Chris Froome may have made Tour de France history with a second title, but why does the Briton remain so unloved?

Already the most successful grand tour rider in British cycling history, Chris Froome will become the first Briton to win two Tour de France titles when he arrives in Paris on Sunday; an absolutely phenomenal achievement.

But the Kenyan-born rider remains unloved by much of the British public and wider cycling world. During this year's Tour de France he has faced countless accusations, been spat at and had urine thrown at him. What are the key reasons he remains underappreciated?

Doping allegations

It is inevitable in the post-Festina/Lance Armstrong/US Postal Service world, that scepticism should be many people's default position when it comes to the Tour. And it is natural that most of that scepticism should concentrate on the most successful riders and teams.

^{Chris Froome's first Tour title followed the Usada report into Lance Armstrong}

What is less fair – without solid evidence, anyway – is the continued whispering campaign against Chris Froome. It was the Kenyan-born rider's misfortune that he was the first champion of the post-Usada/Armstrong era, meaning the public's (and the media's) anger and cynicism was at an all-time high. The truth is, though, no one has ever really come up with any solid evidence to suggest that Froome might actually be doping.

The doubts have been based more around perceived holes or inconsistencies in Froome's story – the bilharzia and his treatment for it, the asthma that was never mentioned until he was seen puffing on an inhaler, the Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for prednisone last year (which was perfectly legal – signed off by the International Cycling Union (UCI) race doctor – but which suggested Team Sky might be prepared to push into cycling's grey areas), the transformation of an ungainly rider to a multiple Tour winner...

^{Froome has spent the Tour in the spotlight following allegations}

All of these arguments have been countered by Froome and Team Sky ad nauseam; the bilharzia was treated in Africa rather than the UK because it is a tropical disease and they have more experience of it over there; the asthma was not mentioned because Froome did not want to alert his rivals to a perceived weakness, the TUE was legal and the only one he has ever taken in competition.

As for his late blossoming, Team Sky point to his early tests at the UCI headquarters in Aigle which showed he was always a freakish talent; he was just raw and inconsistent. None of which is proof that Froome is clean. But it certainly does not prove that he is doped. It is just claim and counter-claim.

Unlike with Armstrong, there are no whistleblowers, no soigneurs who 'were there', no disgruntled ex-team mates alleging doping. What we are left with, as we have seen throughout this Tour, is endless speculation and innuendo, mostly based on numbers – performance data, power-to-weight, VO2 max ... It would be unfair in the extreme to deny Froome his moment in the sun based on such speculation.

Team Sky's reputation

Froome's PR struggles – and there are signs that the tide is turning in the wake of all the abuse he has worn, with some dignity, over the last three weeks – are probably not helped by the fact that he is a Team Sky rider, which is ironic as the British outfit have tried since their inception to sell themselves as a clean team, an open team, a break from the past.

^{Team Sky was launched to a fanfare in London in January in 2010}

Team Sky struggle, though, with a reputation for arrogance within the sport. The charges against them are thus: that they arrived in the sport five years ago, said they were going to win the Tour within five years, initially struggled (which cycling's old school enjoyed immensely) then started to win. Big time. The transference of the 'marginal gains' philosophy from the track to the road was one thing, but telling everyone how to win at a sport they have been practising for decades was bound to put certain noses out of joint.

Team Sky have more money, better cars, smarter kit. Inevitably, that causes jealousy. Witness the wrangling over motorhomes at this Tour, and Team Sky's alleged 'cavalcade' of vehicles clogging up hotel car parks. Team Sky are – rightly – unapologetic about their pursuit of excellence. They continue to bang the drum for professionalism. But Team Sky's image, and the allegations that always swirl around them, do not help Froome.

France's '30 years of hurt'

The xenophobic card has been overplayed in this Tour but there is probably something in it. Like England and their doomed pursuit of the football World Cup, the long wait for a first French Tour champion since Bernard Hinault in 1985 goes on.

^{Bernard Hinault (right) remains the last Frenchman to win the Tour – in 1985}

Again, hardly Froome's fault, but when combined with all the aforementioned factors, it is fair to say Froome is not the most popular sportsman in France.

Style of riding

This last point is exacerbated by the French romantic yearning for 'panache'. The French love a rider like Thomas Voeckler who takes out his earpiece and rides on instinct, setting off on bold solo attacks, most of which are doomed to failure but some of which yield famous victories.

^{Froome is not a rider who can be accused of riding with grace or style}

What they do not like is riding to a playbook, to the numbers. They see Team Sky, and their talk of numbers and thresholds, and they see the sport reduced to a science experiment; riding at tempo all day, shutting down attacks. This was particularly the case with Sir Bradley Wiggins' time trial-heavy win in 2012.

^{Froome produced an incredible attack on La Pierre-Saint-Martin}

Actually Froome – an explosive climber when he wants to be – took most of his time in this Tour in the stressful classics-style first week, and with his stunning attack on stage 10 to La Pierre-Saint-Martin.

'Plastic Brit'

Again, extraordinarily unfair on Froome, who does not claim to be anything other than what he is: someone born to British parents in Kenya, who was then schooled in South Africa.

Undeniably, however, Froome's international background – he now lives in Monaco and, by his own admission, spends very little time in the UK – means he has struggled to be embraced by the British public. He speaks with a slight South African lilt and does not exude Britishness in the same way as, say, Wiggins (who ironically was born in Belgium and had an Australian father).

Image issues

Froome is not Wiggins. This, apparently, is a problem for some people. The fact that the two riders (and, infamously during the 2012 Tour, their partners) fell out was probably not helpful, as many fans 'took sides' following Froome's perceived attack on his team leader on La Toussuire.

But the fact is anyone following in the footsteps of Wiggins was going to have it tough. Wiggins could be a nightmare – ask anyone who raced with him and they will tell you he was moody and difficult – but he was also box office, charismatic, enigmatic and could not open his mouth without saying something colourful/controversial.

^{Froome rode in support of Bradley Wiggins during the 2012 Tour de France}

Wiggins was steeped in the history of cycling – he could reel off past winners of Paris-Roubaix and grew up reading Cycling Weekly – which appealed to the purists. He was a mod with a penchant for Paul Weller, which appealed to Britons, particularly during all the Olympic chest-beating of 2012, which was when he became a 'national treasure'. Wiggins was able to mock French journalists in their own tongue, which saw him given a far easier ride by them.

And he was a more versatile rider than Froome, even if his Tour win was spectacularly dull in some people's eyes. Froome, by contrast, is more introverted. He is polite and mild-mannered. He does not know a huge amount about cycling's past. He arrived late to the sport. He is ungainly as a rider. In fact, Froome has a very interesting background. And his meek exterior belies an uncompromising core – witness his contretemps with Vincenzo Nibali in the first week of this Tour, or the story, told in his autobiography, of the time he rode through a human roadblock as a kid rather than back down. But he does sometimes struggle to get that across to fans.

What can Froome do to become more popular?

Froome should not have to change his personality to appeal to fans, or to the British public. He is already a polite and interesting sportsman. He suffers mostly due to the cynicism that continues to swirl around cycling and Sky. With time, and particularly if the UCI can introduce measures that would help to reassure fans that they performances they see are clean, people should start to see him more as an incredible athlete – arguably one of Britain's greatest.

^{Froome should not change his ways}

Whatever he might say about 'getting his head down' and 'concentrating on riding his bike', though, it is clear that Froome does desire and crave that recognition. His statement in Saturday night's press conference that his win was "100 per cent British" and the way he spoke about the supportive messages he has been receiving from the UK revealed a character who wants to be appreciated but suspects it may be a long process.

As his wife Michelle said last week: "With Chris’s background and upbringing, I imagine people do find it difficult to relate to him and how he was brought up and the path his cycling has taken. I was born in Wales then moved to South Africa and had a similar upbringing so we relate to each other. We both see ourselves being British and our child [due later this year] will definitely be British.

"Chris' parents, grandparents, great grandparent, they are all British and they would be incredibly proud of what he’s doing for Britain. It may take longer for him to get the recognition of other sportsmen. It may take 10, 20 years – maybe 30 at this rate- but I am sure people will come to see his accomplishments for what they are."