Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives

[gregrowlerson]

Roglic surely is better right now than Sastre... still I think it's just very hard to look past the Tour as a king-maker. I get a bit of what Rackham says, that it's not just the numbers, but if people look back on a "legacy" that's exactly what they will look at, I suppose. But Roglic has the advantage that his career isn't over yet.

I think that even if Roglic's career ended now, he's ahead of Sastre. Sastre just didn't win much. He wasn't a one day racer, and I don't even think he won any one week races (happy to be advised otherwise though). He was sort of a little bit better than Zubeldia (and also admittedly far more attacking), and happened to win a Tour (the TOURRRR!).

But Roglic is a truly dominant rider of the peloton. There's all the one week stage races that he wins (plus the other ones that he almost does), plus he's won LBL, and Olympic TT gold, and 3 Vuelta's.

 

[roundabout]

I think that even if Roglic's career ended now, he's ahead of Sastre. Sastre just didn't win much. He wasn't a one day racer, and I don't even think he won any one week races (happy to be advised otherwise though). He was sort of a little bit better than Zubeldia (and also admittedly far more attacking), and happened to win a Tour (the TOURRRR!).

But Roglic is a truly dominant rider of the peloton. There's all the one week stage races that he wins (plus the other ones that he almost does), plus he's won LBL, and Olympic TT gold, and 3 Vuelta's.

Oy. Sastre beat Zubeldia in a GT practically every time when both of them finished. I think it's something like 11-2 in Sastre's favor by my quick (and sad) count.

Sastre was on another tier in GT's compared to Mr 'Finished 4th in the Tour once'.

 

[Rackham]

Roglic has now built himself a really nice legacy already, but he is nowhere near Froome or Contador. Not close. As much as I like the one day races personally, winning multiple GTs including the Tour! multiple times is something else entirely. And it's not like he's the first athlete to suffer and overcome mishaps, bad luck and bad health.
He also isn't with Nibali, who has won every GT and what, 3 monuments?
I would maybe put him somewhere with Sastre.

The numbers tell one side of the story, but then there's the "fight" for wins, the skill on display & the names of the rivals which also plays a huge role in the legacy of a sportsman. It all comes down to raw talent & how public perception defines who's best irrespective of the numbers.

Take Ayrton Senna for example: his numbers aren't the best (he has 3 F1 world titles), but in conversations about the formula 1 "goat" his name is pretty much at the top of the list. That's because he's viewed as the best driver of all time. He might not have won the world title all the time but the drivers he fought against (Lauda, Prost, Mansell, Piquet, Schumacher etc.) created that idea he was the greatest even when he didn't win.

Now that was an extreme example, but the same rules apply to a certain extent with Roglic, i.e. it's not just about the wins & numbers he has already achieved & can still achieve in the coming years, it'll also be about the memorable performances & fights. Rides like his win at the Lagos de Covadonga or his battle against Pogacar in Basque Country mean more (at least to me) than Nibali (for example) thrashing Jean-Christophe Péraud in the 2014 Tour or Froome crushing Romain Bardet.

The same applies to riders like Wout van Aert & Mathieu van der Poel as well, i.e. their victories mean more based on "who" they're beating (each other, namely) & their defeats also mean less because the public knows the guy who won is a top top talent. Like at the Tour of Flanders last year there was no one pointing their finger at WVA & shouting "what a loser!". No, because MvdP is a legend.

 

[tobydawq]

I think that even if Roglic's career ended now, he's ahead of Sastre. Sastre just didn't win much. He wasn't a one day racer, and I don't even think he won any one week races (happy to be advised otherwise though). He was sort of a little bit better than Zubeldia (and also admittedly far more attacking), and happened to win a Tour (the TOURRRR!).

But Roglic is a truly dominant rider of the peloton. There's all the one week stage races that he wins (plus the other ones that he almost does), plus he's won LBL, and Olympic TT gold, and 3 Vuelta's.

Of course he is far ahead of Sastre.

 

[southwards]

I read the first pages of this thread, and it is very entertaining. There was a world when Gesink was a GC leader, and people were asking if he was explosive. Boy, hindsight is king!

 

[Netserk]

Rides like his win at the Lagos de Covadonga or his battle against Pogacar in Basque Country mean more (at least to me) than Nibali (for example) thrashing Jean-Christophe Péraud in the 2014 Tour or Froome crushing Romain Bardet.

A good faith comparison would be between Tirreno-Adriatico '13 and Itzulia '21. Just as it would have you mention Risoul and Nibali's ride on the cobbles of the 2014 Tour where he distanced Contador by 2'35''.

 

[Red Rick]

Putting my Bavarianrider hat on for a moment: I don't understand this "TT margins are also bigger now" narrative??

That Vuelta TT was 33.8 kms, and Roglic only gained 2:04 over Mas. If Mas went into a time machine and took on Armstrong and Ullrich around 20 years ago, he would have lost at least 5 minutes in a 55 km ITT. And I think that we can all agree that Primoz is on the level of those guys against the clock, so how are these bigger margins?

And to the post about Roglic not necessarily needing to win a Tour: I agree partly with that, but currently I still think he is a long way behind Contador and Froome. He needs at least a Giro to start getting into the conversation with those guys.

I'm just comparing it to the 2019 Vuelta ITT, where 13 other riders finished within 2 minutes of Roglic, and this ITT there were only 7 riders within 2 minutes of Roglic.

 

[bajbar]

One thing that he and Pogačar also have going for themselves is that they win A LOT. Like, usually stage racers win GTs and some week long races, but the win tally is never that high. The likes of Bernal, Sastre, Wiggins (with the exception of 2012 of course), Aru in his bet years... never actually won that many races during the season - they won some big ones, but not a lot. Roglič and Pogačar rival and surpas sprinters in the number of victories department. Roglič had at least 11 wins in his last three seasons (58 since he turned pro, which is an amazing number considering how short his career has been), Pogačar already has 12 wins now. They also don't do that many race days (like for example Valverde used to do in his best seasons), they just win everything they enter. The type of rider Roglič and Pogačar are is basically Valverde, who is also a dominant TTer and unbeatable at GTs.

 

[Ricco']

I'm just comparing it to the 2019 Vuelta ITT, where 13 other riders finished within 2 minutes of Roglic, and this ITT there were only 7 riders within 2 minutes of Roglic.

I don't think we can directly compare both. The TT field in this Vuelta was weak as hell, even for Vuelta standards. And being on stage 21 instead of stage 10 much less riders had reasons to go all out. Even more with the prospect of a Roglstomp imminent.

 

[Blanco]

I am not convinced that TDF win is necessary to be considered among the all-time greats. I mean luck and circumstance play huge role when winning the event that is only hosted once per year. But that’s not my argument. I’m trying to look in other sports to find equivalent and the best I could come up with is F1 world championship. Take a look at Stirling Moss and Gilles Villeneuve. Both immortal legendary drivers, considered by everyone as amongst the greats of the sport. Never won a championship.

Roglic of course will have won the tour a couple of times by the time he puts his cycling shoes to rest for good, but even if he doesn’t - noone will try to convince anyone that Evans or Wiggo are greater than Roglic…

Of course it is not necessary. I mean it's a long list: Girardengo, Binda, Van Steenbergen, Van Looy, Poulidor, De Vlaeminck, Maertens, Moser, Saronni, Kelly, Rominger, Bettini, Boonen, Cancellara, Valverde...

 

[BlueRoads]

The numbers tell one side of the story, but then there's the "fight" for wins, the skill on display & the names of the rivals which also plays a huge role in the legacy of a sportsman. It all comes down to raw talent & how public perception defines who's best irrespective of the numbers.

Take Ayrton Senna for example: his numbers aren't the best (he has 3 F1 world titles), but in conversations about the formula 1 "goat" his name is pretty much at the top of the list. That's because he's viewed as the best driver of all time. He might not have won the world title all the time but the drivers he fought against (Lauda, Prost, Mansell, Piquet, Schumacher etc.) created that idea he was the greatest even when he didn't win.

Now that was an extreme example, but the same rules apply to a certain extent with Roglic, i.e. it's not just about the wins & numbers he has already achieved & can still achieve in the coming years, it'll also be about the memorable performances & fights. Rides like his win at the Lagos de Covadonga or his battle against Pogacar in Basque Country mean more (at least to me) than Nibali (for example) thrashing Jean-Christophe Péraud in the 2014 Tour or Froome crushing Romain Bardet.

The same applies to riders like Wout van Aert & Mathieu van der Poel as well, i.e. their victories mean more based on "who" they're beating (each other, namely) & their defeats also mean less because the public knows the guy who won is a top top talent. Like at the Tour of Flanders last year there was no one pointing their finger at WVA & shouting "what a loser!". No, because MvdP is a legend.

Senna is a bad example to explain something to me, since I know absolutely zero about motorsport - I've heard the name and that's it.

I guess there are many things that come into play here. First aspect surely is that it is hard to define a legacy during a still very active career. I'm trying to imagine how Roglic would be seen in 20 years if he stopped now, but of course that's hard.
Then there's the thing that in Germany nothing but the Tour (and recently some German races) gets shown on public TV, everything else is on Eurosport which is only watched by specific people. So the Tour may have a bigger name to me in comparison to other races than it's the case in other countries.

Well, there is no denying that Roglic has a habit of looking invulnerable during the races he wins. He's also a true gentleman, a very good loser who nonetheless never stops fighting. But I think that if you looked back 20 years from now, with the cold look of a mildly interested sports fan, you would see a guy who has won 3 Vueltas very convincingly and was one of the best riders for a period of three years. I would rank that guy quite high but not among the best of all times in the sport.
But, like I said, his career isn't over yet and I'm sure there's still a lot more to come.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Roglic doesn't yet have the Nibali legacy

 

[Red Rick]

Roglic doesn't yet have the Nibali legacy

Ofcourse not. But he is building his own.

I hope can ride Il Lombardia in a really good form this year.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Ofcourse not. But he is building his own.

I hope can ride Il Lombardia in a really good form this year.

Yes, it would be good for Masnada to have some competition.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Roglic doesn't yet have the Nibali legacy

He hasn't won a stage race in China yet meaning he doesn't even challenge the Masnada legacy.

 

[Rackham]

Senna is a bad example to explain something to me, since I know absolutely zero about motorsport - I've heard the name and that's it.

F1 has something common with cycling: it's a niche sport followed by super fans... & the broader public only has a mild interest. And yes, Germany is like everywhere: the Tour monopolizes everything. But not as much as it used to (streaming & the explosion of the internet/social media has massively helped other races). And the entire calendar year is IMO more competitive now than a decade ago.

The Vuelta itself has gone through some serious changes & is now way more professional & difficult than it used to be (hence why comparisons to Rominger aren't totally accurate). Winning the Vuelta in 2021 is way closer to a Tour de France winning performance than back when someone like Laurent Jalabert won it in the 1990's, for example.

Tour winners remain consistently compared throughout all eras due to the relative "samey" nature of the parcours & mythical cols, but the same cannot be said of the Vuelta (hence why that Eurosport article I quoted was wrong to downplay the Vuelta).

 

[topcat]

I am not convinced that TDF win is necessary to be considered among the all-time greats. I mean luck and circumstance play huge role when winning the event that is only hosted once per year. But that’s not my argument. I’m trying to look in other sports to find equivalent and the best I could come up with is F1 world championship. Take a look at Stirling Moss and Gilles Villeneuve. Both immortal legendary drivers, considered by everyone as amongst the greats of the sport. Never won a championship.

Roglic of course will have won the tour a couple of times by the time he puts his cycling shoes to rest for good, but even if he doesn’t - noone will try to convince anyone that Evans or Wiggo are greater than Roglic…

It's very debatable who has a better palmares: Roglic or Wiggins.

 

[Rackham]

A good faith comparison would be between Tirreno-Adriatico '13 and Itzulia '21. Just as it would have you mention Risoul and Nibali's ride on the cobbles of the 2014 Tour where he distanced Contador by 2'35''.

2021 Roglic beats Nibali in 2014 Tour & Chris Horner in 2013 Vuelta. For example. I also say 2021 Roglic beats Froome in each of his Tour wins except 2013 (which would be more difficult to call).

That's the "skill" part of a sportsman's legacy I was referring to, i.e. the fact from my chair here irrespective of titles (because yeah, Nibali has a better CV as I type), the performance & level attained matters when comparing riders throughout the races & different eras.

Sastre is even more jarring, i.e. he'd get clobbered by most top riders now (just look at the watts these guys output in most races).

 

[topcat]

2021 Roglic beats Nibali in 2014 Tour & Chris Horner in 2013 Vuelta. For example. I also say 2021 Roglic beats Froome in each of his Tour wins except 2013 (which would be more difficult to call).

That's the "skill" part of a sportsman's legacy I was referring to, i.e. the fact from my chair here irrespective of titles (because yeah, Nibali has a better CV as I type), the performance & level attained matters when comparing riders throughout the races & different eras.

Sastre is even more jarring, i.e. he'd get clobbered by most top riders now (just look at the watts these guys output in most races).

Watts = power, not skill.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Vincnenzo Nibali beat Roglic in 2019 Giro with ease

 

[Red Rick]

Me when I see Rogl vs Nibble wars

 

[Rackham]

Watts = power, not skill.

You sound like Sean Kelly, i.e. (I'll paraphrase) "this TT should suit Roglic because it's not very technical..." or "he doesn't have the bike handling skills of his rivals" etc.

I started noticing those "mythical" bike skills in cycling conversations become more & more apparent when some were attempting to present xyz rider as "better" because of vague bike handling prowess whilst portraying certain riders with higher power output as borderline talentless brute force robots.

Me when I see Rogl vs Nibble wars

I still have that mental image etched in my mind of Chris Horner out of the saddle annihilating Nibali on the Angrilu. It created a long lasting impression, for real.

 

[Netserk]

2021 Roglic beats Nibali in 2014 Tour & Chris Horner in 2013 Vuelta. For example. I also say 2021 Roglic beats Froome in each of his Tour wins except 2013 (which would be more difficult to call).

That's the "skill" part of a sportsman's legacy I was referring to, i.e. the fact from my chair here irrespective of titles (because yeah, Nibali has a better CV as I type), the performance & level attained matters when comparing riders throughout the races & different eras.

Sastre is even more jarring, i.e. he'd get clobbered by most top riders now (just look at the watts these guys output in most races).

So Riis is the greatest Tour winner? (And Sastre is obviously far greater than Merckx too)

 

[topcat]

You sound like Sean Kelly, i.e. (I'll paraphrase) "this TT should suit Roglic because it's not very technical..." or "he doesn't have the bike handling skills of his rivals" etc.

I started noticing those "mythical" bike skills in cycling conversations become more & more apparent when some were attempting to present xyz rider as "better" because of vague bike handling prowess whilst portraying certain riders with higher power output as borderline talentless brute force robots.




I still have that mental image etched in my mind of Chris Horner out of the saddle annihilating Nibali on the Angrilu. It created a long lasting impression, for real.

Did Nibali beat Roglic in 2019 Giro because he's a better bike handler or because he's more skillful or is it that he had more watts?
Nibali and Sean Kelly: both easily better than Roglic.

 

[Netserk]

I don't think we can directly compare both. The TT field in this Vuelta was weak as hell, even for Vuelta standards. And being on stage 21 instead of stage 10 much less riders had reasons to go all out. Even more with the prospect of a Roglstomp imminent.

This year's route was also slower, and when looking at the time gaps to Valverde and Pogi then contra Bernal and Kruijswijk now, it's not clear to me that this year's performance was on another level than that of 2019.