Tour de France - Stage 9, 168.5km - Saint-Girons / Bagnères-de-Bigorre, July 7th

[TANK91]

Just cleared out the bet365 account. Called that at 11:15am when he was 25/1.

Congrats what did you win? did you put 5 pound on or something.

 

[jsem94]

Frankie nails it.

http://www.bicycling.com/video/tour-talk-stage-9-0#/video/all/created/d/1

Could not agree more.

 

[Fatclimber]

Just watched the interview. Goosebumbs.

Thrilled for the guy. The doctors never thought he could be back at top level and today he finished 7th on a mountain stage in the TDF. When that realisation came he just stopped talking and got tears in his eyes and the interview was over.

Is there a link to this somewhere online? Can't find anything. Thanks.

 

[Gubby Allen]

Congrats what did you win? did you put 5 pound on or something.

Yep, we'll £2.50ew - which was a bit daft for the sake of about £17 if he placed, but thankfully he won. It was about £80 Odd.

Might be some money to be made Tuesday too. Another stage where they have Cav, Greipel and Kittel top 3 in the odds and I cant see them all being there. Its a bit lumpy, looks more a Degenkolb one for Argos and Sagan looks far better value, as do the Gerrans, EBHs etc.

 

[maltiv]

EBH admitted after the stage today (off record) that he has no form at all. The same goes with pretty much the rest of Team Sky. They went into this race exhausted already from training way too hard.

 

[Telmisartan]

Frankie Andreu has it spot on,huge opportunity missed by Saxo/Movi,might have been the only chance.

 

[manafana]

what a stage great coverage from eurosport really got to live the cycling for the day.

 

[Ruudz0r]

Is there a link to this somewhere online? Can't find anything. Thanks.

http://nos.nl/video/526960-poels-schiet-vol-na-pyreneeenrit.html (Could be geo restricted).

 

[Taxus4a]

Thanks Froome
Thanks Quintana
Thanks JV

You are great.

If this have happened in this stage, imagine what could happend in La Madeleine. That is the third week, long stage, really hard stage.
Just need to start like today and could be an unbeliveble stage to remember long time.

 

[Escarabajo]

TANK91, relax. Froome is the favorite and we all know it. Froome, if in optimal form, can put time on every stage if he wants to, so stop the emotions.

Having said that, all it takes is just a bad day. A bad day and you won't need a calculator about how much time he needs to win. The cycling history is full of stories about bad days from GC contenders. Landis the last example.

 

[Miburo]

TANK91, relax. Froome is the favorite and we all know it. Froome, if in optimal form, can put time on every stage if he wants to, so stop the emotions.

Having said that, all it takes is just a bad day. A bad day and you won't need a calculator about how much time he needs to win. The cycling history is full of stories about bad days from GC contenders. Landis the last example.

Other examples: Evans 2010 (madeleine). Contador 2011 (galibier)

Evans's form afterwards really declined in that tour but he could follow the days before.

 

[hughmoore]

Other examples: Evans 2010 (madeleine). Contador 2011 (galibier)

Evans's form afterwards really declined in that tour but he could follow the days before.

Not sure who he was following, given he was in Yellow?

Surprising that his form declined after breaking elbow while in Yellow.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fractured-elbow-shatters-tour-hopes-for-evans

FFS

Hugh

 

[Froome_Beast]

Lol at the Dawg, No clue on how to race at all. If there were no radios he would be at a loss.

Yeah lol at him

He was awesome today, done great.

 

[boringboy]

People are clearly overreating over Movistar. Like it was said, 80% of you were expecting this stage to be won by a break and still insult Movistar for actually doing something that in my opinion, was the best that could be done. Movistar did whatever they could, literally destroying Sky, not able to shoot down Froome because he is too strong, and most of all, Valverde did'nt have the legs. You people were shown since the first day to be all 'wet' over Quintana, always praying for him to take a dump on Valverde and keep on. It is only the first week of his first Tour, so he never proved anything over 3 week racing, at least when riding for GC. How come he could have kept on the attack on last climb? You blame Valverde? In case Nairo had the legs and kept on going, Froome would eventually follow him with ease, and Valverde was shown not to have the legs. That my friends, would be tactical suicide. At the moment, apart from Froome, Movistar might have the two best riders in Top10, one in second, the other just a few seconds away from third.

Valverde never said his main objective for this Tour was the win, but the Top3, wich Movistar might well achieve with 2 riders. Why don't you blame Contador or Evans? Alberto even sent Kreuzo at some point, in last climb, to the front of the race, in order to try and prevent attacks. This Tour was won from the day it departed from Corsica, it was always a fight between the rest.

I also have to say, i feel people are overreacting a bit, if neither Valverde or Contador had the legs, there was no real point in attacking. Contador also said, he looked at Froome and did not believe they could drop him, so he decided to save the energy for the ITT, which also makes sense.

Secondly, if Contador had attacked, Moviestar would have to pull him in and vice versa if Valverde had attacked, as neither Moviestar nor Saxo can just let the other team attack and ride off.

I do think both Saxo and Moviestar got the best out of it, Sky lost Kiriyenka and Porte got dropped from GC, thus neither team really needs to react if Porte goes on attack. It also showed everyone that Sky can be put under pressure and i think it might have hurt the confidence of some of the Sky riders.

 

[cineteq]

Secondly, if Contador had attacked, Moviestar would have to pull him in and vice versa if Valverde had attacked, as neither Moviestar nor Saxo can just let the other team attack and ride off.

First of all, it's not Moviestar => MOVISTAR, 2nd knowing Movistar, I know they would've let Froome react first. Use common sense buddy.

 

[karlboss]

Big Mac and Boring Boy, did either of you watch the 2006 tour, how about 2008? and these are just some recent ones. You don't have to be the strongest to win.
Who says that Valverde/Contador from their teams has to be the guy to win. This was never a tactic which would work one on one. There is no point isolating Froome to try and go toe to toe on the final climb, it should have always been about isolating and then sustained attack and counter attack for 80km. Froome is the strongest rider but he can't match attacks from 20 other riders. Movistar don't need to pull all these attacks back either, just make sure one, any one, of their riders is in the break. Then have faith in that guy to beat who ever else gets to the line with them another day. This isn't to say that Contador and Valverde shouldn't have attacked, just that they certainly weren't the only ones who had the responsibility.
The fact is an attack from Tendam and Costa had a better chance of succeeding than anything Valverde could have done anyway, the difference is Valverde would probably prefer second to Froome, than see his team mate on the top step.

 

[airstream]

what a titan Froome was yesterday. chapeau

 

[Sasquatch]

I also have to say, i feel people are overreacting a bit, if neither Valverde or Contador had the legs, there was no real point in attacking. Contador also said, he looked at Froome and did not believe they could drop him, so he decided to save the energy for the ITT, which also makes sense.

Secondly, if Contador had attacked, Moviestar would have to pull him in and vice versa if Valverde had attacked, as neither Moviestar nor Saxo can just let the other team attack and ride off.

I do think both Saxo and Moviestar got the best out of it, Sky lost Kiriyenka and Porte got dropped from GC, thus neither team really needs to react if Porte goes on attack. It also showed everyone that Sky can be put under pressure and i think it might have hurt the confidence of some of the Sky riders.

Exactly.

And why attack when there is 30km to the finish line? All they would have achieved was maybe 30 seconds. If Quintana went off the front, chances are he would have been pegged back by Saxo and the other teams, or only made 20 seconds whilst wasting a **** load of energy.

When stages finish too far from the last climb, then there's no point committing to an attack unless you have the rider you want (Froome) right on the red. And he was nowhere near the red zone.

If the stage was a MTF, it would have been a different story. Froome would have been attacked a lot.

Movistar are made to be the enemies when in fact they are the heroes.

 

[Broth3r]

"We'll reach the TT with Y minutes, and we will come out with Y+Z minutes so we can get to stage X with that advantage."

Right. Wiggo'd like to have a word with you.

 

[karlboss]

Exactly.

And why attack when there is 30km to the finish line? All they would have achieved was maybe 30 seconds. If Quintana went off the front, chances are he would have been pegged back by Saxo and the other teams, or only made 20 seconds whilst wasting a **** load of energy.

When stages finish too far from the last climb, then there's no point committing to an attack unless you have the rider you want (Froome) right on the red. And he was nowhere near the red zone.

If the stage was a MTF, it would have been a different story. Froome would have been attacked a lot.

Movistar are made to be the enemies when in fact they are the heroes.

Why would you attack 30km out, attack from 80, 70, 60km out. If you are movistar and worried about saxo chasing you down, take someone from saxo with you. A MTF would have suited Froome more than anything else, he'd have attacked and taken time.

 

[boringboy]

First of all, it's not Moviestar => MOVISTAR, 2nd knowing Movistar, I know they would've let Froome react first. Use common sense buddy.

Yes i am aware Froome would have to react first, but if Contador was already on limit or as he said afterwards could not see them dropping Froome, especially considering the 30 km to finish from the top. Why should he attack and get say 20 seconds, but risk of blowing up and loose another 1 min?

Why not wait for a better stage (and hopefully better form) and keep pressure on Froome, especially if they feel Sky is getting tired and Froome will have to use more of his own energy.

Movistar, guessing they gave up as felt Quintana would not decent fast enough and Valverde did not have the form?

At the end of the day, (as Riis said as well), you need the right form and right opportunity to attack, which i guess neither Valverde or Contandor had yesterday

 

[boringboy]

Big Mac and Boring Boy, did either of you watch the 2006 tour, how about 2008? and these are just some recent ones. You don't have to be the strongest to win.
Who says that Valverde/Contador from their teams has to be the guy to win. This was never a tactic which would work one on one. There is no point isolating Froome to try and go toe to toe on the final climb, it should have always been about isolating and then sustained attack and counter attack for 80km. Froome is the strongest rider but he can't match attacks from 20 other riders. Movistar don't need to pull all these attacks back either, just make sure one, any one, of their riders is in the break. Then have faith in that guy to beat who ever else gets to the line with them another day. This isn't to say that Contador and Valverde shouldn't have attacked, just that they certainly weren't the only ones who had the responsibility.
The fact is an attack from Tendam and Costa had a better chance of succeeding than anything Valverde could have done anyway, the difference is Valverde would probably prefer second to Froome, than see his team mate on the top step.

I have been watching the Tour since mid 80's, so yes i did watch those, and yes, it is not always the strongest rider who wins (just last year it was not, neither was Sastre or Riis the strongest when they won).

No doubt tandem attacks would have had better chance, but view you had 30 km from top to finish, it would have been hard, if e.g. Costa or Valverde would have gone solo, and might have had 45 seconds on top and ride all the way to the finish. At that point Saxo, Belkin, etc would have to try to pull back as much time as possible, thus going all out on downhill and flat section and a group of say 10 people should have been able to limit the losses.

My personal opinion, simply is, if MTF it would have made sense to continuously attack and most likely succeed in dropping Froome, but the 30 km downhill and flat made it not worth it.

 

[Ferminal]

How was Sastre not the strongest? He matched his main rivals on Hautacam, was fine on Bonette (up and down), put time into most in Italy and then crushed the lot on Alpe d'Huez.

 

[boringboy]

How was Sastre not the strongest? He matched his main rivals on Hautacam, was fine on Bonette (up and down), put time into most in Italy and then crushed the lot on Alpe d'Huez.

Can be argued, he was sent out in front to make other teams work, and normally you are not supposed to attack your own guys, so he kinda locked Schleck and made it impossible for him to defend the jersey. That being said, who know if Schleck could have won it, as he would have needed quite some time on Alpe D'Huez as well.

 

[karlboss]

I have been watching the Tour since mid 80's, so yes i did watch those, and yes, it is not always the strongest rider who wins (just last year it was not, neither was Sastre or Riis the strongest when they won).

No doubt tandem attacks would have had better chance, but view you had 30 km from top to finish, it would have been hard, if e.g. Costa or Valverde would have gone solo, and might have had 45 seconds on top and ride all the way to the finish. At that point Saxo, Belkin, etc would have to try to pull back as much time as possible, thus going all out on downhill and flat section and a group of say 10 people should have been able to limit the losses.

My personal opinion, simply is, if MTF it would have made sense to continuously attack and most likely succeed in dropping Froome, but the 30 km downhill and flat made it not worth it.

Why would you attack the strongest rider in the race on a MTF? Why breakaway solo? Put kreuziger in a break with quintana, put valverde in a break with contador, let 5 guys go from teams that aren't movistar and saxo, force froome to chase for 40km. Let the gap go out to 10 or 20 minutes, who cares. Be in the break and don't chase it. I guarantee after 40km in the red chasing a break of Costa, Rogers, Monfort, and Tendam, that Valverde can kill Froome over the top of a cat 1 and hold a couple of minutes to the line. Just back your lieutenant in the against theirs to win the time in later days.
Multiple attacks on the last climb would achieve nothing. However Movistar rode so that was the only option. Do you not see how this works? Decents and flats only kill the chance for time when a large group chases a small one down. When the large group sits on one guy's wheel the break gets bigger, unless that one is a very skilled decender.