If we're going to do some revisionist history, then perhaps this is an interesting example for those who say "Evans always stronger at the Tour". Bear in mind I still believe Evans is the superior rider of the two.
I would like you to cast your minds back to July of 2008. The final GC of the Tour read:
1. Sastre
2. Evans, + 0:58
3/4. Menchov, + 2:10 (3rd or 4th is depending on whether you elevate Menchov following Kohl's DQ)
Evans beats Menchov by more than a minute.... Solid work by Cadel you'd say. But where does Cadel's time gain come from?
Cadel 'won' 38 seconds from Menchov when a crash in stage 3 caused splits in the peleton, and (if my memory serves me right) it was Quick-Step and Liquigas drove the 1st peloton home HARD. Cadel won time, but wasn't the better cyclist.
Cadel also took 35 seconds off Menchov in the final descent to Jausiers on stage 15. Now, descending is clearly a skill in cycling, and Menchov's horrible-ness downhill should not be excused. But I doubt anyone would make the argument that Evans was 'stronger' in an objective sense that day because of it.
So take the 38 and 35 seconds Menchov losts to Evans (and Sastre) on those two stages.... And what does the new GC look like:
1. Sastre
2. Menchov, + 0:57
3. Evans, + 0:58
Revisionist history is fun.