Vincenzo Nibali discussion thread

Page 290 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re: Nibali discussion thread

For good reason, everyone was constantly asking him about what would have happed had they not crashed.

It was a shame, because he crushed Contador in the cubbled stage for a monstrous time gain, and would have crushed Froome likewise, which, with his very high level in the mountains that surprised us all, would most likely have been enought to beat them both.
 

rm7

Mar 14, 2015
964
0
0
Re:

FCKAC said:
Yet Nibali was on edge on Friday as he spoke to the media. He seemed angry about something and unsure of his form for the national championships and more worryingly for the Tour de France. He is nick-named ‘Lo Squalo di Messina’ – the Shark from Messina, and seemed to be fighting with a prey, reacting with violent swishes of his tail.

“It’s hasn’t been easy for me this year,” he said, with an unusual vein of anger in his voice. “At every race since I ridden since the Tour, everybody has always wanted a piece of me and everybody has always expected me to win. That put a lot of weight on me shoulders and I felt it. This season has been difficult so far, with lots of highs and lows but no real great moments.”

“I had a lot of distractions during the winter, I felt I never recovered from 2014 both physically and mentally. In the past I’ve had far better winters, rested up more and enjoyed a more relaxing holiday, then work on my base fitness in the gym and on the road. I tried to follow my usual training programme but never had a decent peak of form to be able to win something or even produce what I consider a satisfying ride.”

“I’m not sure of my form for the Tour de France if I’m totally honest. I came out of the Dauphine pretty well and then did a camp in the mountains, as everyone could see. I’ve tried to work hard and I think I’ve got finally reached a good level but I’m not sure…

Truth or he is just playing game?
It must be so hard for him to ride like a donkey all year, and only go full gas in the Tour de france.... :rolleyes: So stressfull...

He's totally lying, he's fine.
 
Rollthedice said:
The best part was when he pretended to have a problem with his shoe, under 2 Kto go, Reda sizes the opportunity and launches his attack with the last drops of energy just to be counterattacked decisively by Nibs.
This post and a whole page of discussion about nothing really. He wasn't faking, he just tightened his shoe before launching his last attack. Happens in so many races that I don't even need to give examples of that.
You guys are crazy.
 
Aug 26, 2014
2,148
0
0
Froome didn't enjoy the pressure he was under last year, and I think it has probably been worse for Nibali with the licence stuff and the greater scrutiny during his build up. And that article doesn't surprise me at all wrt the general pressure at Astana. Weren't there mutterings about a rift between the Itlaian and Russian factions with heads potentially on the block during the Giro?

That said, I don't think Nibali is a shrinking violet and should be well able to deal with it, though I'm sure he might be more conservative than he has been in previous years. Neither will not enjoy the latitude he might have had. It'll be interesting Tour on so many levels.
 
Paolo Slongo his personal trainer said he's hit his numbers on San Pellegrino a week ago, thus he will be showing up in the same condition as last year. End of story.

That he would have won the Tour had his main two rivals not crashed out, remains pur conjecture.

I would have expected both Contador and Froome to have been flying in the mountains. Was Nibali good enough to withstand them? Unfortunately we will never know, but I think both were stronger than the Sicilian uphill, but probably less then some imagine.
 


Let's crunch some numbers.
There's no freaking way if the situation is similar to yesteryear in which Froomey's gonna drop Vin in the mountains.

The only unknown quantity right now is Quintana. We'll see.
 
Jun 21, 2009
297
0
0
IMO it is an attempt as super peak.
He said the exact same things last year, winning the Giro, everybody wanted something, many commitments, birth of his child, couldn't find form early.
Exact same type of season this year, ok, the Achilles tendon might be something.... but otherwise? No, Nibali is not stupid enough to fall into the same trap twice, do the same mistakes twice. But he obviously thinks the public is dumb enough to believe him.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re:

rhubroma said:
That he would have won the Tour had his main two rivals not crashed out, remains pur conjecture.

I would have expected both Contador and Froome to have been flying in the mountains. Was Nibali good enough to withstand them? Unfortunately we will never know, but I think both were stronger than the Sicilian uphill, but probably less then some imagine.
Though counterfactuals are fundamentally unknowable, some counterfactual scenarios are more likely than others. We can analyse them, and in my view, say quite a bit about them with confidence.

Before Contador crashed, Nibali had some probability to win the Tour, given everything known at that point. That assessment was of course affected by, and took into account, uncertainty regarding Nibali's form in the mountains.

What happened next is that Nibali went on to be by far the strongest guy in the mountains climbing better than ever, exceeding all expectations. Later, analysis even revealed (see for instance the pic posted above) that his climbing was comparable to the best performances in recent years. This means that given what we know now, the chance Nibali would have won, had F and C not crashed, is significantly greater than what it was before Contador crashed. That's just probability theory.

I defer to the market for an estimate of what that chance was thus I'm quite confident Nibali's counterfactual chance to win the 2014 Tour in the event neither F nor C crash exceeds that of F and C. Not because he was stronger, but because he gained a lot of time in the cobbles and turned out much stronger than I (or the markets) expected, enough for me to believe he would have held on.

What if you don't defer to the market for what the chance was that Nibali would go on to win after the cobbles? Suppose instead that after the cobbled stage, you gave Nibali only a tiny chance to win the Tour. If you thought so despite his 2+min headstart, you must have expected C or F to be much stronger in the mountains. That means you either didn't expect Nibali's climbing would be as strong as it was, or you did, but you thought C or F would be much stronger than F was in 2013. In the former case, the conclusion is the same as before: You must now regard it as much more likely Nibali would have won, had they not crashed, than you did back then. The latter case seems to be the only way out for the Nibali detractors.
 
Sep 4, 2012
250
0
0
Re:

That looks interesting -- Can you show the riders with distinct colors?
Where do you get your power estimates?

Pippo_San said:


Let's crunch some numbers.
There's no freaking way if the situation is similar to yesteryear in which Froomey's gonna drop Vin in the mountains.

The only unknown quantity right now is Quintana. We'll see.
 
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
rhubroma said:
That he would have won the Tour had his main two rivals not crashed out, remains pur conjecture.

I would have expected both Contador and Froome to have been flying in the mountains. Was Nibali good enough to withstand them? Unfortunately we will never know, but I think both were stronger than the Sicilian uphill, but probably less then some imagine.
Though counterfactuals are fundamentally unknowable, some counterfactual scenarios are more likely than others. We can analyse them, and in my view, say quite a bit about them with confidence.

Before Contador crashed, Nibali had some probability to win the Tour, given everything known at that point. That assessment was of course affected by, and took into account, uncertainty regarding Nibali's form in the mountains.

What happened next is that Nibali went on to be by far the strongest guy in the mountains climbing better than ever, exceeding all expectations. Later, analysis even revealed (see for instance the pic posted above) that his climbing was comparable to the best performances in recent years. This means that given what we know now, the chance Nibali would have won, had F and C not crashed, is significantly greater than what it was before Contador crashed. That's just probability theory.

I defer to the market for an estimate of what that chance was thus I'm quite confident Nibali's counterfactual chance to win the 2014 Tour in the event neither F nor C crash exceeds that of F and C. Not because he was stronger, but because he gained a lot of time in the cobbles and turned out much stronger than I (or the markets) expected, enough for me to believe he would have held on.

What if you don't defer to the market for what the chance was that Nibali would go on to win after the cobbles? Suppose instead that after the cobbled stage, you gave Nibali only a tiny chance to win the Tour. If you thought so despite his 2+min headstart, you must have expected C or F to be much stronger in the mountains. That means you either didn't expect Nibali's climbing would be as strong as it was, or you did, but you thought C or F would be much stronger than F was in 2013. In the former case, the conclusion is the same as before: You must now regard it as much more likely Nibali would have won, had they not crashed, than you did back then. The latter case seems to be the only way out for the Nibali detractors.
I don't know, on the one short finishing climb Nibali was put on the ropes as they say, as Contador charged to the line. This too is undeniable. So as I said before, we don't know if Nibali would have been able to resist, although the time gained on the cobbles was substantial and not to be discounted.

I still think Nibali would not have been as good in the mountains as either Contador or Froome. He dominated the third tier.

Let's hope they all make it through and see who wins.
 
Re:

Pippo_San said:


Let's crunch some numbers.
There's no freaking way if the situation is similar to yesteryear in which Froomey's gonna drop Vin in the mountains.

The only unknown quantity right now is Quintana. We'll see.
These numbers don't mean much if Froome was coming into the 2014 with better or worse form. They would only be relevant if he was going to perform in the EXACT same way as in 2013.
 
Jul 19, 2010
5,361
0
0
Re: Nibali discussion thread

I think, none of these 4 contenders should ever give ahead start 2+ minutes on either one of their rival (Froome, Contador, Quintana, Nibali). Saying so and so isn't good in the mountain on these 4... hmm.. pure speculation. This 4 isn't a cake in walk when it comes to drop them in the mountain. Nibali having 2+ minutes on Contador last year, and got stronger in the mountain might be enough to hold Contador. But we never know that either. Just speculation. Fact is he won the TDF and he was stronger in the cobbles and the mountain.

This year, this speculation whether or not Nibali can hang in the mountain, will be answered baring any accident from either these four. Cobble is certainly going to advantage Nibali out of these 4, expecialy when it's raining. I'm not convinced Quintana, Froome or Contador will ride better than Nibali when it's raining. Quintana might be the unknown, but if Nibali have ahead start on the cobble, he isn't going to be that easy to be dropped in the mountain.
 
Re:

The fridge in the blue trees said:
IMO it is an attempt as super peak.
He said the exact same things last year, winning the Giro, everybody wanted something, many commitments, birth of his child, couldn't find form early.
Exact same type of season this year, ok, the Achilles tendon might be something.... but otherwise? No, Nibali is not stupid enough to fall into the same trap twice, do the same mistakes twice. But he obviously thinks the public is dumb enough to believe him.
Maybe the injury was a result of trying too hard too fast to get ready for the TDF
 
Oct 4, 2014
748
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
SeriousSam said:
rhubroma said:
That he would have won the Tour had his main two rivals not crashed out, remains pur conjecture.

I would have expected both Contador and Froome to have been flying in the mountains. Was Nibali good enough to withstand them? Unfortunately we will never know, but I think both were stronger than the Sicilian uphill, but probably less then some imagine.
Though counterfactuals are fundamentally unknowable, some counterfactual scenarios are more likely than others. We can analyse them, and in my view, say quite a bit about them with confidence.

Before Contador crashed, Nibali had some probability to win the Tour, given everything known at that point. That assessment was of course affected by, and took into account, uncertainty regarding Nibali's form in the mountains.

What happened next is that Nibali went on to be by far the strongest guy in the mountains climbing better than ever, exceeding all expectations. Later, analysis even revealed (see for instance the pic posted above) that his climbing was comparable to the best performances in recent years. This means that given what we know now, the chance Nibali would have won, had F and C not crashed, is significantly greater than what it was before Contador crashed. That's just probability theory.

I defer to the market for an estimate of what that chance was thus I'm quite confident Nibali's counterfactual chance to win the 2014 Tour in the event neither F nor C crash exceeds that of F and C. Not because he was stronger, but because he gained a lot of time in the cobbles and turned out much stronger than I (or the markets) expected, enough for me to believe he would have held on.

What if you don't defer to the market for what the chance was that Nibali would go on to win after the cobbles? Suppose instead that after the cobbled stage, you gave Nibali only a tiny chance to win the Tour. If you thought so despite his 2+min headstart, you must have expected C or F to be much stronger in the mountains. That means you either didn't expect Nibali's climbing would be as strong as it was, or you did, but you thought C or F would be much stronger than F was in 2013. In the former case, the conclusion is the same as before: You must now regard it as much more likely Nibali would have won, had they not crashed, than you did back then. The latter case seems to be the only way out for the Nibali detractors.
I don't know, on the one short finishing climb Nibali was put on the ropes as they say, as Contador charged to the line. This too is undeniable. So as I said before, we don't know if Nibali would have been able to resist, although the time gained on the cobbles was substantial and not to be discounted.

I still think Nibali would not have been as good in the mountains as either Contador or Froome. He dominated the third tier.

Let's hope they all make it through and see who wins.
Nibali had 2’37” over Contador in Gerardmer at the start of the first mountain stage. In that same stage, after a 2km climb at 10% Contador got 3” over Nibali, just in the final sprint.It’s pretty tough to gain 2 and half minutes going 5-10” per stage with a guy who happens to have the same W/Kg you used to have in top form.

The big unknown, IMHO, was the last ITT where Contador could have gained some seconds on Nibali. Nonetheless Nibali lost in the ITT 1’58” by Tony Martin and 19” by Dumoulin who was second. Even if you consider the fact that Nibali had very little pressure and very high morale in that ITT, I seriously doubt a 100% Contador could have been more than 30” faster than Nibali.

Hence, last year Tour was won in the Pavé stage: from that point onwards it was everything downhill for Nibali, with or without Contador.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
No franic, very convenient the way you left things out.

First of all nibali was able to do whatever he want in the tour cause he had no competition. His resistance and recuperation (very important in a GT) were never tested. Contador would have done that for sure and he had the better team too.

Furthermore a hill of 3 km isn't the same as a climb. You can't make the argument that cause nibali only lost 3 sec on a 3km hill that contador wouldn't make much of a difference on a 15km mountain. And if contador gets 3sec while barely even sprinting, then it's something i would be very confident about.

And what you left out very conveniently is that contador looked amazing on that hill. Go look back at it. I know that you can't judge rider's style, but when is the last time you saw Contador like that? He wasn't breathing while nibali was puffing like crazy.

And the last thing that has to be considered who would have won it is that Contador never ever lost a close GC battle. He always won it, he's clutch, nibali isn't. Contador always crushed nibali in GT's aswell and in that season he was the best climber. Look what he did in the last stage of dauphine, i've never seen such a good Contador in the dauphine.

Bases on all these arguments it's reasonable to assume Contador had the better chance to win that tour.
 

Singer01

BANNED
Nov 18, 2013
2,043
2
5,485
Re:

Miburo said:
And the last thing that has to be considered who would have won it is that Contador never ever lost a close GC battle. He always won it, he's clutch, nibali isn't. Contador always crushed nibali in GT's aswell and in that season he was the best climber. Look what he did in the last stage of dauphine, i've never seen such a good Contador in the dauphine.

Bases on all these arguments it's reasonable to assume Contador had the better chance to win that tour.
being clutch on a bike, that is a new one. being clutch is about being able to handle pressure doing something that you can normally do, even when the pressure is on. i.e. taking a penalty kick, a 6ft golf put, a last second shot in a game of basketball, riding a bike and clutch don't even belong in the same sentence.

since froome pre crash was stronger than contador in that dauphine, i assume you also agree that it's reasonable to assume that froome had a better chance than both to win the tour, if he hadn't crashed out.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
Yes it is, if you're stressed out on the bike, it'll have obvious influences and it will also affect your judgement.

Contador has been in numerous terrible situations, look at the giro of 2008 but always managed to handle it. Imo there's definitely a clutch aspect in cycling.

Hmm yea it's fair to put froome as a bigger fav than Contador last year for the tour.
 
Re: Re:

Singer01 said:
Miburo said:
And the last thing that has to be considered who would have won it is that Contador never ever lost a close GC battle. He always won it, he's clutch, nibali isn't. Contador always crushed nibali in GT's aswell and in that season he was the best climber. Look what he did in the last stage of dauphine, i've never seen such a good Contador in the dauphine.

Bases on all these arguments it's reasonable to assume Contador had the better chance to win that tour.
being clutch on a bike, that is a new one. being clutch is about being able to handle pressure doing something that you can normally do, even when the pressure is on. i.e. taking a penalty kick, a 6ft golf put, a last second shot in a game of basketball, riding a bike and clutch don't even belong in the same sentence.

since froome pre crash was stronger than contador in that dauphine, i assume you also agree that it's reasonable to assume that froome had a better chance than both to win the tour, if he hadn't crashed out.
That's like saying TJvG is a bigger favourite than Nibali to win the Tour, since he was better than him in Dauphiné. Different riders have different kinds of peaks. Contador's Dauphiné form should be compared to his own previous Dauphiné forms from the last times he did it, not other riders.

If we compare Contador '09 and Froome '13, it is quite clear that the difference in form between Dauphiné and the Tour were different for the two riders.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
That dauphine can't be uses as a reference for froome cause of the crashe he had but based on Contador struggling to beat froome in the mountains and the long ITT, it's definitely reasonabl to put froom above contador
 
Jun 27, 2015
539
0
0
Re:

Miburo said:
No franic, very convenient the way you left things out.

First of all nibali was able to do whatever he want in the tour cause he had no competition. His resistance and recuperation (very important in a GT) were never tested. Contador would have done that for sure and he had the better team too.

Furthermore a hill of 3 km isn't the same as a climb. You can't make the argument that cause nibali only lost 3 sec on a 3km hill that contador wouldn't make much of a difference on a 15km mountain. And if contador gets 3sec while barely even sprinting, then it's something i would be very confident about.

And what you left out very conveniently is that contador looked amazing on that hill. Go look back at it. I know that you can't judge rider's style, but when is the last time you saw Contador like that? He wasn't breathing while nibali was puffing like crazy.

And the last thing that has to be considered who would have won it is that Contador never ever lost a close GC battle. He always won it, he's clutch, nibali isn't. Contador always crushed nibali in GT's aswell and in that season he was the best climber. Look what he did in the last stage of dauphine, i've never seen such a good Contador in the dauphine.

Bases on all these arguments it's reasonable to assume Contador had the better chance to win that tour.

First of all you have to assume that Contador would have cut the gap of 2 and a half minutes before you can say that he would have won
Before Contador crashing I remember that most betting agencies were still slightly favoring Contador but they weren't taking into account Nibali performaces on the mountains.
Dauphine performances cannot be considered significant given that Nibali was not yet in top form.

I like the analysis made by Serious Sam..

what about Froome?
He crushed before loosing time so He had more chance than Contador to beat Nibali but we don't know how well Froome would have performed on the cobbles
 
Re: Re:

46&twoWheels said:
Miburo said:
No franic, very convenient the way you left things out.

First of all nibali was able to do whatever he want in the tour cause he had no competition. His resistance and recuperation (very important in a GT) were never tested. Contador would have done that for sure and he had the better team too.

Furthermore a hill of 3 km isn't the same as a climb. You can't make the argument that cause nibali only lost 3 sec on a 3km hill that contador wouldn't make much of a difference on a 15km mountain. And if contador gets 3sec while barely even sprinting, then it's something i would be very confident about.

And what you left out very conveniently is that contador looked amazing on that hill. Go look back at it. I know that you can't judge rider's style, but when is the last time you saw Contador like that? He wasn't breathing while nibali was puffing like crazy.

And the last thing that has to be considered who would have won it is that Contador never ever lost a close GC battle. He always won it, he's clutch, nibali isn't. Contador always crushed nibali in GT's aswell and in that season he was the best climber. Look what he did in the last stage of dauphine, i've never seen such a good Contador in the dauphine.

Bases on all these arguments it's reasonable to assume Contador had the better chance to win that tour.

First of all you have to assume that Contador would have cut the gap of 2 and a half minutes before you can say that he would have won
Before Contador crashing I remember that most betting agencies were still slightly favoring Contador but they weren't taking into account Nibali performaces on the mountains.
Dauphine performances cannot be considered significant given that Nibali was not yet in top form.

I like the analysis made by Serious Sam..

what about Froome?
He crushed before loosing time so He had more chance than Contador to beat Nibali but we don't know how well Froome would have performed on the cobbles
Even worse than AC I guess, but if you take a discussion this far its just pure speculation
 
Re: Nibali discussion thread

The deluded continue to think Contador would have won the 2014 Tour. A metaphysical comfort. Fanboys, please start inputting data in you favorite video game and enjoy your Contador video victory, it's all you have left.
 
Oct 4, 2014
748
0
0
Re:

Miburo said:
No franic, very convenient the way you left things out.

First of all nibali was able to do whatever he want in the tour cause he had no competition. His resistance and recuperation (very important in a GT) were never tested. Contador would have done that for sure and he had the better team too.
I agree that it’s much easier to race against Pinot and Peraud than Contador. But data speak clearly: Nibali averaged 5.99 W/kg in the climbs vs a 5.96 W/kg for a 2013 Froome who destroyed Contador. In the recent years only 2009 Contador was able to do better; but that was pre Clenbuterol and pre plastic traces in the blood. Nonetheless this is material for The Clinic. What is sure is that 2014 Contador was not even close to 2009 Contador.


Miburo said:
Furthermore a hill of 3 km isn't the same as a climb. You can't make the argument that cause nibali only lost 3 sec on a 3km hill that contador wouldn't make much of a difference on a 15km mountain. And if contador gets 3sec while barely even sprinting, then it's something i would be very confident about.

And what you left out very conveniently is that contador looked amazing on that hill. Go look back at it. I know that you can't judge rider's style, but when is the last time you saw Contador like that? He wasn't breathing while nibali was puffing like crazy.
You should watch again the last 2 km to Gerardmer. First of all, why din’t Contador attack when Roche was doing the forcing but slowed down and waited the 1km mark? The only way I can interpret it is that he couldn’t sustain a high wattage for 4-5’ and, in fact, even when he attacked he slowed down multiple times. Regarding Nibali I don’t see his breathing as particularly problematic (was he puffing like crazy, seriously?!) and if you check the last 50-100m he seems to watch down to check the gear and doesn’t bother to do the sprint.

So if you claim that Contador was a better sprinter than Nibali, I guess we all agree on this. The fact that he was superior in that stage is a much harder claim to make.

Miburo said:
And the last thing that has to be considered who would have won it is that Contador never ever lost a close GC battle. He always won it, he's clutch, nibali isn't. Contador always crushed nibali in GT's aswell and in that season he was the best climber. Look what he did in the last stage of dauphine, i've never seen such a good Contador in the dauphine.
First of all, we are not talking about a battle given that Contador was already 2’37 behind.

And has Contador ever lost a battle? Yes, of course. For instance, using your metric, at the Tour 2013 he was just 2’45” behind Froome at the start of stage 15 and what happened? He got another 1’40 from a Froome with similar W/Kg data to Nibali.
Even this year at the Giro, he showed poor form exactly during the last stage on Colle delle Finestre when he got 1’28” by Landa at the top. That doesn’t look pretty impressive.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
F Professional Road Racing 14
B Professional Road Racing 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS