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.Koronin said: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.telencefalus said: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
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.