Teams & Riders He's coming home!!!! Alejandro Valverde comeback thread.

Page 39 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

What will Valverde's impact be the cycling world in 2012

  • Nuclear Holocoust

    Votes: 16 100.0%

  • Total voters
    16
Zinoviev Letter said:
Tough standards are being applied when nobody counts Flèche as a big win.
If anyone else had the results that he had this year, people would be singing his praises, but it's Valverde, where even a win is criticized for the way it took place.
 
Dazed and Confused said:
well, I don't consider it a big win.
...because it's Valverde. For anyone else winning any of the Ardennes classics is a big win. IMO winning Fleche Wallone is a big win. How you cannot consider it as such is surely having something more to do with personal feelings toward the winner than the importance of the event itself.
 
Angliru said:
...because it's Valverde. For anyone else winning any of the Ardennes classics is a big win. IMO opinion winning Fleche Wallone is a big win. How you cannot consider it as such is surely having something more to do with personal feelings toward the winner than the importance of the event itself.
no, nothing against Valverde or any other winner for that matter. I simply don't rate the race highly. Its an average classic win.
 
Oct 18, 2009
999
0
0
Amsterdam said:
He had a good season but no really big win. In the Tour he was just bad. In the third week he climbed on the level of F Schleck, Mollema and Ten Dam. Since 2009 no monument or grand tour win. I think 2015 he will start to decline.
Same speech every year about Valverde. It's like people are praying that he will start to decline. Well, when you do 3152 cranking points (best year ever and 2nd absolute best year), it's really hard not to decline, if we take it literally because it's really tough to beat that number.
 
Angliru said:
If anyone else had the results that he had this year, people would be singing his praises, but it's Valverde, where even a win is criticized for the way it took place.
The apologists continue their crusade justifying any which way Valverde's mediocre wins and podium places. Thuth is, he could've been World champion and/or Lombardia winner.
 
cineteq said:
The apologists continue their crusade justifying any which way Valverde's mediocre wins and podium places. Thuth is, he could've been World champion and/or Lombardia winner.
Your perspective is so skewed by your obvious dislike for the guy that you can't be bothered to give him the slightest bit of credit for the season and career he's had.You seem to focus on the negative aspects and ignore the successes and the remarkable consistency throughout his career and this season.
 
Dazed and Confused said:
no, nothing against Valverde or any other winner for that matter. I simply don't rate the race highly. Its an average classic win.
Well I respect that your rating of Fleche Wallone doesn't match mine. I just think any race or series of races that the elite set as a goal and attempt to peak for is an important win.
 
cineteq said:
The apologists continue their crusade justifying any which way Valverde's mediocre wins and podium places. Thuth is, he could've been World champion and/or Lombardia winner.
Where does it end? If he had won either or both I have no doubt that you would pull another podium placing out of your hat that he could have turned into a win in your opinion and spin it as another example of his failure as a rider. It's all pretty sad.
 
Dazed and Confused said:
no, nothing against Valverde or any other winner for that matter. I simply don't rate the race highly. Its an average classic win.
Only if you restrict the definition of Classic to big races in the first place. What's more prestigious than it? The five monuments, the WCRR.... And then what? There are other races like Amstel that I'd rate at about the same level, but not many. And none that I'd clearly put above it.

I'm really not a Valverde fan, but I'd say he had a very good season. Although not close to his very best years, because only really his Flèche win adds quality rather than quantity to his ridiculous palmares.
 
Angliru said:
Your perspective is so skewed by your obvious dislike for the guy that you can't be bothered to give him the slightest bit of credit for the season and career he's had.You seem to focus on the negative aspects and ignore the successes and the remarkable consistency throughout his career and this season.
How it's that I focus on the negative aspects, yet I believe he would have won both races if he would have focused on winning and not worried about what other riders might've done or not done. He had the legs to do it. He even said it.

I'm okay if you you're happy with his podium places. Conformism, I think it's called, but yay he's WorldTour champion!

I used to like Valverde until he made Purito/Spain lose in last year's World. Obviously, it didn't help what he did at La Vuelta, Worlds and Lombardia.
 
Zinoviev Letter said:
Only if you restrict the definition of Classic to big races in the first place. What's more prestigious than it? The five monuments, the WCRR.... And then what? There are other races like Amstel that I'd rate at about the same level, but not many. And none that I'd clearly put above it.

I'm really not a Valverde fan, but I'd say he had a very good season. Although not close to his very best years, because only really his Flèche win adds quality rather than quantity to his ridiculous palmares.
No, I rate several other non monuments higher including Omloop, E3, SB, San Seb, (although I may downgrade the last one after recent parcours changes). FW is just a group ride with an uphill sprint in the end, at least the last many editions. Can't rate it high.

I also rate AGR higher. Hell, I even rate BP higher.

So no, I don't think Valverde's FW win is big. Rather his season is big because of consistency and willingness to race different events including classics and stage races and perform well in many of them. Chapeau to him.
 
cineteq said:
The apologists continue their crusade justifying any which way Valverde's mediocre wins and podium places. Thuth is, he could've been World champion and/or Lombardia winner.
I also could have been a Professional footballer if I had practiced 5 hours a day since I was 10 years old, but what could have been is pretty irrelevant in this case.

Besides, I dont think Valverde made any mistakes in the WC.
 
Jul 25, 2014
15
0
0
Angliru said:
Well I respect that your rating of Fleche Wallone doesn't match mine. I just think any race or series of races that the elite set as a goal and attempt to peak for is an important win.
I agree, there is a general consensus on what the "important" races are, which is why they get called classics. It is NOT dependent on the quality of the race course itself. Some year's the WC is on a pretty lame course, but that doesn't downgrade the importance of winning it. So Fleche is an important race, won by Valverde on his way to 5 million CQ points.
 
roberttazman said:
I agree, there is a general consensus on what the "important" races are, which is why they get called classics. It is NOT dependent on the quality of the race course itself. Some year's the WC is on a pretty lame course, but that doesn't downgrade the importance of winning it. So Fleche is an important race, won by Valverde on his way to 5 million CQ points.
Yes it does. I doubt there are many people besides Cavendish fans who rate becoming world champ in Copenhagen as high as becoming one in Firenze or Ponferrada.
 
Aug 16, 2013
7,619
0
0
Dazed and Confused said:
No, I rate several other non monuments higher including Omloop, E3, SB, San Seb, (although I may downgrade the last one after recent parcours changes). FW is just a group ride with an uphill sprint in the end, at least the last many editions. Can't rate it high.

I also rate AGR higher. Hell, I even rate BP higher.

So no, I don't think Valverde's FW win is big. Rather his season is big because of consistency and willingness to race different events including classics and stage races and perform well in many of them. Chapeau to him.
How can you rate BP higher? Bjorn Leukemans finishs every year on the podium.

FW is one of the rare classics where all the specialist of the 'climb-classics' are in top-shape. It's part of the magic week, so it's definitely a big classic.
 
Arredondo said:
How can you rate BP higher? Bjorn Leukemans finishs every year on the podium.

FW is one of the rare classics where all the specialist of the 'climb-classics' are in top-shape. It's part of the magic week, so it's definitely a big classic.
Well, I don't agree. Prep race which is reduced to a guaranteed uphill sprint.
Low quality race imo.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Now you are confusing whether a race is entertaining for you with whether it's desirable to win it from a reputation and palmares perspective.

Hell, the Tour de France is a low quality race more often than not, still the biggest race there is.
 
SeriousSam said:
Now you are confusing whether a race is entertaining for you with whether it's desirable to win it from a reputation and palmares perspective.

Hell, the Tour de France is a low quality race more often than not, still the biggest race there is.
No I'm not confusing the two issues.

FW is simply not dynamic or raced hard enough to be a big win. Its the same model every year. Wait, save energy and sprint up the last hill. If the competition suddenly started to heat up and riders needed more than an uphill sprint to win it sometimes, I might "upgrade" the race. But for now its little more than the climbers version of Scheldeprijs.

AGR is often very dull, but the race sometimes throws up different ways to win. However should AGR suddenly end up in a Cauberg sprint every time with nothing happening along the way, then I would put the race in the same bracket as FW, i.e. "just" another semi classic race.

TdF '12 was boring as hell, but racing was incredible hard to give you an idea.
 
Bye Bye Bicycle said:
Huh? World champ is world champ, no matter what parcours. Following your logic you would have to rate Igor Astarloa as a more worthy world champ then Cavendish - seriously?

And I hate Cavendish. ;)
Hamilton was a proper classic course, where Astarloa finished solo after riding away from the big boys, right? So what are you hinting at here? That he's a small name while Cav is a big name and thus he's a less worthy winner? If so, then you completely failed to understand my logic.
 
Flamin said:
Hamilton was a proper classic course, where Astarloa finished solo after riding away from the big boys, right? So what are you hinting at here? That he's a small name while Cav is a big name and thus he's a less worthy winner? If so, then you completely failed to understand my logic.
You dismiss Cav's title because it was won in a mass sprint. And a worthy World Champ title can't be won in a mass sprint - in your logic.

I disagree. Cav was a worthy world champ just because he won that day. He did all it took to become the world champ on that special day on that course. No one else did.
 
Bye Bye Bicycle said:
You dismiss Cav's title because it was won in a mass sprint. And a worthy World Champ title can't be won in a mass sprint - in your logic.

I disagree. Cav was a worthy world champ just because he won that day. He did all it took to become the world champ on that special day on that course. No one else did.
I don't dismiss Cav's title at all, and of course he's a worthy world champ. Not sure were you read that I said he wasn't. I just said that I rate other editions higher.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY