Denis Menchov v Cadel Evans

[Angliru]

At last year's vuelta, he was definetly 2nd and possibly 1st without the puncture.

Sanchez never proved to be stronger than him. He hardly sulked at all. yes sammy was stronger on two stages but you could pick out other stages where evans was stronger. Fact is, if evans did not puncture he would of finished ahead of Sammy. Valverde was going to struggle to get a gap on that stage except in the sprint because the climb is not overly steep.

"Sanchez never proved to be stronger than him". "Yes Sammy was stronger on two stages..." So which is it? Ultimately Sanchez finished ahead of Evans in the final gc so overall he was stronger than Evans.

 

[movingtarget]

Menchov is better at crashing at the worst possible time and getting dropped going downhill. He even crashes going uphill. He has the results on the board that Evans would have liked to have had but you get the feeling that for Evans it is the Tour or nothing. Evans is more versatile, Menchov has the grand tour wins but I still expect Evans to finish ahead of Menchov in the TDF. Contador's biggest danger this year is illness or a fall. I cannot see who can beat him unless Sastre gets in another break with 50 riders and pulls out 15 minutes on one stage a la Giro.

 

[Moondance]

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.

 

[luckyboy]

Funniest post of the thread lol

And like most others have said, Evans better, Menchov has more results ... arguably. I mean really, does the Vuelta really count much more than any other lower level stage race?

Funniest post of the thread lol

Can see Menchov winning the Vuelta again this year if his Tour isn't that great.

 

[issoisso]

The guy who says the Vuelta doesn't count any more than a low level race is the funniest *** in the asylum

 

[richo36]

Quote:
Originally Posted by richo36
The biggest race in cycling is the TDF. And Menchov is one of the biggest names in the sport but he never has ever rode the TDF seriously.

Yes, you're right.....other than 2003, 2006 and 2008. In other words, you're wrong

Ok 2003 he was a young rider and his main goal was not to actually win the tour. And if you look at 2006 and 2008 respectively who is the rider that finished ahead of him. none other then cadel. Therefore like you said im wrong, but doesnt that mean menchov has twice tried his hardest at the TDF to lose to Cadel??????

And Yes he has rode it every year, but since 2004 he has withdrawn twice, and placed outside the top 50 twice. So from 6 attempts he has top ten twice. What does that tell you.
Look accross all GTs since 2005:
-Menchov has top ten: 6 out of 10
-Evans has top ten: 7 out of 8
Personnally i view a good rider as a consistent rider and looking at that stat right there who is more consistent??????

At the end of the day Menchov can produce the big results but really inbetween those results what does he achieve?????? Not much!!!!

Meanwhile cadel is always there in GTs but just hasnt been good enough to win one, but has won other big races.

 

[luckyboy]

At the end of the day Menchov can produce the big results but really inbetween those results what does he achieve?????? Not much!!!!

I don't think Menchov is lying awake at night worrying how many times he's

Meanwhile cadel is always there in GTs but just hasnt been good enough to win one, but has won other big races.

He's won Fleche, the WC and Romandie & the Tour of Austria twice. Menchov has won Pais Vasco, the Giro and two Vueltas. I think I know which palmares I'd rather have.

 

[Moondance]

He's won Fleche, the WC and Romandie & the Tour of Austria twice. Menchov has won Pais Vasco, the Giro and two Vueltas. I think I know which palmares I'd rather have.

White Jersey at the Tour as well, and Dauphine stage victories to Mont Ventoux. Those are pretty decent as well

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Look accross all GTs since 2005:
-Menchov has top ten: 6 out of 10
-Evans has top ten: 7 out of 8
Personnally i view a good rider as a consistent rider and looking at that stat right there who is more consistent??????

Are you a Shack fan? You do know a lot of riders give up time deliberately so as to be allowed to get into escapes if their GC ambitions fail? You could then view the times they got into the top 10 as the only times they were competing FOR THE GC. In which case, Menchov has a 50% competition to victories ratio, and Evans has 0%.

Andy Schleck's GT record of top 10s: 2 out of 3 = 66.7%
Cadel Evans' GT record of top 10s: 7 out of 8 = 87.5%

Who's the better rider?

 

[issoisso]

Ok 2003 he was a young rider and his main goal was not to actually win the tour.

So, it doesn't count if his main goal isn't to win the Tour?
That makes no sense, but hey, let's run with it. Well, then by all means Cadel's 2005 and 2006 don't count, either.

And if you look at 2006 and 2008 respectively who is the rider that finished ahead of him. none other then cadel. Therefore like you said im wrong, but doesnt that mean menchov has twice tried his hardest at the TDF to lose to Cadel??????

2006 Menchov was ahead before catching a flu in the alps. 2008 He would've been ahead if not for multiple crashes.

And Yes he has rode it every year, but since 2004 he has withdrawn twice, and placed outside the top 50 twice. So from 6 attempts he has top ten twice. What does that tell you.


Look accross all GTs since 2005:
-Menchov has top ten: 6 out of 10
-Evans has top ten: 7 out of 8
Personnally i view a good rider as a consistent rider and looking at that stat right there who is more consistent??????

At the end of the day Menchov can produce the big results but really inbetween those results what does he achieve?????? Not much!!!!

Meanwhile cadel is always there in GTs but just hasnt been good enough to win one, but has won other big races.

So, your argument is that he is better because he has 7/8 top 10s and no wins versus 6 out of 10 top 10s and 3 wins?
So, by your logic, Raymond Poulidor is the best rider of all time, even though he hasn't actually...you know....WON more than 1 GT or even wore yellow or pink for a single day.

The other major fault in your argument is that Menchov has also ridden more GTs than Evans. It's a lot harder to keep fitness from one GT to another than if you just cherry pick them, and that of course benefits Evans' average finishing position a heck of a lot more.

The bottom line is that whenever they compete directly, Menchov shows superior quality and only finishes behind through either lack of form, or crashes.

 

[luckyboy]

White Jersey at the Tour as well, and Dauphine stage victories to Mont Ventoux. Those are pretty decent as well

None of them are the Vuelta or the Giro though. Menchov's won plenty of stages anyway.

 

[hfer07]

I'd say Evans and Menchov are alike in riding style, but I believe that looking at individual capabilities, I'd go with Evans,whom has shown more consistency in GT participations. Menchov, on the other hand, has been wise to choose & peak for the right races to be competitive, and ultimately he gets the big wins that matter.

 

[richo36]

I don't think Menchov is lying awake at night worrying how many times he's




He's won Fleche, the WC and Romandie & the Tour of Austria twice. Menchov has won Pais Vasco, the Giro and two Vueltas. I think I know which palmares I'd rather have.

He might look back and think wonder could i of won the tour????

Are you a Shack fan? You do know a lot of riders give up time deliberately so as to be allowed to get into escapes if their GC ambitions fail? You could then view the times they got into the top 10 as the only times they were competing FOR THE GC. In which case, Menchov has a 50% competition to victories ratio, and Evans has 0%.

Andy Schleck's GT record of top 10s: 2 out of 3 = 66.7%
Cadel Evans' GT record of top 10s: 7 out of 8 = 87.5%

Who's the better rider?

No im not a shack fan

I said in previous comment that most likely menchov will lose time in the TDF this year and ride it more for fitness then come out and win the vuelta against little competition(saying that menchov is the similar to cadel only the fact is he is smarter in choosing race objectives). My point i was making was more to show Menchov has never ever ever ever ever done well in the tour. Best result is a third/fourth(depending how you look at it) (which is still amazing result dont get me wrong, compared to cadel im speaking). The only GTs he has exceled at is the vuelta. Which has no where near the competion of the tdf. And i spose that was the cadel fan in me coming out cause the stat isnt really correct. I was more pointing out, In a GT, if Cadel is there, he is going to give it everything, with menchov is he actually going to be there or not. I like consistence.

So, it doesn't count if his main goal isn't to win the Tour?
That makes no sense, but hey, let's run with it. Well, then by all means Cadel's 2005 and 2006 don't count, either.




2006 Menchov was ahead before catching a flu in the alps. 2008 He would've been ahead if not for multiple crashes.



So, your argument is that he is better because he has 7/8 top 10s and no wins versus 6 out of 10 top 10s and 3 wins?
So, by your logic, Raymond Poulidor is the best rider of all time, even though he hasn't actually...you know....WON more than 1 GT or even wore yellow or pink for a single day.

The other major fault in your argument is that Menchov has also ridden more GTs than Evans. It's a lot harder to keep fitness from one GT to another than if you just cherry pick them, and that of course benefits Evans' average finishing position a heck of a lot more.

The bottom line is that whenever they compete directly, Menchov shows superior quality and only finishes behind through either lack of form, or crashes.

What i was trying to say was he wasnt giving it his all for the yellow jersey, yes he was giving it his all but in the early stages he would of been working for his team leader (can someone please tell me who was the team leader of iBanesto.com was in the tour in 2003???? If it was menchov i stand corrected). And by that logic yes cadels 2005 falls into the same catagory, but his 2006 he was contending as team leader.

By that logic, i could put up a list of things cadels been "sick with" in GTs. As someoneone said before he lost 30 seconds in a crash and lost by over a minute, do the maths.

1. it was a bad stat, But it does show cadels races every race as hard as he can, personally you have to like that in a rider. What the stat does prove through, was what i first posted, menchov is slightly better because he is smarter and aims for what he can achieve and rides only for that goal

2. He withdrew in 2 of them, so they are pretty much equal.

3. I do not get your last point. So from the 6 times they have gone head to head evans has won 5 out of the 6 times. So you saying that eveytime it was bad luck. Not to mention the onle time menchov beat evans, Evans just came 2nd in the tour to contador by 30 seconds. so he beat a tired evens.

 

[richo36]

I'd say Evans and Menchov are alike in riding style, but I believe that looking at individual capabilities, I'd go with Evans,whom has shown more consistency in GT participations. Menchov, on the other hand, has been wise to choose & peak for the right races to be competitive, and ultimately he gets the big wins that matter.

This sums up exactly what im trying to say. Just in good english. lol

 

[luckyboy]

He might look back and think wonder could i of won the tour????

Much like Evans then. Apart from Evans will be wondering about the Giro and Vuelta too.

 

[issoisso]

He might look back and think wonder could i of won the tour????

Just as every single rider wonders about the races he didn't win. Just as Merckx has said that his biggest regret isn't not abandoning the 75 Tour, but never having won Paris-Tours.

Evans will regret a lot more.

Menchov has never ever ever ever ever done well in the tour.

White jersey. Top 5s. Mountain stage wins.

Best result is a third/fourth(depending how you look at it) (which is still amazing result dont get me wrong, compared to cadel im speaking). The only GTs he has exceled at is the vuelta.

So, his Tour performances, he hasn't excelled? His Giro win, he didn't excel either?

Sadly, this is the kind of "logic" I've come to expect from rabid Evans fans.

I was more pointing out, In a GT, if Cadel is there, he is going to give it everything, with menchov is he actually going to be there or not. I like consistence.

Which is fine, as long as you start realizing that "You like" doesn't mean "Is better"

What i was trying to say was he wasnt giving it his all for the yellow jersey, yes he was giving it his all but in the early stages he would of been working for his team leader (can someone please tell me who was the team leader of iBanesto.com was in the tour in 2003???? If it was menchov i stand corrected).

There were two leaders. Mancebo and Menchov. Each got to ride for himself. They finished next to one another on GC.

And by that logic yes cadels 2005 falls into the same catagory, but his 2006 he was contending as team leader.

But that wasn't your logic. By your very own logic (which in my mind makes no sense), 2006 doesn't count

By that logic, i could put up a list of things cadels been "sick with" in GTs. As someoneone said before he lost 30 seconds in a crash and lost by over a minute, do the maths.

I was the one who said that. And it just validates my point. I did the math. 30 seconds is less than a minute and a half. Ergo he would've lost that Vuelta all the same.

1. it was a bad stat, But it does show cadels races every race as hard as he can, personally you have to like that in a rider. What the stat does prove through, was what i first posted, menchov is slightly better because he is smarter and aims for what he can achieve and rides only for that goal

You just contradicted your entire argument.

2. He withdrew in 2 of them, so they are pretty much equal.

How, if you're still counting those withdrawals for your statistic?

3. I do not get your last point. So from the 6 times they have gone head to head evans has won 5 out of the 6 times. So you saying that eveytime it was bad luck. Not to mention the onle time menchov beat evans, Evans just came 2nd in the tour to contador by 30 seconds. so he beat a tired evens.

No, not at all what I'm saying.

Let's break it down then.
These were the times when they were both going head to head, without being there to train for some other race, to work for someone else or because the sponsor forced them to ride while completely off form:

2006 Tour. Evans 4th. Menchov 5th. Menchov won the Pyrenees stage, caught a flu in the Alps and still finished only one place below

2007 Vuelta. Menchov 1st, Evans 4th

2008 Tour. Evans 2nd, Menchov 4th. Take away the time lost through crashes/etc. and they're pretty much equal, only 1 second apart.

Is Evans the best classics rider? Of course. By an enormous margin.
In a GT, however, I know very well who I'd choose on my team. Menchov. It's not even close. He's a better climber, marginally worse time triallist, and doesn't alienate his teammates.

AND FOR GOD'S SAKE MAN LEARN TO WRITE.
It would be forgiveable if you were russian or something but you're Australian. Learn your own language. Jesus.

How did you even get past 4th grade??

It takes quite a lot of effort to understand what you write. Add to that the fact that a lot of what you write contradicts itself and generally doesn't make much sense, and I'm starting to quite literally get a headache.

 

[tgsgirl]

is if you use it as a reason to say hee isn't as good...if you add those years to his over all results he would of more then likely of won the tour de france twice...

Haha, nut-job Evans fans are always entertaining

 

[powderpuff]

2008 Tour. Evans 2nd, Menchov 4th. Take away the time lost through crashes/etc. and they're pretty much equal, only 1 second apart.

Crashes? I think Cadel's crash had more effect on that time difference and the final result than Menchov's slips.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Crashes? I think Cadel's crash had more effect on that time difference and the final result than Menchov's slips.

He means the stage 3 crash that split the bunch. Menchov didn't go down as far as I recall, but he did lose 38 seconds there.

 

[powderpuff]

He means the stage 3 crash that split the bunch. Menchov didn't go down as far as I recall, but he did lose 38 seconds there.

Yep, I know what he is talking about; he used as many "if only's" as ACF usually uses in his posts.

 

[hrotha]

I think it's pretty funny this is such a polarizing subject. Lost of people favour Menchov, lots of people prefer Evans, and yet only 10% think they're similar. As someone who's not from the Anglosphere and thus finds both Evans and Menchov equally dull as sources of controversy, I find it odd.

 

[Night Rider]

Both are fairly similar in my opinion. Nice guys, good riders, comparable results.

 

[mowie133]

Much like Evans then. Apart from Evans will be wondering about the Giro and Vuelta too.

gezz you have it in for evans... wonder if he was from wales you would be saying this

 

[Ripper]

This is a fallacy. The amount of time lost due to the puncture is more than the time he subsequently gained on Valverde. Even after the puncture, he joined the Samuel Sánchez group (who had also been dropped) and Sánchez subsequently dropped Evans and came in before him, and put in a better final time trial. If not for the puncture, then Valverde may still have won the Vuelta, and if he didn't, it would have been Sánchez that picked up the pieces, not Evans. Evans lost 1'18" to Valverde on that stage (1'26" with the 3rd place bonus seconds), and lost out by 1'32" on the GC overall. However, he lost a minute to Sammy Sánchez, who finished 37" ahead of him on the overall GC, and that was after Sánchez dropped him. Sánchez gained 4 seconds on him in the ITT.

Your logic is a fallacy. Like it or not, waiting around for over a minute, hammering to catch up, overcooking yourself ever so slightly and having to slow down impacted that stage and the overall.

Whether or not the puncture cost Evans the win or even second place, no one will actually know. That said, it is most unfortunate that the wheel change sucked as bad as it did because it had such an impact. I would have much preferred a close battle between Valverde, Evans, and S2.

 

[Nick777]

Your logic is a fallacy. Like it or not, waiting around for over a minute, hammering to catch up, overcooking yourself ever so slightly and having to slow down impacted that stage and the overall.

Whether or not the puncture cost Evans the win or even second place, no one will actually know. That said, it is most unfortunate that the wheel change sucked as bad as it did because it had such an impact. I would have much preferred a close battle between Valverde, Evans, and S2.

Spot on. Anyone who has raced knows this.