He's coming home!!!! Alejandro Valverde comeback thread.

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re: Re:

with all the respect for Valverde and what he is doing at 38 years of age i think Nibali is a bit better tha Valverde could we agree on this?
Of course they are different rider , but Nibali has 3 monuments and 5 grand tours this is something done by just Merckx hinualt and gimondi

It's also highly unlikely Nibali will come close to 100 wins for a pro career. (He's 33 with just over 50 wins, 4 years younger than Valverde. [well technically 4 and a half years younger]) Yes having won 5 Grand Tours and 3 monuments is impressive. However it's no more impressive than Valverde's 113 (current) wins including a Grand Tour and Liege 4 times. Only Merckx has more wins there. Those 113 wins also include several records including Fleche Wallone and the Ardennes double along the longest time between first and most recent wins at several races include la Vuelta and Volta a Catalunya.
As for which is better I think it depends on what you're looking at and what you value. Nibali targets certain races and uses others for training and doesn't try to win. Valverde tries to win virtually ever race he enters. Valverde also attempted to not only race all 3 GTs in one season, but to get top 10s in all three and came just a little bit short of that. I highly doubt anyone else is going to try that again for a very long time.

Yep, they are two very different riders, even if they are able to do well in the same kinds of races, both are the closest thing to legends in the present peloton in my book, and i say that as someone who actually doesn't like Valverde that much as a bike racer because of the way he sometime race (and because if i'm completely honest he regularly barred riders that i like more from winning), but i have a lot of admiration for him nonetheless.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

with all the respect for Valverde and what he is doing at 38 years of age i think Nibali is a bit better tha Valverde could we agree on this?
Of course they are different rider , but Nibali has 3 monuments and 5 grand tours this is something done by just Merckx hinualt and gimondi

No, we won't agree. Although with this win today I rate them pretty equal.
And Nibali has 4 GT's...

ah ok 5 soon before giro d'italia , so Nibali a bit better come on Valverde fan boys accept it

I like Nibali as a rider very much, and I rate him as one of two biggest riders of the current peloton. The other is Valverde...
You know Valverde, who has 113 victories, of which 52 are World Tour level. Nibali has 50/24 respectively. Only couple of sprinters have similar numbers. Other GT and classics specialists could only dream about that numbers.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

with all the respect for Valverde and what he is doing at 38 years of age i think Nibali is a bit better tha Valverde could we agree on this?
Of course they are different rider , but Nibali has 3 monuments and 5 grand tours this is something done by just Merckx hinualt and gimondi

It's also highly unlikely Nibali will come close to 100 wins for a pro career. (He's 33 with just over 50 wins, 4 years younger than Valverde. [well technically 4 and a half years younger]) Yes having won 5 Grand Tours and 3 monuments is impressive. However it's no more impressive than Valverde's 113 (current) wins including a Grand Tour and Liege 4 times. Only Merckx has more wins there. Those 113 wins also include several records including Fleche Wallone and the Ardennes double along the longest time between first and most recent wins at several races include la Vuelta and Volta a Catalunya.
As for which is better I think it depends on what you're looking at and what you value. Nibali targets certain races and uses others for training and doesn't try to win. Valverde tries to win virtually ever race he enters. Valverde also attempted to not only race all 3 GTs in one season, but to get top 10s in all three and came just a little bit short of that. I highly doubt anyone else is going to try that again for a very long time.

Quantity of wins means very little.

A lot of GT riders simply don't focus anymore on the Ardennes, which is why Valverde has been able to dominate them. Put the Mur de Huy in the Tour and Valverde will get an ass whooping.

 

[telencefalus]

Re: Re:

with all the respect for Valverde and what he is doing at 38 years of age i think Nibali is a bit better tha Valverde could we agree on this?
Of course they are different rider , but Nibali has 3 monuments and 5 grand tours this is something done by just Merckx hinualt and gimondi

No, we won't agree. Although with this win today I rate them pretty equal.
And Nibali has 4 GT's...

ah ok 5 soon before giro d'italia , so Nibali a bit better come on Valverde fan boys accept it

I like Nibali as a rider very much, and I rate him as one of two biggest riders of the current peloton. The other is Valverde...
You know Valverde, who has 113 victories, of which 52 are World Tour level. Nibali has 50/24 respectively. Only couple of sprinters have similar numbers. Other GT and classics specialists could only dream about that numbers.

I think Valverde will not win another grand tour BUT if he will win il lombardia , LBL, Worlds and another Grand tour i will rate him higher than Nibali

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

with all the respect for Valverde and what he is doing at 38 years of age i think Nibali is a bit better tha Valverde could we agree on this?
Of course they are different rider , but Nibali has 3 monuments and 5 grand tours this is something done by just Merckx hinualt and gimondi

No, we won't agree. Although with this win today I rate them pretty equal.
And Nibali has 4 GT's...

ah ok 5 soon before giro d'italia , so Nibali a bit better come on Valverde fan boys accept it

I like Nibali as a rider very much, and I rate him as one of two biggest riders of the current peloton. The other is Valverde...
You know Valverde, who has 113 victories, of which 52 are World Tour level. Nibali has 50/24 respectively. Only couple of sprinters have similar numbers. Other GT and classics specialists could only dream about that numbers.

I think Valverde will not win another grand tour BUT if he will win il lombardia , LBL, Worlds and another Grand tour i will rate him higher than Nibali

If Movistar would let him skip the Tour he could win another Vuelta. Remember he's already got 4 LBL, 1 more and he ties Mercx's record there. He said in an interview during the off season he really wants the LBL record. The Worlds and Lombardia are two of maybe 3 or 4 wins really missing from his palmares.

 

[telencefalus]

Re: Re:

i think Valverde will win very likely LBL and lombardia , the gt is very unlikely and worlds and olympics are just a lottery unless you are Sagan...

 

[Blanco]

About Valverde's sprint:

I noticed that everyone who wants to downplay Valverde's achievements use that "sprint" argument. Like he won so much because of his superior sprint. Of course he did. And it's not a proof of his lower quality, on the contrary. It's a God given quality, unique one. You need to roll over all those hills, you need to climb with the best, to descend with the best, and to have the strength to out sprint them. Not much of them could do such things, actually nobody could do it as often as Valverde, not even close. He has a sprint they say, and what about Kwiatkowski, what about Gilbert, Van Avermaet, Alaphilippe? Did they have a sprint? Of course they do. Did they win as much as Valverde? No, not even as half as he wins. It isn't enough to just have good sprint, you need to bring yourself into position to sprint, and you need to finish it off. It requires lot of strength. See Viviani today, he's maybe the fastest of them all present at the finish, but he end up dead last. Speed wasn't enough, he lacked strength.

 

[telencefalus]

Re:

About Valverde's sprint:

I noticed that everyone who wants to downplay Valverde's achievements use that "sprint" argument. Like he won so much because of his superior sprint. Of course he did. And it's not a proof of his lower quality, on the contrary. It's a God given quality, unique one. You need to roll over all those hills, you need to climb with the best, to descend with the best, and to have the strength to out sprint them. Not much of them could do such things, actually nobody could do it as often as Valverde, not even close. He has a sprint they say, and what about Kwiatkowski, what about Gilbert, Van Avermaet, Alaphilippe? Did they have a sprint? Of course they do. Did they win as much as Valverde? No, not even as half as he wins. It isn't enough to just have good sprint, you need to bring yourself into position to sprint, and you need to finish it off. It requires lot of strength. See Viviani today, he's maybe the fastest of them all present at the finish, but he end up dead last. Speed wasn't enough, he lacked strength.

Of course Valverde is a very talented cyclist but sprinting is what he gave him 113 wins , About sprint and strength i think Sagan is the best of the world he won 102 races at age 28 so...and 3 consecutive worlds so...

to be clear we spoke about Nibali and Valverde as the only upcoming legend of the current peloton , the biggest upcoming legend of the peloton is Sagan and if he will follow the carrer of the first 9 years of pro in the next 9 years he will be in a League of his own not even close ...

 

[Koronin]

telencefalus, I agree with you about the Worlds and Olympics being somewhat of a lottery. Part of why Valverde's 6 World's podiums is so impressive. Granted he's screwed up a couple of times that has cost him winning the Worlds. The Olympics are a total lottery, heck before the last Olympics he even made that comment that the Olympics are a lottery.

Blanco, I agree with you about both his sprint, which is a gift he has and he has to be in position to use it which many riders who have a sprint aren't. Along with the fact that Nibali and Valverde are the biggest riders in the peloton right now, just very different riders.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

About Valverde's sprint:

I noticed that everyone who wants to downplay Valverde's achievements use that "sprint" argument. Like he won so much because of his superior sprint. Of course he did. And it's not a proof of his lower quality, on the contrary. It's a God given quality, unique one. You need to roll over all those hills, you need to climb with the best, to descend with the best, and to have the strength to out sprint them. Not much of them could do such things, actually nobody could do it as often as Valverde, not even close. He has a sprint they say, and what about Kwiatkowski, what about Gilbert, Van Avermaet, Alaphilippe? Did they have a sprint? Of course they do. Did they win as much as Valverde? No, not even as half as he wins. It isn't enough to just have good sprint, you need to bring yourself into position to sprint, and you need to finish it off. It requires lot of strength. See Viviani today, he's maybe the fastest of them all present at the finish, but he end up dead last. Speed wasn't enough, he lacked strength.

Of course Valverde is a very talented cyclist but sprinting is what he gave him 113 wins , About sprint and strength i think Sagan is the best of the world he won 102 races at age 28 so...and 3 consecutive worlds so...

Yeah, and it's not a bad thing at all, that's what I've been saying...
Sagan is a sprinter, Valverde is a climber, there's a huge difference. Go find me a climber with more than 100 wins. You'll need to dig deep in the past, until certain Bernard Hinault.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Exactly it's a quality that he has that he uses to max advantage just like purito did. It's like people saying Contador used his superior climbing and cancellara used his superior time trialing to to solo away. Yes, one way is more entertaining to watch for some people but the fact he has his sprint after a hard race when people expect it and he wins as much is phenomenal.

 

[telencefalus]

Re: Re:

About Valverde's sprint:

I noticed that everyone who wants to downplay Valverde's achievements use that "sprint" argument. Like he won so much because of his superior sprint. Of course he did. And it's not a proof of his lower quality, on the contrary. It's a God given quality, unique one. You need to roll over all those hills, you need to climb with the best, to descend with the best, and to have the strength to out sprint them. Not much of them could do such things, actually nobody could do it as often as Valverde, not even close. He has a sprint they say, and what about Kwiatkowski, what about Gilbert, Van Avermaet, Alaphilippe? Did they have a sprint? Of course they do. Did they win as much as Valverde? No, not even as half as he wins. It isn't enough to just have good sprint, you need to bring yourself into position to sprint, and you need to finish it off. It requires lot of strength. See Viviani today, he's maybe the fastest of them all present at the finish, but he end up dead last. Speed wasn't enough, he lacked strength.

Of course Valverde is a very talented cyclist but sprinting is what he gave him 113 wins , About sprint and strength i think Sagan is the best of the world he won 102 races at age 28 so...and 3 consecutive worlds so...

Yeah, and it's not a bad thing at all, that's what I've been saying...
Sagan is a sprinter, Valverde is a climber, there's a huge difference. Go find me a climber with more than 100 wins. You'll need to dig deep in the past, until certain Bernard Hinault.

i don't think that sagan is just a sprinter as Valverde is not just a climber sure in the last year Valverde seems to climb better than Young age ...pretty stange but maybe he is like good wine

oh and i have to say that in Young age Valverde was winnig just in span soil and as gt was only able to podium vuelta in which spanish rider were dominating in early 2000 and of total 113 wins maybe 80 % come in spain soil as he wins minor races

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

About Valverde's sprint:

I noticed that everyone who wants to downplay Valverde's achievements use that "sprint" argument. Like he won so much because of his superior sprint. Of course he did. And it's not a proof of his lower quality, on the contrary. It's a God given quality, unique one. You need to roll over all those hills, you need to climb with the best, to descend with the best, and to have the strength to out sprint them. Not much of them could do such things, actually nobody could do it as often as Valverde, not even close. He has a sprint they say, and what about Kwiatkowski, what about Gilbert, Van Avermaet, Alaphilippe? Did they have a sprint? Of course they do. Did they win as much as Valverde? No, not even as half as he wins. It isn't enough to just have good sprint, you need to bring yourself into position to sprint, and you need to finish it off. It requires lot of strength. See Viviani today, he's maybe the fastest of them all present at the finish, but he end up dead last. Speed wasn't enough, he lacked strength.

Of course Valverde is a very talented cyclist but sprinting is what he gave him 113 wins , About sprint and strength i think Sagan is the best of the world he won 102 races at age 28 so...and 3 consecutive worlds so...

to be clear we spoke about Nibali and Valverde as the only upcoming legend of the current peloton , the biggest upcoming legend of the peloton is Sagan and if he will follow the carrer of the first 9 years of pro in the next 9 years he will be in a League of his own not even close ...

Sagan is not a GC rider. He's not going to win at Leige or Lombardia let along a Grand Tour or any 1 week tour that has a lot of climbing in it. There are plenty of sprinters and sprinters/cobbled riders who have 100 or more wins. Sagan's 3 Worlds in the row is really the only thing unusual in that aspect. If a sprinter does NOT have 100 or more wins he's not a top level sprinter to begin with. So that is pretty much expected for Sagan.

Valverde is the classics rider/climber. There are NOT that many climbers who come close to 100 wins let alone get more than 100 wins. The most recent rider before Valverde to get close to 100 wins that was a climber was Indurain at 97 wins, before that you'd have to go back to Hinault. Valverde having 100 plus wins is much more impressive because he's a climber/classics rider not a sprinter/classics rider.

 

[tobydawq]

Sagan is not a sprinter.

He's a superstar who can sprint. Like Valverde, just much better.

 

[Koronin]

Re:

Sagan is not a sprinter.

He's a superstar who can sprint. Like Valverde, just much better.

He's a sprinter/classics rider. If he wasn't a sprinter he couldn't be right there with Cav, Kittle, Viviani, etc with a legitimate shot at beating them. Yes he's a superstar but that does NOT mean he's not a sprinter. Valverde is not a sprinter, contrary to what the peloton thought when he first turned pro. Valverde is the definition of a true all rounder, however if you have to classify him as something it would be a classics riders who can climb and sprint. Sagan will never win a Grand Tour or a mountainous/hilly classics race (Lombardia, LBL, Fleche Wallone). As much as Valverde may like the idea of winning on the Champs Elysees, it's not going to happen because he's not a good enough sprinter.

 

[Red Rick]

It's all gonna depend on what definition you pick.

There's nobody who rides all different races, so generally you don't even see it played out. Kwiatkowski is an unknown in the GT GC's whereas Valverde is an unknown on the cobbles. Neither would win in that respective area though.

Sagan is pretty unique filling 3 niches, durable sprinter, rouleur, and puncheur. If he rides a lot from far out he messes his sprint up though, so if you sit on his wheel you can beat him. Sagan top 5 in all of these niches, which means he's up there in so. many. races, but in the biggest races he can't dominate cause he's not specialised enough. I think he's benefitted hugely from how the Worlds are raced.

Valverde is in different niches altogether. Valverde has benefitted massively from the parcourses in the Ardennes, and he's definitely performed a little worse in races that don't finish uphil.

 

[Koronin]

Sagan is not a puncheur. Rouleur and durable sprinter definitely. The races like Fleche Wallone and Liege with the very steep climbs are where the punchuers thrive. Valverde has proven that he can beat Sagan in a hard uphill sprint after a hard stage. That is where the puncheurs thrive and right now Valverde is still by the far the best. Alaphilippe is the 2nd best puncheur right now. Valverde is one of best (if not the best) all rounders right now.
If you have a flat finish that doesn't include decisive climbs that is the definition of a sprinters stage with a full field sprint. Valverde is not a sprinter. Now you get a stage with a flat finish and no sprinters left Valverde will thrive on those.

 

[Eli]

Sagan might not be a full blown puncheur but He does have puncheur like attributes. Gilbert and Kwiato both are puncheurs though. How about a Guy like GVA where would you put him?

 

[Koronin]

I agree that Gilbert and Kwait are puncheurs. Gilbert is actually a guy I love to watch race. As for GVA, I think he's more of a pure classics racer. He's very good on the cobbles as well as done well on the hilly classics. His 10th at Leige ended up with Valverde making a comment that maybe he should try Paris-Roubiax before he retires.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I would say between sagan and kwiat. He is if they were combined into one person.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

Sagan is not a puncheur. Rouleur and durable sprinter definitely. The races like Fleche Wallone and Liege with the very steep climbs are where the punchuers thrive. Valverde has proven that he can beat Sagan in a hard uphill sprint after a hard stage. That is where the puncheurs thrive and right now Valverde is still by the far the best. Alaphilippe is the 2nd best puncheur right now. Valverde is one of best (if not the best) all rounders right now.
If you have a flat finish that doesn't include decisive climbs that is the definition of a sprinters stage with a full field sprint. Valverde is not a sprinter. Now you get a stage with a flat finish and no sprinters left Valverde will thrive on those.

Sagan is definitely a puncheur in the context where it's often used. He has won on finishes as hard as Fleche, he can ruin the durable sprinterse by attacking them on hills, etc. Fleche is a very specific finish, and it's not necessarily the definition of a puncheur finish. Not to mention Sagan would probably ride top 10 there if he aimed for it.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Sagan is not a puncheur. Rouleur and durable sprinter definitely. The races like Fleche Wallone and Liege with the very steep climbs are where the punchuers thrive. Valverde has proven that he can beat Sagan in a hard uphill sprint after a hard stage. That is where the puncheurs thrive and right now Valverde is still by the far the best. Alaphilippe is the 2nd best puncheur right now. Valverde is one of best (if not the best) all rounders right now.
If you have a flat finish that doesn't include decisive climbs that is the definition of a sprinters stage with a full field sprint. Valverde is not a sprinter. Now you get a stage with a flat finish and no sprinters left Valverde will thrive on those.

Sagan is definitely a puncheur in the context where it's often used. He has won on finishes as hard as Fleche, he can ruin the durable sprinterse by attacking them on hills, etc. Fleche is a very specific finish, and it's not necessarily the definition of a puncheur finish. Not to mention Sagan would probably ride top 10 there if he aimed for it.

No he's a sprinter who can climb a bit. Do you remember the 2015 Vuelta the stage Sagan finished 2nd to Valverde? That climb although hard was not the Mur de Huy. Sagan said he was doing all he could to try to hold Valverde's wheel and had nothing to even attempt to try to sprint with him. He also said he can't beat Valverde on that type of finish when he was asked something about it. He had no sprint left. So I doubt he could finish top 10 on the Mur de Huy. It's also highly unlikely he'd even be with the top condenders at Liege due to all the climbing before the finale. Sagan is not a good enough climber to be a puncheur.

 

[tobydawq]

What about Szczyrk (Poland) last year? Or Chieti 2012? Or Longwy 2016? Or Tour of Oman 2013? Or Brabantse Pijl 2013? Or the Tour 2012? Or the European Championships 2016? Or the Tirreno stage last year?

All these point to the fact that he is the best in the world in an uphill finish of a kilometer with about 7-8% average. If that is not puncheur-like terrain, then I don't know what is.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

What about Szczyrk (Poland) last year? Or Chieti 2012? Or Longwy 2016? Or Tour of Oman 2013? Or Brabantse Pijl 2013? Or the Tour 2012? Or the European Championships 2016? Or the Tirreno stage last year?

All these point to the fact that he is the best in the world in an uphill finish of a kilometer with about 7-8% average. If that is not puncheur-like terrain, then I don't know what is.

7-8% is too much, he is getting in trouble above 7% against the best riders in the world. Otherwise, I agree that he is the best around 3-6,5% or something like that.

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

What about Szczyrk (Poland) last year? Or Chieti 2012? Or Longwy 2016? Or Tour of Oman 2013? Or Brabantse Pijl 2013? Or the Tour 2012? Or the European Championships 2016? Or the Tirreno stage last year?

All these point to the fact that he is the best in the world in an uphill finish of a kilometer with about 7-8% average. If that is not puncheur-like terrain, then I don't know what is.

7-8% is too much, he is getting in trouble above 7% against the best riders in the world. Otherwise, I agree that he is the best around 3-6,5% or something like that.

Not if it's just 1 km. The Tour has proven that the past two years.