Time to start supporting Chris Froome

[Tyrone Biggums]

The only riders to have exploded away in mountain stages in the last few years as Froome has were probably Contador and Rasmussen.

That's why people will have some doubts.

 

[Return of the Rev]

cycling!!!!!!!!

 

[Stat Brother]

Froome is undoubtedly a great athlete, but I can't be alone in finding him hard to warm to. It's not his fault, but he doesn't quite have the charisma of other big name riders, which may go some way towards explaining the British public's general indifference towards the Tour this year. Granted, interest is still much higher than it has been, but I can't see quite the acclaim for Froome if he wins it. He just seems a bit cold, or robotic, if you will. I'm sure he's a nice guy and there's no reason he should be cracking jokes and juggling balls while he's interviewed, but...

I think you'll get there, there's plenty to warm to, he's just a little busy right now.

He's not as infallible on the bike as other (cough) champions.
He's not as chippy (and that's being very polite) as our most recent champion.
He's not an all round headcase as our greatest cyclist.

But he's a decent bloke who's gaining media confidence, with plenty of 'stories' to tell.

GO FROOMEDOG

[TWEET]351972066641203201[/TWEET]

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

We've been spoilt with Wiggo and Cav. Froome is much more shy, not a natural in the limelight, and coming so soon after the success of one of our most charismatic sportsmen ever he was always going to suffer by comparison. But he is the real deal, and when he wins tour after tour people will warm to him.

It's a bit like how Murray has been perceived, really.

Good point. Murray's alleged lack of charisma and humour was used as a stick to hit him up until a few weeks ago now it's being used as a reason for why he won Wimbledon with the added caveat that behind the serious and ruthless facade is a fine man. Wiggo is undoubtedly a character but Froome seems a decent enough guy with immense talent and he seemed quite modest when he was being interviewed after the stage. Two different characters but equally likeable in my opinion.

 

[Stat Brother]

I may be in a minority but starting to think Froome is a very serious notch up from Wiggo - he had to be held back last year from properly testing Wiggo at crucial parts of the race and definitely had plenty in reserve hence the barbed comments that he could have challenged for yellow if allowed to - watching it last year it was in fairness clear SKY's sole aim was to get Wiggo over the line at any cost in team morale - this year Froome's doing it a lot more on his own whereas last year was a team effort to get Wiggo over the line so putting aside personalities which don't interest me anyway, is Froome the much better rider here both in natural talent and technical skills?

Froome wasn't held back last year.
He had a job to do, he did it, he just needed to be reminded of his role, once.
BW's win was Sky's sole aim because he was the best man for the job, and he had the best team enable that.
CF isn't doing it his own way, he'd love an arm chair ride to Paris, but BW had the 'a' team at The Giro, so Froome has had to improvise.

CF is the better all-round rider because he can tackle the high mountains.
Last years Tour was Wiggins from the moment the course was announced.

The only riders to have exploded away in mountain stages in the last few years as Froome has were probably Contador and Rasmussen.

That's why people will have some doubts.

Contador, Rasmussen, Lance et al, didn't have the palmarès and riding plan to back up the Tour performance.

There's a thought doing the rounds, that training, diet, and tech advances took a back seat when all the dodgy stuff was going on.
Now Sky Garmin and recently Greenedge have started afresh the 'old skool' have struggled and made to look very bad against the new (very well funded) breed.

You could read me, or I suppose you could read Martin Samuels, but remember I said it first:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...rss&ns_campaign=socialnet-twitter-dmailsports

 

[Stat Brother]

Good point. Murray's alleged lack of charisma and humour was used as a stick to hit him up until a few weeks ago now it's being used as a reason for why he won Wimbledon with the added caveat that behind the serious and ruthless facade is a fine man. Wiggo is undoubtedly a character but Froome seems a decent enough guy with immense talent and he seemed quite modest when he was being interviewed after the stage. Two different characters but equally likeable in my opinion.

To expand that out further that's just not British.

The sense of achievement that has bathed the UK in Summer sport over the last 2 years, doesn't stem from plucky underdogs doing there best and losing.
It comes from going out and winning, winning big & winning well.

I think there's a sea change in the expectation of our top athletes, which has bought on the ruthless competitive edge we have been so sadly missing.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Contador, Rasmussen, Lance et al, didn't have the palmarès and riding plan to back up the Tour performance.

There's a thought doing the rounds, that training, diet, and tech advances took a back seat when all the dodgy stuff was going on.
Now Sky Garmin and recently Greenedge have started afresh the 'old skool' have struggled and made to look very bad against the new (very well funded) breed.

The only issue with that is is that the French have been clean probably the longest due to the severe punishments they face for doping and yet haven't really done anything in the sport for quite a while.

I think Froome probably is clean. However his rise within the sport in such a short time will naturally raise some eyebrows.

 

[Stat Brother]

The only issue with that is is that the French have been clean probably the longest due to the severe punishments they face for doping and yet haven't really done anything in the sport for quite a while.

I think Froome probably is clean. However his rise within the sport in such a short time will naturally raise some eyebrows.

But have the French stepped into the 21st century?
Non

It is as it's always been, for French cyclist (and English footballers) too easy to be just good enough, without ever being great.
At no point have I ever read how a French cyclist/team have changed there approach.
The French are now getting better, by virtue of the pelotons cleanliness, not because they are at the forefront of the science behind making a good rider a champion.

Check out the Samuels article I edited in.

 

[willyfantastic]

Froome wasn't held back last year.
He had a job to do, he did it, he just needed to be reminded of his role, once.
BW's win was Sky's sole aim because he was the best man for the job, and he had the best team enable that.
CF isn't doing it his own way, he'd love an arm chair ride to Paris, but BW had the 'a' team at The Giro, so Froome has had to improvise.

CF is the better all-round rider because he can tackle the high mountains.
Last years Tour was Wiggins from the moment the course was announced.



Contador, Rasmussen, Lance et al, didn't have the palmarès and riding plan to back up the Tour performance.

There's a thought doing the rounds, that training, diet, and tech advances took a back seat when all the dodgy stuff was going on.
Now Sky Garmin and recently Greenedge have started afresh the 'old skool' have struggled and made to look very bad against the new (very well funded) breed.

you make a very good point about the quality of Sky's team and their scientific approach to the Tour. However, there are a few point which could be explained by this, but on its own, still looks a bit suspect

His 8km climb was quicker than Lance Armstrong's in 2002 over the same course and over the last 6.15km, he was half a minute faster than Pantani was in 2000 (a known doper/mountain specialist)

His Watt/Weight ratio and other stats suggest he was 5% faster than his competition - to put that in perspective, 0-2% is the average difference in quality between the best and the rest in sport, anything over 2% could be considered suspect (Usain Bolt is around 1.2% quicker than his competition)

Brailsford is refusing to release the data on Froome, saying it would be too difficult to understand

 

[teaboy]

you make a very good point about the quality of Sky's team and their scientific approach to the Tour. However, there are a few point which could be explained by this, but on its own, still looks a bit suspect

His 8km climb was quicker than Lance Armstrong's in 2002 over the same course and over the last 6.15km, he was half a minute faster than Pantani was in 2000 (a known doper/mountain specialist)

His Watt/Weight ratio and other stats suggest he was 5% faster than his competition - to put that in perspective, 0-2% is the average difference in quality between the best and the rest in sport, anything over 2% could be considered suspect (Usain Bolt is around 1.2% quicker than his competition)

Brailsford is refusing to release the data on Froome, saying it would be too difficult to understand

Read this: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013...swerables.html

You need the account for weather conditions, wind, bike technology, the state of the race and position of other competitors, and teamwork. There are far too many variables. As to the watt/weight ratio it's an estimation normalised to 70kg riders, not an actual tested, recorded figure.

 

[Stat Brother]

Read this: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013...swerables.html

You need the account for weather conditions, wind, bike technology, the state of the race and position of other competitors, and teamwork. There are far too many variables. As to the watt/weight ratio it's an estimation normalised to 70kg riders, not an actual tested, recorded figure.

Not to mention road conditions, where the climb came in the race, what the day before was like, what the next day will be.

If Dave B didn't (in your eyes) release the data how can you form your opinion Willy?
Dave did release the data CF was pulling between 415-420 watts not the 470 the Italian press stated.

 

[Hillian1]

I've been watching stages of the Tour for years and never had a bloody clue what was going on.

10 minutes reading this thread has explained more than the commentary ever did. Cheers.

 

[Stat Brother]

I've been watching stages of the Tour for years and never had a bloody clue what was going on.

10 minutes reading this thread has explained more than the commentary ever did. Cheers.

If only there had been some kind of Official Tour de France thread, over the years, to help you out.

 

[Brixtaan]

I've been watching stages of the Tour for years and never had a bloody clue what was going on.

10 minutes reading this thread has explained more than the commentary ever did. Cheers.

What was the problem? Its not rocket science despite Brailsfords approach.

As for Chris Froome, i'm actually starting to like him more than Wiggins! Much more cohesive and friendly in his interviews and i just hope to god that Sir Dave's diplomacy skills extend to keeping Sir Chris and Sir Bradley together for 2014. I know its jumping the gun because Froome still has 15 mountain passes to survive but can you imagine these two together next year!? Lets crush dopey Europe once and for all!

 

[Hillian1]

If only there had been some kind of Official Tour de France thread, over the years, to help you out.

Yep, that's exactly the attitude that kept me away from it.

 

[Stat Brother]

Yep, that's exactly the attitude that kept me away from it.

Now I'm confused.

It's just the posters from over there, helping you out over here, and the posters from over there are all originally from Cycling geeks, who proudly have never had a binfest in nearly 400 pages.

 

[teaboy]

Yep, that's exactly the attitude that kept me away from it.

Now I'm confused.

It's just the posters from over there, helping you out over here, and the posters from over there are all originally from Cycling geeks, who proudly have never had a binfest in nearly 400 pages.

Indeed - ask the questions, and you'll be given the answers. It's almost as if cycling fans WANT people to understand and enjoy the sport. As you've said, NSC has explained more than the commentary has (ITV4 by any chance?!) because we have the time to, and the input from others helps with the explanation. There was no 'attitude' in SB's comment about the official thread - just a tongue-in-cheek 'well, why didn't you ask?'

As cycling fans we're used to explaining why Mark Cavendish won't win the Tour even if he's the fastest man on a bike. We've had years of seeing riders win the Tour without ever winning a stage. We LIKE doing it, as there's the hope that understanding from 'non-cyclists' will help lead to acceptance of the sport which will lead to more coverage for us to waste our spring/summer with.

 

[Stat Brother]

Indeed - ask the questions, and you'll be given the answers. It's almost as if cycling fans WANT people to understand and enjoy the sport. As you've said, NSC has explained more than the commentary has (ITV4 by any chance?!) because we have the time to, and the input from others helps with the explanation. There was no 'attitude' in SB's comment about the official thread - just a tongue-in-cheek 'well, why didn't you ask?'

As cycling fans we're used to explaining why Mark Cavendish won't win the Tour even if he's the fastest man on a bike. We've had years of seeing riders win the Tour without ever winning a stage. We LIKE doing it, as there's the hope that understanding from 'non-cyclists' will help lead to acceptance of the sport which will lead to more coverage for us to waste our spring/summer with.

Not to mention the greater understanding, respect and sympathy there is for cycling, the safer cyclists will become. (unless they're a knob, but this isn't the time or place)

 

[Canonman]

Must admit I can't understand half of what commentators say, especially Sean Kelly the Irish guy. Love watching it and have got loads of admiration for what is a physically tough sport.

 

[Diego Napier]

Pipe down

Thank you for confirming my suspicion