Re:
Well, I think it's fair to discuss if Nibali had any chance of winning the Giro hadn't SK crashed. It's not a discussion I want to indulge in, but I understand why posters would do it.
On the contrary, the Landa discussion is completely pointless. He abandoned midway through the race when the 5 most important stages had yet to be ridden while being 8th in the GC. That the betters thought he was the most likely winner of the race is completely irrelevant. Reality tells us he's a very volatile rider when it comes to GTs, having finished inside the top20 once in his not so brief career.
SeriousSam said:The difference is that Landa was the most likely rider to win the Giro at the time of his exit, whereas TJVG's odds to win the Tour were hovering around 0 at all times.
Although Landa was the most likely rider to win the Giuro at the time of his exit, Nibali wasn't far behind.
By contrast, SK was by far the most likely rider to win the Giro at the time of his crash, with Nibali very unlikely to win. But that also reflected his very poor form, which then very unexpectedly improved.
I will later post an estimate as to what the chance is Nibali would have won the Giro, had SK nor crashed, knowing what we know now (as opposed to before it happened, when the chance Nibali would win was like <5%). An interesting question in my view, that adds some context to his victory.
Well, I think it's fair to discuss if Nibali had any chance of winning the Giro hadn't SK crashed. It's not a discussion I want to indulge in, but I understand why posters would do it.
On the contrary, the Landa discussion is completely pointless. He abandoned midway through the race when the 5 most important stages had yet to be ridden while being 8th in the GC. That the betters thought he was the most likely winner of the race is completely irrelevant. Reality tells us he's a very volatile rider when it comes to GTs, having finished inside the top20 once in his not so brief career.