The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
He's not the best rider of the year, but he certainly belongs in the list of 10 best riders of the year.Because you can have a great season due to one big win, doesn't mean you are the best rider of the year, so your comment is completely besides the point.
Also Ganna won the WCC, and 4 stages in the Giro. I'd say his season was a bit better than van der Poel's.
Why are you quoting me as saying something i never said?Again; it's about the best rider, not the most successful.
Why are you quoting me as saying something i never said?
Should Alaphilippe have won 3 monuments?Alaphillipe is the best rider in the world. World champion and should have won 3 monuments.
Roglic gets it this year results wise, even though it's hard to swallow.
Ah true, I was mixing that up. But don't think it changes much anyway*taking place during the Dauphiné.
Again; it's about the best rider, not the most successful.
Completely agree.I think a lot of things would be different if what happened in LBL hadn't happened. If Alaphilippe won, he would have won both WCRR and LBL, and then RR could lol as much as he would like but then he would have been hard to pass.
If Hirschi won, he would have a Tour stage and another epic solo to his name as well as a bronze medal at Worlds and then the Ardennes double and would also have been more likely to being picked here.
If Pogacar won, he would have the Tour and LBL and become the first to combine a Tour win with another major win in the same season since Pantani!
But then of course Roglic won even if he would have not made the podium under normal circumstances and suddenly he has a Vuelta, a monument and a second place in the Tour.
That just seems so random to me, and that's why I don't think it's fair to just go by results only when assessing who was the best.
Yes, Ala should have won Liege and Ronde but he was taken out by Hirshchi and a moto. He was as close as you can get in MSR with a bike problem in the descent.Should Alaphilippe have won 3 monuments?
In Milan-Sanremo he was beaten by Van Aert, fair and square, in a sprint. The logical conclusion from this is that the only thing he should have done in Flanders was lose to Van Aert. Should he have won LBL? Sure, if you take away the fact that Roglic beat him and the fact that he was relegated to last in the sprint.
The only man who should have won three monuments was Wout Van Aert, and he only entered two.
I think results-wise Roglic is the best rider this year. Although I am tempted to say that, performance-wise, Van Aert was the best, I think we need to consider how often the two have raced. Van Aert raced 35 days - 16 of which he properly raced (competing for the win / racing for time). Roglic raced 49 days - 30 of which he properly raced. This may seem an unusual, unnecessary means of measuring rider performance but it illustrates that Roglic was racing almost twice as much as Van Aert and had to hold his form for 4 and a half months as opposed to Van Aert's 2 and a half. Naturally such a long peak will lead to not quite perfect form but is a 4 and a half month peak not something that should be commended in the modern era?
Of course one thing this does not account for is the days when Van Aert was putting in monster performances in the mountains, as well as some of the sprint stages which he could have won if he were not working for Roglic.
Overall, I think Roglic is the most deserving, but I think it would be completely fair to give it to Van Aert as well.
I'm adding a bit of humour cause it's getting dullHe was taken out by Hirschi in LBL?
First of all, what happened, happened. There's no if...I think a lot of things would be different if what happened in LBL hadn't happened. If Alaphilippe won, he would have won both WCRR and LBL, and then RR could lol as much as he would like but then he would have been hard to pass.
If Hirschi won, he would have a Tour stage and another epic solo to his name as well as a bronze medal at Worlds and then the Ardennes double and would also have been more likely to being picked here.
If Pogacar won, he would have the Tour and LBL and become the first to combine a Tour win with another major win in the same season since Pantani!
But then of course Roglic won even if he would have not made the podium under normal circumstances and suddenly he has a Vuelta, a monument and a second place in the Tour.
That just seems so random to me, and that's why I don't think it's fair to just go by results only when assessing who was the best.
Everyone of that three had better results than Nibali that year2017: Nibali was not in the top 3 of the Velo d'Or despite 2 gt podiums and a monument win. So even that's not entirely results based.
One of the GT podiums being a 1st place makes a ton of difference. Also it helps a lot if one of them is a Tour podium.2017: Nibali was not in the top 3 of the Velo d'Or despite 2 gt podiums and a monument win. So even that's not entirely results based.
Seriously who was even on the Velo d'Or shortlist in 2017 apart from Froome? Dumoulin?
GVA? He won Tour of Luxembourg among others...Seriously who was even on the Velo d'Or shortlist in 2017 apart from Froome? Dumoulin?
Only Froome had better resultsEveryone of that three had better results than Nibali that year
It's remarkable that five of these ten were born in or after 1995.
- Roglic
- Van Aert
- Pogacar
- Alaphilippe
- Hart
- Ganna
- Hirschi
- Van der Poel
- Fuglsang
- S. Bennett
Sagan is hilarious.Valverde?
No, it was Dumoulin and Sagan.
Sagan seems a bit odd. Greg also had his freak spring that year.