Teams & Riders Vincenzo Nibali discussion thread

Page 378 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
SeriousSam said:
cineteq said:
Apparently, Landa and Kruijswijk have «superior» climbing ability, yet they have not won a single GT. :rolleyes:
Reconciling such seemingly contradictory assertions is what providing race context is all about!

Like yourself, future generations may well wonder, how is it that Nibali won when better climbers were in the race? And the answer can be found in the two items I listed: They withdrew with illness and crashed respectively.

Interestingly, context of a similar kind is also crucial to understanding the nature of the 2014 Tour and the 2010 Vuelta. This is not to detract from Nibali's achievements at all, rather, it's appreciating the full context of how the final results came about.
If we reduce all that it takes to win a GT to climbing, Landa never climbed in a Grand Tour against Nibali so therefore his superior climbing is just a supposition. At the times when Froome and Contador crashed out of Le Tour there wasn't any relevant mountain stage to compare their climbing ability therefore it is just a supposition. Until Anton crashed out of Vuelta he showed he was a better climber than Nibali but it is just a supposition that he would have won the Vuelta. SK proved to be a better climber than Nibs until his mistake took him out of contention but with only one and half mountain stages remaining there is no supposition that in this Giro he was a better climber than Nibali.
So assuming he was a better climber than SK in this Giro despite all previous evidence suggesting otherwise, you reckon he could have taken 4:43 over the last two stages (ok we can make it 4:30 if you want to factor in his mechanical in the MTT)?

It's a fact that Nibali has never been able to outclimb Froome or Contador in his career (well post-2011 froome anyway), and while Nibali was seemingly in his best ever shape in the 2014 Tour, Froome and Contador were in great shape too. Nibali did have a healthy buffer after the cobbled stage, and he might have been able to gain time on a couple of descents, but would he have held on to it? Well it's speculation, but I think most people would agree that if Froome and Contador teamed up on Nibali to neutralise the cobbles buffer (which they probably would if Nibali was able to match them uphill), Nibali would crack eventually.

In 2010, Anton definitely looked like he was going to win.

In 2013, Nibali was up against Wiggins, who crushed him in 2012, but Wiggins was not on the same level in 2013 and Nibali would probably have beaten Wiggins if he had stayed in the race, so this is the one GT where Nibali has truly been the strongest.
 
In 2010, Antón looked like he was going to win, but there was still a whole week left. He was more consistent than ever, but consistency has never been his strong suit. He had a mere 45" over Nibali and he had proved decidedly better on the muritos and beaten him on Pal, but that was it. It was far from a done deal.

In 2014, he had a nice lead over Contador and Froome and the kind of watts he produced mean it wouldn't have been that easy to dislodge him.

For both races, it's not as simple as "he wouldn't have won without those crashes".
 
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
PremierAndrew said:
Nibali did have a healthy buffer after the cobbled stage, but would he have held on to it?
Probably.
Agreed..... Also I dream of a time (and I feel it's coming soon) when bike handling and the ability to stay on your bike is seen as important as the ability to make your bike go up a hill. Winning a race is about better at being on your bike than your opponents and Nibali was better at being on his bike than SK (who fell off his when Nibali attacked him)
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Erm, he did crack spectacularly. He lost three minutes in the last 8km of that stage. And his ride yesterday suggests his injuries are not really hampering him. So it was just cracking, not the result of the crash.

All I am saying is that it is nonsense to claim Kruijswijk was the best climber in the race, when he performed pretty poorly (for whatever reason) in two of the three most demanding climbing stages.
Your reasoning is wrong. You can't say, he "only" lost 1:30 yesterday, ergo his injuries didn't hamper him, ergo his time loss on Friday was not caused by his injuries but by actual cracking/fading.
We don't know how he would have performed without the crash and injuries. Perhaps he would have been with Nibali. Perhaps he'd have been even better than Nibali. What it comes down to: we don't know if his 1:30 time loss was due to injuries (and as a result we don't know if his time loss on Friday was due to injuries), because we don't know how he would have performed without the crash and injuries.
Either way, I think it's not odd to suggest the injuries from the crash hampered him and to me, his ride on Saturday showed he was still very strong.

(I see now that I wrote Saturday in an earlier post while I meant Friday obviously, apologies)
 
Re:

hrotha said:
In 2010, Antón looked like he was going to win, but there was still a whole week left. He was more consistent than ever, but consistency has never been his strong suit. He had a mere 45" over Nibali and he had proved decidedly better on the muritos and beaten him on Pal, but that was it. It was far from a done deal.
And we still had to see how much he would lose in the flat TT. Surely he would have lost more than Eze?
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
LaFlorecita said:
DFA123 said:
The facts are that there were 4 big mountain stages for GC riders to gain significant time on, plus a time trial.

Nibali gained significant time on two of them, Kruijswijk gained time on two, plus the time trial. There's no way you can conclude that Kruijswijk was the stronger climber throughout the race. He was stronger on three stages. But a GT is not about being stronger on three stages - it's mostly about recovery and maintaining form throughout three weeks - which is why Kruijswijk has never finished on the podium and why Nibali has won many of them.
It's as simple as 1+1. Kruijswijk is 1'50" behind Nibali. Is it strange to suggest his crash, 2 bike changes and riding 1.5 stage with a cracked rib caused him to lose more time than he would have lost if he hadn't crashed? Surely not.
On Saturday, Chaves finished 50s behind Nibali. Kruijswijk 5 minutes. Is it really that much of a stretch to say Kruijswijk would not have lost more than 3 minutes in a normal situation, considering he was in a group with these two at the summit of the penultimate climb, and Valverde and Majka, who were in the 2nd group, finished 2 minutes behind? Don't make me laugh. He would have had to crack spectacularly for that to happen, and his performance yesterday, with a cracked rib, suggest that that would have been very unlikely.
That is not to say Nibali isn't the rightful winner, you have to stay on your bike. But this nonsense about Nibali comfortably turning around a 4:50 deficit on Kruijswijk, without the latter crashing, is just ridiculous.
Erm, he did crack spectacularly. He lost three minutes in the last 8km of that stage. And his ride yesterday suggests his injuries are not really hampering him. So it was just cracking, not the result of the crash.

All I am saying is that it is nonsense to claim Kruijswijk was the best climber in the race, when he performed pretty poorly (for whatever reason) in two of the three most demanding climbing stages.
He cracked becos of his injuries. Breaking a rib makes breathing pretty difficult. Also stage 20 looked good simply becos of painkillers. On form, he was the best climber in the race
 
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
hrotha said:
In 2010, Antón looked like he was going to win, but there was still a whole week left. He was more consistent than ever, but consistency has never been his strong suit. He had a mere 45" over Nibali and he had proved decidedly better on the muritos and beaten him on Pal, but that was it. It was far from a done deal.
And we still had to see how much he would lose in the flat TT. Surely he would have lost more than Eze?
He definitely would've! + 1 to Mosquera minute I'd say. But with 3 MTFs and Bola coming up, Antón had this in his pocket if not for that crash if he didnt pull a Rodriguez in Peñafiel.

Its sad to speak about Anton, the same rider who the last 3 years have been a shadow of himself....
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
DFA123 said:
Erm, he did crack spectacularly. He lost three minutes in the last 8km of that stage. And his ride yesterday suggests his injuries are not really hampering him. So it was just cracking, not the result of the crash.

All I am saying is that it is nonsense to claim Kruijswijk was the best climber in the race, when he performed pretty poorly (for whatever reason) in two of the three most demanding climbing stages.
Your reasoning is wrong. You can't say, he "only" lost 1:30 yesterday, ergo his injuries didn't hamper him, ergo his time loss on Friday was not caused by his injuries but by actual cracking/fading.
We don't know how he would have performed without the crash and injuries. Perhaps he would have been with Nibali. Perhaps he'd have been even better than Nibali. What it comes down to: we don't know if his 1:30 time loss was due to injuries (and as a result we don't know if his time loss on Friday was due to injuries), because we don't know how he would have performed without the crash and injuries.
Either way, I think it's not odd to suggest the injuries from the crash hampered him and to me, his ride on Saturday showed he was still very strong.

(I see now that I wrote Saturday in an earlier post while I meant Friday obviously, apologies)
Fair point - I think we generally agree that it is impossible to know Kruijswijk's level over three weeks. I personally think he would have cracked anyway - based on his history of not maintaing top form for the full three weeks and the pressure that he would have come under from Nibali and Chaves. Either way, I don't see how people can climb that Kruijswijk was the best climber in the race, when he failed on two of the three biggest mountain stages.

Also, I think had a rider like Contador or Nibali suffered the same crash as Kruijswijk, having been in the same position as him in the GC, they would have still gone on to win the race.
 
Re: Re:

IndianCyclist said:
DFA123 said:
LaFlorecita said:
DFA123 said:
The facts are that there were 4 big mountain stages for GC riders to gain significant time on, plus a time trial.

Nibali gained significant time on two of them, Kruijswijk gained time on two, plus the time trial. There's no way you can conclude that Kruijswijk was the stronger climber throughout the race. He was stronger on three stages. But a GT is not about being stronger on three stages - it's mostly about recovery and maintaining form throughout three weeks - which is why Kruijswijk has never finished on the podium and why Nibali has won many of them.
It's as simple as 1+1. Kruijswijk is 1'50" behind Nibali. Is it strange to suggest his crash, 2 bike changes and riding 1.5 stage with a cracked rib caused him to lose more time than he would have lost if he hadn't crashed? Surely not.
On Saturday, Chaves finished 50s behind Nibali. Kruijswijk 5 minutes. Is it really that much of a stretch to say Kruijswijk would not have lost more than 3 minutes in a normal situation, considering he was in a group with these two at the summit of the penultimate climb, and Valverde and Majka, who were in the 2nd group, finished 2 minutes behind? Don't make me laugh. He would have had to crack spectacularly for that to happen, and his performance yesterday, with a cracked rib, suggest that that would have been very unlikely.
That is not to say Nibali isn't the rightful winner, you have to stay on your bike. But this nonsense about Nibali comfortably turning around a 4:50 deficit on Kruijswijk, without the latter crashing, is just ridiculous.
Erm, he did crack spectacularly. He lost three minutes in the last 8km of that stage. And his ride yesterday suggests his injuries are not really hampering him. So it was just cracking, not the result of the crash.

All I am saying is that it is nonsense to claim Kruijswijk was the best climber in the race, when he performed pretty poorly (for whatever reason) in two of the three most demanding climbing stages.
He cracked becos of his injuries. Breaking a rib makes breathing pretty difficult. Also stage 20 looked good simply becos of painkillers. On form, he was the best climber in the race
What does that mean? If you are talking about top form throughout the race, then clearly Nibali showed the highest level in Stage 19. He won the stage by nearly a minute (and a lot more to most GC rivals). Kruijswijk was the most consistent climber in the first two weeks, but his top form wasn't at high as Nibali's top form.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
2
0
Lol this thread is becoming very funny to read

Ascribing Nibali's win purely to luck is hilariously silly, but claiming Kruijswijk would've cracked anyway even if he didn't crash is equally silly. :D :D
 
Re:

Maaaaaaaarten said:
Lol this thread is becoming very funny to read

Ascribing Nibali's win purely to luck is hilariously silly, but claiming Kruijswijk would've cracked anyway even if he didn't crash is equally silly. :D :D
Why? What has he done in his career to suggest he would have maintained his form over the final two very hard mountain stages? All the evidence in his career points to the fact that he can't sustain his top form over a sustained period of time - and also that his top form is not a match for the top form of the best GT riders.

Once Nibali turned on the gas, Kruijswijk was always going to be in trouble.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Lol this thread is becoming very funny to read

Ascribing Nibali's win purely to luck is hilariously silly, but claiming Kruijswijk would've cracked anyway even if he didn't crash is equally silly. :D :D
Why? What has he done in his career to suggest he would have maintained his form over the final two very hard mountain stages? All the evidence in his career points to the fact that he can't sustain his top form over a sustained period of time - and also that his top form is not a match for the top form of the best GT riders.

Once Nibali turned on the gas, Kruijswijk was always going to be in trouble.
Kruijswijk's biggest strength is that his numbers in the 3rd week are similar to his numbers in the 1st week. He's got incredible recovery, and there's an interview somewhere where he says this himself before the start of this year's Giro. This was also evident in last year's Giro, where Kruijswijk was easily one of the top climbers in the last week
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
happytramp said:
Oh God, who cares. SK couldn't even stay on his bike when he Nibali attacked him. Why are people moaning about it so much? It's as clear as day.
Nibali didn't attack SK, he went hard on the descent to increase the distance to Valverde and secure a spot on the podium
Yeah, you're right......Actually SK probably shouldn't have bothered responding right away. He had enough of a gap and plenty of time left on the stage to make up any gaps. He didn't need to take those risks.
 
Looking at Kruijswijk's results in previous GTs, seeing that he sometimes lost time in the first few hard stages, and extrapolating from that to say that he MUST lose time at some point doesn't make sense. In the third week, he doesn't have to show the weakness he didn't show in the first one; rather, if he survived the first week, previous experience tells us he's going to keep it up until the end.

Which is what happened before that crash.
 
Luck has little to do with Nibs win in this Giro, overall he was stronger than Chavez and Bala and SK's complete lack of experience at this level cost him. He cracked under pressure when Nibali attacked downhill and, though he had a confortable lead, he lost his composure and pushed above his descending ability and skills, crashing and not being able afterwards to recover due to injuries, low morale and a weak team.
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
DFA123 said:
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Lol this thread is becoming very funny to read

Ascribing Nibali's win purely to luck is hilariously silly, but claiming Kruijswijk would've cracked anyway even if he didn't crash is equally silly. :D :D
Why? What has he done in his career to suggest he would have maintained his form over the final two very hard mountain stages? All the evidence in his career points to the fact that he can't sustain his top form over a sustained period of time - and also that his top form is not a match for the top form of the best GT riders.

Once Nibali turned on the gas, Kruijswijk was always going to be in trouble.
Kruijswijk's biggest strength is that his numbers in the 3rd week are similar to his numbers in the 1st week. He's got incredible recovery, and there's an interview somewhere where he says this himself before the start of this year's Giro. This was also evident in last year's Giro, where Kruijswijk was easily one of the top climbers in the last week
Agree, that in the past he has been relatively strong in the final week, but I think in those editions he was significantly weaker earlier on in the race. This time he seemed to peak earlier and then fade at the end. He's still yet to hold decent form for a full three week race.

I think it's a leap of faith to suggest such an unproven, flaky rider was likely to hold on to the lead over those last two stages. He said himself that he was absolutely on the limit at the top of the Agnello.
 
Re:

hrotha said:
He only faded because of the crash and having to chase without teammates for so long, and everybody was in the red on the Agnello, Nibali included (who himself had been dropped not long before, remember?)
Fair enough if that's your opinion. I disagree, and think he faded because he's not an elite climber and couldn't maintain his level from earlier in the race. He lost three minutes in the final 8km of Risoul. You don't put yourself that much into the red chasing back a bit on 14km of gentle descent.

Fact is, we'll never know and can't say for sure either way. What we can say for sure, is that Nibali was the best rider over the three weeks.
 
Re:

Rollthedice said:
Luck has little to do with Nibs win in this Giro, overall he was stronger than Chavez and Bala and SK's complete lack of experience at this level cost him. He cracked under pressure when Nibali attacked downhill and, though he had a confortable lead, he lost his composure and pushed above his descending ability and skills, crashing and not being able afterwards to recover due to injuries, low morale and a weak team.
What really happened is explained above. Yet people will continue to whine and carry on for weeks.... Go figure.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
5
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
hrotha said:
He only faded because of the crash and having to chase without teammates for so long, and everybody was in the red on the Agnello, Nibali included (who himself had been dropped not long before, remember?)
Fair enough if that's your opinion. I disagree, and think he faded because he's not an elite climber and couldn't maintain his level from earlier in the race. He lost three minutes in the final 8km of Risoul. You don't put yourself that much into the red chasing back a bit on 14km of gentle descent.

Fact is, we'll never know and can't say for sure either way. What we can say for sure, is that Nibali was the best rider over the three weeks.
I'm one of the biggest Nibali fans around and I'm 99% sure Kruijswijk would've won this race without the fall.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY