Teams & Riders Vincenzo Nibali discussion thread

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

(and yes, you have to finish to compete, bla bla bla )

Sorry, but this shows you've completely missed the point of my post.

The other Grand Tours are always a cut below the TdF, apart from the years where most favorites crash out of TdF early, and thus ride the Vuelta to win... the TdF IS the big kahuna, where the very best are all there.

And this just confirms it.

 

[damian13ster]

Re: Nibali discussion thread

Personally, I think Nibalis style of attacking on downhill is pretty desperate. Hes very adept at it but it's designed to put other riders who have more to lose in danger.

If they fall because there outside of there comfort zone then he does not give a ****, and that's nothing to be proud of in my book.

Others think it's all part of the game but my interest is in a riders physical abilities on a man to man battle going uphill.

Maybe stop watching cycling at all and just read blogs calculating W/kg?

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Nibali discussion thread

Personally, I think Nibalis style of attacking on downhill is pretty desperate. Hes very adept at it but it's designed to put other riders who have more to lose in danger.

If they fall because there outside of there comfort zone then he does not give a ****, and that's nothing to be proud of in my book.

Others think it's all part of the game but my interest is in a riders physical abilities on a man to man battle going uphill.

That's called a spinning class.

 

[hrotha]

All climbs cancelled thanks to Menchov.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Re: Re:

(and yes, you have to finish to compete, bla bla bla )

Sorry, but this shows you've completely missed the point of my post.

The other Grand Tours are always a cut below the TdF, apart from the years where most favorites crash out of TdF early, and thus ride the Vuelta to win... the TdF IS the big kahuna, where the very best are all there.

And this just confirms it.

LOL

Just because we disagree, don't assume I missed your point...... which I disagree with

 

[trucido]

Re: Nibali discussion thread

Personally, I think Nibalis style of attacking on downhill is pretty desperate. Hes very adept at it but it's designed to put other riders who have more to lose in danger.

If they fall because there outside of there comfort zone then he does not give a ****, and that's nothing to be proud of in my book.

Others think it's all part of the game but my interest is in a riders physical abilities on a man to man battle going uphill.

Why don't you go create a GT with 21 uphill stages only then? Can riders not feel out of their comfort zone going uphill/on cobbles/staying with the peloton during the last few kilometres of a sprint finish?

Pathetic comment.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Nibali discussion thread

Personally, I think Nibalis style of attacking on downhill is pretty desperate. Hes very adept at it but it's designed to put other riders who have more to lose in danger.

If they fall because there outside of there comfort zone then he does not give a ****, and that's nothing to be proud of in my book.

Others think it's all part of the game but my interest is in a riders physical abilities on a man to man battle going uphill.

Why don't you go create a GT with 21 uphill stages only then? Can riders not feel out of their comfort zone going uphill/on cobbles/staying with the peloton during the last few kilometres of a sprint finish?

Pathetic comment.

Show some respect to arvc40 aka Guillén.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

(and yes, you have to finish to compete, bla bla bla )

Sorry, but this shows you've completely missed the point of my post.

The other Grand Tours are always a cut below the TdF, apart from the years where most favorites crash out of TdF early, and thus ride the Vuelta to win... the TdF IS the big kahuna, where the very best are all there.

And this just confirms it.

LOL

Just because we disagree, don't assume I missed your point...... which I disagree with

Then actually disagree with it rather than post snide comments in brackets. Your post is supposition and faulty logic that requires constant caveats. Nibali can't beat the best, except when he does so I have to make up exceptions to invalidate those wins. The other GTs are a cut below the Tour, yet Landa has never won any GT but you think he is better than Nibali. Aru has only won the Vuelta against people Nibali has beaten (Rodriguez, Domoulin, Chaves, Valverde, Majka) when the two big names either dropped out or didn't ride yet somehow he is rated above Nibali too.

The facts remain that he has beaten Froome, Contador and Landa in GTs they were fully expected to beat him in. Staying on your bike is as much a part of winning a race as out-climbing someone is. In fact, it's much, much more important. What would haves are pointless supposition.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Re: Re:

(and yes, you have to finish to compete, bla bla bla )

Sorry, but this shows you've completely missed the point of my post.

The other Grand Tours are always a cut below the TdF, apart from the years where most favorites crash out of TdF early, and thus ride the Vuelta to win... the TdF IS the big kahuna, where the very best are all there.

And this just confirms it.

LOL

Just because we disagree, don't assume I missed your point...... which I disagree with

Then actually disagree with it rather than post snide comments in brackets. Your post is supposition and faulty logic that requires constant caveats. Nibali can't beat the best, except when he does so I have to make up exceptions to invalidate those wins. The other GTs are a cut below the Tour, yet Landa has never won any GT but you think he is better than Nibali. Aru has only won the Vuelta against people Nibali has beaten (Rodriguez, Domoulin, Chaves, Valverde, Majka) when the two big names either dropped out or didn't ride yet somehow he is rated above Nibali too.

The facts remain that he has beaten Froome, Contador and Landa in GTs they were fully expected to beat him in. Staying on your bike is as much a part of winning a race as out-climbing someone is. In fact, it's much, much more important. What would haves are pointless supposition.

Ok fanboy

Don't ask for a debate, if you don't want to debate......

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

(and yes, you have to finish to compete, bla bla bla )

Sorry, but this shows you've completely missed the point of my post.

The other Grand Tours are always a cut below the TdF, apart from the years where most favorites crash out of TdF early, and thus ride the Vuelta to win... the TdF IS the big kahuna, where the very best are all there.

And this just confirms it.

LOL

Just because we disagree, don't assume I missed your point...... which I disagree with

Then actually disagree with it rather than post snide comments in brackets. Your post is supposition and faulty logic that requires constant caveats. Nibali can't beat the best, except when he does so I have to make up exceptions to invalidate those wins. The other GTs are a cut below the Tour, yet Landa has never won any GT but you think he is better than Nibali. Aru has only won the Vuelta against people Nibali has beaten (Rodriguez, Domoulin, Chaves, Valverde, Majka) when the two big names either dropped out or didn't ride yet somehow he is rated above Nibali too.

The facts remain that he has beaten Froome, Contador and Landa in GTs they were fully expected to beat him in. Staying on your bike is as much a part of winning a race as out-climbing someone is. In fact, it's much, much more important. What would haves are pointless supposition.

Ok fanboy

Don't ask for a debate, if you don't want to debate......

You put forward arguments that were illogical so I refuted them and I dismissed supposition as exactly what it is, fantasy. Resorting to insults and a non sequitur, well done.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Re: Nibali discussion thread

In the first instance, a crash isn't like being dropped on the descent (which undoubtedly in the overall economy of the course, would have been SK's best option and probably would have saved him the title). He didn't "have to go down", because of Nibali's pace, but "choose to go down" trying to follow. If Nibali had just dropped SK and then went on to still win, then it could be said he did so entirely on his own legs. As it stands his victory was helped by Lady Luck. "Luck" as the opportunity he created, true, but it still doesn't show the real strength or weakness of the players in contention. One was simply physically compromised and the winner who capitalizes on his rival's impairment, with however much bravura, isn't the same winner as if he had dominated a healthy opponent.

Let's remember that Kruijswijk was 4:43 ahead of Nibali before the crash. Consequently anyone that denies that the Dutchman was the strongest in the mountains till that point, simply negates an unequivocal reality. He dropped Nibali on the queen stage in the dolomites, finishing with the stage winner Chaves. He dominated both Chaves and even more so Nibali in the MTT. He was never dropped by anyone else on a previous mountain stage. He was ahead of Chavez by over 2 minutes and by Nibali and Valverde by over 4 minutes. It is impossible to state he wasn't the dominant rider up till that point.

Practically the only thing that could have unseated him was a crash, which is what happened. So Nibali was very lucky. Without the crash the Giro probably wouldn't have been his.

Now in regards to "only the Tour" blah, blah, blah, blah. Hey I've lived in Italy for over 20 years, so you've picked the wrong target for such an accusation. To the contrary the Giro is to be appreciated for its own merits, independent of the status of the Tour, which is though undeniably the biggest race on the calendar. That's why I said none of this debate matters come July, for the simple reason that at the Tour every contender departs from a tabula rasa. If a guy wins the Giro but looses the Tour, everybody is talking about the guy who won the Tour. If a guy doesn't ride the Giro (or looses it as has happened), but wins the Tour, everyone is talking about the guy who won the Tour. Not surprisingly all the best GT racers in the world are there to fight for cycling's biggest crown. As beautiful as the Giro is, this isn't the case with the Italian GT.

And nobody said Nibali was "weak," or that winning the Giro isn't a huge achievment. I don't know where you gathered I was inferring that from. I find the Giro parcours and general interpretation of how they are raced to be far superior to those of the Tour. The Giro is still primarily about cycling, whereas the Tour is about the prestige and colossal enterpise of the race (with the obvious significance this has for the cyclist who wins it). If anything consequently mine shows real respect for the dignity of the Giro and its place in cycling, in simply poining out it's a shame that the winner's outcome was greatly enhanced by the crash of the guy that had dominated him and the race till that point.

Otherwise if all we care about is that Nibali won the Giro and not how he won it, then we might as well have rooted for SK to go down while in such a commanding lead.

Why would anyone not care about how Nibali won the Giro? the final stages were the best part, anyway I'm sure most will agree on the following two points:

If Kruijswijk doesn't crash he likely wins the Giro, agreed?

If Nibali doesn't apply pressure to which Kruijswijk responds he likely doesn't crash, agreed?

Nine times out of ten Kruijswijk follows Nibali down the descent without incident but this time he didn't, now you can call it whatever you wish but I choose to commend Nibali for his effort which made this Giro the grand spectacle we all (most) enjoyed.

With regards to the Tour comments, my original reply was that any direct comparison made with Nibali come this July is pointless as is any expectation that he will be a serious contender for the GC, thus your comment: "none of this matters come July, when Nibali will be up against much fiercer foes. May the best man win." is not likely.

 

[SafeBet]

No race for Nibali till the Tour.
Hard to believe he could be anything more than a helper/stage hunter.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Re: Re:

LOL

Just because we disagree, don't assume I missed your point...... which I disagree with

Then actually disagree with it rather than post snide comments in brackets. Your post is supposition and faulty logic that requires constant caveats. Nibali can't beat the best, except when he does so I have to make up exceptions to invalidate those wins. The other GTs are a cut below the Tour, yet Landa has never won any GT but you think he is better than Nibali. Aru has only won the Vuelta against people Nibali has beaten (Rodriguez, Domoulin, Chaves, Valverde, Majka) when the two big names either dropped out or didn't ride yet somehow he is rated above Nibali too.

The facts remain that he has beaten Froome, Contador and Landa in GTs they were fully expected to beat him in. Staying on your bike is as much a part of winning a race as out-climbing someone is. In fact, it's much, much more important. What would haves are pointless supposition.

Ok fanboy

Don't ask for a debate, if you don't want to debate......

You put forward arguments that were illogical so I refuted them and I dismissed supposition as exactly what it is, fantasy. Resorting to insults and a non sequitur, well done.

I'ts "illogical" to say he is not the best GC rider, when he would hardly have gone top 5, if everyone had been there?

Ok then

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Re:

No race for Nibali till the Tour.
Hard to believe he could be anything more than a helper/stage hunter.

He will act as helper, as long as Aru is in form.

In return, Aru will help him at the olympics..... Aru knows his best chance at olympic gold, is riding up Mount Fuji in 4 years anyway.

 

[SevenTimeTdfChamp]

Re: Re:

Greatest GT rider of his generation does it again.

Let the discussion start
Let me guess: Monument wins are more important for you and because Nibali is a gt rider and won a monument he is the greater gt rider than Contador although Contador has more gt wins?

That's part of it. GT riding has become the domain of specialists for a long time. Currently Froome, Contador, Quintana and always the top picks when riding a GT/some stage races but you wouldn't even give them a second thought in any other race. It started with LeMond, Indurain took it to the next level and Armstrong even further. Even the "lesser" GT riders of the recent era, Pantani, Basso, Menchov etc. We see the same thing with most of the young GT talent coming through, it's stage racing only and you wouldn't even give most of them a second thought in a one day race (except Barguil, my favourite of the young guys coming through). Nibali is a threat in pretty much any race he enters. If it's raced right you'd even give him a chance in Milano-Sanremo. Maybe if he had focussed on only ever winning GTs he'd have more, but he's not done that.

There are also lots of other factors people consistently fail to take into account. People are constantly claiming Nibali is lucky, that better riders fall ill or crash, but you don't become one of 6 riders to win all 3 GTs by luck. that's absurd. To win a race you have to finish a race and that means you have have the constitution for 3 weeks of bike racing and the ability to stay upright or at least get back on if you go down and that is determined by how you build up to a race, not just the race itself. We don't know if Nibali was ill during any of his wins, he may have been in this Giro and just didn't want to say. People cry that Landa would have beaten him had he not been ill, but maybe his training was too hard, maybe he put himself in the position where if he didn't get a bug he would be fine but any slight illness was going to knock him out of the race. Maybe Nibali planned his training better, maybe he has a stronger constitution. None of us know any of this, but it is almost never considered. Nibali has been there to take the chances he has had to win all three GTs. He has managed to maintain an ability to compete in races that other GT riders would be laughed at for turning up at. Not only compete, he's managed to win.

As far as I'm concerned he's the greatest GT rider of his generation.

You can argue that nibali is the best rider of his generation but i dont see how you can connect his performence in classics with grand tours. Grand tours and classics are different and have nothing to do with the ability to compete in gt/ classic. By that logic you can say that gilbert is a good GT rider because he has won all the ardennes classics in the same year

 

[Pippo_San]

Aru has shown nothing in one day races. I don't even get why he should be taken to Rio.

Nibbles as sole leader paired with Rosa, Ulissi, Scarponi, Brambilla looks awesome. Maybe change Scarponi with Moser for the flats.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

Greatest GT rider of his generation does it again.

Let the discussion start
Let me guess: Monument wins are more important for you and because Nibali is a gt rider and won a monument he is the greater gt rider than Contador although Contador has more gt wins?

That's part of it. GT riding has become the domain of specialists for a long time. Currently Froome, Contador, Quintana and always the top picks when riding a GT/some stage races but you wouldn't even give them a second thought in any other race. It started with LeMond, Indurain took it to the next level and Armstrong even further. Even the "lesser" GT riders of the recent era, Pantani, Basso, Menchov etc. We see the same thing with most of the young GT talent coming through, it's stage racing only and you wouldn't even give most of them a second thought in a one day race (except Barguil, my favourite of the young guys coming through). Nibali is a threat in pretty much any race he enters. If it's raced right you'd even give him a chance in Milano-Sanremo. Maybe if he had focussed on only ever winning GTs he'd have more, but he's not done that.

There are also lots of other factors people consistently fail to take into account. People are constantly claiming Nibali is lucky, that better riders fall ill or crash, but you don't become one of 6 riders to win all 3 GTs by luck. that's absurd. To win a race you have to finish a race and that means you have have the constitution for 3 weeks of bike racing and the ability to stay upright or at least get back on if you go down and that is determined by how you build up to a race, not just the race itself. We don't know if Nibali was ill during any of his wins, he may have been in this Giro and just didn't want to say. People cry that Landa would have beaten him had he not been ill, but maybe his training was too hard, maybe he put himself in the position where if he didn't get a bug he would be fine but any slight illness was going to knock him out of the race. Maybe Nibali planned his training better, maybe he has a stronger constitution. None of us know any of this, but it is almost never considered. Nibali has been there to take the chances he has had to win all three GTs. He has managed to maintain an ability to compete in races that other GT riders would be laughed at for turning up at. Not only compete, he's managed to win.

As far as I'm concerned he's the greatest GT rider of his generation.

You can argue that nibali is the best rider of his generation but i dont see how you can connect his performence in classics with grand tours. Grand tours and classics are different and have nothing to do with the ability to compete in gt/ classic. By that logic you can say that gilbert is a good GT rider because he has won all the ardennes classics in the same year

Not really. KB is saying that as a GT rider winning a Lombardia as well as podiuming Liege and MSR show he is the best of all the GT riders, as he isn't a one or two trick pony. Had Gilbert also done well in GTs as in winning 3 or 4 then yes, you could claim that but he hasn't. I think you missed KB's point a bit.

 

[yaco]

Surely guys and girls you realise that all the exceptional riders in cyclings history are JUST lucky.

 

[SafeBet]

Re:

Aru has shown nothing in one day races. I don't even get why he should be taken to Rio.

He was 9th in Lombardia two years ago coming from the Vuelta.

 

[SevenTimeTdfChamp]

Re: Re:

Greatest GT rider of his generation does it again.

Let the discussion start
Let me guess: Monument wins are more important for you and because Nibali is a gt rider and won a monument he is the greater gt rider than Contador although Contador has more gt wins?

That's part of it. GT riding has become the domain of specialists for a long time. Currently Froome, Contador, Quintana and always the top picks when riding a GT/some stage races but you wouldn't even give them a second thought in any other race. It started with LeMond, Indurain took it to the next level and Armstrong even further. Even the "lesser" GT riders of the recent era, Pantani, Basso, Menchov etc. We see the same thing with most of the young GT talent coming through, it's stage racing only and you wouldn't even give most of them a second thought in a one day race (except Barguil, my favourite of the young guys coming through). Nibali is a threat in pretty much any race he enters. If it's raced right you'd even give him a chance in Milano-Sanremo. Maybe if he had focussed on only ever winning GTs he'd have more, but he's not done that.

There are also lots of other factors people consistently fail to take into account. People are constantly claiming Nibali is lucky, that better riders fall ill or crash, but you don't become one of 6 riders to win all 3 GTs by luck. that's absurd. To win a race you have to finish a race and that means you have have the constitution for 3 weeks of bike racing and the ability to stay upright or at least get back on if you go down and that is determined by how you build up to a race, not just the race itself. We don't know if Nibali was ill during any of his wins, he may have been in this Giro and just didn't want to say. People cry that Landa would have beaten him had he not been ill, but maybe his training was too hard, maybe he put himself in the position where if he didn't get a bug he would be fine but any slight illness was going to knock him out of the race. Maybe Nibali planned his training better, maybe he has a stronger constitution. None of us know any of this, but it is almost never considered. Nibali has been there to take the chances he has had to win all three GTs. He has managed to maintain an ability to compete in races that other GT riders would be laughed at for turning up at. Not only compete, he's managed to win.

As far as I'm concerned he's the greatest GT rider of his generation.

You can argue that nibali is the best rider of his generation but i dont see how you can connect his performence in classics with grand tours. Grand tours and classics are different and have nothing to do with the ability to compete in gt/ classic. By that logic you can say that gilbert is a good GT rider because he has won all the ardennes classics in the same year

Not really. KB is saying that as a GT rider winning a Lombardia as well as podiuming Liege and MSR show he is the best of all the GT riders, as he isn't a one or two trick pony. Had Gilbert also done well in GTs as in winning 3 or 4 then yes, you could claim that but he hasn't. I think you missed KB's point a bit.

He is not saying he is the best of the grand tour riders.."Greatest GT rider of his generation does it again". You are probably right, that he is trying to say he is the most complete of them but when you write he is the best grand tour rider i take it as beeing the best at rideing grand tours. And as i said your abillity to ride classics arent the same as your abillity to ride grand tours

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Nibali discussion thread

In the first instance, a crash isn't like being dropped on the descent (which undoubtedly in the overall economy of the course, would have been SK's best option and probably would have saved him the title). He didn't "have to go down", because of Nibali's pace, but "choose to go down" trying to follow. If Nibali had just dropped SK and then went on to still win, then it could be said he did so entirely on his own legs. As it stands his victory was helped by Lady Luck. "Luck" as the opportunity he created, true, but it still doesn't show the real strength or weakness of the players in contention. One was simply physically compromised and the winner who capitalizes on his rival's impairment, with however much bravura, isn't the same winner as if he had dominated a healthy opponent.

Let's remember that Kruijswijk was 4:43 ahead of Nibali before the crash. Consequently anyone that denies that the Dutchman was the strongest in the mountains till that point, simply negates an unequivocal reality. He dropped Nibali on the queen stage in the dolomites, finishing with the stage winner Chaves. He dominated both Chaves and even more so Nibali in the MTT. He was never dropped by anyone else on a previous mountain stage. He was ahead of Chavez by over 2 minutes and by Nibali and Valverde by over 4 minutes. It is impossible to state he wasn't the dominant rider up till that point.

Practically the only thing that could have unseated him was a crash, which is what happened. So Nibali was very lucky. Without the crash the Giro probably wouldn't have been his.

Now in regards to "only the Tour" blah, blah, blah, blah. Hey I've lived in Italy for over 20 years, so you've picked the wrong target for such an accusation. To the contrary the Giro is to be appreciated for its own merits, independent of the status of the Tour, which is though undeniably the biggest race on the calendar. That's why I said none of this debate matters come July, for the simple reason that at the Tour every contender departs from a tabula rasa. If a guy wins the Giro but looses the Tour, everybody is talking about the guy who won the Tour. If a guy doesn't ride the Giro (or looses it as has happened), but wins the Tour, everyone is talking about the guy who won the Tour. Not surprisingly all the best GT racers in the world are there to fight for cycling's biggest crown. As beautiful as the Giro is, this isn't the case with the Italian GT.

And nobody said Nibali was "weak," or that winning the Giro isn't a huge achievment. I don't know where you gathered I was inferring that from. I find the Giro parcours and general interpretation of how they are raced to be far superior to those of the Tour. The Giro is still primarily about cycling, whereas the Tour is about the prestige and colossal enterpise of the race (with the obvious significance this has for the cyclist who wins it). If anything consequently mine shows real respect for the dignity of the Giro and its place in cycling, in simply poining out it's a shame that the winner's outcome was greatly enhanced by the crash of the guy that had dominated him and the race till that point.

Otherwise if all we care about is that Nibali won the Giro and not how he won it, then we might as well have rooted for SK to go down while in such a commanding lead.

Why would anyone not care about how Nibali won the Giro? the final stages were the best part, anyway I'm sure most will agree on the following two points:

If Kruijswijk doesn't crash he likely wins the Giro, agreed?

If Nibali doesn't apply pressure to which Kruijswijk responds he likely doesn't crash, agreed?

Nine times out of ten Kruijswijk follows Nibali down the descent without incident but this time he didn't, now you can call it whatever you wish but I choose to commend Nibali for his effort which made this Giro the grand spectacle we all (most) enjoyed.

With regards to the Tour comments, my original reply was that any direct comparison made with Nibali come this July is pointless as is any expectation that he will be a serious contender for the GC, thus your comment: "none of this matters come July, when Nibali will be up against much fiercer foes. May the best man win." is not likely.

Ok, for the enth time: Nibali's victory, at this Giro, would have been more noteworthy had Kruijswijk not crashed. When someone wins like this, because someone falls off hard, it's never a way to assess the real strength of the victor. My thoughts were directed to those who see this victory as a barometer of Nibali's real status among the Bigs of contemporary cycling. It is not.

The Italian press has, not surprisingly, tried to downplay the impact the crash had in the outcome of the race, in favor of a narrative in which Nibali the champ "senses the prey was ready to be slayed." Hence it was apparently his irresistible force and not the crash that raised him in triumph, which was presumably a foregone conclusion (even without the crash). That's BS. I'm just pointing it out.

What Nibali needs to do now, or before his career ends, is win the Tour on force against Froome, Contador and Quintana. Only then can he be seen as what some of his fans are making him out to be.

 

[Climbing]

Nibali doens't need to do anything.
He's a champion, deal with it.

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

Nibali doens't need to do anything.
He's a champion, deal with it.

As usual, you have missed the point.

 

[Climbing]

Re: Re:

Nibali doens't need to do anything.
He's a champion, deal with it.

As usual, you have missed the point.

Were you making a point?

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Re: Nibali discussion thread

Why would anyone not care about how Nibali won the Giro? the final stages were the best part, anyway I'm sure most will agree on the following two points:

If Kruijswijk doesn't crash he likely wins the Giro, agreed?

If Nibali doesn't apply pressure to which Kruijswijk responds he likely doesn't crash, agreed?

Nine times out of ten Kruijswijk follows Nibali down the descent without incident but this time he didn't, now you can call it whatever you wish but I choose to commend Nibali for his effort which made this Giro the grand spectacle we all (most) enjoyed.

With regards to the Tour comments, my original reply was that any direct comparison made with Nibali come this July is pointless as is any expectation that he will be a serious contender for the GC, thus your comment: "none of this matters come July, when Nibali will be up against much fiercer foes. May the best man win." is not likely.

Ok, for the enth time: Nibali's victory, at this Giro, would have been more noteworthy had Kruijswijk not crashed. When someone wins like this, because someone falls off hard, it's never a way to assess the real strength of the victor. My thoughts were directed to those who see this victory as a barometer of Nibali's real status among the Bigs of contemporary cycling. It is not.

The Italian press has, not surprisingly, tried to downplay the impact the crash had in the outcome of the race, in favor of a narrative in which Nibali the champ "senses the prey was ready to be slayed." Hence it was apparently his irresistible force and not the crash that raised him in triumph, which was presumably a foregone conclusion (even without the crash). That's BS. I'm just pointing it out.

What Nibali needs to do now, or before his career ends, is win the Tour on force against Froome, Contador and Quintana. Only then can he be seen as what some of his fans are making him out to be.

Your thoughts may well have been directed to those using this victory as a barometer of his status but your comments were directed at Phanatic and myself, neither of whom argued against the obvious fact that it would have been more noteworthy a victory if he had taken the time back without a crash (which I doubt he would), neither of us mentioned the Italian press and neither of us made any comments about his place amongst his rivals.

Personally I'm hoping to see Nibali return to the Giro next year with his new team against Aru, Kruijswijk, Landa and maybe Contador too.