Has there ever been a case similar to Valverde?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re: Re:

Pricey_sky said:
Mr.White said:
Yes his results at WCRR gives a great example of what rider he is, how versatile and great rider he is. Do you know how hard is to get a top placement in a race that completely change parcours every year. And to done that year after year! He has 6 medals, and in current peloton you only got two riders with 2 medals! 6 (SIX) Medals!!! He has more medals than some countries (in fact only SIX countries have more medals then him)! Should I remind you he's the all time leader (quite comfortably) in the almost 90 years of WCRR history. Many would say he didn't won it, but I would say his six medals are at least equal to a WCRR Gold, and in my opinion they worth much more
And yet, I bet if you offered to swap him those 6 medals for 1 World Championship gold, he would.
I don't think so. I think he mentioned that in some interwiev. He would like the gold of course, but wouldn't swap his "collection" for that.
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
gunara said:
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.
Of course they are direct results of his talent. And what a talent that is! Tell me, when was last time you saw rider with talents similar to his? Tiny climber with such a great punch and finishing speed, and on top of that with endurance to be competitive in toughest races and produce that blistering speed at the very end. I don't see another rider like that in the current peloton.
Biggest benefactor you say of the current state of racing. Liege 2008 was raced hard, San Sebastian doesn't finish on the hill, yet Valverde was there. Who could drop him if he's in top form? Froome, Contador not trying, because of the style of racing you say! And who's stopping them to bring A teams to rip the race apart? Guess what, Valverde would still be there, and he would still drop them or outsprint them at the very end. They lack the endurance, and they lack the speed to be competitive in this races, mountain goats rarely have that abilities nowadays. In fact they don't have it, except one, and that's why he's talent is so unique.
And last, but certainly not the least important, his ability to be competitive through out the year, from February till October. Consistency! It's the privilege of the very best. To remind you he's the 4-time winner of the UCI's year-end ranking. Only Kelly and certain Eddy Merckx had more success in such rankings, and he's tied with Anquetil, Hinault and Jalabert. I think that particular information should tell you thing or two about the value of this rider.
And compare that to Nibali, who I like very much by the way and I consider him a great rider. They're just not at the same level.
 
KyoGrey said:
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.
What???
Nibali finished MSR 3rd in 2012,8th in 2011.(Mind you,Valv doesn't have any good results here)
He also finished 2nd in LBL in 2012 and was 8th in 2011,10th in 2008.
He won Lombardia last year,also coming 5th in 2010(after a crash at the descent of Sormano) and did a long range attack in 2011.
He came 4th in 2013 WCRR where he crashed earlier in the race and was the strongest or 2nd strongest.
He finished the muddy cobbled stage in 2014 3rd.
He has won stages with descents.
He showed he is one of the best climbers.
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
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
Indeed.Cunego's palmares is very good as well.
He also has won Amstel Gold in 2008.But Valv's palmares is better.But not by much.
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re:

IndianCyclist said:
Comparison wise he is more towards Argentin even if he has won 1 GT. Kelly is better than Valverde with wins in MSR, PR,GDL, a true classics hard man.
I think he's right between Kelly and Argentin. He's clearly better than Argentin, mainly due to his GT and stage racing results. As far as classics concerns, Argentin has the advantage, but that could change... ;)
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,093
4
0
Hyman said:
He finished 2003 as the 6th best rider of the season according to cq. Since then he has been every year on the top 4 baring 2005 where he didnt finished any GT.

Has there ever been a case of a rider performing constantly super good during 14 seasons? Has there ever been a rider coming back after a doping ban even better than he was?

I definitely think he is the biggest natural talent of this sport since the XXI century. Cant remember anything similar. He has never had a good season. All of them have been excellent since 2003...
I don't know the exact number, but I think Merckx was thereabouts.
 
Super Prestige Pernod:

Merckx (1966-1976):
6th
2nd
4th
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
4th

Hinault (1977-1985):
3rd
2nd
1st
1st
1st
1st
8th
2nd
4th

Anquetil (1961-1966):
1st
5th
1st
3rd
1st
1st

Sean Kelly (1983-1990):
2nd
1st
1st
1st
2nd
2nd
1st
3rd
*placing in the World Cup from 1988 onwards

De Vlaeminck (1973-1981):
7th
2nd
2nd
6th
2nd
7th
7th
/
2nd

Zoetemelk (1970-1980):
7th
4th
5th
4th
5th
6th
3th
4th
3th
3th
6th

Gimondi (1965-1976):
5th
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd
5th
6th
8th
3rd
10th
12th
8th
 
Forever The Best said:
KyoGrey said:
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.
What???
Nibali finished MSR 3rd in 2012,8th in 2011.(Mind you,Valv doesn't have any good results here)
He also finished 2nd in LBL in 2012 and was 8th in 2011,10th in 2008.
He won Lombardia last year,also coming 5th in 2010(after a crash at the descent of Sormano) and did a long range attack in 2011.
[color=#000000]He came 4th in 2013 WCRR where he crashed earlier in the race and was the strongest or 2nd strongest[/color].
He finished the muddy cobbled stage in 2014 3rd.
He has won stages with descents.
He showed he is one of the best climbers.
Where he towed badly to reenter in the group, just like last year Vuelta, and probably other times we havent seen. :D
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Valv.Piti said:
Still, the 5 monuments are still to be considered 'big ones'. He has 3 of them, may very well end up with 4 in 4 days time.

You really lost me when you said Nibali's palmarés is bigger the Bala's, but each to their own I guess.
Nibali has won bigger races. Giro + Tour + Vuelta, one in 6 riders in history to complete the triple in his career, and in this era of specialism, also won a monument as well as podium two others.
Cycling isn't tennis where people can just choose the big tournaments every year, and you can just count at the end of the year who won the big trophies.

As the main leader of Spain's main team he is economically pressured to ride a certain schedule. You may not count other one day races or one week races, but for the Caiise- Movi teams every year, it was important that he won them, or won stages or podiums. It was more important for them that he got those podiums in the Vuelta those years than if he won the Giro or Lombardia, even though by your ranking the latter would have been better.

Valverde's all round game is insane. The number of stages and overall wins, and his ability to get is so far ahead of anyone else in recent cycling history, that it makes up ground on Nibali's 3 gt accomplishment. Even the year his results got taken out he was incredible, I think he was on the podium nearly every single stage and overall that he raced.
 
Can't understand how people rate Valverde's palmares over Nibali. All 3 GTs and Lombardia easily trumps Valverde's 1 GT and LBL. Winning the big races is what makes a cyclist remembered although Valverde's consistency is amazing. Still a long way behind Sean Kelly though who was both consistent and won 1 GT and 4 of the 5 monuments.
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re:

dastott said:
Can't understand how people rate Valverde's palmares over Nibali. All 3 GTs and Lombardia easily trumps Valverde's 1 GT and LBL. Winning the big races is what makes a cyclist remembered although Valverde's consistency is amazing. Still a long way behind Sean Kelly though who was both consistent and won 1 GT and 4 of the 5 monuments.
Here it is:
96 wins, 41 World Tour - Valverde
41 win, 16 WT - Nibali

Vuelta, 6 podiums, 14 Top10 placings, 13 GT stages, 3xPoints class. - Valverde
Giro, Tour, Vuelta, 4 podiums, 10 Top10, 10 stages - Nibali

6 WCRR medals, 3xLiege, 5 Monument podiums, 4x Fleche, 2x San Sebastian
4th place at the WCRR, Lombardia, 2 podiums, GP Plouay

2xDauphine, Catalunya + 15 stages - Valverde
2x Tirreno + 1 stage - Nibali

2x Spanish RR, Spanish ITT, Roma Maxima, GP Indurain, Paris-Camembert, Vuelta a Murcia, 3x Klasika Primavera, 2x Trofeo Deia, Trofeo Manacor, Trofeo Soler, GP Villafranca de Ordizia, Trofeo Cala Millor - Valverde
2x Italian RR, GP Industria, Giro di Toscana, Giro dell'Appennino, GP Citta di Camaiore, Trofeo Melinda, Coppa Bernocchi, Tre Valli Varesine - Nibali

4xVuelta a Andalucia, 3x Vuelta a Murcia, 2x Comunidad Valenciana, Vuelta a Burgos, Vuelta a Castilla y Leon - Valverde
2x Giro del Trentino, Tour de San Luis, Tour of Slovenia, Giro di Padania, Tour of Oman - Nibali

4x World Tour No.1, 10x Top10 - Valverde
5x Top10 - Nibali

Take a good look at their respective palmares. And if you still think the same, I rest my case
 
Fernandez said:
Forever The Best said:
KyoGrey said:
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.
What???
Nibali finished MSR 3rd in 2012,8th in 2011.(Mind you,Valv doesn't have any good results here)
He also finished 2nd in LBL in 2012 and was 8th in 2011,10th in 2008.
He won Lombardia last year,also coming 5th in 2010(after a crash at the descent of Sormano) and did a long range attack in 2011.
[color=#000000]He came 4th in 2013 WCRR where he crashed earlier in the race and was the strongest or 2nd strongest[/color].
He finished the muddy cobbled stage in 2014 3rd.
He has won stages with descents.
He showed he is one of the best climbers.
Where he towed badly to reenter in the group, just like last year Vuelta, and probably other times we havent seen. :D
Doesn't change Nibali being the strongest or 2nd strongest that day though. :)
 
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
dastott said:
Can't understand how people rate Valverde's palmares over Nibali. All 3 GTs and Lombardia easily trumps Valverde's 1 GT and LBL. Winning the big races is what makes a cyclist remembered although Valverde's consistency is amazing. Still a long way behind Sean Kelly though who was both consistent and won 1 GT and 4 of the 5 monuments.
Here it is:
96 wins, 41 World Tour - Valverde
41 win, 16 WT - Nibali

Vuelta, 6 podiums, 14 Top10 placings, 13 GT stages, 3xPoints class. - Valverde
Giro, Tour, Vuelta, 4 podiums, 10 Top10, 10 stages - Nibali

6 WCRR medals, 3xLiege, 5 Monument podiums, 4x Fleche, 2x San Sebastian
4th place at the WCRR, Lombardia, 2 podiums, GP Plouay

2xDauphine, Catalunya + 15 stages - Valverde
2x Tirreno + 1 stage - Nibali

2x Spanish RR, Spanish ITT, Roma Maxima, GP Indurain, Paris-Camembert, Vuelta a Murcia, 3x Klasika Primavera, 2x Trofeo Deia, Trofeo Manacor, Trofeo Soler, GP Villafranca de Ordizia, Trofeo Cala Millor - Valverde
2x Italian RR, GP Industria, Giro di Toscana, Giro dell'Appennino, GP Citta di Camaiore, Trofeo Melinda, Coppa Bernocchi, Tre Valli Varesine - Nibali

4xVuelta a Andalucia, 3x Vuelta a Murcia, 2x Comunidad Valenciana, Vuelta a Burgos, Vuelta a Castilla y Leon - Valverde
2x Giro del Trentino, Tour de San Luis, Tour of Slovenia, Giro di Padania, Tour of Oman - Nibali

4x World Tour No.1, 10x Top10 - Valverde
5x Top10 - Nibali

Take a good look at their respective palmares. And if you still think the same, I rest my case
Didn't Valverde win Romandie in 2010 as well?Or are you not writing it because he was disqualified later because of his ban?(Because I think Valverde is the winner of Romandie 2010,not Spilak)
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re: Re:

Forever The Best said:
Mr.White said:
dastott said:
Can't understand how people rate Valverde's palmares over Nibali. All 3 GTs and Lombardia easily trumps Valverde's 1 GT and LBL. Winning the big races is what makes a cyclist remembered although Valverde's consistency is amazing. Still a long way behind Sean Kelly though who was both consistent and won 1 GT and 4 of the 5 monuments.
Here it is:
96 wins, 41 World Tour - Valverde
41 win, 16 WT - Nibali

Vuelta, 6 podiums, 14 Top10 placings, 13 GT stages, 3xPoints class. - Valverde
Giro, Tour, Vuelta, 4 podiums, 10 Top10, 10 stages - Nibali

6 WCRR medals, 3xLiege, 5 Monument podiums, 4x Fleche, 2x San Sebastian
4th place at the WCRR, Lombardia, 2 podiums, GP Plouay

2xDauphine, Catalunya + 15 stages - Valverde
2x Tirreno + 1 stage - Nibali

2x Spanish RR, Spanish ITT, Roma Maxima, GP Indurain, Paris-Camembert, Vuelta a Murcia, 3x Klasika Primavera, 2x Trofeo Deia, Trofeo Manacor, Trofeo Soler, GP Villafranca de Ordizia, Trofeo Cala Millor - Valverde
2x Italian RR, GP Industria, Giro di Toscana, Giro dell'Appennino, GP Citta di Camaiore, Trofeo Melinda, Coppa Bernocchi, Tre Valli Varesine - Nibali

4xVuelta a Andalucia, 3x Vuelta a Murcia, 2x Comunidad Valenciana, Vuelta a Burgos, Vuelta a Castilla y Leon - Valverde
2x Giro del Trentino, Tour de San Luis, Tour of Slovenia, Giro di Padania, Tour of Oman - Nibali

4x World Tour No.1, 10x Top10 - Valverde
5x Top10 - Nibali

Take a good look at their respective palmares. And if you still think the same, I rest my case
Didn't Valverde win Romandie in 2010 as well?Or are you not writing it because he was disqualified later because of his ban?(Because I think Valverde is the winner of Romandie 2010,not Spilak)
Yes he won it.
 
Like most riders who are dominant at at least one specialty, Valverde isn't appreciated as much during his career as he'll be later on.

As to the people saying Kelly, if you're going to mention riders from when cycling was so much less specialized that the grand tour winners regularly entered roubaix and finished in top placings, why stop at Kelly instead of going for someone like Hinault?
 
Re:

GuyIncognito said:
Like most riders who are dominant at at least one specialty, Valverde isn't appreciated as much during his career as he'll be later on.

As to the people saying Kelly, if you're going to mention riders from when cycling was so much less specialized that the grand tour winners regularly entered roubaix and finished in top placings, why stop at Kelly instead of going for someone like Hinault?
Quite simple: the classics nuts see Hinault as an intruder.
 
Re:

GuyIncognito said:
As to the people saying Kelly, if you're going to mention riders from when cycling was so much less specialized that the grand tour winners regularly entered roubaix and finished in top placings, why stop at Kelly instead of going for someone like Hinault?
I agree that Kelly comparisons don't work, but I suppose that the thinking is that Kelly was the last of the great all-rounders. His career at the top spans a long time too, so by the end he really was an anomaly. Cycling was pretty specialised by 1990 - 1992.
 
Well, talking of specialists, apart from Alaphilippe and Costa, everyone in the top 10 in Liege last year finished in a top-10 of a GT at least once.

Edit: also, who would be those mythical Ardennes specialists today that make winning Liege a bigger achievement now? Alaphilippe and Gasparotto? At a quick glance, over the last 10 years or so Liege is a race where the GC riders can do as well as the so called specialists
 
Re:

roundabout said:
Well, talking of specialists, apart from Alaphilippe and Costa, everyone in the top 10 in Liege last year finished in a top-10 of a GT at least once.
And both can do it as well. Costa crashes or gets sick constantly in the few GTs he rides, and Alaphilippe is yet to ride any

Zinoviev Letter said:
GuyIncognito said:
As to the people saying Kelly, if you're going to mention riders from when cycling was so much less specialized that the grand tour winners regularly entered roubaix and finished in top placings, why stop at Kelly instead of going for someone like Hinault?
I agree that Kelly comparisons don't work, but I suppose that the thinking is that Kelly was the last of the great all-rounders. His career at the top spans a long time too, so by the end he really was an anomaly. Cycling was pretty specialised by 1990 - 1992.
But by that point he wasn't a true all-rounder anymore. He couldn't TT or climb nearly as well by then. He wasn't a factor in grand tours, or any mountainous race in fact.

And it wasn't that specialized. Roubaix still had people like Bauer, LeMond or even a climber like Gayant in the top 10. You still had a tiny guy like Argentin winning a cobbled monument. MSR was won by the Giro winner one year, then by the Giro KOM winner and Tour 2nd place the next

More telling as specialization goes, in my opinion, you still had guys who could sprint and time trial with the best like Vanderaerden. That doesn't happen now.
 
Merckx had to race 200 days per year to make a living. LeMond opened a new era with big contracts so champions didn't need prize money so much. So it became possible to build up for GTs, scout climbs/stages, and the TdF became so huge that it could be the single objective. Valverde is the only old-school rider, except for maybe Nibali. Whether we like him or not, for various reasons, Alejandro understands that a true champion needs to live up to the standards set by the greats that came before. That's what separates him from Bertie, Dawg, BigMig and post-cancer Lance. Valverde is old-school.

Now in this category, he's nothing like Eddy or Hinault. But still: what a monster of a rider. I hate Valverde. But if you ask me, he and Nibali have the best riding styles, that I imitate when on my bike. Well, except for my Bertie dancing on the pedals, and Pinot fist-pumps ;) .
 
happytramp said:
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.
he is the rider that came to my mind too when I read the thread's title. Kelly was alike Valverde in diversity, aggressiveness, voracious appetite for victory.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Lequack Professional Road Racing 1671

ASK THE COMMUNITY