2009 World Rankings

[derailleur]

Contador wins again.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/427161/contador-finishes-at-top-of-uci-ranking.html

A couple of things I noticed:

Dennis Menchov didn't make the top 10 despite winning the Giro.

Spain destroyed the year.

Lance Armstrong came in 31st.

The World Champion isn't the best cyclist of the year. Maybe the fact that the World Championships aren't worth any points could be contributing to that.

 

[ludwig]

Yes, Menchov should be up there

I guess since he didn't win anything else he didn't place.

Moving on I'd argue that Cancellara and Pellizotti should be in that Top 10. I don't know how Canc misses out with a TdS, a WC, and all those GT stage victories.

My Top 10 would be something like this....

1) Contador
2) Valverde
3) Cavendish
4) Cancellara
5) Evans
6) Schleck
7) Menchov
8) Pellizotti
9) Gilbert
10) Sanchez

 

[ak-zaaf]

1. (1) [ESP] VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro GCE 25/04/1980 2482
2. (2) [ESP] CONTADOR VELASCO Alberto AST 06/12/1982 2271
3. (4) [AUS] EVANS Cadel SIL 14/02/1977 1895
4. (21) [GBR] CAVENDISH Mark THR 21/05/1985 1733
5. (9) [BEL] GILBERT Philippe SIL 05/07/1982 1720
6. (105) [NOR] BOASSON HAGEN Edvald THR 17/05/1987 1611
7. (32) [ESP] SANCHEZ GONZALEZ Samuel EUS 05/02/1978 1536
8. (5) [SUI] CANCELLARA Fabian SAX 18/03/1981 1516
9. (174) [USA] FARRAR Tyler GRM 02/06/1984 1434
10. (6) [ITA] CUNEGO Damiano LAM 19/09/1981 1406


UCI rankings are a joke.

 

[Team Ferrari/Fuentes]

Can't they make a ranking like the UCI Ranking that we had until 2004? That points system was fair and the world number 1 spot had credit...

 

[nvpacchi]

I guess since he didn't win anything else he didn't place.

Moving on I'd argue that Cancellara and Pellizotti should be in that Top 10.

God only knows the exact way the UCI points system functions, but besides a Stage win and 3rd in the Giro, did Pellizotti have any other major results besides the TDF KOM? I don't think points are awarded for his KOM success.

Its nice to see Gesink still crack the Top 10 after miserable luck in the Tour and the Vuelta.

 

[Anonymous]

The World Champion isn't the best cyclist of the year. Maybe the fact that the World Championships aren't worth any points could be contributing to that.

although i think it would be fair to say that cadel is the best ranked clean rider of 2009

now enough of that, before we end up in the clinic...

 

[Boeing]

Does DiLuca get any points with the CERA deal? Italy rides high regardless.

USA 10 ouch

Francais? Le Premiere 25? N'est pas? Les Canards!

 

[il_fiammingo]

1. (1) [ESP] VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro GCE 25/04/1980 2482
2. (2) [ESP] CONTADOR VELASCO Alberto AST 06/12/1982 2271
3. (4) [AUS] EVANS Cadel SIL 14/02/1977 1895
4. (21) [GBR] CAVENDISH Mark THR 21/05/1985 1733
5. (9) [BEL] GILBERT Philippe SIL 05/07/1982 1720
6. (105) [NOR] BOASSON HAGEN Edvald THR 17/05/1987 1611
7. (32) [ESP] SANCHEZ GONZALEZ Samuel EUS 05/02/1978 1536
8. (5) [SUI] CANCELLARA Fabian SAX 18/03/1981 1516
9. (174) [USA] FARRAR Tyler GRM 02/06/1984 1434
10. (6) [ITA] CUNEGO Damiano LAM 19/09/1981 1406


UCI rankings are a joke.

I agree. http://www.cqranking.com is the best ranking out there on the internet.

 

[icefire]

The problem with whatever rankings we come up is that they are useless. Well, they may serve to assign the number of riders to the national teams at the Worlds, and to have a good dinner at the end of the season if UCI organises a party to grant the award to the winner, but nothing else.

In tennis, a player with a good ranking increases his chances to meet the most difficult opponents in the last rounds of any tournament, so there is an incentive for players to have a good ranking. Cycling rankings are useless no matter how points are awarded because there is no real or perceived advantage in having a good ranking for sport results (or even for income).

 

[derailleur]

God only knows the exact way the UCI points system functions, but besides a Stage win and 3rd in the Giro, did Pellizotti have any other major results besides the TDF KOM? I don't think points are awarded for his KOM success.

You have to drill down to find them*, but the UCI rankings are based on placement in races. Biggest points for top-20 in the TdF, a few less for the other GTs. Fewer for top-10 in some of the Classics and other tours, less still for the rest of of the classics. I'm not sure how they justify Ghent-Wevelgem or Fleche-Wallone being worth less than the Tour de Romandie, but that's what happens. And there are a few points for stage wins in any tour. No points for KOM, sprint, etc (though big sprinters of course take stages and one-day races frequently, so they can score well).

I'm still gobsmacked that the UCI leaves out its own championship when determining the year's result. More proof they're drunk on both power and plonk.

Pelizotti came in 29th (2 spots ahead of LA), with points in only two races. A lot for his podium finish in the Giro, and a few for stage placements in the Tour de France.

* - look at the "Points Scale" and "Detailed Points" links at the right side of this page:
http://www.uci.ch/templates/BUILTIN-NOFRAMES/Template3/layout.asp?MenuId=MTU2MzU&LangId=1

 

[rgmerk]

Isn't part of the problem that the rankings are comparing fundamentally different kinds of riders?

How can one sensibly rank, to pick the two extremes, Cavendish and Contador? It's about as meaningful as comparing Usain Bolt with Sammy Winjiru (the world's best current marathoner).

 

[Anonymous]

Isn't part of the problem that the rankings are comparing fundamentally different kinds of riders?

How can one sensibly rank, to pick the two extremes, Cavendish and Contador? It's about as meaningful as comparing Usain Bolt with Sammy Winjiru (the world's best current marathoner).

I agree it is very hard to do this, almost incomparable in any meaningful sense. Any ranking system has serious flaws, and that's the nature of assigning arbitrary points to different wins and placings throughout the year.

Personally, I think the WC RR and TT should be included in the rankings to reward those riders efforts, and also perhaps a little more for GT stages wins, considering cavendish's efforts

It's a bit like the green jersey - how can 6 sprint wins not beat 1 sprint win and many top 5 places. Personally, I think the issue with ranking systems is that when you WIN, the second place getter gets such a close point amount to you that the rankings do not reveal the true extent of your victory, which probably explains why guys like cav aren't right up the top

 

[derailleur]

These rankings aren't really a ranking but a scoring for the season.

The UCI sets up a criterion for the scoring, and anyone wishing to place highly can adjust their strategy.

A true ranking would answer the question of who is most likely to beat whom in a hypothetically average competition. This list isn't close to that as it bakes in all of the randomness that occurred over the small sample set that only ranks people who finished in the top 5 or 10% in a couple of dozen races.

I mean, would anyone put LA in 31st place if he was starting a race against the 30 guys who are ahead of him on this list?

In the end, the pro system is all about getting attention for your team and increasing your earning power, so this pure performance-based ranking doesn't really capture value at all. Except for Contador, there's nobody on the list who's going to put it on their rap sheet when negotiating a contract. And those blanks in the name list aren't going to even want anyone looking at it.

 

[Ferminal]

These rankings aren't really a ranking but a scoring for the season.

The UCI sets up a criterion for the scoring, and anyone wishing to place highly can adjust their strategy.

A true ranking would answer the question of who is most likely to beat whom in a hypothetically average competition. This list isn't close to that as it bakes in all of the randomness that occurred over the small sample set that only ranks people who finished in the top 5 or 10% in a couple of dozen races.

I mean, would anyone put LA in 31st place if he was starting a race against the 30 guys who are ahead of him on this list?

In the end, the pro system is all about getting attention for your team and increasing your earning power, so this pure performance-based ranking doesn't really capture value at all. Except for Contador, there's nobody on the list who's going to put it on their rap sheet when negotiating a contract. And those blanks in the name list aren't going to even want anyone looking at it.

Read the post above, they have to try and amalgamate different classes of riders. Of course it's also based on season long effort (every major race gets you points) so it's impossible for someone like Lance to get a decent ranking because he rode what, the TdU, Giro and Tour? There's a lot more to cycling than overall victories

Cancellara and Cavendish are streets ahead of anyone else in their respective fields, yet their dominance isn't shown in the rankings... That's the difficulty of the system.

It's not a ranking system as such (as that implies you're sorting people according to the same talents), rather a points table for the most accomplished cyclist of the year. It's just an gimmicky trophy, nothing to be taken too seriously.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Read the post above, they have to try and amalgamate different classes of riders. Of course it's also based on season long effort (every major race gets you points) so it's impossible for someone like Lance to get a decent ranking because he rode what, the TdU, Giro and Tour? There's a lot more to cycling than overall victories

Cancellara and Cavendish are streets ahead of anyone else in their respective fields, yet their dominance isn't shown in the rankings... That's the difficulty of the system.

It's not a ranking system as such (as that implies you're sorting people according to the same talents), rather a points table for the most accomplished cyclist of the year. It's just an gimmicky trophy, nothing to be taken too seriously.

+1
I don't think it rewards a sprinter enough. CE had a great back half of the season but i wouldn't say he was in the top 5 riders of the season. Farrar, Griepel, Gilbert and Haussler i think have had better seasons than CE but it rewards a GC rider a lot more. I think the point system if it was re jigged it could become a lot more accurate, fair and prestigious but at the moment it just doesn't work.

 

[ingsve]

If I remember correctly then the rankings will become a bit more important again for the 2011 season where the ranking will determine what teams get invited to the GTs. I believe the rankings will also include more races than the current one that only really includes the PT and the GTs i think.

I would prefer that all pro races get included like it was in the past.

 

[Cogombre]

If I remember correctly then the rankings will become a bit more important again for the 2011 season where the ranking will determine what teams get invited to the GTs. I believe the rankings will also include more races than the current one that only really includes the PT and the GTs i think.

I would prefer that all pro races get included like it was in the past.

Wasn't aware of that. That's an interesting improvement, imo, because the UCI rankings have become in the last years a sort of useless thing which shows who is the cyclist who won more major races, as if we couldn't see it ourselves. The former world cup was, by far, more interesting.

And I agree with those who said that comparing such different riders like Farrar, Cancellara and Contador in the same list is a bit weird. It'd be difficult to split them in several classifications though, except maybe for the TTers. An option could be to not to have an all season individual classification (recovering the world cup would be great), but only a teams classification, because it's easier to compare teams than to compare riders.

 

[icefire]

And I agree with those who said that comparing such different riders like Farrar, Cancellara and Contador in the same list is a bit weird. It'd be difficult to split them in several classifications though, except maybe for the TTers.

Why not having three separate rankings?
1) Wins/positions in 1-day races and individual stages in stage races
2) GC positions in stage races
3) TTs

...and also a combined one? Not that difficult, I would say.

 

[Moondance]

Isn't part of the problem that the rankings are comparing fundamentally different kinds of riders?

How can one sensibly rank, to pick the two extremes, Cavendish and Contador? It's about as meaningful as comparing Usain Bolt with Sammy Winjiru (the world's best current marathoner).

My vote goes to Haile Gebrselassie, but who's asking

 

[Cogombre]

Why not having three separate rankings?
1) Wins/positions in 1-day races and individual stages in stage races
2) GC positions in stage races
3) TTs

...and also a combined one? Not that difficult, I would say.

The 2nd and the 3rd seem fine to me, although the Tour winner would be the winner in the 2nd almost always if he does a decent season besides the Tour (that if the Tour gives a bigger number of points, which would be fair taking into account the stronger field it has compared to Giro or Vuelta).

However, comparing 1 day races with a win in a individual stage of a stage races left us with a similar problem. We'll be comparing different riders like Devolder, Schleck, Greipel, etc.

I think that the best they can do is recover the world cup. I can't see Contador caring about that classification if he has another Tour in his pocket.

 

[Anonymous]

My vote goes to Haile Gebrselassie, but who's asking

mine too, but Wanjiru is a very close second, and the only guy that i can foresee breaking the WR

back to the cycling now

 

[Furbo_]

(recovering the world cup would be great), but only a teams classification, because it's easier to compare teams than to compare riders.

http://estacionesdelciclismo.blogspot.com/2009/10/copa-del-mundo-2009-ii.html

 

[il_fiammingo]

http://estacionesdelciclismo.blogspot.com/2009/10/copa-del-mundo-2009-ii.html

Thx!

Man, i whished they had kept the World Cup alive. Such an impressive list of winners.

 

[ScottyMuser]

interesting point - some on here are moaning that the UCI rankings don't cover the World Champs(which they believe they should) and are therefore less effective at judging performances. The reason I can see for the UCI not covering the WC with points is ALL the other competitions that reward you with points are TEAM events, where you would get points for riding for your trade team. But the WC is nationality, which means it would be more biased towards stronger overall nations, not riders themselves - and trying to base a team competition (like WC has) but including a competition where riders compete on a national level is tricky

Some have also mentioned the CQ rankings, which reward stage wins, but IMO puts too much emphasis on the WC - rewarding 400 points to the winner (when compared to 500 for a Gt/600 for the TDF) when to be honest its an easier race to win than any week long tour (let alone GT); having done some analysis (as I do not believe in a chance that Ally Vally, for winning a weakend Vuelta line up (possibly the weakest of the 3 GTs) should be higher than Contador, especially considering drug issues and Puerto). I find the following:
Ally Vally, for being able to stay in the lead of the Vuelta, despite not winning any stage (and only finishing on the podium twice in stages) got 863 points (and incidentally ~400 for the Vuelta Catalunya, vs Dan Martin/Astarloza for decent riders)

Contador on the other hand got 1065 (yes I know its more than the Vuleta, but arguably he dominated it more, and against a FAR FAR better line up of opponents) and 500 at Vaisco marginally more than Vally's Catalunya (against a stronger line-up than the Catalunya inc. Kreuzeiger/Nibali/Cuddles/LLS/Samu Sanchez/Greipel/Colom/Rogers etc. HECK, the top 10 of that race is nearly as impressive as the riders Vally beat at the Vuelta!)

 

[ScottyMuser]

oh, also if people are interested, I have worked out who the blank lines are on the UCI world rankings:
in 21 is Davide Rebellin
24 is Mikel Astarloza
33 is Antonio Colom
186 is Christian Pfannberger
228 is Thomas Dekker
255 is Inigo Landaluze

These are all riders banned/suspended due to positive drug test, so obviously the UCI have kept their points for the riders (rather than re-distribute them), and blank out their names/nation/team (to make it harder for people to work out who it is at a glance)

The CQ ratings don't blank out their names (unlike the uci), and keep their points.