Originally Posted by apaul:
“Wiggins won by over 3 minutes in 2012 because of his TT dominance and Froome's puncture. Do you really think the route was mountainous enough for Froome to gain that time? Froome assisting his team leader, which is what he was paid to do, probably cost him another stage win. I doubt it cost him the Tour.”
In my opinion, unquestionably, even though it was a comparatively 'easy' year climbing wise.
Firstly, bear in mind, as a super-domestique, Froome was having to do much more work in the mountains wet-nursing Wiggins than if he'd been team leader, and would have had more in reserve to mount attacks.
Secondly, Froome was having to ride at a pace that Wiggins could cope with, and we saw what happened on the odd occasion Froome exceeded that pace, and I've little doubt Chris could have gone quicker on many other occasions. Over the course of the Tour I'm sure he would have easily made up that 3 minutes plus a fair bit more.
For team credibility and loyalty reasons I can sort of understand why they stuck with Wiggins, which then makes you wonder, according to Froome's version of events, why Brailsford said to Froome and Wiggins that he would switch to Froome if he was stronger.
Anyway, to current matters. For me Froome not only has the strongest team he's ever had, but is also the strongest he's ever been. My view is he would still probably win the Tour if you put him on any of the other top half dozen or so teams. What do others think?