Azabael said:
2005, 2007 and arguably 2009. Failed focus on the Tour. I know he won the Giro in 2009, but peak wise he rode the giro in preparation of the tour like in '08 where he rode top5 in both.
You can't be serious, if any, the years you list speak to how stable Menchov is.
2005 was not a year for him to target TdF. He would have had no chance against Ulrich and the all dominating Basso, no his target was the Vuelta which he had placed in top 5 the year before. Guess who won.
For 2007, there's a rider called the Chicken. Menchov simply stood off his bike and instead won the Vuelta including its mountain classification. It hardly backs your argument about wobbly TdF performance.
Ignoring Fränk Schleck's excuse, there's a big difference between riding for the win and riding to get in shape. Winning the Giro is not in any means a good preperation for winning TdF, just ask Contador. Menchov went for the victory because the opertunity arose and the year after where he didn't ride the Giro he placed 2nd (3rd) in TdF. Here's a question for you, did Menchov ride the Giro this year? If any, Menchov's ability in 2008 to ride the Giro and place 5th (after a string of bad luck) in TdF show his consistency.
Azabael said:
The thing you however seem to overlook is that the Wiggins of 2012 isn't the same as before, as mentioned in one of my earlier posts concerning his sublime peaking abilities.
I am not overlooking anything in regard to Wiggins, but in Denmark we have the saying "the trees do not grow into the sky" (no pun intended). Wiggin's 3 week stability and climbing skills are still unproven. I do not mind wishful thinking being included but at least it should be allowed on both sides of the fence. We have had two days showing that Menchov is not out of shape, he seems as strong as ever. If treated equally then Menchov got just as much right to be considered as an obvious favorite as Wiggins.
Azabael said:
If you apply the same logic as we did to Menchov and Schleck, then yes he indeed had a few inconsistent tours. But like I not only mentioned in this post, everything is relative and you need to place it in perspective. Our choice here is to prioritize known facts from the past and decide which give the best indication on how they will perform in the race we are currently watching.
But it's the relative part where your fault of being baised is to be found. As I pointed out in the beginning, Menchov is not inconsisten but has had different priorities. I hoped pointing to Wiggins' inconsistency would work as a wake-up call to you.
Like I already mentioned, the Menchov we currently are seeing is the Menchov who wins his races, which nullifies all prior results this year just like it would have been with an Andy in top shape.
Azabael said:
And because every rider is different, peakwise, different rules can apply to different riders. Menchov and Schleck are riders who can have one or two goals in the season, where as Wiggins can have many due to a constant high basic level.
Which is the very reason why I mentioned Andy to you in the first place.
Azabael said:
I agree on seeing Wiggins as a bigger favourite. One word, that might need some backup, says enough. Inconsistency. You never know with Menchov when he's really going to do well, not until the very moment itself. Wiggins on the other hand, has shown this year he's the master of peaking and not just once a year. Add that to the fact that his peaks have throughout the entire season proven to be high enough to take on anyway that challenged him, and I think we have a completed arguement as long as people are not blind for facts.
I just want to point out that consistency in it self mean nothing or else we'd always have to treat Andy Schleck like a surprise when TdF hits.
But yes, Wiggins deserves to be admired for the consistency he has shown this year, it's a guy with a clear aim.
Azabael said:
So to simply say we should base our speculations on what riders are capable of in their top form is ridiculous. That's the same as judging a murderer on who he can be when he's on his best thus not killing anyone. You need to look at what type of rider one is and then take all influental parts on his top form into account.
I never said that, here's what I said
My point is that we should base our speculations on what the riders are capable of when they are at their best shape and compare it to how far they are from this shape.
That's a huge difference. Your way of doing it would and will always fail to predict winners like Sastre because you get blinded by the fireworks from the nearest results. A rider can have had 3 bad years and be in the middle of a bad year, but it means nothing on the day if the rider is in top shape and is top motivated.