Of course you’re under no obligation to provide a thoughtful response, but taking the time to quote a post and provide a statement without any attempt to explain the rationale seems like a waste of time to me. Kind of defeats the purpose of a forum, no?Is that unreasonable? I think it's very fanciful to claim that a rider who was never particularly close to a Tour win could have been a multiple champion. I really don't think he was good enough uphill/sufficiently consistent for that.
He could definitely have won two Giri if he had taken the fight to Froome on the Finestre stage but he chose the passive way (I realise this probably sounds unduly harsh).
In regard to the content, which is a fine opinion to have, although I’d agree with Red Rick that you’re just choosing a different definition of “could have,” I’d point out that getting second by 1:51 in the Tour after racing a very tough Giro (to a fresh rider with a better team) is not what I’d call “not particularly close” to winning a Tour. Had he not ridden the Giro, not sure how you could argue he wouldn’t have at least been closer. See all the other Giro-Tour attempts since Pantani.
2019 of course is a stretch but that was a weak year and Dumoulin crashed. Pinot was a stage or two away from winning, G came in out of shape and still wad probably as good as Bernal, who won. Crushweak was 1:31 away from the yellow Jersey. Wide open. Not saying Dumoulin 100% would have won, but I don’t honestly see any argument that his form and talent wasn’t better than his GT palmares or that he wasn’t some luck and decision making (prioritizing the Tour above all) away from at least 1 Tour.
Also, in 2017, the year that Dumoulin beat Quintana, Nibali, and Pinot to win the Giro despite having to take a dump during a key moment, Froome only beat Uran by :52 to win the Tour.