Question Best male rider of the year 2020

[tobydawq]

Simple question. And I think I know who is going to win this. I also think it was fairly easy to select the nine candidates, however I couldn't find a worthy number 10. Feel free to vote and comment if you think someone is missing from the poll.

 

[Blanco]

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.

He's not the best rider of the year, but he certainly belongs in the list of 10 best riders of the year.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Again; it's about the best rider, not the most successful.

Why are you quoting me as saying something i never said?

 

[saganftw]

it shoudlnt even be a discussion, Vuelta, LBL and 2nd in TdF would be a magnificient career for every cyclist, let alone doing it all in 3 months, if it wasnt for one of the most insane TT perfomances of all time and crashing out of dauphine, we are probably looking at one of the best stretches in cycling history

and of course its about results, stop the mental gymnastics, just win baby

 

[tobydawq]

Why are you quoting me as saying something i never said?

I have no idea how that happened. I think I had been meaning to reply to another post of yours but then regretted it, and then made a terrible job of editing your quote out of the post xD

 

[bob.a.feet]

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.

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.

 

[tobydawq]

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.

 

[Gigs_98]

*taking place during the Dauphiné.

Ah true, I was mixing that up. But don't think it changes much anyway

 

[Netserk]

Again; it's about the best rider, not the most successful.

So where do you rank the W52 warheads?

 

[Pantani_lives]

1. Roglic
2. Van Aert
3. Pogacar
4. Alaphilippe
5. Hart
6. Ganna
7. Hirschi
8. Van der Poel
9. Fuglsang
10. S. Bennett

It's remarkable that five of these ten were born in or after 1995.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

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.

Completely agree.

 

[topcat]

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.

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.
He's the best and the most exciting rider.

 

[tobydawq]

He was taken out by Hirschi in LBL?

 

[topcat]

He was taken out by Hirschi in LBL?

I'm adding a bit of humour cause it's getting dull

 

[Blanco]

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.

First of all, what happened, happened. There's no if...
Second, you just don't know what would've happened if Alaphilippe didn't swerve in that sprint. You can not know.

So:
1.Roglic, we can't pick a rider of the year based on what should've been.
2.Van Aert, very, very high level fom Strade to Ronde
3.Pogacar, most memorable performance of the year, and also a biggest win
4.Alaphilippe, year of great success and great mistakes
5.Hirschi, just not enough biggest wins.

 

[hayneplane]

A few thoughts on this:

Best rider this year not on the list - Ganna (by a long way)

Best performance - Pogacar Tour and specifically the ITT

Top 3
1. Roglic - Insanely long and consistent form peak with so many wins.

2. Pogacar - The highest level performance of the seas. Also backed up with a monument podium.

3. Van Aert - Winner of a monument and the best regarded non-monument one day race plus unselfish brilliant domestique deluxe work. Riding purely for himself he could have won more.

Honourable mentions to Demare and Sam Bennett who would be the next riders in line for most of us.

 

[topcat]

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.

 

[Blanco]

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.

Everyone of that three had better results than Nibali that year

 

[johnymax]

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.

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.
Another thing. One of the big arguments for Alaphillipe last year for winning Velo d'Or was that he was wearing the yellow jersey in the Tour for two weeks. This year Roglič will be wearing the leader's jersey for 24 days between Tour and Vuelta.

 

[Red Rick]

Seriously who was even on the Velo d'Or shortlist in 2017 apart from Froome? Dumoulin?

 

[tobydawq]

Seriously who was even on the Velo d'Or shortlist in 2017 apart from Froome? Dumoulin?

Valverde?

No, it was Dumoulin and Sagan.

Sagan seems a bit odd. Greg also had his freak spring that year.

 

[johnymax]

Seriously who was even on the Velo d'Or shortlist in 2017 apart from Froome? Dumoulin?

GVA? He won Tour of Luxembourg among others...

 

[topcat]

O

Everyone of that three had better results than Nibali that year

Only Froome had better results

 

[Parker]

It's clearly Roglic. He won the first race after lockdown (Slovenian nationals) and he'll win the last one of the short season. And he didn't ever stop in between. His worst finish was 6th at the World's. Even his Dauphine abandon was while leading. He's far from the most entertaining though.

 

[Parker]

1. Roglic
2. Van Aert
3. Pogacar
4. Alaphilippe
5. Hart
6. Ganna
7. Hirschi
8. Van der Poel
9. Fuglsang
10. S. Bennett

It's remarkable that five of these ten were born in or after 1995.

I'd be tempted to drop Fuglsang out of the list and slip Demare in there.

 

[Red Rick]

Valverde?

No, it was Dumoulin and Sagan.

Sagan seems a bit odd. Greg also had his freak spring that year.

Sagan is hilarious.

Greg vs Nibs I find debatable, I'd pick Nibs but I can live with it. Sagan is just a no for me.