[Closed] Froome vs Wiggins

could Wiggins have lived with this? I doubt it - I don't think he could have gone with the accelerations up the final climb

What accelerations? Were you watching a different stage to me? The one I saw Froome(-dog) rode everybody off his wheel riding tempo, with at the most two accelerations, the only one ITV deigned to show was a pretty tame one. Accelerating on a climb is also vastly over-rated - you've probably spent too much time listening to Ligget and Sherwen talking about "pure climbers" having the ability to accelerate, a line they're still peddling this year, ignoring the fact that Wiggins (and Froome) showed everybody how to do it last year by riding tempo to catch the "pure climbers" who'd accelerated off the front and then faded. Not to mention Quintana yesterday getting caught by the Sky train riding tempo - did his accelerations help him get to the finish line faster?

i'd love Sky to do a one-two with Froome and Porte this year....two years in a row, has it been done before?

I'm guessing you've not been following road cycling that long, as it's fairly well known? 85/86, but they went one better and did it with the same two riders both years.

[i]Admittedly I know next to bugger all about road racing, but that performance definitely seems suspicious to me[/i]

As you say you know bugger all about road riding.

Such a shame when threads like this turn to shit talking about PED's and the random speculation dished out.

Carry on, as you were. 🙄

As you say you know bugger all about road riding.

No need to be a dick about it though is there. I'm allowed an opinion, and was honest about how informed that opinion is.

Plenty of people who do know a lot about road racing have their suspicions too.

Such a shame when threads like this turn to shit talking about PED's and the random speculation dished out.

Yes, let's all just pretend there's no possibility of cheating in a sport with a massive (recent) history of cheating. 🙄

Again everything is a possibility but generally it requires evidence
The evidence so far seem to be non sequitors and the opinions of non expert witnesses using this logic

Can we do this with the 100 m sprint then?
Bolt is the fastest
in the past the fastest cheated
Bolt is a cheat

That is basically the argument and it is bobbins

How much respect would you like for this guess?
What other sports would you like to speculate on from a position of relative ignorance?

There will always be this "speculation" as you cannot prove negative

What i would prefer is some evidence beyond oh look he is fast therefore he must be a cheat..oh and why only the GC why not say Cav or Sagan? [Or say Bolt from other sports].They are also fast and uncatchable on the right stage for them so why not have a pop at them ?

I read some stuff about Bolt and Jamaican sprinting that sounds pretty suspicious, if that helps. 😉

How much respect would you like for this guess?
What other sports would you like to speculate on from a position of relative ignorance?

Isn't that pretty much what most people do about most sports?

(as posted on another thread, where Junky told us off for going OT 😳 )

I don't know enough about roadies to have a plausible go at "is sky doping?"

... so here's my ill-founded bollocks:

It's down to the quality of the entire team, isn't it (and that's what makes me a bit suspicious) ?

Sure, not only is Froome bloody good but obviously Porte would make the GC leader for pretty much any other team. Then they've got the "domestiques" and this is the bit I can't do. Are they all way better than everybody elses (B-Hagen, fair enough, he's quite famous but what about the rest). If they're genuinely better riders than everybody else's (and always have been) then fair enough - they're just the Chelsea/Man City model for purchasing wins. If all of those guys are performing better than anyone expected, ...

I can see though, that they are all very disciplined - none of this Jens on a mad breakaway stuff; they just sit and ride, giving maximum effort and protection for Froome/Wiggo

(I don't like sky's racing tactics but I still hope they're not doping)

Guardian article

"Tim Kerrison, the Australian coach behind Bradley Wiggins's Tour de France and Olympic triumphs of 2012, has speculated that one reason for Team Sky's success may be that they have been able to jump into a "knowledge gap" that has been left in cycling as teams focused on the expertise and logistics of doping at the expense of coaching and rider development."

This is an interesting one. Could it really be that some of the top riders have had it relatively easy under the influence of illegal PEDs, and are now finding themselves no longer able to compete with the brute force they once used?

It's not just Team Sky (and it does appear to be ALL of Team Sky - Froome, Wiggins, Porte, et al). If we go back to the Olympics last year, Team GB were smashing records left, right and centre. Completely dominating every event. They guys. The girls. Everyone.

Either the entire Brailsford camp are doing something very wrong, or they're doing something very right.

My understanding is that the principal advantage of doping is not so much top level power on a single day, but being able to do it for multiple consecutive stages. If Froome comes out and destroys the field day after day then suspicion will increase, but a single super-effort up one Cat 1, having been very well sheltered for the rest of the day doesn't look too suspect. I'd rather believe and be disappointed than be automatically cynical.

Either the entire Brailsford camp are doing something very wrong, or they're doing something very right.

as posted on another thread, where Junky told us off for going OT

[teacher voice]I can still hear you [/teacher voice] 😉

Yes PEDS tend to give recovery so they could train harder as well
At the levels available now, due to biological passport etc, it would be "mircro " dosing anyway to not look suspicious.

On a one off they can give just as much as they always could - barring Pantani climbing with 50% hematocrit etc when it was just not physiologically possible to use that much oxygen

Just think it is shame that every GC event leads to this but we dont mind Cav being super human at sprinting [ or Hoy]

Its highly unlikely all of GB cycling is doping so there must be something else - training methods I assume -IMHO

I agree with butcher's point: I think what is happening is that the Spanish and Italian riders who may have doped in the part have been shown up when compelled to ride ride clean. Therefore the teams that have worked hard to perfect training programmes (see also British track cycling, British rowing etc) have reaped the rewards.
I could ecwrong (I was wrong about Hincapie, Hamilton) but for the moment I have nothing but admiration for Porte and Froome.

Struggling to see froome today for all his team mates tbh...

What i would prefer is some evidence beyond oh look he is fast therefore he must be a cheat..

To some extent that is the evidence though. Much of the speculation about yesterday was looking at working out Froome(-dog)'s power to weight for the climb to see if it was in feasible levels for a clean rider. From what I've seen, most seem to think it was just about possible (unlike some of Pantani and Armstrong's rides).

Problem with that is
1. We dont actually have his power data so its a guess.
2. What you can do for short periods is not indicative of drug use - i assume i can get past the 7 watts/kg for a short period of time -what do you reckon the sprinters are churning out at the end of the sprint for say the last 20 minutes and then the last 10 seconds?

I always cite Boardman here - accepted to be clean by all and look what he did for the hour record in terms of watts.
It is pointless it is just going he was fast for a bit therefore he is a cheat. it is not logical to just assume this as there is no proof of anything. the real proof is doing it day after day after day - this is only done with EPO IMHO
the evidenced is flimsy to put it mildly- everytime someone rides fast folk say this and yet Bolt can run fast and no one says much about this

Hopefully one day the sport will get to the point where we dont have to do this and we accept that , like all other sports, competitors get faster due to improved training rather than drugs

From 4 days ago:

As rumours swirl about whether or not there is a performance-enhancing drug culture within Jamaican athletics, Usain Bolt, the country's biggest-ever star, remains adamant that he is clean from doping.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/10157145/Usain-Bolt-denies-using-performance-enhancing-drugs-ahead-of-Paris-Diamond-League-meeting.html

It is pointless it is just going he was fast for a bit therefore he is a cheat.

How would the Occam's Razor principle be applied in this scenario? What is the most likely simple explanation for exceptional performance in professional road racing?

[s]natural as drug use is another assumption - I assume you accept they would have to be good as well as doing drugs [/s]

ITS ALL ABOUT THE BIKE 😛

I still want to see your proof rather than your innuendo

aracer - Member

I'm guessing you've not been following road cycling that long, as it's fairly well known? 85/86, but they went one better and did it with the same two riders both years.

I was 8 yrs old in '85 so you're right, i wasnt an avid road cycling fan at that age!

Take that Grandad 😉

I was 8 yrs old in '85 so you're right, i wasnt an avid road cycling fan at that age!

Eddy Mercx won his last TdF when I was 4, but I still know he won 5. It's not like I was even that into cycling in 1985, I certainly didn't watch the Tour, but the Lemond Hinault duals are surely among the most well known TdF stories for anybody who's paid attention to the history.

1. We dont actually have his power data so its a guess.
2. What you can do for short periods is not indicative of drug use - i assume i can get past the 7 watts/kg for a short period of time -what do you reckon the sprinters are churning out at the end of the sprint for say the last 20 minutes and then the last 10 seconds?

Given we have the timings and the distance/profile of the route, it's an extremely good guess. Of course the issue is about how much power he put out for how long - who cares if somebody managed 1000W at the end of the sprint, as that's within the realms of possibility. Similarly we know that 400W for an hour is possible. The whole point is about riders sustaining power outputs for longer than physiologically possible.

I am actually largely with you on this - I think I was actually the first to introduce CB's hour record power output in one of these threads! The trouble is, some of the calculated outputs for Armstrong et al on the climbs were actually greater than that - and as you say they managed it for several climbs in a row day after day. It is a perfectly valid way of determining whether a rider's performance is suspicious IMHO.

Right now I'm happy that Froome(-dog) is clean until proved otherwise. The circumstantial evidence would suggest it is likely he is. However yesterday's performance certainly left me with doubts and looking carefully at what people were suggesting his output was (lots of speculation at the bottom of http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-france/stage-8/results ). My take is that he was right at the edge of what's physiologically possible for a single day - if he does the same again today I'll be worried.

I think I was actually the first to introduce CB's hour record power output in one of these threads!

My take is that he was right at the edge of what's physiologically possible for a single day - if he does the same again today I'll be worried.

Given we have the timings and the distance/profile of the route, it's an extremely good guess.

Have a look at the Science of Sport website for a pretty thorough examination of power over climbs.
I'm working so can't link to it.

Just to stoke the embers of this thread a bit more...

How would Wiggins have coped in Froome's place today without any team mates to support him? Very badly I suspect.

I know Froome would have been with Wiggins but I can't help thinking the Movistar attacks would have been too much for Wiggins.

[i]No need to be a dick about it though is there. I'm allowed an opinion, and was honest about how informed that opinion is.[/i]

Ooh someone's a bit touchy. What's your opinion based on given that you know next to nothing about road riding?

Any people on here who think Wiggins looks cool on a bike obviously didn't watch him descending in the Giro this year .

Ooh someone's a bit touchy. What's your opinion based on given that you know next to nothing about road riding?

I know probably more than the average man in the street but probably a lot less than many on here. Perhaps I should have paraphrased some stuff I read on some cycling blogs and pretended to be an expert though.

What level of knowledge is required in order to be allowed an opinion? Is there an exam or something?

What level of knowledge is required in order to be allowed an opinion? Is there an exam or something?

You mean you haven't even sat them?

So does anybody still think Porte does drugs?

On the Wiggins vs Froome debate, surely Wiggo would have just sat in his saddle and chugged his way back up to the Movistar riders.

Porte looked knackered, Froome (much) less so. I think many of us have become conditioned to just expect the worse now - sadly, this may be Armstrong's biggest legacy to the sport. I want to say that I don't think Froome is doping, but a part of me wonders if that's just because I don't want him to be doping. Does that make sense?

Does that make sense? Absolutely.

This is very much my view on the damage doping has done to the sport. Every time you see a great performance, you can't help but wonder about its legitimacy and your own objectivity.

Still watching though...

On the Wiggins vs Froome debate, surely Wiggo would have just sat in his saddle and chugged his way back up to the Movistar riders.

I think if Wiggins had been in the race yesterday without Froome to support him, he'd have been dropped. There's not many riders in the world who could live with the pace that was set as well as cover the attacks from Quintana and Wiggins is not in that group.

Quintana looked gutted on Saturday though. Must be soul destroying to launch an attack, get up the road and find yourself slowly winched in and passed. Then yesterday to not even be able to get away when your opponent is isolated. Mentally, Froome must really be doing a job on the opposition after those two stages.

Speaking of mental, it was interesting to see Schleck finishing in that group. Either he's out to prove a point to Trek and buried himself yesterday or he's heading back into form.

IMO yesterday Sky suffered due to the effort they'd put into the day before - but they kept yellow, so it was worth it.

Day off now and hopefully they'll recover.

Bet Brailsford was worried though.

Back to the original Q - it's clearly impossible to know if Froome could have won last year and whether Wiggo would have done as well this.

What is clear is that working in support of a GC contender is very different to being one. If you have a bad day as a team member it's not the end of the world where it is as team leader.

Riders after GC need to think about tomorrow and next week when riding, need to be measured and make sure they expend the minimum effort for the days objectives.

Example A is Mr Porte. He was stellar helping Froome get into yellow and himself in second but couldn't back it up today as he pushed so hard and didn't recover. Froome did recover but had 2 team mates to help him for all bar the last part of the day. It would be easy to say after Saturday that he could have beaten Froome had he not held back after pacing etc but it would be wrong.

So you can't take one days result as an indicator as to whether a ride could do better than the leader. Being a leader and winning is far more than one days ride.

It's a team effort and it's more realistic to say that any of Froome, Wiggo or Porte could win this years tour - but they'd approach it in different ways.

It's a team effort and it's more realistic to say that any of Froome, Wiggo or Porte could win this years tour - but they'd approach it in different ways.

I don't think Wiggins would have won this year; too many big mountain stages where he could only rely on the train. I think yesterday for example, as I said, he'd have been off the back rather than able to shut down Quintana like Froome did.

Fair point but Wiggins rides mountains differently.
He doesn't do the accelerations like Froome can do /respond to but last year when Nibali attacked like Quintana did, the Sky boys just kept the same tempo and rode back to him.

Froome is better suited to this years tour but I think Sky have the squad and, now, experience to win with Porte or Wiggo had Froome had an injury and wasn't able to ride.

It's all opinion and all that really matters is what happens tomorrow.

I think atlaz and DaveRambo both make good points which I agree with. At the end of the day it's pure conjecture on a forum but just a bit of fun.

One thing that does occur to me though is I can't recall Chris Froome cracking that badly on the major tours I have seen him ride in recent years but Wiggins, yes.

I think Froome is a much better all-round rider rather than just just a one-trick pony like Wiggins. One thing's for sure though, if Movistar et al continue attacking Froome it's going to be a much more interesting tour than of late.

I can't recall Chris Froome cracking that badly on the major tours I have seen him ride in recent years but Wiggins, yes

When did Wiggo crack once he focused on the tour? I will give him the benefit and say he ws ill for the Giro

They are different riders and Froome has more raw ability to cope with multiple demands and attacks on mountain stages where as wiggo was more one speed- all be it ridiculously fast and the best TT of the GC.

Would have been interesting had they been on different teams

I'm worried for Froome as there are a lot of good riders and teams in this year's tour. And yesterday showed that there are chinks in Sky's armour.
It is very exciting.
I hate rest days.

He doesn't do the accelerations like Froome can do /respond to but last year when Nibali attacked like Quintana did, the Sky boys just kept the same tempo and rode back to him.

I think that's the point I was making. He needed the support last year whereas Froome yesterday was fairly strong in keeping the Movistar pace and also dealing with GC threat rider attacks. It's not to diminish the result in 2012, but I think most people would agree that the route last year was more suited to Wiggins than this year and that in terms of a more "pure" climber, Froome has the edge over him by quite some distance.

I think they know they did not break him and I think had it been an summit finish he would have attacked again

They will keep trying but i thinks[hope] a few more demoralising days and they will know in their hearts and legs he has their measure and beating and will look for other goals

it's clearly impossible to know if Froome could have won last year

Agreed and Wiggins wasn't given the opportunity to defend his jersey this year by Sky although given his season I guess he would have struggled/pulled out anyway. All part of the slightly weird team vs individual riders aspect of road racing.

You can't call Wiggins a one trick pony when he won the Tour last year.
One trick ponies win the other jerseys 🙂

As Junkyard said he didn't crack last year when he properly prepared and was 'ready' for the tour where Froome struggled on some stages in the Vueletta.

I agree it would have been good to see them on different teams - Roll on Tuesday.

He needed the support last year whereas Froome yesterday was fairly strong in keeping the Movistar pace and also dealing with GC threat rider attacks

Not disagreeing with anything you say but it could be put that Wiggo had support last year so used it. Had Porte stayed with Froome yesterday Froome would have used him.

No question that Froome looks more comfortable in the mountains and he certainly showed a lot of strength, tactical awareness and composure yesterday that Wiggins hasn't had to show (whether he could have coped is always a matter of opinion - what isn't is that he would have coped in the same way).

For me the most interesting and enjoyable part of the race is my 13yr old daughter asking questions and being riveted by the stage yesterday.

It's shaping up to be a riveting tour - Froome looks awesome, but will he be able to do it the hard way without the same level of support that BW had last year? Sky losing Kyrienka and hamstrung by other injuries could make it absolutely nail-biting in the Alps.

My 10-year-old daughter is loving it too.

You can't call Wiggins a one trick pony when he won the Tour last year.
One trick ponies win the other jerseys

As Junkyard said he didn't crack last year when he properly prepared and was 'ready' for the tour where Froome struggled on some stages in the Vueletta.

Maybe I could have phrased it better. I meant that Wiggo seems to have just one pace based on his time trial and track abilities and I think would struggle under similar conditions to what Froome faced yesterday.

Don't get me wrong, I also think Wiggo's win the the Tour last year is the greatest performance by a British sportsperson in my lifetime, possibly ever. I was rooting for him every day and didn't really subscribe to the idea that Froome would necessarily have beaten him last year. In most cases there can only be one team leader and teams perform best when their focus is on getting one guy to the finish line rather than several.

I think last year's Vuelta was one of the most incredible tours I have ever seen. With multiple mountain top finishes and even the one time trial going over a Cat 1 climb I think, it was obviously designed for the likes of Contador, Valverde and Ridriquez.

The fact that Froome was even in there with a shout says volumes about his ability and he may have understandably failed on some of the brutal stages the way those three seemed to be ganging up on him at times.

I think if Wiggins had been in the race yesterday without Froome to support him, he'd have been dropped.

WTF? Andy Shleck finised in the lead group. Andy bloody Shleck! If Andy Shleck (and Evans and a load of other no hopers) can keep up I think Wiggins would have been able too keep up in the form he was in last year.

And I bet Wiggo was sitting at home yesterday with a smug grin on his face as Porte was dropped so early in the stage saying to himself "Now Chris, that is why I didn't want you to needlessly attack in the mountains last year"

WTF? Andy Shleck finised in the lead group. Andy bloody Shleck! If Andy Shleck (and Evans and a load of other no hopers) can keep up I think Wiggins would have been able too keep up in the form he was in last year.

Would that be 4 Grand Tour podium finishes out of the 7 he's started (and 5 he's finished) Andy Schleck? He's been injured then sort of shit since mid-2012 but I don't think yesterday was a day you could consider easy. Only 23 riders out of 183 managed to finish within 25 seconds of the winner, the next group rolled in almost 4 minutes down.

jfletch - Member

If Andy Shleck (and Evans and a load of other no hopers) can keep up I think Wiggins would have been able too keep up in the form he was in last year.

No hopers? 😆

I think Wiggins smile would have frozen pretty quick as Froome showed himself more than up to the task. I don't think many wearing yellow would have chased Valverde when he bridged across, but was the perfect call yesterday.

Hmmm.......Evans a no hoper as well? You mean the guy who won the TDF a few years ago. I think his recent 3rd in the Giro just took a bit much out of him sadly although he is one tough mother and there are still 2 weeks to go......

Also I thought Wiggins' "I'll never ride le tour again" interview read more like "I realise it was a unique set of circumstances that gave me the chance to win last year, and as that will never happen again what's the point in trying?"

Evans best days are behind him
Competitive but when it gets really tough he will be left wanting

Shame though how many tours would he have won had everyone been clean..lot of respect for "dont touch me"

This pic says it all to me-It's the day Wiggo supposedly blew a gasket & Froome had to wait for him to take him to the line...................
[img] [/img]

Would that be 4 Grand Tour podium finishes out of the 7 he's started (and 5 he's finished) Andy Schleck?

Yeah, the Shleck comment was slightly tounge in cheek but he has been crap all year and did lose minuntes on the previous stage.

Only 23 riders out of 183 managed to finish within 25 seconds of the winner

23 riders is actually a huge group for this type of stage. They normally finish in much smaller groups and the final group is much more select. There were still a lot of domestiques left. Sky just suffered because of the pace set by Garmin very early and their grandstanding the previous day.

Wiggins would have hung on fine as they hills were the gradual long type that suit him and the tempo set by Movistar was also to his strenght.

It would have been a different race if Wiggins had been there though, he wouldn't have had a minunte over his nearest contender as he wouldn't have attacked the day before, he probably wouldn't have been in yellow, instead waiting for the TT next week. So we will never know if Wiggins or Froome is the best unless they are on different teams but at their peak together.

But could Wiggins have finished with the leaders yesterday? Almost certainly yes, to claim otherwise is crazy.

sadly, this may be Armstrong's biggest legacy to the sport

very true, and as you say, very sad.

I was very suspect on Saturday, but Sundays stage has put a lot of my worries to bed (FWIW). If sky were doping they wouldn't have been dropped the way they were. US Postal / Discovery / T - Mobile would have been at the front of the race day after day.

I also really liked the way Froome handled the questions about drugs, he didn't say I've never tested positive, and then ban the interviewer from ever speaking to him again (Armstrong), or start swearing and acting like a brat (Wiggins), he politely, calmly addressed the situation, very nice job.

Also I thought Wiggins' "I'll never ride le tour again" interview read more like "I realise it was a unique set of circumstances that gave me the chance to win last year, and as that will never happen again what's the point in trying?"

I thought that too but couldn't have put it better. Having said that I can only imagine how much dedication and effort it takes to not only compete in a Grand Tour but to win it. Don't forget Wiggo also had his eye on the Olympics last year as well. I guess winning the TdF, a gold medal in a home Olympic time trial and then being made a knight of the realm, there's not much more to motivate you.

I just think he could have delayed that announcement until maybe next season. It looks a little like sour grapes leading up to the Tour and that his heart wasn't really in it this year.

There's a lot to be said for quitting at the top. Maybe if he'd achieved that a few years ago we'd have seen a bit more from him but he is getting a bit long in the tooth now! 🙂

Emac, was that Stage 17 ?

[URL= http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff215/sputnik_photos/post-36036-0-73256500-1343024925_zpse94a2202.jp g" target="_blank">http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff215/sputnik_photos/post-36036-0-73256500-1343024925_zpse94a2202.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

But could Wiggins have finished with the leaders yesterday? Almost certainly yes, to claim otherwise is crazy.

Wiggins was no mug at climbing he was just tempo
That said Froome is the stronger climber

As for the pic - there is no doubt Froome waited for Wiggo and supporting him cost him the Vuletta
Not saying any of this means he would have beaten him

Wiggo seems to have just one pace based on his time trial and track abilities and I think would struggle under similar conditions to what Froome faced yesterday.

Do you actually have to attack to win climbs? Does it get you to the top quicker?

I [i]think[/i] physiologically the less time you spend riding anaerobically the faster you'll be overall. See last year - people attacked, got up the road, but they just got winched back in. That burst of speed does cost you.

As for the pic - there is no doubt Froome waited for Wiggo

Yep - Froome waited but who is to say what would have happend if he hadn't? He may have cracked and Wiggo ground his way back up, he may have gone on to win the stage only to suffer from it the next day, he may have not had enough left for the TT and lost any extra time he gained, he may hve been fine and gone on to win the tour.

But it's all just speculation, all we can be ceratin of is that Wiggins won the tour and to do that he had to not only ride around France but also put in all the effort in previous years to get him the prevelidged postion of being the team leader. Had Froome won Olympic golds, finished 3rd in the tour, won the Dauphine 2 years in a row etc. then maybe he would have been the leader as he is now.

There seems to be a general view that Wiggins can't 'do the accelerations' 'can't climb' etc etc Looking back at his past he has already adapted his style from track to GC contender, I think he will prepare again for the tour next year by training using climbing and attacking...Is that so difficult to do? Wiggins can beat Froome, he has more class and he is tougher mentally.

Shame really it's a contest we'll never see for as long as they're on the same team. I think even if Wiggo did train for sprinty hill accelerations, Froome-dawg would still be able to drop him - just a matter of, can Froomey make up more through attacking the mountains that Wiggo would win back on the TT? Depends entirely on the course, don't it.

BTW, I watched the tennis yesterday, then the tour after, and guess what - to avoid any risk of having the result spoiled, I stayed away from cycling forums! Mental!! Really, you'd have to be a bit of a tool to do anything else...

indeed and what a shame you cannot trust folk to not do spoilers in the title eh

I think there's as much chance of Wiggo dancing on the pedals up 20% climbs attacking off the bunch as there is Quintana winning a World Cup DH at Fort Bill. He's just not that type of rider.

indeed and what a shame you cannot trust folk to not do spoilers in the title eh

Seriously! Get over it.

Its a discussion about the favourite for the TDF, during the TDF. WTF did you expect us to be talking about?

I think he will prepare again for the tour next year by training using climbing and attacking...Is that so difficult to do?

He's been climbing for a long time, the issue is he's more of a tempo rider. Some riders have things they do better than others and they maximise on that rather than compromise across the board and become mediocre. Look at the specialist sprinters who struggle on the big mountain stages because they've focused on what makes them exceptional.

The way he rides is likely to work really well for some of the classics; no long mountains, just short sharp hills and miles and miles of flattish (compared to big mountains) terrain where getting into a rhythm is key. Look at Boonen and Gilbert for example. I think it'd be fantastic to see him winning some of the spring classics and would possibly remove some of the weighty expectations that come with grand tour starts.

Wiggins has made no secret of his love of the classics. He's already hinted Roubaix may be a target next year. If he puts a stone back on he'd be a formidable classics rider, if he learns how to handle a bike properly 😀

Seriously! Get over it.

Its a discussion about the favourite for the TDF, during the TDF. WTF did you expect us to be talking about?

TBH i think doing blatant spoilers is pretty low and a shitty thing to do
I am not sure this is one mind from title alone

following in with next post

I still dont think this is a spoiler title but i do think they should not be allowed

All form page 1 FWIW

Yesterday I missed the end so i did have to avoid here in case of spoilers as did you which is a shame but such is life

Dupe

The issue with the Classics for Wiggo is they are very unpredictable and a good chunk of it comes down to luck. It could take years of him bing in the right form at the right time before he even has a opertuinity to win one.

And this is time he doesn't have. He's already said he fancies going back to the track for the Olympics as a swansong so that only gives him 2 years.

Sky's whole premise is that getting up a climb at the theoretical maximum pace will always be quicker than jumping in and out of attacks.

The reason though that attacks can be successful is if you lose the wheel of the man in front (because he attacked), then you lose the [much smaller than on the flat, but still relevant] assistance, plus maybe something psychological.

So if two men (Wiggins and Froome) rode up a climb, then Froome could win by attacking Wiggins.
If Wiggins had a strong team around him, pacing and protecting him up a climb, allowing him to achieve the optimal possible time, then it is likely that he would beat Froome, who would post a sub-optimal time by attacking.

Who is better?

Froome. Because he could also ride like Wiggins, but Wiggins couldn't ride like Froome.
Wiggins. Because in identical circumstances, his optimal time would be less than Froome's.

Who knows, who cares. It depends on the circumstances.

Wiggins has made no secret of his love of the classics.

Well he's Belgian. They love that sort of thing.

Fantombiker - Member

There seems to be a general view that Wiggins can't 'do the accelerations' 'can't climb' etc etc Looking back at his past he has already adapted his style from track to GC contender, I think he will prepare again for the tour next year by training using climbing and attacking...Is that so difficult to do? Wiggins can beat Froome, he has more class and he is tougher mentally.

I think he is tough mentally in that if things are prepared perfectly, everything is in place, then he can really turn the screw and capitalise. He won't bottle it and will in fact grind his enemies underfoot. But it's when things aren't going so smoothly that real mental toughness asserts itself, and this wouldn't be something Wiggins is known for (IMHO).

Wiggins can beat Froome, he has more class and he is tougher mentally.

Time will tell eh, it'll certainly be interesting to find out.

Fantombiker - Member
Wiggins can beat Froome, he has more class and he is tougher mentally.

His bike flounce at the Trentino went against both points imo.

French seem to think Froome has a lot more class than Wiggins.

I reckon at 6ft2 Wiggins will always be at a physical disadvantage to Froome as a Tour GC rider.

Would love to see Wiggo at the classics.

His bike flounce at the Trentino went against both points imo.

Although his bike clearly has plenty of class as it parked its self neatly against the wall.

mrblobby - Member

I reckon at 6ft2 Wiggins will always be at a physical disadvantage to Froome as a Tour GC rider.

Froome is 6'1 - how is that going to be such an advantage?

Ah sorry, Wiggo is actually 6'3". A couple of inches in it. I think in terms of Tour weight, Froome is closer to his "normal" weight than Wiggo. Think this is an advantage for Froome.

True. Ok. Weight wise Brad shed a fair bit when moving from road to track didn't he?

I think now, they are both listed at 69kg.