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

[Oldman]

It also totally depends on whether the stages even go ahead as they're currently planned.

This is the Giro. Things change, like the weather... or the peloton itself decides to go on strike for xyz reason. I think Rog and Red Bull simply need to be prepared to strike out and score when there's an opportunity and not stress about the ideal path to victory.

I also think Ayuso might prove to be stronger in the ITT's as well, so there's that to take into consideration.

Fortunately Roglic seems attentive and, with the exception of his leadout guy's lack of math skills in Catalunya's mid sprint; Bora and Roglic have been synched well.

 

[Rackham]

So I was browsing social media and this one caused raised eyebrows, i.e. coming from a supposedly "renowned" name among cycling influencers aka Flamme Rouge:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1912451129943720187

View: https://x.com/laflammerouge16/status/1912451129943720187

https://twitter.com/x/status/1912457502463086821

View: https://x.com/laflammerouge16/status/1912457502463086821


The sort of ***ing over one day races whilst dissing on GT champions is... something else.

 

[Cycling111]

So I was browsing social media and this one caused raised eyebrows, i.e. coming from a supposedly "renowned" name among cycling influencers aka Flamme Rouge:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1912451129943720187

View: https://x.com/laflammerouge16/status/1912451129943720187

https://twitter.com/x/status/1912457502463086821

View: https://x.com/laflammerouge16/status/1912457502463086821


The sort of ***ing over one day races whilst dissing on GT champions is... something else.

They're arguing about the World Championships and Vuelta because Pogacar is going to decide to go to or not to Vuelta because of WC.

I think that for Remco and Valverde, the last riders to win the Vuelta and WC, it has been more important to win the World Championship.

Others like Merckx and Hinault directly say that after the Tour, WC is the most important thing they've won.

Another discussion would be PR or LaVuelta. The classics that arent monuments definitely don´t compare to the Vuelta.

But a WC is more than any one-day race.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Cycling111

Your arguments seem sound and you convinced me i am on the bandwagon!

 

[CyclistAbi]

The sort of ***ing over one day races whilst dissing on GT champions is... something else.

In social media defence it's FUBAR and we all know it.

 

[Rackham]

They're arguing about the World Championships and Vuelta because Pogacar is going to decide to go to or not to Vuelta because of WC.

I think that for Remco and Valverde, the last riders to win the Vuelta and WC, it has been more important to win the World Championship.

Others like Merckx and Hinault directly say that after the Tour, WC is the most important thing they've won.

Another discussion would be PR or LaVuelta. The classics that arent monuments definitely don´t compare to the Vuelta.

But a WC is more than any one-day race.

I can answer the quoted Flamme Rouge X post as a Rog fan (and someone who grew up watching GT's when I was a kid) at which point I would probably post something with some pretty colorful language aka along the lines of " if a rider can't climb an HC col with the best then he's no real champ". But that might upset some fans of other riders somewhere and I can't be bothered to have an argument online with anyone - especially over trivialities like cycling.

So I'll answer as neutral as I can, i.e. Flamme Rouge is comparing apples and oranges. Monuments cannot be compared to GT's and vice versa. Cycling is also about eras and locales. Aka races and their importance in a palmarès vary from rider to rider and between eras. I mean are we really going to pretend Carlos Sastre has a better career than Rog because of one TdF win? Hardly. And for what it's worth, Rog is a huge name in Spain. Indisputably, undeniably. Yet what's MvdP in Spain? And yes, that matters. Cycling is about the regions a race traverses as much as the riders who race in it.

It's basically strictly impossible for anyone to arbitrarily say riders who win monuments have better careers than GT champions because let's be honest here, not everyone who watches cycling obsesses over the races up in Belgium and its border regions.

The real 'nature of the beast' is it's all about the accumulative worth and wealth of victories, i.e. how many big wins and how much of a winner the rider is in his particular favored discipline. Take Philippe Gilbert for example: huge name, big champion. A bucket load of monument wins. But he was almost a total nobody in the TdF with one stage win. Rog will always be one of the big champions of the 2020-2025 era and no one can take that away from him by throwing unwinnable races at him and saying "win that one day race, or else you're not a champ!".

It's absurd.

 

[CyclistAbi]

IMHO Rogla would never ever trade his cycling career, results, for a Tour win or WC win or Tour and a WC win. In addition to that Rogla was already WC in the past so becoming a WC again would not be something new to him. And lets not forget he is still as good as it gets so Tour, Worlds, monuments ... It's still in his legs to decide if he wants some of that titles in the bag, or not. Tour, WC and Lombardia maybe all of them in the 2025 season already!

 

[Sciatic]

Last year they also won Itzulia and Switzerland.

The difference is that Almeida won this year and not in other years, because he was second in Tirreno behind Roglic, second behind Vingegaard, second behind Adam Yates. This year he loses against Vingegaard again in Portugal and against Jorgenson in Paris-Niza. Nothing change, he wins without big six or Jogenson in Itzulia.
He beat Enric Mas, who always finishes second to someone, and Schachmann, who hadn't won in three years.
Almeida's level is measured more by his second place in Tirreno behind Roglic than by beating Schachmann, who was missing three years.

Adam and Almeida finished 1-2 in Switzerland, and Adam had no chance of winning Vuelta.

Last year, UAE brought a great team to Vuelta and didn't trouble BORA in the general classification.

Without Pogacar, they´ve failed in their attempts to win GT, even though they win week-races or finish second behind Roglic and Vingegaard every year in thar one-week races.
I don't give Adam Yates any chance of winning the Giro. Ayuso if Roglic crashes or illness.

You are overeaching, seemingly determined to use whatever rationales to show UAE won’t have a strong team for GCs. I guess you find that helpful.

 

[Sciatic]

I can answer the quoted Flamme Rouge X post as a Rog fan (and someone who grew up watching GT's when I was a kid) at which point I would probably post something with some pretty colorful language aka along the lines of " if a rider can't climb an HC col with the best then he's no real champ". But that might upset some fans of other riders somewhere and I can't be bothered to have an argument online with anyone - especially over trivialities like cycling.

So I'll answer as neutral as I can, i.e. Flamme Rouge is comparing apples and oranges. Monuments cannot be compared to GT's and vice versa. Cycling is also about eras and locales. Aka races and their importance in a palmarès vary from rider to rider and between eras. I mean are we really going to pretend Carlos Sastre has a better career than Rog because of one TdF win? Hardly. And for what it's worth, Rog is a huge name in Spain. Indisputably, undeniably. Yet what's MvdP in Spain? And yes, that matters. Cycling is about the regions a race traverses as much as the riders who race in it.

It's basically strictly impossible for anyone to arbitrarily say riders who win monuments have better careers than GT champions because let's be honest here, not everyone who watches cycling obsesses over the races up in Belgium and its border regions.

The real 'nature of the beast' is it's all about the accumulative worth and wealth of victories, i.e. how many big wins and how much of a winner the rider is in his particular favored discipline. Take Philippe Gilbert for example: huge name, big champion. A bucket load of monument wins. But he was almost a total nobody in the TdF with one stage win. Rog will always be one of the big champions of the 2020-2025 era and no one can take that away from him by throwing unwinnable races at him and saying "win that one day race, or else you're not a champ!".

It's absurd.

interesting that someone who says they can’t be bothered about “trivialities like cycling” then writes a detailed 4-paragraph-long response

 

[Red Rick]

I think he's absolutely greater than Sagan.

Classics riders IMO get cut way too much slack for having way more opportunities to get big wins than GT riders.

 

[Rockestar_33]

When did Bora or Visma won a GT with another rider than Jonas and Primoz? Kuss in an exception.

Hindley in the 22 Giro. Since then, Kuss is the only rider outside the "Big 4" to have won a GT which he wouldn't have won if Roglic had been at Bora as Vingegaard would have had to race against him.

 

[Oldman]

In Volta Catalunya Roglic also is 35 Ayuso 23 and was second behind him.

In La Vuelta 2024 is 34 and where was Adam Yates?

Volta Catalunya confirms that Roglic is the favorite for the Giro.
I don't think Roglic will turn another year older from the Volta to the Giro . He is 35 in both.
He won the final stage against Ayuso as he pleased.

Ayuso's weather resistance was OK but Catalunya avoided the one big stage that would have pitted the two against the elements as much as each other. Roglic's had problems with cold before and Catalunya didn't emphasize that weakness. As far as necessary power and overall strength Ayuso has a few years to mature to be near Primoz. Not in the same frame yet aside from the 2" sprint victory Ayuso appeared to claim as a defining win over a GT winner.

 

[Cycling111]

Ayuso's weather resistance was OK but Catalunya avoided the one big stage that would have pitted the two against the elements as much as each other. Roglic's had problems with cold before and Catalunya didn't emphasize that weakness. As far as necessary power and overall strength Ayuso has a few years to mature to be near Primoz. Not in the same frame yet aside from the 2" sprint victory Ayuso appeared to claim as a defining win over a GT winner.

He won't be an easy opponent. But from what we've seen in Catalunya, Roglic is the favorite for the Giro.

Aside from Pogacar, the other UAE riders aren't winning big classics and GTs. Ayuso appears to be the other who can win a GT, but Roglic beat him easily in Catalunya.

 

[Rackham]

I think he's absolutely greater than Sagan.

Classics riders IMO get cut way too much slack for having way more opportunities to get big wins than GT riders.

At some point I think the physical side also matters. This is still a 'sport'. It means in my book a rider climbing cols and sprinting at the top will always be way, way more impressive than winning on cobbles or classics. It's obviously apples and oranges but it was always jarring when so-called "best riders in the world" get dropped like rocks as soon as the road goes up in a GT. We used to see that with Tom Boonen a lot.

And before anyone gets mad, Arnaud Démare once won a monument. I mean that's what Flamme Rouge on X doesn't seem to get, i.e. the bar to win some of the most famous one day monuments is way lower than winning the Giro or Vuelta.

 

[Red Rick]

At some point I think the physical side also matters. This is still a 'sport'. It means in my book a rider climbing cols and sprinting at the top will always be way, way more impressive than winning on cobbles or classics. It's obviously apples and oranges but it was always jarring when so-called "best riders in the world" get dropped like rocks as soon as the road goes up in a GT. We used to see that with Tom Boonen a lot.

And before anyone gets mad, Arnaud Démare once won a monument. I mean that's what Flamme Rouge on X doesn't seem to get, i.e. the bar to win some of the most famous one day monuments is way lower than winning the Giro or Vuelta.

For me it was pretty specifically how narrow the cobbled niche is and how limited some riders are outside of that niche. Cancellara and Boonen had inflated reputations because they had 2 monuments in their specialty in 1 week every year and didn't need to do that much outside of that.

I find it very telling Cancellara never even tried the Ardennes, and was basically just a pure ITTer outside of like 4 road races a year.

 

[Cycling111]

I can answer the quoted Flamme Rouge X post as a Rog fan (and someone who grew up watching GT's when I was a kid) at which point I would probably post something with some pretty colorful language aka along the lines of " if a rider can't climb an HC col with the best then he's no real champ". But that might upset some fans of other riders somewhere and I can't be bothered to have an argument online with anyone - especially over trivialities like cycling.

So I'll answer as neutral as I can, i.e. Flamme Rouge is comparing apples and oranges. Monuments cannot be compared to GT's and vice versa. Cycling is also about eras and locales. Aka races and their importance in a palmarès vary from rider to rider and between eras. I mean are we really going to pretend Carlos Sastre has a better career than Rog because of one TdF win? Hardly. And for what it's worth, Rog is a huge name in Spain. Indisputably, undeniably. Yet what's MvdP in Spain? And yes, that matters. Cycling is about the regions a race traverses as much as the riders who race in it.

It's basically strictly impossible for anyone to arbitrarily say riders who win monuments have better careers than GT champions because let's be honest here, not everyone who watches cycling obsesses over the races up in Belgium and its border regions.

The real 'nature of the beast' is it's all about the accumulative worth and wealth of victories, i.e. how many big wins and how much of a winner the rider is in his particular favored discipline. Take Philippe Gilbert for example: huge name, big champion. A bucket load of monument wins. But he was almost a total nobody in the TdF with one stage win. Rog will always be one of the big champions of the 2020-2025 era and no one can take that away from him by throwing unwinnable races at him and saying "win that one day race, or else you're not a champ!".

I said a GT is more important than the classics, but a world championship is more than any one-day race.

Although I also believe that anyone who has won a Giro or a Vuelta is no necessarilyb etter than Boonen, Cancellara, or Gilbert.
Hindley or Horner, for example, with a Giro and a Vuelta they aren't better than Boonen.
And Hayman who won PR isn't better than Carlos Sastre

Depend.

 

[Cycling111]

IMHO Rogla would never ever trade his cycling career, results, for a Tour win or WC win or Tour and a WC win. In addition to that Rogla was already WC in the past so becoming a WC again would not be something new to him. And lets not forget he is still as good as it gets so Tour, Worlds, monuments ... It's still in his legs to decide if he wants some of that titles in the bag, or not. Tour, WC and Lombardia maybe all of them in the 2025 season already!

I disagree on this.
Tour is thee maximum goal in GT and WC is the maximum goal in one-day races.

If Roglic left Visma, it was to be able to lead the Tour and have the last chance to win one.
If he didn't care, he would've stayed in Visma.

World Championship isn't a simply classic; it's the most important thing after the Tour. It's the only one-day race which I think any GT rider would trade a Giro or Vuelta for a one-day race.

They'd trade Giro+Vuelta for Tour+WC without a second thought.

Roglic's chance to be world champion was in 2020. It was Alaphilippe's or Roglic's year.
Unfortunately, it seems like the >250km race is too long for him.

Roglic would trade a lot of his palmarés for Tour+WC.
This doesn't mean Roglic is worse than Alaphilippe because Alaphilippe has WC and he doesn't.
These are two different debates.

 

[Rackham]

I disagree on this.
Tour is thee maximum goal in GT and WC is the maximum goal in one-day races.

If Roglic left Visma, it was to be able to lead the Tour and have the last chance to win one.
If he didn't care, he would've stayed in Visma.

World Championship isn't a simply classic; it's the most important thing after the Tour. It's the only one-day race which I think any GT rider would trade a Giro or Vuelta for a one-day race.

They'd trade Giro+Vuelta for Tour+WC without a second thought.

Roglic's chance to be world champion was in 2020. It was Alaphilippe's or Roglic's year.
Unfortunately, it seems like the >250km race is too long for him.

Roglic would trade a lot of his palmarés for Tour+WC.
This doesn't mean Roglic is worse than Alaphilippe because Alaphilippe has WC and he doesn't.
These are two different debates.

I said a GT is more important than the classics, but a world championship is more than any one-day race.

Although I also believe that anyone who has won a Giro or a Vuelta is no necessarilyb etter than Boonen, Cancellara, or Gilbert.
Hindley or Horner, for example, with a Giro and a Vuelta they aren't better than Boonen.
And Hayman who won PR isn't better than Carlos Sastre

Depend.

As I said previously, it's dependent on certain factors, i.e. like accumulative number of major victories season after season as well. Aka one hit wonders are always one step away from being Emma Raducanu'd to oblivion. Rog has the 'serial winner' part obviously covered (and at a WT level as well, because some of the other big hitters when it comes to accumulating wins did it in smaller races, often sprints as well which IMO have less value than winning at the top of cols from the group of favorites in a WT race).

It's also context related regarding the era and the big champions who compete in it. For example there's a few World Championships in recent decades which absolutely resulted in an unremarkable race and winner who in no shape or form entered into the annals of cycling history as a result of his rainbow jersey, i.e. and certainly not at a higher level than let's say someone like Alberto Contador, aka a nonentity in one day races yet one of the biggest names in cycling. And no, not just because of his TdF wins either, i.e. his Giros and Vueltas add a lot to his palmarès.

I mean Rui Costa was world champ. Do you think Contador would swap a Giro for that? It would only have value as an accumulative addition on top of all the other stuff. The same applies to Rog as well.

 

[Cycling111]

As I said previously, it's dependent on certain factors, i.e. like accumulative number of major victories season after season as well. Aka one hit wonders are always one step away from being Emma Raducanu'd to oblivion. Rog has the 'serial winner' part obviously covered (and at a WT level as well, because some of the other big hitters when it comes to accumulating wins did it in smaller races, often sprints as well which IMO have less value than winning at the top of cols from the group of favorites in a WT race).

It's also context related regarding the era and the big champions who compete in it. For example there's a few World Championships in recent decades which absolutely resulted in an unremarkable race and winner who in no shape or form entered into the annals of cycling history as a result of his rainbow jersey, i.e. and certainly not at a higher level than let's say someone like Alberto Contador, aka a nonentity in one day races yet one of the biggest names in cycling. And no, not just because of his TdF wins either, i.e. his Giros and Vueltas add a lot to his palmarès.

I mean Rui Costa was world champ. Do you think Contador would swap a Giro for that? It would only have value as an accumulative addition on top of all the other stuff. The same applies to Rog as well.

Yes. I think Contador would trade one Giro for a World Championship.

That's not the same as saying Contador would trade his all professional career for Rui Costa's career.

 

[Rackham]

Yes. I think Contador would trade one Giro for a World Championship.

That's not the same as saying Contador would trade his all professional career for Rui Costa's career.

I disagree entirely.

I think in Contador's case having 7 GT's on a palmarès is better than having 6 + a one day race, no matter whether it's the men's elite road race UCI world championship or one of the other monuments.

I also think there's a lot of hype around one day races these days due to the casting offered up, i.e. Pog versus VdP in particular but also Evenepoel as well. Once upon a time when the likes of Alessandro Ballan won the worlds, the hype was not so big. That's also the 'era context' I was referring to earlier.

 

[Cycling111]

You say it depends on the accumulative victories.
In Contador's palmares, a World Cup in exchange for a Giro it would give him greater relevance.

Roglic would trade a Vuelta for a world championship or a Vuelta for a Tour. He wouldn't trade all his palmares for Rui Costa's, obiously

If Roglic changed teams, it was because he wanted another chance at a TDF. He wnted to try it one more time because he considers it to be the most important thing and he doesn't have it.

And he would trade one of the four Vuelta for one World Championship.

Obviously, he wouldn't trade his entire track record for Rui Costa's. I'm not saying that.
But one Vuelta for one World Cup yes. Without dude for a second

I think you're understanding that I'm underestimating everything he's won, and I'm not saying I'd trade his entire palmares. Much less do I say that Roglic has been worse than cyclists who have won a World Championship or a Tour and not more like Rui Costa and Carlos Sastre. Roglic >>>>>>> Carlos Sastre and Rui Costa.
I say that he would prefer a Tour and a World Championship to a Vuelta and a Giro.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Cycling111

Nah, never. Rogličes career is much better, compared if he would win Tour and become a WC. As said he can still win those two specific races in the future if he feels strongly about it but IMHO that was not the primary reason to switch teams. He switched teams to continue to do Rogla things, as a lead for Red Bull. At Visma that was just becoming increasingly impossible, for example he was not allowed to do Giro-Tour combo, if he felt doing it, he was not even allowed to win Vuelta any more ... Now not only he can still do all that it's sort of expected of him. To beat everybody in stage races and beyond, including his former team. Why not.

 

[Red Rick]

I absolutely hate the "would you trade x for y" stuff. It makes everything so transactional.

When Rog says he wouldn't trade it to me that means he values the lived experience which is the only right thing to do.

 

[Netserk]

At some point I think the physical side also matters. This is still a 'sport'. It means in my book a rider climbing cols and sprinting at the top will always be way, way more impressive than winning on cobbles or classics. It's obviously apples and oranges but it was always jarring when so-called "best riders in the world" get dropped like rocks as soon as the road goes up in a GT. We used to see that with Tom Boonen a lot.

And before anyone gets mad, Arnaud Démare once won a monument. I mean that's what Flamme Rouge on X doesn't seem to get, i.e. the bar to win some of the most famous one day monuments is way lower than winning the Giro or Vuelta.

I don't think it'd be more jarring if Boonen were dropped on a mountain by Rujano than if Rujano were dropped by Boonen in crosswinds, on cobbles, on bergs etc.

 

[Netserk]

I absolutely hate the "would you trade x for y" stuff. It makes everything so transactional.

When Rog says he wouldn't trade it to me that means he values the lived experience which is the only right thing to do.

I luv it, but I don't really care for stated preferences in this regard.