Teams & Riders Vincenzo Nibali discussion thread

[Squirbos_19]

I was, very lucky haha. Been saving up during my last 2 years of school and now I'm here

Unfortunately I was in a bad spot so only got to get close up pics of Grivko, Boom and Nibali after the show was over, but i did see the whole team presentation.

 

[Mozart92]

Why does Nibali wear the Hungarian flag on his suit? Really Astana?

This is how it should be!

http://www.bergamosportnews.com/immagini/ratto%20e%20milesi%20009.jpg

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

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.

The watt estimators say, afaik, that Nibali is a bit weaker on shorter efforts and as strong on longer efforts (compared to Froom and Horner 2013, Froome and Contador 2014 Vuelta), so the hill is prob not that indicative of the high mountains.

One thing I did forget, though, is the time trial. Just completely forgot there even was one. Not so confident anymore that Nibali was the most likely rider to win in 2014, had Contador and Froome not crashed, because they would have taken significant time out of him there, in top shape.

 

[BlurryVII]

Re: Re:

Madre mia!

Oh god not this discussion again.
Stop wasting your time. We will never know, fact is Nibali won the tour and Contador/Froome crashed out. "What if" whatever you want it wont change a thing and I garantee it, you will never agree with eachother so this discussion is soooo pointless.

but it’s actually a matter of facts: Nibali was at least as strong as Contador in the mountains if you look at VAM and W/Kg data. Nibali started with over 2’30” on Contador, hence it was impossible to catch up.

Where did you get that from? That's pure random assumption. Funny thing is that Contador in the 3rd week of the Vuelta 14' was at least as strong as Nibali, and AC from the Vuelta was obviously not at his best, or at least not as good as in the Tour.

I find it funny that you've been comparing the Tour 2014 with the situation of the Tour 2013 between Froome and Contador and how Froome who had the same numbers as Nibali, was always dropping AC.
Is that your argument? Can you even begin to realise how stronger Contador 14' was compared to 2013?

And how can you say for sure that Contador was definetely not at his 09' level? When himself claimed that he had his best ever legs and that he had the same sensations as before the Tour 09'
Just go rewatch both Dauphiné 14' and Dauphiné 09".

And what do you make of Nibali's recovery vs incessant attacks from AC? He would've never been able to take it easy like he did on Risoul and plat d'adet and other stages where he finished with Péraud, keeping his strengh for Hautacam.
It was "free to play" for Nibali, he could do whatever he wanted against the french guys who were battling for second place, against Contador and Tinkoff, he would've been compelled to go through the roof every single mountain stage, let alone long ranged attacks from AC because that's what he would've ended up doing if MTF's were not enough.

 

[franic]

Re: Re:

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.

The watt estimators say, afaik, that Nibali is a bit weaker on shorter efforts and as strong on longer efforts (compared to Froom and Horner 2013, Froome and Contador 2014 Vuelta), so the hill is prob not that indicative of the high mountains.

One thing I did forget, though, is the time trial. Just completely forgot there even was one. Not so confident anymore that Nibali was the most likely rider to win in 2014, had Contador and Froome not crashed, because they would have taken significant time out of him there, in top shape.

Nibali was pretty fast in the last ITT losing about 1'30 by Martin and 20'' by Dumoulin

 

[franic]

Re: Re:

Madre mia!

Oh god not this discussion again.
Stop wasting your time. We will never know, fact is Nibali won the tour and Contador/Froome crashed out. "What if" whatever you want it wont change a thing and I garantee it, you will never agree with eachother so this discussion is soooo pointless.

but it’s actually a matter of facts: Nibali was at least as strong as Contador in the mountains if you look at VAM and W/Kg data. Nibali started with over 2’30” on Contador, hence it was impossible to catch up.

Where did you get that from? That's pure random assumption. Funny thing is that Contador in the 3rd week of the Vuelta 14' was at least as strong as Nibali, and AC from the Vuelta was obviously not at his best, or at least not as good as in the Tour.

I find it funny that you've been comparing the Tour 2014 with the situation of the Tour 2013 between Froome and Contador and how Froome who had the same numbers as Nibali, was always dropping AC.
Is that your argument? Can you even begin to realise how stronger Contador 14' was compared to 2013?

And how can you say for sure that Contador was definetely not at his 09' level? When himself claimed that he had his best ever legs and that he had the same sensations as before the Tour 09'
Just go rewatch both Dauphiné 14' and Dauphiné 09".

And what do you make of Nibali's recovery vs incessant attacks from AC? He would've never been able to take it easy like he did on Risoul and plat d'adet and other stages where he finished with Péraud, keeping his strengh for Hautacam.
It was "free to play" for Nibali, he could do whatever he wanted against the french guys who were battling for second place, against Contador and Tinkoff, he would've been compelled to go through the roof every single mountain stage, let alone long ranged attacks from AC because that's what he would've ended up doing if MTF's were not enough.

OK, I guess it's indeed pointless to argue with Contador's fanboys. OK Nibali won 2013, let's see what happens next 3 weeksweeks. My feeling is that Nibali is an epsilon inferior to Quintana in the mountains and to Froome in ITT. The three are superior to Contador.

 

[BlurryVII]

Re: Re:

The three are superior to Contador.

Indeed, that's why GT wise, Contador is leading 2 - 0 against Nibali, and 2 - 1 against Froome. 9 GTs against 5 for the three combined.

I guess you might as well re watch the 2014 season.

 

[lenric]

It's pointless to argue with Contador's fanboys, but it is also pointless to argue with Contador's detractors.

To say that Nibali was, if not superior, at least on pair with Contador last year's Tour you'd have to compare VAM's, watts, etc from both of them taken at the same time. That wasn't possible, so it's just stupid to say that A or B was the strongest.

 

[franic]

Re: Re:

The three are superior to Contador.

Indeed, that's why GT wise, Contador is leading 2 - 0 against Nibali, and 2 - 1 against Froome. 9 GTs against 5 for the three combined.

I guess you might as well re watch the 2014 season. You're completely deluded, it's a joke.

You probably forgot Contador has already done the Giro. If you ask me, I'd say Contador pre doping stop is the strongest of them all, Contador post Giro, especially after what happened at Sestriere, is a little bit inferior to them.

 

[qwer]

Re: Re:

Madre mia!

Oh god not this discussion again.
Stop wasting your time. We will never know, fact is Nibali won the tour and Contador/Froome crashed out. "What if" whatever you want it wont change a thing and I garantee it, you will never agree with eachother so this discussion is soooo pointless.

but it’s actually a matter of facts: Nibali was at least as strong as Contador in the mountains if you look at VAM and W/Kg data. Nibali started with over 2’30” on Contador, hence it was impossible to catch up.

Where did you get that from? That's pure random assumption. Funny thing is that Contador in the 3rd week of the Vuelta 14' was at least as strong as Nibali, and AC from the Vuelta was obviously not at his best, or at least not as good as in the Tour.

I find it funny that you've been comparing the Tour 2014 with the situation of the Tour 2013 between Froome and Contador and how Froome who had the same numbers as Nibali, was always dropping AC.
Is that your argument? Can you even begin to realise how stronger Contador 14' was compared to 2013?

And how can you say for sure that Contador was definetely not at his 09' level? When himself claimed that he had his best ever legs and that he had the same sensations as before the Tour 09'
Just go rewatch both Dauphiné 14' and Dauphiné 09".

And what do you make of Nibali's recovery vs incessant attacks from AC? He would've never been able to take it easy like he did on Risoul and plat d'adet and other stages where he finished with Péraud, keeping his strengh for Hautacam.
It was "free to play" for Nibali, he could do whatever he wanted against the french guys who were battling for second place, against Contador and Tinkoff, he would've been compelled to go through the roof every single mountain stage, let alone long ranged attacks from AC because that's what he would've ended up doing if MTF's were not enough.

OK, I guess it's indeed pointless to argue with Contador's fanboys. OK Nibali won 2013, let's see what happens next 3 weeksweeks. My feeling is that Nibali is an epsilon inferior to Quintana in the mountains and to Froome in ITT. The three are superior to Contador.

OMG!!! nibali better time trialist than contador?????? what????? better climber???......................................................................................

 

[cantpedal]

Re: Re:

The three are superior to Contador.

Indeed, that's why GT wise, Contador is leading 2 - 0 against Nibali, and 2 - 1 against Froome. 9 GTs against 5 for the three combined.

I guess you might as well re watch the 2014 season.

If you get to claim 9 I get to claim he didn't win his first til after 2012

 

[Sciocco]

Re: Re:

The three are superior to Contador.

Indeed, that's why GT wise, Contador is leading 2 - 0 against Nibali, and 2 - 1 against Froome. 9 GTs against 5 for the three combined.

I guess you might as well re watch the 2014 season.

If you get to claim 9 I get to claim he didn't win his first til after 2012

Can you elaborate?

 

[BlurryVII]

Re: Re:

The three are superior to Contador.

Indeed, that's why GT wise, Contador is leading 2 - 0 against Nibali, and 2 - 1 against Froome. 9 GTs against 5 for the three combined.

I guess you might as well re watch the 2014 season.

If you get to claim 9 I get to claim he didn't win his first til after 2012

What? That's a first. Claim whatever you want , no one gives a *** lol. He won 9 GT, and if you're struggling to remember, then go on Youtube or cyclingtorrents.

If you count 7 GT then you might as well strip a few GT off champions of old generations, merckx and so on because we don't want hypocrisy here, right?

 

[cantpedal]

Re: Re:

The three are superior to Contador.

Indeed, that's why GT wise, Contador is leading 2 - 0 against Nibali, and 2 - 1 against Froome. 9 GTs against 5 for the three combined.

I guess you might as well re watch the 2014 season.

If you get to claim 9 I get to claim he didn't win his first til after 2012

Can you elaborate?

sure
If you can chose to add the 2 he never won......

 

[Sciocco]

Re: Re:

The three are superior to Contador.

Indeed, that's why GT wise, Contador is leading 2 - 0 against Nibali, and 2 - 1 against Froome. 9 GTs against 5 for the three combined.

I guess you might as well re watch the 2014 season.

If you get to claim 9 I get to claim he didn't win his first til after 2012

Can you elaborate?

sure
If you can chose to add the 2 he never won......

I'm asking you to elaborate on the "2" in comparison to the "9" previously stated which is usually countered with "7". Can you elaborate on why you say 2?

 

[BlurryVII]

Re: Re:

The three are superior to Contador.

Indeed, that's why GT wise, Contador is leading 2 - 0 against Nibali, and 2 - 1 against Froome. 9 GTs against 5 for the three combined.

I guess you might as well re watch the 2014 season.

If you get to claim 9 I get to claim he didn't win his first til after 2012

Can you elaborate?

sure
If you can chose to add the 2 he never won......

Get yourself a brain, he won 9. Books aren't worth more than memories and archives. See there are 3 categories in this case, his fans who consider 9, half of the objective cycling fans who count 9 and the other half 7 but at least they have the decency to point out that a lot of champions of the past should be stripped off their titles as well because they know what's going on, and then you have the haters like you, counting 7, only focusing on Contador and showing hypocrisy at its finest by just blindingly going with what the "books" say, which is for example:

Contador 7 GT and Indurain, king of the certain product era, never tested positive, 7 GTs .

 

[The Hitch]

There's a lot of doping insinuations in this thread for fans of a rider who's team was found to have been mass EPO doping for the TDF he won.

While I can understand people saying they don't think Contador should have the titles, the prize money, or even that he doesn't deserve the 2007 Tour, as far as the 2011 Giro goes, he was there and he beat Nibali fair and square there. Which is all that is relevant for this type of discussion about who is better.

 

[cantpedal]

Re: Re:

I'm asking you to elaborate on the "2" in comparison to the "9" previously stated which is usually countered with "7". Can you elaborate on why you say 2?[/quote]
didn't say I'd move it to 2 but stating that if you want to move the total it can be moved in other directions. 2 being a # that could is as logical as 9. neither is the reality.

 

[BlurryVII]

Oh I almost forgot, the "Books" say Riis won the Tour 96' even if he doped, because you know, they just decided to give it back to him

It's just *** ridiculous to go by what books say, it's completely inconsistent, hypocrite, naive, whatever you want, it's dumb. Just *** stick to what happens on the road, and stop being brainwashed by the media.

 

[Irondan]

Please keep the doping talk in the clinic.

Cheers!

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Oh I almost forgot, the "Books" say Riis won the Tour 96' even if he doped, because you know, they just decided to give it back to him

It's just **** ridiculous to go by what books say, it's completely inconsistent, hypocrite, naive, whatever you want, it's dumb. Just **** stick to what happens on the road, and stop being brainwashed by the media.

Umm. You do know people have a right to a different opinion right?

Also saying Contador won 7 is hypocritical? Dumb? Being brainwashed by the media? Where the hell did those come from?

 

[Sciocco]

Re:

Please keep the doping talk in the clinic.

Cheers!

My apologies.



I hope Nibali gives it his all.

 

[Pippo_San]

Vincenzo's Tour 2014.
Great numbers for the greatest GT rider of the moment.

On the ascent to Hautacam (13.6 km at 7.8%) Vincenzo rode alone "in the wind" for 11 km, climbing in 37'30", VAM = 1696 m/h = 6.28 w/kg = 395w.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re:

Vincenzo's Tour 2014.
Great numbers for the greatest GT rider of the moment.

On the ascent to Hautacam (13.6 km at 7.8%) Vincenzo rode alone "in the wind" for 11 km, climbing in 37'30", VAM = 1696 m/h = 6.28 w/kg = 395w.

Froome and Contador would have easily put a minute into him on that mountain alone - it's obvious to anyone.
Numbers don't count, it's the way they breathe that is really relevant.

 

[Pippo_San]

TRUE GRIT