is hyped to annoying levels, you develop a dislike for that someone or something, even if at a rational level you're aware you should be hatin' on the hypers instead.

edit: look at how frustrated people were with the commentators focusing all the time on Phinney yesterday. It's the same in Spain with Contador.

I realise its common, just myself I can't fathom why people can't rationally step back a bit and realise what's happening, or just ignore him completely and discuss the rider(s) with other people who want to debate instead of descend into petty hypocritical statements. You're right with Phinney but I know myself all my annoyance was centered at the commentator, not Phinney himself and I would never turn anti-Phinney just because of one commentator who I stopped annoying me by going to a different stream.

 

[movingtarget]

I realise its common, just myself I can't fathom why people can't rationally step back a bit and realise what's happening, or just ignore him completely and discuss the rider(s) with other people who want to debate instead of descend into petty hypocritical statements. You're right with Phinney but I know myself all my annoyance was centered at the commentator, not Phinney himself and I would never turn anti-Phinney just because of one commentator who I stopped annoying me by going to a different stream.

Yes a lot of it is caused by the media but people should not think all Evans fans or Contador fans etc...think the same way either. I think all of the Evans was lucky talk does detract a bit from his performance which funnily enough, most people on here did not seem to have a problem with when the Tour ended. It's a bike race. It's not his fault that others have bad luck or get sick etc.....I have to agree with ACF in that when Evans loses or under performs he is shat upon by many and when he wins it's a matter of luck or someone else's bad luck. With Contador it's more like, he's a genius or the genius has been unlucky or is out of form etc........It's sport, a win's a win. We would all like the playing field to be level for three weeks bit it rarely is. Someone's misfortune is someone else's fortune and it's always been that way. Cheap shots at the winner or undercutting his performance makes no sense.

 

[Wallace]

What puzzles and slightly irritates me about the whole "Cadel was just lucky" discussion is, aside from how much I just disagree with it, how it's the result of a kind of amnesia what everyone here was saying before the Tour. Before the race the common wisdom (or whatever you want to call it) on these forums was that the Tour was going to be a two man race: Contador vs. Andy Schleck, and that the only real question was whether or not Alberto would be too tired after racing the Giro. No one--and I mean no one--took the idea that Menchov or Basso or Kloden or Bottle or Horner or--and especially not--Wiggans could hang with Schleck in the mountains at all seriously. Because in the last two Tours it was shown that they can't. What we saw in this Tour was that, except for one day, stage 18, Cadel had no problem staying with both Schlecks--and what happened that day was a matter of tactics, and by driving it at the end Cadel made sure that his time loss wasn't significant. Strangely, the result of Cadel's performance wasn't an acknowledgement of his excellence on these forums, but the opposite--a bunch of people convinced that if Cadel could stick with the Schlecks, then all the riders who crashed earlier in the race, who in the last two Tours Contador and Schleck dropped easily when the ground titled up, also would have. As a line of thinking this seems to me to be what they call in my hometown of Boston "tot'ly retahded."

Basso can't descend or TT: there's no way he can win the Tour clean.
Kloden, Menchov, Levi and Horner can't climb like Schleck and Evans.
Wiggins? Really?
I don't see how "luck" plays in here.

 

[powderpuff]

What puzzles and slightly irritates me about the whole "Cadel was just lucky" discussion is, aside from how much I just disagree with it, how it's the result of a kind of amnesia what everyone here was saying before the Tour. Before the race the common wisdom (or whatever you want to call it) on these forums was that the Tour was going to be a two man race: Contador vs. Andy Schleck, and that the only real question was whether or not Alberto would be too tired after racing the Giro. No one--and I mean no one--took the idea that Menchov or Basso or Kloden or Bottle or Horner or--and especially not--Wiggans could hang with Schleck in the mountains at all seriously. Because in the last two Tours it was shown that they can't. What we saw in this Tour was that, except for one day, stage 18, Cadel had no problem staying with both Schlecks--and what happened that day was a matter of tactics, and by driving it at the end Cadel made sure that his time loss wasn't significant. Strangely, the result of Cadel's performance wasn't an acknowledgement of his excellence on these forums, but the opposite--a bunch of people convinced that if Cadel could stick with the Schlecks, then all the riders who crashed earlier in the race, who in the last two Tours Contador and Schleck dropped easily when the ground titled up, also would have. As a line of thinking this seems to me to be what they call in my hometown of Boston "tot'ly retahded."

Basso can't descend or TT: there's no way he can win the Tour clean.
Kloden, Menchov, Levi and Horner can't climb like Schleck and Evans.
Wiggins? Really?
I don't see how "luck" plays in here.

+1 well said

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

What puzzles and slightly irritates me about the whole "Cadel was just lucky" discussion is, aside from how much I just disagree with it, how it's the result of a kind of amnesia what everyone here was saying before the Tour. Before the race the common wisdom (or whatever you want to call it) on these forums was that the Tour was going to be a two man race: Contador vs. Andy Schleck, and that the only real question was whether or not Alberto would be too tired after racing the Giro. No one--and I mean no one--took the idea that Menchov or Basso or Kloden or Bottle or Horner or--and especially not--Wiggans could hang with Schleck in the mountains at all seriously. Because in the last two Tours it was shown that they can't. What we saw in this Tour was that, except for one day, stage 18, Cadel had no problem staying with both Schlecks--and what happened that day was a matter of tactics, and by driving it at the end Cadel made sure that his time loss wasn't significant. Strangely, the result of Cadel's performance wasn't an acknowledgement of his excellence on these forums, but the opposite--a bunch of people convinced that if Cadel could stick with the Schlecks, then all the riders who crashed earlier in the race, who in the last two Tours Contador and Schleck dropped easily when the ground titled up, also would have. As a line of thinking this seems to me to be what they call in my hometown of Boston "tot'ly retahded."

Basso can't descend or TT: there's no way he can win the Tour clean.
Kloden, Menchov, Levi and Horner can't climb like Schleck and Evans.
Wiggins? Really?
I don't see how "luck" plays in here.

What I find puzzling is how you can dismiss Menchov, Leiphimer, Kloden and others as not being able to climb with the Schlecks and Contador while ignoring that Evans is no different. Riders like Kloden and Leipheimer have proved to be better climbers than Evans on many occasions. Evans, like the others, has always been a top ten climber who cannot attack to gain time on the other top ten climbers. He, just like the Leipheimers and Klodens of the world, hangs on as long as possible and then limits the damage when he gets dropped by the best.

This year Evans could stick with the Schlecks. There are two possibilities. One, the unlikely possibility that Evans got better at the age of thirty-five. Or, two, the level of climbing was not as high as it has been in previous years. Option two is supported by Voeckler and Cunego being able to keep up. With Voeckler and Cunego able to keep up, what makes you think that Kloden, Menchov, Brajkovic, VDB2, Leipheimer, Wiggins, etc. would not have been able to keep up? Evans could not even drop Wiggins two weeks before the Tour. The only *** logic here is your assumption that the Schlecks were climbing the same as they were last year.

All through the Pyrenees people were complaining that the Schlecks did not do anything, they were too scared of Contador to make a concerted attack, all they did was look behind them. Now through the miracle of revisioninst history, Evans was dueling man-a-mano with the Schlecks and proving what a great climber he is. People need to accept that the reason the Schlecks did not go for it is because they did not have it this year. It was not because they were timid or sissies. Neither of them was riding at the level we have seen from them in the past. Comparing Evans to off-form Schlecks or an injured Contador does not turn him into a climbing giant. It just makes him lucky that the other climbers at his level never made it to the mountains.

 

[Arnout]

Well, because the Schlecks were with 2 even with not 100% fitness they could've beaten Evans.

They only tried one stage though, and that worked.

You need to confuse Evans to win. The Schlecks made it a straightforward race, in the end merely setting the pace for Evans.

They didn't have the fitness or the tactics.

Well, I guess Evans was double lucky then

 

[BM1979]

What I find puzzling is how you can dismiss Menchov, Leiphimer, Kloden and others as not being able to climb with the Schlecks and Contador while ignoring that Evans is no different. Riders like Kloden and Leipheimer have proved to be better climbers than Evans on many occasions. Evans, like the others, has always been a top ten climber who cannot attack to gain time on the other top ten climbers. He, just like the Leipheimers and Klodens of the world, hangs on as long as possible and then limits the damage when he gets dropped by the best.

This year Evans could stick with the Schlecks. There are two possibilities. One, the unlikely possibility that Evans got better at the age of thirty-five. Or, two, the level of climbing was not as high as it has been in previous years. Option two is supported by Voeckler and Cunego being able to keep up. With Voeckler and Cunego able to keep up, what makes you think that Kloden, Menchov, Brajkovic, VDB2, Leipheimer, Wiggins, etc. would not have been able to keep up? Evans could not even drop Wiggins two weeks before the Tour. The only *** logic here is your assumption that the Schlecks were climbing the same as they were last year.

All through the Pyrenees people were complaining that the Schlecks did not do anything, they were too scared of Contador to make a concerted attack, all they did was look behind them. Now through the miracle of revisioninst history, Evans was dueling man-a-mano with the Schlecks and proving what a great climber he is. People need to accept that the reason the Schlecks did not go for it is because they did not have it this year. It was not because they were timid or sissies. Neither of them was riding at the level we have seen from them in the past. Comparing Evans to off-form Schlecks or an injured Contador does not turn him into a climbing giant. It just makes him lucky that the other climbers at his level never made it to the mountains.

Lets turn that thinking around for a second , maybe Cadel timed his build up to perfection not that Andy was off form.

Is it not a possibility that Cadel was in better form this year not cause the Schlecks were down on form. Just saying