Barring an unforeseen catastrophe, Team Sky leader Chris Froome will coast into Paris tonight and claim his third Tour de France title. In doing so he will join a select elite of multiple winners and establish himself as one of the race’s finest performers.
But just how great is he? Where does he rank against the near mythical names that dominate the Tour de France honour board?
While the gangly, Kenyan born Brit is not everyone’s cup of tea, he is everything a racer should be. He rides to win and, as he has proven on this Tour, will take his chances regardless of the terrain.
Just think where he established his advantage this year. First, there was that crazy attack on the technical descent into Bagneres-de-Luchon on Stage 8, and then that remarkable late three man breakaway with Peter Sagan (Tinkoff) and Maciej Bodnar (Tinkoff) on the flat Stage 11 into Montpellier.
He had his general classification rivals on the back foot without even having to fire a shot on the climbs! And let’s not beat about the bush, he is the best climber in the pro-peloton at the moment.
Nairo Quintana (Movistar) can’t go with him. Alberto Contador (Tinkoff) crashed out early, but I doubt that he could have matched Froome in the mountains either. Romain Bardet (AG2R) won a stage and stole back a little bit of time, but for the most part has been unable to pierce Froome’s armour.
Bauke Mollema (Trek-Segafredo) has tried hard and Adam Yates (Orica-BikeExchange) has battled manfully, but neither are the equal of Froome. Warren Barguil (Giant-Alpecin) certainly isn’t and Thibaut Pinot (FDJ) lost heart and gave up after losing an avalanche of time early on. Even Fabio Aru (Astana), with such high hopes pre-Tour, hasn’t been able to mount anything even resembling a challenge.
Only Richie Porte (BMC) has had the fire power to go with Froome and perhaps stretch him at times, but bad luck with that untimely puncture on Stage 2 robbed us of a true head-to-head contest between the two.
Froome is a force of nature that can’t be stopped.
The once skittish and nervous racer has developed into a multifaceted competitor, and although he can still be unpredictable, his desire to win and perform at his very best makes him highly entertaining, and a very formidable opponent.
I once thought that Contador was the best climber that I would ever see. He stood on the top step of the podium at the Tour de France three times, although the history books now say that he has only two titles to his credit.
The way he would dance on his pedals was a delight to watch, a cycling poetry equivalent to Shakespeare or Yeats, unsurpassed and seemingly unbeatable. But then came the failed Clenbuterol test and his resultant ban. He was not the same rider when he came back, and his performances before the ban carry a question mark.
Froome is no Shakespeare on a bike. He is awkward, all arms and legs, and his high cadence pedalling brings to mind sped up news reel footage of Tours’ past, with rotating legs of flying riders pumping up and down at unnatural velocities.
But he has three Tours to his name and had he not been working for Bradley Wiggins in 2012, he would have had four.
In my mind he has surpassed Contador and at least drawn close or level with the other three time winners; Greg Lemond, Louison Bobet and Philippe Thys.
It is hard to compare riders of different eras and a comparison with Thys is particularly hard with the Belgian rider’s exploits heavily clouded by the mists of time. It’s been 103 years since Thys won his first Tour, and 96 since his last. He won six stages back in the day. Froome has already won seven.
The USA’s Lemond also won seven stages, two of which were in team time trials, while Bobet, the much loved French champion, took home 11 stages and won the Tour three years in a row.
I’m willing to put Froome above Thys and Lemond, but hesitate to suggest that he has dislodged the almost magical figure of Bobet.
But at just 31, Froome has the potential to win at least another two Tours. The fading generation of Contador, Alejandro Valverde (Movistar) and Joaquim Rodriguez (Katusha) are no longer a threat to Sky’s leader, while none of the current contenders come near him. Tejay Van Garderen (BMC) certainly doesn’t. Aru is not in the same class.
Vincenzo Nibali (Astana) would need to be at his very, very best to offer a serious challenge and Mollema is not quite there either. Perhaps Porte could come close, but it is a big perhaps. He hasn’t yet.
Quintana probably remains his biggest threat, but he seems to have taken a step backwards in his development.
Of the up and comers, riders such as Bardet, Yates and Esteban Chaves (Orica-BikeExchange) pose questions. The time may come when they can match him day-in, day-out over a three week race, but that time is not now.
And that is scary because it leaves the Tour window open to Froome for another couple of years. Two more wins and we will be talking about him in the same breath as other five time winners, Miguel Indurain, Bernard Hinault, Eddy Merckx and Jacques Anquetil.
It is exalted company.
Froome is probably a more complete rider than Indurain was. Afterall, the Big Mig won 10 of his 12 Tour stages in individual time trials.
But is the angular Brit a more complete or better Tour de France rider than the others? If he equals their tally of five wins then he has to be considered as a worthy peer. If he goes on to win six or seven titles, then he would have to be considered one of the greatest Tour riders ever, if not the best of all time.
It would take a brave writer to make that declaration given the aura that surrounds Merckx, Hinault and Anquetil – and I may not be that writer – but the suggestion would have to be considered.
There is no reason why Froome cannot go on and create his own Tour dynasty. He rides for the most professional team in the pro-peloton which gives him access to cutting edge technology and training techniques. They also have a big budget so there is no danger of their big ticket item being lured away by unscrupulous poachers.
No, Froome and Sky will be together for a long time yet, and it is a combination set to make the Tour de France its own.
In fact, I think they already have!
Albo
Guest
But this was his first go as a team GC contender ? And but for an untimely flat on stage 2 , he probably finishes on the podium. His main issue going forward will be to have a decent team around him giving support rather than hanging onto the tails of the Sky entourage !
DaSpoon
Guest
Gee whiz G. Not out of first gear? What planet are you on? He was on a 54 chain ring on his devastating descent attack. I suspect that your problem with Froome is that he rides on a British team I bet you don't make the same comments about contador, Astana and the other convicted drug cheats. Russia has a whole team of them across numerous sports.
Andy
Guest
Yeah i like the team radios, it makes it a team sport and i like that part of it.
Andy
Guest
Thats how he rides though, he never looks like he is trying even when he is at his limit. Froome rides like Federer plays tennis or George Best dribbled, other riders ride like Nadal plays tennis. Its just how they do it.
tyrone
Guest
I am happy with team radios but I hate watching cyclists looking at their computer before deciding to attack. Maybe they are catching Pokemon?
Blinky47
Guest
Portes last couple of days were poor. I think he may well turn out to be a disappointment, I hope I am wrong.
Sean Lee
Expert
No radios, no power metres, no heart rate monitors, just good old fashioned guts, intelligence and feel. Amen to that!
Sean Lee
Expert
Agree on Quintana. He is not turning out to be the rider we all thought he might be. Still plenty of years left for him to turn it around though. I hope he does!
Sean Lee
Expert
That's very true Andy. Their professionalism and preparation is second to none.
tyrone
Guest
US Postal and SKY have the best teams. I am not sure on the doping allegations about SKY but they have a super team and above all seem to understand their bodies and personal limits better than other teams. Combine with this exceptional patience not to chase a break but to slowly work your way up to it without blowing yourself up and the results speak for them self. US Postal and SKY also train for this race as a priority, if the big names only want to race twice before the tour and just practice for the Tour then they can and the team can financially handle it. Most teams need to have their stars race all season to ensure they cater to their sponsors. If I could change anything in cycling it would be to remove heart rate monitors and power meters from the bikes. Make people ride on feel rather than like a machine
G
Guest
Oh man... jealous hardly. Froome never got out of 1st gear He could have won the tour by 10min. The guy was barely breathing on every MTF while the others were falling over the line. Team Sky says they are clean and they have marginal gains blah blah and everyone just takes that at face value. He won with panache.. I think you were watching a different race than me. Also maybe do some research on who used to be their team Doctor.. Geert Leinders. The famous doping doctor from Rabobank days. His apearance at team sky coincides with Froomes ridicoulous transformation in 2011.
DaSpoon
Guest
Didn't see froome climbing faster than his rivals this year. He and sky just marked their attacks. He won the tour with panache this time. The downhill attack, the break away with. Sagan. Time trialed better than his rivals. A deserved win. Sky only have one rider in the top 10 in the GC but they are NOT normal? Movistar have 2 in the top 10 but are Normal? I think you have a chip on your shoulder G. Jealous of sky's success.
Diggs
Roar Rookie
History has told me not to take for granted that a team or athlete is clean. I would never have thought Sharapova would have been pinged for taking a banned substance, yet she was. It wasn't an "Armstrong doped to the gills" moment, but none the less she was taking a banned substance, along with what seems half the Russian federation. This time it was heart medication or a mixture of micro doses disguised with alcohol. And micro dosing I believe CIRC found was discussed by a few cyclists. I have no doubt though that teams, sky included, stand on the edge of the rules to gain an advantage. Do they/ have they strayed over that ledge from time to time? Only history will be that judge.
Simoc
Guest
So far Froome has proved himself a class act in a superbly prepared team. Quintana has been disappointing and there has really been no threat to the Froome dominance. I see Nibali and Porte as the two most likely contendersof anyone to beat him. The Sky tactics and quality of the team make them difficult to counter.
delbeato
Roar Guru
The Bilharzia thing makes perfect sense. It's just a question of whether that's a fabricated story or not. I prefer to believe Froome but we've heard so many BS stories in the past, how do you decide between truth or fiction?
delbeato
Roar Guru
No, I'm saying that even if they are doping, it's not like the old days. So it doesn't explain much faster times. They must be getting better for other reasons - like better training, nutrition, etc. But some people say it's the doping, not better training. It's not the doping, as they can't dope like they used to. But, they could still be doping all the same. You can get better at training and dope - it's not a choice between the two. I suspect Sky is clean for the reasons as you guys discussed below. Back in Armstrong's day everyone kept their mouths shut. There was not the internet like today. That's how Armstrong got caught - it's harder to keep that stuff quiet these days.
Sam Brown
Roar Guru
Yep, when David Walsh spends a year with the team and says he couldn't detect anything suspicious it says a lot. Journo's have been bought in by teams including USPO to toe the company line in the past but he is a man who has built himself a huge reputation by hunting down and bringing to light those rumors around suspect riders and would be sabotaging his own legacy if he was being paid off.
Andy
Guest
The thing that makes me believe in Froome and Sky, apart from the logistical difficulties nowadays to dope, is that there have never even been whispers from former team mates or trainers or officials about Froome or Sky. All the 'he is doping' comes from the media or people who dont know him or have anything to do with Sky or cycling outside of being cycling journalists. There were always whispers around Armstrong and others during the 80s and 90s from people who had intimate knowledge. There has never even been a hint of that around Froome.
Andy
Guest
His improvements have a logical answer though, he started cycling late which meant that he was a few years behind other guys knowledge and body wise which is how he wasnt great when he was younger, he had a really bad infection or something in 2010 which weakened him which meant that his 2010 and early 2011 performances were effected and as has been said he didnt have the body for cycling until well into his career.
Sam Brown
Roar Guru
I think the point is that it is misguided to draw a direct line between Armstrong/USPO and Froome/Sky. They both dominate the Tour and are solely focused on that event but the comparisons come up short when it comes to drug usage and there is evidence in times, etc that suggest the modern peloton aren't using, at least not at the same levels. I think we'd all agree that if they are just micro-dosing it is a bad thing.