It's hard to call one of the best, if not the best, pure climbers in the world a loser... but maybe fitting here. Andy said the Tour would be decided in the Alps, he was half right, If he was going to win he had to do it in the Alps. Going in to the TT I don't know how big a lead he thought he would need to hold onto yellow but he had to have known on his best day a minute would be suspect. Andy is not a great time trialist, and with the efforts he was PLANNING to make in the Alps he must have known his tt would suffer further.Originally Posted by swampy1970 .
He's proven he's got the legs but does he have the head to deal with the added pressure of being a team leader?
I'd put Andy Schleck down as a loser this Tour. His single goal was to win the Tour - he didn't and as great as finishing second is, it isn't first. He did put in some great performances and if he'd had the legs he'd have won it. If he hadn't of cracked 5km from the end of the mountain top finish on the Galibier and lost close to 2 minutes of his lead he'd have won the Tour but his legs turned to jelly just like they'd done in the Tour of California on Mt Baldy. A brave effort and a great stage win - but he knew what needed to be done before the final TT and he didn't do it.
That said, Cadel was amazing. He raced the Tour as if he had already won it. He didn't blow up Alpe D'Huez or Galibier (sp?) like Armstrong did in his day but the calculated precision, always where he needed to be, an early stage win so that his victory would be respected (because anyone who wins a tour without a stage victory is just way less... something), I just wish he'd beaten Tony Martin in the final TT to really stamp his authority on the race.