Teams & Riders Vincenzo Nibali discussion thread

[cineteq]

Re:

Apparently, Landa and Kruijswijk have «superior» climbing ability, yet they have not won a single GT.

With Nibali's Giro victory imminent, it now is the time to dispassionately document the context of the race. Here's what I have so far.

- Landa withdraw with illness. Owing to his superior climbing ability and his surprisingly good ITT, he was the favourite for the Giro at the time of his exit.
- SK crashed. He had displayed superior climbing ability up to the crash and was the prohibitive favourite for the Giro at the time of his crash.

Any further context future generations will want to be aware of?

 

[cineteq]

Re:

Thanks a lot for posting this! Grazie mille!

Really cool video

https://www.facebook.com/giroditalia/videos/10153742895618247/

 

[Carols]

What no one seems to have grasped yet is that if Vince hadn't been blocked until late in the race he would have just demolished the field early and this would have been a very boring race. Chapeau Vincenzo for never giving up and making this a race to remember, an epic comeback tale of glory!

 

[cineteq]

Re: Nibali discussion thread

On the subject of "Nibali was lucky to win the Giro"

Kruijswijk said:
“But staying on your bike is also cycling and that’s what I lacked yesterday”

 

[jsem94]

Re:

Greatest GT rider of his generation does it again.

Lol nope.

More like the greatest overachieving GT rider of his generation. But you can only beat what's in front of you and he's done it on multiple occasions now. He's brilliant. Has won more than stronger riders in the past have, and for that he deserves a lot of credit.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Nibali discussion thread

On the subject of "Nibali was lucky to win the Giro"

Kruijswijk said:
“But staying on your bike is also cycling and that’s what I lacked yesterday”

It's undeniable that Nibali was lucky to win this Giro, just as he was lucky his main rivals crashed out of the Tour he won, though he was beaten by Wiggins at the Tour and a 42 year-old Horner at the Vuelta, so I guess Fortune really is blind. And who was it that Enzo beat at the Vuelta? Ezequiel Mosquera Miguez Gómez. The guy was subsequently disqualified for doping, but dropped Nibs on Bola del Mundo. Not a stellar cyclist at least on my radar. And who was his biggest threat at the last Giro he won? Ciccio Uran...

He races with a big heart and has enough talent to capitalize on other's misfortunes, but if there is a rider who's been graced by good fortune it is certainly him. Thus as Wouter said above, he is the most overachieving cyclist of his generation in GTs.

 

[johnymax]

Re:

Just watched the stage again, that descent after Lombarda was a thing of beauty. Nigh on perfection on every corner from Nibbles.

And yet Valverde gained 10s on him on that descent. This just shows once again that Nibali is yes a very good descender, but not an extraordinary one like many think he is. And that Valverde is just as good as him (as I've stated numerous times).

 

[IndianCyclist]

A really great performance for Nibali. But in this Giro he was pretty lucky as well. The last 2 days he and his strong team were up against 2 weak teams and relatively inexperienced GT riders who have never podiumed. In the last few days he had no pressure and nothing to lose whereas Chaves & SK had everything to lose. Chaves was cracked physically whereas SK was put under pressure in possibly his only weak point, downhill where he made a mistake. Hopefully Nibali takes this lesson and does not turn up to other GTs underdone or underestimate his opposition. The other big three or their teams would not make these mistakes.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Nibali discussion thread

On the subject of "Nibali was lucky to win the Giro"

Kruijswijk said:
“But staying on your bike is also cycling and that’s what I lacked yesterday”

It's undeniable that Nibali was lucky to win this Giro, just as he was lucky his main rivals crashed out of the Tour he won, though he was beaten by Wiggins at the Tour and a 42 year-old Horner at the Vuelta, so I guess Fortune really is blind. And who was it that Enzo beat at the Vuelta? Ezequiel Mosquera Miguez Gómez. The guy was subsequently disqualified for doping, but dropped Nibs on Bola del Mundo. Not a stellar cyclist at least on my radar. And who was his biggest threat at the last Giro he won? Ciccio Uran...

He races with a big heart and has enough talent to capitalize on other's misfortunes, but if there is a rider who's been graced by good fortune it is certainly him. Thus as Wouter said above, he is the most overachieving cyclist of his generation in GTs.

No, it's not undeniable. What luck? Like when he had a mechanic in the MTT? That's bad luck! Kruijswijk can't hold him on the descent and crashed, that's not bad luck, that's bad skills! And after that all he needed to do is the wait for Valverde group and hold the wheels, but he couldn't do that either. More bad luck? I don't think so...

 

[46&twoWheels]

Re: Nibali discussion thread

On the subject of "Nibali was lucky to win the Giro"

Kruijswijk said:
“But staying on your bike is also cycling and that’s what I lacked yesterday”

It's undeniable that Nibali was lucky to win this Giro, just as he was lucky his main rivals crashed out of the Tour he won, though he was beaten by Wiggins at the Tour and a 42 year-old Horner at the Vuelta, so I guess Fortune really is blind. And who was it that Enzo beat at the Vuelta? Ezequiel Mosquera Miguez Gómez. The guy was subsequently disqualified for doping, but dropped Nibs on Bola del Mundo. Not a stellar cyclist at least on my radar. And who was his biggest threat at the last Giro he won? Ciccio Uran...

He races with a big heart and has enough talent to capitalize on other's misfortunes, but if there is a rider who's been graced by good fortune it is certainly him. Thus as Wouter said above, he is the most overachieving cyclist of his generation in GTs.

Coincidentally... Nibali is always in the right place at the right time to grab the opportunity. The number of times it happened starts to be relevant
It takes more than luck
You can't capitalize on other's misfortunes if you're hidden in the peloton,cannot descend or without having a great cycling IQ (reading the race)

Drawing the line between what he deserves and what he does not is a futile attempt (unless he did something bad to undermine the competition which he didn't). Overachievers are those who,first and foremost,have achieved something.Being an overachiever is a merit not a concession. Being "the fittest that survives" is a merit itself,the only difference is that slighlty different abilities are required

I think most of your critique can be reduced to: "the best climber must win,otherwise It's not a legit win" which openly contrasts with the spirit of the race
It seems like everything that deviates from the norm must not be taken seriously. Why not award the prize to the "supposed" best climber before the race even starts?
That's why riders like nibali keeps competing. Because they feel they can bring many things to the table and challenge what's perceived to be more powerful. We're talking about pure power though. RAces don't happen in empty space where everything is predictable

 

[Rollthedice]

An emotional hug with Scarponi and apparently Valverde is also happy Vincenzo has won

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4d906s

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

An emotional hug with Scarponi and apparently Valverde is also happy Vincenzo has won

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4d906s

Was that Bala speaking a word of English?

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

An emotional hug with Scarponi and apparently Valverde is also happy Vincenzo has won

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4d906s

Was that Bala speaking a word of English?

Something like Yea. Great champion Bala, respect.

 

[huge]

Re: Re:

An emotional hug with Scarponi and apparently Valverde is also happy Vincenzo has won

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4d906s

Was that Bala speaking a word of English?

Why would he speak in English to Nibali?
I guess he can speak little Italian, and if not he'd definitely speak in Spanish over English to Nibali.
The only word I heard hm saying was "Bravo", which is Italian.

Surprised though that he went on to congratulate Nibali so warmly. I thought there was not much of a good relationship between the two of them. Quite the opposite instead, as it seems.

 

[Red Rick]

Lol I thought the massive "YEEAAAASSS" was Valverde as well, then nvm

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

Apparently, Landa and Kruijswijk have «superior» climbing ability, yet they have not won a single GT.

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.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Apparently, Landa and Kruijswijk have «superior» climbing ability, yet they have not won a single GT.

With Nibali's Giro victory imminent, it now is the time to dispassionately document the context of the race. Here's what I have so far.

- Landa withdraw with illness. Owing to his superior climbing ability and his surprisingly good ITT, he was the favourite for the Giro at the time of his exit.
- SK crashed. He had displayed superior climbing ability up to the crash and was the prohibitive favourite for the Giro at the time of his crash.

Any further context future generations will want to be aware of?

To be fair, Kruijswijk had displayed superior climbing form prior to the crash. But, crash or not, that was never likely to last - with the two most demanding stages of the race still to be ridden. If it was Contador or Froome, or someone proven to last the distance, then Nibali's win could perhaps be assigned a bit more to luck.

But beating a guy who turns 29 next month and has one won race in his whole career is kind of expected of a GT legend. He did so quite comfortably in the end, and would have done so, imo, with or without the crash.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Apparently, Landa and Kruijswijk have «superior» climbing ability, yet they have not won a single GT.

With Nibali's Giro victory imminent, it now is the time to dispassionately document the context of the race. Here's what I have so far.

- Landa withdraw with illness. Owing to his superior climbing ability and his surprisingly good ITT, he was the favourite for the Giro at the time of his exit.
- SK crashed. He had displayed superior climbing ability up to the crash and was the prohibitive favourite for the Giro at the time of his crash.

Any further context future generations will want to be aware of?

To be fair, Kruijswijk had displayed superior climbing form prior to the crash. But, crash or not, that was never likely to last - with the two most demanding stages of the race still to be ridden. If it was Contador or Froome, or someone proven to last the distance, then Nibali's win could perhaps be assigned a bit more to luck.

But beating a guy who turns 29 next month and has one won race in his whole career is kind of expected of a GT legend. He did so quite comfortably in the end, and would have done so, imo, with or without the crash.

Kruijswijk was 4:50 ahead of Nibali.
Kruijswijk is now less than 2 minutes behind Nibali, which is just what he lost on the descent after his crash. And that is not even taking into consideration that his climbing was probably hampered by pain/injuries and perhaps a broken morale.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

Apparently, Landa and Kruijswijk have «superior» climbing ability, yet they have not won a single GT.

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.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Apparently, Landa and Kruijswijk have «superior» climbing ability, yet they have not won a single GT.

With Nibali's Giro victory imminent, it now is the time to dispassionately document the context of the race. Here's what I have so far.

- Landa withdraw with illness. Owing to his superior climbing ability and his surprisingly good ITT, he was the favourite for the Giro at the time of his exit.
- SK crashed. He had displayed superior climbing ability up to the crash and was the prohibitive favourite for the Giro at the time of his crash.

Any further context future generations will want to be aware of?

To be fair, Kruijswijk had displayed superior climbing form prior to the crash. But, crash or not, that was never likely to last - with the two most demanding stages of the race still to be ridden. If it was Contador or Froome, or someone proven to last the distance, then Nibali's win could perhaps be assigned a bit more to luck.

But beating a guy who turns 29 next month and has one won race in his whole career is kind of expected of a GT legend. He did so quite comfortably in the end, and would have done so, imo, with or without the crash.

Kruijswijk was 4:50 ahead of Nibali.
Kruijswijk is now less than 2 minutes behind Nibali, which is just what he lost on the descent after his crash. And that is not even taking into consideration that his climbing was probably hampered by pain/injuries and perhaps a broken morale.

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.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Re: Re:

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.

Would like to think that future generations would understand that there's more to winning a GT than just climbing and I doubt they'll wonder what happened to Landa seeing as he's yet to win such a race and quit so early in this one (whilst being behind Nibali, Valverde and Kruijswijk).

 

[Red Rick]

Well, it's clearly Nibali's doing there's only like 3 better climbers in the current peloton when he's on.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Apparently, Landa and Kruijswijk have «superior» climbing ability, yet they have not won a single GT.

With Nibali's Giro victory imminent, it now is the time to dispassionately document the context of the race. Here's what I have so far.

- Landa withdraw with illness. Owing to his superior climbing ability and his surprisingly good ITT, he was the favourite for the Giro at the time of his exit.
- SK crashed. He had displayed superior climbing ability up to the crash and was the prohibitive favourite for the Giro at the time of his crash.

Any further context future generations will want to be aware of?

To be fair, Kruijswijk had displayed superior climbing form prior to the crash. But, crash or not, that was never likely to last - with the two most demanding stages of the race still to be ridden. If it was Contador or Froome, or someone proven to last the distance, then Nibali's win could perhaps be assigned a bit more to luck.

But beating a guy who turns 29 next month and has one won race in his whole career is kind of expected of a GT legend. He did so quite comfortably in the end, and would have done so, imo, with or without the crash.

You think Nibali would have gained 4:43 over Kruijswijk (who had been by far the strongest) at the time over 2 stages?

Nibali gained less than 3 minutes on Chaves, who was far weaker

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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.