Interesting to assume I don't understand cycling Been following cycling for a long time mate, been over for a few stages over the years including the Giro. I still feel strongly that Froome would have gained a hell of lot more than the 1'16" that Wiggins 'crushed' him by in the time trial, if he was let loose on that particular stage (11). I'm not really a fan of either, as Team Sky seem to be the Man City of cycling nowadays. Froome's acknowledgement is more or less towing the party line, as with all teams, the focus is set on who they feel is their best rider, in this case Wiggins. I was cheering on Nicolas Roche(12th) and Martin Daniel(35th), who was in his 1st tour and gave a good account of himself. Ironically, both Irish riders were born in Paris and Birmingham respectively. It took you Brits long enough to win it, but with the glut of cycling talent that has spawned over the last 10 or so years, there may well be more to come. I reckon Wiggins could be favourite to win it again next year.
No offence meant! I just think you can't say Froome would have won, just because on one stage he looked like he could have gone away. Earlier in the same stage, Froome was dropped and Team Sky held the peloton up till he rejoined. They all go through bad patches, and that is what team work is about. Also Wiggins took more than 2 minutes out of Froome on the 3 time trials, quite a lot for Froome to take back on the one occasion he seemed to be held back. Just think Wiggins was a worthy winner (whoever he supports) and as a Brit, I applaud a fantastic effort.
I get your point mate, missed the early part of the stage, was still at work. But as I'm sure you're aware, the mountain stages are generally where the biggest amounts of time can be won and lost compared to the flats. Regardless, Froome has a bright future and a potential Tour winner with the teams backing. As for Wiggins, deffo a worthy winner, even to the point where he led the peloton onto the final run up the Champs-Elysees, helping lead out Cavendish for the sprint. That was good to see.
"It took you Brits long enough to win it". Make that "You English". The original Brits were ushered to Cornwall and Wales by the Saxons etc. Weren't the original Brits,Scots and Irish known as Celts?....and well tatooed too!
It would take a Utd supporter to think that who you support is based on where they are in the league. Glory hunters!
This is a message to Yid Vicious, sorry I'll get back in my box and won't suggest thread closures any more - sorry mate!
BBC London News referred to him as "London's own" Bradley Wiggins. Apart from the fact he was born in Belgium, to an Australian father, and lives in Lancashire. It's bad when the English media try and claim Welsh or Scottish athletes as English, but trying to say non-Londoners are "London's own" is taking a bit more of the piss...
Well if the Gooners are going to try and claim him, then London may as well, Croydon! Andy Murray's still British, as things stand, so why not? He reverts to being a Scot if he doesn't pick up a medal, obviously.
If he goes out of Wimbledon in the first week, the Scots will categorically deny all knowledge of some Welshman named Andy Murray...
He did grow up in London so I guess you could say he's a Londoner. He's too much of a mix to be one outright 'category'.
He's a Liverpool fan - **** him and the tour de France and his Olympic medals. He might as well be Iraqui for all I care
The Londoner born in Belgium, who's half Australian and lives hundreds of miles from said city, has been all over the place...a nomad! he displays all the traits of Arsenal!
:QUOTE=notsosmartspur;3235007]The Londoner born in Belgium, who's half Australian and lives hundreds of miles from said city, has been all over the place...a nomad! he displays all the traits of Arsenal![/QUOTE]
