Close races don't nearly impress me as much excellent races. For some reason people seem to like these nail-biters. IMO, all the stuff about seeing how people perform when it's close is hogwash. I prefer it when the cyclists are at their best. Armstrong's damage control of his Dauphine crash was far from ideal. Ullrich was a bit rusty. Beloki and Leipheimer crashed out. (I don't consider Hamilton a part of this list as this was his best Tour.) Some others rode like they weren't there. This has been a close Tour, but one far from being excellent.
The good part, of course, was that Armstrong came good and got number 5. Now we can start talking about number 6.
The Posties were better in the flat stages and in some of the mountain stages. Despite Heras' (preferable to Heras's) problems, I believe the team was BETTER this year. The TTT win outweighed the "weakness" in the mountains. Too bad that Heras wasn't good, as he could've shown what an ace climber can do in a close race using aggressive team tactics.
The Posties will kick a55 the rest of the year.
The good part, of course, was that Armstrong came good and got number 5. Now we can start talking about number 6.
The Posties were better in the flat stages and in some of the mountain stages. Despite Heras' (preferable to Heras's) problems, I believe the team was BETTER this year. The TTT win outweighed the "weakness" in the mountains. Too bad that Heras wasn't good, as he could've shown what an ace climber can do in a close race using aggressive team tactics.
The Posties will kick a55 the rest of the year.
