Has there ever been a case similar to Valverde?

[KyoGrey]

I think that the talk should be between Kelly, Jalabert, Valverde and other historical all-rounders.

Nibali doesn't belong to the conversation. I mean he has a very good palmares (incredible for his talent base), but he is a 1-dimensional rider.

All 3 GTs and a monument is one dimensional???

Phew, I knew that I was going to get heat from saying that Nibali isn't that great of an all-rounder, but I sincerely think it.

The notion that he is a good cobbled specialist from just 1 single day, the notion that he is a TT specialist just because he is not Escartín on the bike, and the notion that he is hilly classics capo just because he has had 3-4 good showings in 10 years, is a little bit delusional for me.

But I dont want to start a discussion about Nibali in a Valverde thread, so I'll stop here.

 

[SevenTimeTdfChamp]

I think that the talk should be between Kelly, Jalabert, Valverde and other historical all-rounders.

Nibali doesn't belong to the conversation. I mean he has a very good palmares (incredible for his talent base), but he is a 1-dimensional rider.

All 3 GTs and a monument is one dimensional???

Phew, I knew that I was going to get heat from saying that Nibali isn't that great of an all-rounder, but I sincerely think it.

The notion that he is a good cobbled specialist from just 1 single day, the notion that he is a TT specialist just because he is not Escartín on the bike, and the notion that he is hilly classics capo just because he has had 3-4 good showings in 10 years, is a little bit delusional for me.

But I dont want to start a discussion about Nibali in a Valverde thread, so I'll stop here.

I really agree

 

[TMP402]

I think that the talk should be between Kelly, Jalabert, Valverde and other historical all-rounders.

Nibali doesn't belong to the conversation. I mean he has a very good palmares (incredible for his talent base), but he is a 1-dimensional rider.

All 3 GTs and a monument is one dimensional???

Phew, I knew that I was going to get heat from saying that Nibali isn't that great of an all-rounder, but I sincerely think it.

The notion that he is a good cobbled specialist from just 1 single day, the notion that he is a TT specialist just because he is not Escartín on the bike, and the notion that he is hilly classics capo just because he has had 3-4 good showings in 10 years, is a little bit delusional for me.

But I dont want to start a discussion about Nibali in a Valverde thread, so I'll stop here.

I think Nibali's more well rounded than any of the other big GT riders. If Froome didn't have a 100% Tour-focused mentality, it might be a different situation, but he doesn't. I must say for Froome though, of the current top GT winners, he is the only one with an Olympic medal and the only one apart from Valverde (and Rodriguez) with a World Championships medal.

 

[jsem94]

Valverde is a better allround rider than Nibali without a shadow of a doubt. Nibali isn't as one-dimensional as say, Pozzovivo, though. I guess it boils down to what defines a one-dimensional rider?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Part of this discussion is silly. Of course Valverde is a better all rounder than Nibali. It's not even close. I prefer Nibali, but seriously Valverde is the last of the true top level all rounders.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Sean Kelly was winning multiple GT stage wins in 1979 and still winning monuments in 1991. His palmares in between those years are fairly gob smacking. He was also ranked world number 1 for five years in a row.

Maybe not over as long a period Valverde but his results during that time were on a completely different level.

Comparisons with Kelly are relevant to the thread title, but surely not to wider discussion. Kelly is Kelly and not reasonably comparable to any current rider any more than Coppi is.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

Valverde is a better allround rider than Nibali without a shadow of a doubt. Nibali isn't as one-dimensional as say, Pozzovivo, though. I guess it boils down to what defines a one-dimensional rider?

Huh?

 

[TMP402]

Re:

Valverde is a better allround rider than Nibali without a shadow of a doubt. Nibali isn't as one-dimensional as say, Pozzovivo, though. I guess it boils down to what defines a one-dimensional rider?

Part of this discussion is silly. Of course Valverde is a better all rounder than Nibali. It's not even close. I prefer Nibali, but seriously Valverde is the last of the true top level all rounders.

Sorry, to be clear, I was saying Nibali is the most well-rounded of 2015's "big four", ie himself and Froome-Contador-Quintana.

 

[gunara]

Sorry to prolong the Nibali things. But they are almost the exact opposite in one sense: achievement relative to talent. I know not everyone will agree, since it's very difficult to measure, but many love to think that Valverde should've won more with his talent while Nibali's palmares will always look good for him.

 

[SeriousSam]

That's certainly true if we evaluate strength and form, not only the binary variable whether someone won or not. Nibali is obviously a great rider and all, but some of his biggest achievements involved mind-boggling luck.

How many times has it happened that both pre-race favourites of the Tour crashed out? With such a happy accident of history, many could have won the Tour that didn't.

 

[dacooley]

if valverde had so much luck as nibali in gts he entered.. -)

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Yep, like if in 2014, if Valverde had had the luck to have Froome and Contador crash out, he'd have won for sure!!! Oops....

His longevity is amazing, the only thing that he really misses is Giro di Lombardia win. TdF, finally he never really had it to win there, at least got a podium last year. Good GT rider, but better one day rider.

As for Nibali, for his talent base his palmares is too small.

 

[jsem94]

Re: Re:

Valverde is a better allround rider than Nibali without a shadow of a doubt. Nibali isn't as one-dimensional as say, Pozzovivo, though. I guess it boils down to what defines a one-dimensional rider?

Huh?

I'm not arguing against the notion that Valverde is in a league of his own as an all-rounder, especially in this day and age. But what constitutes a one-dimensional rider? To me, Pozzovivo is one. Kittel is another. Then there are areas where I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. Greipel? You will see him in the classics working hard for his teammates etc. Degenkolb and Kristoff? Riders who can succeed on difficult parcours in spring as well as winning bunch sprints, that's more than I can say for Kittel.

Nibali is more versatile than any of the current big four. Quintana, Froome and Contador really haven't proved themselves outside the stage race world. Contador's biggest one-day win is Milano-Torino. Has Froome even won a one-day race that means anything?

Where does one draw the line to what constitutes a one-dimensional rider?

 

[Hyman]

Valverde with 22 years old saying that he is not interested in the classics and that for him Vuelta a Murcia is more important than Milan San Remo.

I think this explains why Lombardia has never been an objective for him. He doesnt give a *** about the monuments. If not he could easily have 2 or 3 Lombardias, which is by far the less competitive monument. Riders arrive at a better shape to FW than to Lombardia.

 

[SeriousSam]

Yep, like if in 2014, if Valverde had had the luck to have Froome and Contador crash out, he'd have won for sure!!! Oops....

His longevity is amazing, the only thing that he really misses is Giro di Lombardia win. TdF, finally he never really had it to win there, at least got a podium last year. Good GT rider, but better one day rider.

Imagine the great Nibali of 2015 had showed up in 2014. Or the Nibali of some other years. Even with the breathtaking good fortune that saw Froome and Contador exit, he would have been unable to win.

Yet 2014 is the year happens to be the year Nibali reached a level he hadn't reached before, hasn't reached since and likely will never reach again. All the stars aligned for him that year.

As for Nibali, for his talent base his palmares is too small.

lol

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

Sorry to prolong the Nibali things. But they are almost the exact opposite in one sense: achievement relative to talent. I know not everyone will agree, since it's very difficult to measure, but many love to think that Valverde should've won more with his talent while Nibali's palmares will always look good for him.

Valverde's results are the direct results of his talents. GT worthy climber with a massive sprint for his stature. As a result, most of his one day wins are some sort of sprint. This allows him to ride rather passively, which is also why he's missed the winning move in a WC a bunch of times.

Valverde is by far the biggest benefactor of the current state of racing in the hilly classics. Parcours all finish on a hill, and everyone wants to wait for the final hill, because teams have gotten so strong everyone can be brought back.

I think the style the ardennes have been ridden in the last years have also had a part in the likes of Contador or Froome not even trying.

 

[Rollthedice]

Yep, like if in 2014, if Valverde had had the luck to have Froome and Contador crash out, he'd have won for sure!!! Oops....

His longevity is amazing, the only thing that he really misses is Giro di Lombardia win. TdF, finally he never really had it to win there, at least got a podium last year. Good GT rider, but better one day rider.

Imagine the great Nibali of 2015 had showed up in 2014. Or the Nibali of some other years. Even with the breathtaking good fortune that saw Froome and Contador exit, he would have been unable to win.

Yet 2014 is the year happens to be the year Nibali reached a level he hadn't reached before, hasn't reached since and likely will never reach again. All the stars aligned for him that year.

As for Nibali, for his talent base his palmares is too small.

lol

Yep, lucky bastard. 7 GT podiums, 3 wins (among the six only all GT winners), 5 stages TDF, 5 stages Giro, some weeklong stage races, some one day races including one monument.

 

[Red Rick]

Since we're looking for similar cases.

I've found another rider.

1 GT win
3 monument wins, all in the same one
Multiple stage wins in 2 different GT's
Worlds medal

Damiano Cunego

 

[lenric]

Re:

Since we're looking for similar cases.

I've found another rider.

1 GT win
3 monument wins, all in the same one
Multiple stage wins in 2 different GT's
Worlds medal

Damiano Cunego

Wiggins too has a great curriculum (though not so "multidimensional" as Valverde...).

 

[Netserk]

^^53 weeks ago, I'd have Cunego over Valverde.

 

[happytramp]

Sean Kelly was winning multiple GT stage wins in 1979 and still winning monuments in 1991. His palmares in between those years are fairly gob smacking. He was also ranked world number 1 for five years in a row.

Maybe not over as long a period Valverde but his results during that time were on a completely different level.

Comparisons with Kelly are relevant to the thread title, but surely not to wider discussion. Kelly is Kelly and not reasonably comparable to any current rider any more than Coppi is.

Well I figured with people throwing out the likes of Argentine and Joop Zoetemelk it was a fair enough suggestion. Thanks for singling my post though, especially in the face of so many 'relevant' Nibali Vs Valverde ones.

 

[Gigs_98]

"image"

Valverde with 22 years old saying that he is not interested in the classics and that for him Vuelta a Murcia is more important than Milan San Remo.

I think this explains why Lombardia has never been an objective for him. He doesnt give a **** about the monuments. If not he could easily have 2 or 3 Lombardias, which is by far the less competitive monument. Riders arrive at a better shape to FW than to Lombardia.

Problem is that this article only tells me that Valverde had the false goals.
Only because for him Murcia is more important than MSR it doesnt mean that it is more important in general. Marcel Kittle could also say that for him stage wins aren't that important anymore so from now on he will focus on gc's. Of course he won't win anything but only because we know he could win different races he doesnt become famous because he just doesnt win them. Cycling is about winning and not about discussions what riders could have won if they had made another decision. Purito could have won two gt's in 2012 if he had raced more cleverly. But did he win those two gt's? No and because of that, what could have happened doesnt make him a more successful rider.

Moreover do you really think Valverde didnt change his mind about classics? Because I doubt you can get 6 worlds podiums without even trying.

 

[trucido]

Valverde also has nearly 5 years on Nibali.

Why don't you entertain this discussion when both have hopped off their bikes...

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

^^53 weeks ago, I'd have Cunego over Valverde.

Agree, 53 weeks ago, I'd also have Frank Schleck above him.

 

[KyoGrey]

Its ludicrous to think that the actual Valverde with 30+years has the same mindset as when he was a late-teenager.

His actions speak for himself: he consistently rides many classics and competes in GTs year after year.

The big tragedy about Valverde's career is not winning a WC after all this time. Lombardia is another story because it is only this late years that he has tried.