Doubt there's any rider in the world who's objectively one of the best 50 in the world at every single subskill.
@Red Rick hmm…I believe you are knowingly obfuscating my point. I believe you to be better than that. ;-) GT success has traditionally been determined by being strong at two skills in particular: climbing and TTing. In fact most GT winners (and particularly the TDF) often required a rider to be top 10 if not top 5 in both skills.
I grant you other elements like descending matter (though arguably less since rarely can major differences be made on a descent even if on a bad day or bonking).
And don’t add cobble or dirt riding to a GT contenders necessary skills. Can it affect the outcome, sure. But they are rarely included and often at the objection of many of the GT teams who do not think they should be part of the race.
Rog, Pog, Hinault, Lemond, Indurain, Merckx, Ocana, Fignon, Thevenet, even Delgado (when he won)…list goes on and on.
Perfect example of the balance is Lemond’s 89 and 90 wins.
In 89 Lemond was the best TTer but only top five climbing (where he lost time). In 1990, he was only just top five in TT, but arguably one of if not the strongest climber in the race. He also gained most of his time in a hilly mid-mountain stage.
That is the all-around balance that GTs should strive for. And it is one of the main reasons the TDF remains the most important GT (because the very strongest nearly always wins). I don’t have an issue with the vuelta or giro once in a while having a route that might benefit a slightly different type of rider, but largely eliminating the impact of TT in a GT does nothing but reduce the necessary quality to win one.