CNF Award: Best classic rider of 2013

[Eshnar]

The best rider in the big one day races! Discuss and nominate!

 

[LaFlorecita]

Them exclamation marks Eshnar in a good mood today?

 

[Eshnar]

Them exclamation marks Eshnar in a good mood today?

Well the idea was mine so I'm happy to start it

 

[LaFlorecita]

Well the idea was mine so I'm happy to start it

Nice

 

[BigMac]

My list is as follows.

In first place, Pete Sagan, for is performances in the pavé and the hilly classics. A true beast. Classy wins Gent - Wevelgem and Montréal, not to mentione the 'secondary' victories and podiums.
In second, Cancellara,for dominating the Ronde and having a great win in Roubaix.
In third, Rui Costa and Purito. Purito won Lombardia just after placing second in the Worlds and LBL. Perhaps he deserved to be ranked above Rui. Costa began with a 9th place in LBL, finished 6th and 5th in Québec and Montréal, and later won the Worlds.
In fourth, Dan Martin and Valverde

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Cancellara by a distance.

 

[del1962]

What did Gilbert do to earn his place in poll?

Moreno, Henao amongst others did better, though I would not necessarily put them in the poll.

 

[trevim]

Cancellara hands down, no discussion. Honorable mentions to Rodriguez, Martin and Sagan.

 

[Pippo_San]

Cancellara "I'm the boss of the peloton" my ***.

This guy showed some real bad-assery. NEVER FORGET.

 

[Arredondo]

Dificult...

Cancellara won Flanders and PR, but i think winning a Ardennes Classic, Worlds or Lombardia is tougher because the competition is stronger. So then i come to guys like Purito, Valverde, Dan Martin...

In terms of regularity, perhaps i have to chose Valverde. 2nd in Amstel, 7th in Fleche, 3rd in LBL, 2nd CLSB, 3rd Worlds and 2nd Lombardia. That's truly impressive. Purito was good also, won Lombardia, but that crash in Amstel cost him the title, because otherwise he would win Fleche (instead of Moreno). Dan Martin was also fantastic, with winning LBL, 4t at Fleche en 4th at Lombardia. But he did it to bad at the Worlds to pik him.

So my winner is .... Valverde!

 

[Netserk]

Dificult...

Cancellara won Flanders and PR, but i think winning a Ardennes Classic, Worlds or Lombardia is tougher because the competition is stronger. So then i come to guys like Purito, Valverde, Dan Martin...

In terms of regularity, perhaps i have to chose Valverde. 2nd in Amstel, 7th in Fleche, 3rd in LBL, 2nd CLSB, 3rd Worlds and 2nd Lombardia. That's truly impressive. Purito was good also, won Lombardia, but that crash in Amstel cost him the title, because otherwise he would win Fleche (instead of Moreno). Dan Martin was also fantastic, with winning LBL, 4t at Fleche en 4th at Lombardia. But he did it to bad at the Worlds to pik him.

So my winner is .... Valverde!

How can a loser be the best?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

How can a loser be the best?

You voted for Sagan... do you really rate Gent-Wevelgem that highly?

 

[Netserk]

You voted for Sagan... do you really rate Gent-Wevelgem that highly?

At least he won

And more than just G-W.

Edit: he won 4 one-day races (and that's not counting nationals for obvious reasons), while getting on the podium in another 4.

Those 8 one-day races were:
GP Citta di Camaiore
Strade Bianche
Milano - Sanremo
E3 Prijs Vlaanderen - Harelbeke
Gent - Wevelgem
Ronde van Vlaanderen
Brabantse Pijl
GP de Montréal

Quite an impressive spring there

 

[Libertine Seguros]

At least he won

And more than just G-W.

Edit: he won 4 one-day races (and that's not counting nationals for obvious reasons), while getting on the podium in another 4.

Those 8 one-day races were:
GP Citta di Camaiore
Strade Bianche
Milano - Sanremo
E3 Prijs Vlaanderen - Harelbeke
Gent - Wevelgem
Ronde van Vlaanderen
Brabantse Pijl
GP de Montréal

Quite an impressive spring there

But he won 4 races, and Città di Camaiore and GP de Montréal (which isn't in Spring) aren't really classics. Brabantse Pijl is a semi-Classic.

So the only Classic he won was Gent-Wevelgem, and Valverde racked up podiums, so how come Sagan is in your opinion better than Cancellara while Valverde's just a loser, when Cancellara has a Classics entered:Classics won ratio of 5:3?

 

[Echoes]

Cancellara won Flanders and PR, but i think winning a Ardennes Classic, Worlds or Lombardia is tougher because the competition is stronger. So then i come to guys like Purito, Valverde, Dan Martin...

The competition is stronger on Paris-Roubaix, the Queen of the Classics.

So answer is Cancellara...

 

[Netserk]

1) because if you don't win a single one-day race throughout the year you are a loser.

2) Canc won races (and bigger races)but not only fewer, his wins were all within 16 days. The reason Sagan edges out Canc is that he (Sagan) is more all-round, both in terms of terrain and calender.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Dificult...

Cancellara won Flanders and PR, but i think winning a Ardennes Classic, Worlds or Lombardia is tougher because the competition is stronger. So then i come to guys like Purito, Valverde, Dan Martin...

In terms of regularity, perhaps i have to chose Valverde. 2nd in Amstel, 7th in Fleche, 3rd in LBL, 2nd CLSB, 3rd Worlds and 2nd Lombardia. That's truly impressive. Purito was good also, won Lombardia, but that crash in Amstel cost him the title, because otherwise he would win Fleche (instead of Moreno). Dan Martin was also fantastic, with winning LBL, 4t at Fleche en 4th at Lombardia. But he did it to bad at the Worlds to pik him.

So my winner is .... Valverde!

There are dominant players at RVV and P-R, but everybody comes in 100% form. In contrast Lombardia is the monument with least competitive value imo.

edit: agree with Echoes

 

[Arredondo]

The competition is stronger on Paris-Roubaix, the Queen of the Classics.

So answer is Cancellara...

Competition in PR? Well, then i have to watch on that next season..

In my opinion 5x podium out of 6 classics is impressive. Sagan is also a good candidate, but then i can say he wins races where the big guys (Canc etc) are not interested in

Well, if you look at the guys who finished in the top 10 at Lombardy this year, you have Purito (winner Lombardy, Fleche, multiple podium placings in classics), Valverde (2x LBL, Fleche, Clasica, multiple podium placings), Dan Martin (winner LBL, podium in Lombardy), Gasparotto (winner Amstel), Moreno (winner Fleche)...

In PR, the 5th and 10th are guys like Damien Gaudin and Sebastien Turgot. Well......

 

[Arredondo]

Why the **** is Gilbert in the poll? What has he done? Pick a Moreno or Ciolek, someone who actually won a race.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

1) because if you don't win a single one-day race throughout the year you are a loser.

2) Canc won races (and bigger races)but not only fewer, his wins were all within 16 days. The reason Sagan edges out Canc is that he (Sagan) is more all-round, both in terms of terrain and calender.

Only 1 fewer. E3+RVV+Roubaix > meaningless Italian warmup race in February+G-W+Brabantse Pijl+Canadian WT race.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying it makes no sense to argue against somebody who's been constantly on and around the podium in every Classic they've entered on the basis that they haven't won things of any consequence, and then vote for a guy who's been constantly on and around the podium in every Classic they've entered when they have won only a small amount of things that are of any consequence.

Personally I think the argument in favour of Valverde in 2013 is very weak. The argument for Sagan is much stronger. But if you're making victories into the deciding factor, which you implied in your criticism of the Valverde pick, then Cancellara simply must be chosen ahead of Sagan on the basis that while Sagan won one more race than Cancellara, Cancellara won 3 classics including 2 monuments, while Sagan won 1 classic including 0 monuments.

 

[Arredondo]

Only 1 fewer. E3+RVV+Roubaix > meaningless Italian warmup race in February+G-W+Brabantse Pijl+Canadian WT race.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying it makes no sense to argue against somebody who's been constantly on and around the podium in every Classic they've entered on the basis that they haven't won things of any consequence, and then vote for a guy who's been constantly on and around the podium in every Classic they've entered when they have won only a small amount of things that are of any consequence.

Personally I think the argument in favour of Valverde in 2013 is very weak. The argument for Sagan is much stronger. But if you're making victories into the deciding factor, which you implied in your criticism of the Valverde pick, then Cancellara simply must be chosen ahead of Sagan on the basis that while Sagan won one more race than Cancellara, Cancellara won 3 classics including 2 monuments, while Sagan won 1 classic including 0 monuments.

The discussion is already ruined because of the definition deciding factor=victories. I think someone who gets to the podium in 5/6 classics, with better competition, and wants to ride GC's in GT, can pick above someone who focus himself fully on the classics, because he isn't a GT rider.

However, the choice for Cancellara is also very logical, because he won two monuments, but he also finishes on the podium of MSR. And he has the potential to do well in a LBL or Amstel.

Sagan can't be chosen in favour of Canc, because Sagan was beaten by Canc in Flanders, and he only win races like GW and Montreal. I agree with you on that point.

 

[Echoes]

The strength of a rider is measured by his ITT results.

Cancellara, Terpstra, Boom, Chavanel & Phinney are all ITT specialists...

I've never considered Terpstra a lesser rider than Rodriguez. Only Rodriguez has dozens of races with routes that are taylor-made for him, which is not the case for Terpstra. Hence the Spaniard is World #1

Besides implying that Turgot and Gaudin are not tough riders, is very bold.

 

[Arredondo]

The strength of a rider is measured by his ITT results.

Cancellara, Terpstra, Boom, Chavanel & Phinney are all ITT specialists...

I've never considered Terpstra a lesser rider than Rodriguez. Only Rodriguez has dozens of races with routes that are taylor-made for him, which is not the case for Terpstra. Hence the Spaniard is World #1

Besides implying that Turgot and Gaudin are not tough riders, is very bold.

There good riders, but not the quality of a Gasparotto or Moreno, because they don't win races like E3-Prijs or Kuurne. However, that could be the case in the future, perhaps this is a little bit to easy from my point of view

On WT level, most riders can push similar watts etc, but not everyone is a winner. However, climbers are in advantage, because climbing is hot, and routes for the likes of Terpstra not.

The strength of rider is also measured by riding in a peloton, saving your energy, cope with the pressure in the final, explosiviness..

 

[Netserk]

Only 1 fewer. E3+RVV+Roubaix > meaningless Italian warmup race in February+G-W+Brabantse Pijl+Canadian WT race.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying it makes no sense to argue against somebody who's been constantly on and around the podium in every Classic they've entered on the basis that they haven't won things of any consequence, and then vote for a guy who's been constantly on and around the podium in every Classic they've entered when they have won only a small amount of things that are of any consequence.

Personally I think the argument in favour of Valverde in 2013 is very weak. The argument for Sagan is much stronger. But if you're making victories into the deciding factor, which you implied in your criticism of the Valverde pick, then Cancellara simply must be chosen ahead of Sagan on the basis that while Sagan won one more race than Cancellara, Cancellara won 3 classics including 2 monuments, while Sagan won 1 classic including 0 monuments.

Well because winning is important, but not the only factor.

 

[Roderick]

Sagan is a natural born winner while Valv Piti is a natural born loser