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

[Netserk]

And Oscar Pereiro has won the biggest race in cycling, so was better than Sean Kelly, right?

1) No he hasn't

2) Has he won the same number of GTs as SK just better ones and won more monuments than SK? No he hasn't.

 

[DFA123]

1) No he hasn't

2) Has he won the same number of GTs as SK just better ones and won more monuments than SK? No he hasn't.

I just think you have to be careful comparing riders based solely on wins in monuments and GTs; while placing much less importance on all other races (including classics!) and not considering other variables.

There are loads more factors involved: the quality of the field at each race, the ability to win races (albeit smaller ones) on a different kind of terrain, the strength of the team etc... all of which can make one rider's win more impressive than that of another rider.

The thing about Valverde is that he has been on the podium in GTs and WC and has been winning major one day races for over 10 years. To have such longevity and consistency rules out that it was down to weak opposition, luck or just dominating one particular race. Obviously he should have won more, but tactics right at the end of the race is probably his only significant weakness as a rider - the problem for Valverde is it's a lot more visible than a rider who is weak during the rest of the race and rarely makes it into the final selection.

 

[Angliru]

Cunego has a better GT and more monument wins than Valverde. 'Nuff said.

Seems a waste to totally disregard the 3 weeks of suffering involved in all of those podium placements in the Vuelta and attempts to contend at the Tour, 1 week in big stage races and the single day events he suffered through making the podiums. Not to mention the training time it took to build the form to reach those podiums all because he didn't actually win. I would think that he's proud of the efforts he put in at every one of those events, as is most every rider. A rider's palmares is not just his victories. IMO of course.

 

[Netserk]

Why should a rider of Valverde's status be proud of losses?

Obviously palmarès only consists of wins.

 

[Angliru]

Why should a rider of Valverde's status be proud of losses?

Obviously palmarès only consists of wins.

Have you ever competed? You put in your best effort and someone ends up stronger than you that day or over the course of that event. You can still be proud of your effort and your team's. Palmares consists of gold, silver and bronze medals, jerseys won over the course of a stage race, podiums and wins.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Palmares includes good losses only if you are distinguishing between minor riders. At the top end - which is clearly where Valverde belongs - only wins matter. Valverde is too high up the ladder for third places to move him significantly. That's not an anti-Valverde attitude. It's an attitude that assumes he belongs with the top tier.

Meaningful results aren't just the "big nine" races (3GTs, 5 monuments, WC). Down the scale they also include, although with a lesser weight, the big non monument classics, the biggest one week races and GT stages. This year Valverde has out of all of those races Flèche and, if you are feeling generous, a second win in San Sebastián. Other wins are important for riders that aren't multiple winners of big races. They are a big deal for a Sonny Colbrelli or a Sam Bennett. They aren't important for a guy who has won the Vuelta and LBL twice.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Also, it should be said in this context that Purito is a massive under achiever.

 

[jaylew]

Seems a waste to totally disregard the 3 weeks of suffering involved in all of those podium placements in the Vuelta and attempts to contend at the Tour, 1 week in big stage races and the single day events he suffered through making the podiums. Not to mention the training time it took to build the form to reach those podiums all because he didn't actually win. I would think that he's proud of the efforts he put in at every one of those events, as is most every rider. A rider's palmares is not just his victories. IMO of course.

You're wasting your time. Netserk thinks only overall wins in 9 races are important.

Palmares includes good losses only if you are distinguishing between minor riders. At the top end - which is clearly where Valverde belongs - only wins matter. Valverde is too high up the ladder for third places to move him significantly. That's not an anti-Valverde attitude. It's an attitude that assumes he belongs with the top tier.

Meaningful results aren't just the "big nine" races (3GTs, 5 monuments, WC). Down the scale they also include, although with a lesser weight, the big non monument classics, the biggest one week races and GT stages. This year Valverde has out of all of those races Flèche and, if you are feeling generous, a second win in San Sebastián. Other wins are important for riders that aren't multiple winners of big races. They are a big deal for a Sonny Colbrelli or a Sam Bennett. They aren't important for a guy who has won the Vuelta and LBL twice.

Interesting points, I just don't agree with some of them. I tend to agree with you on the races that are important, but I place a lot more value on 2nd at the Tour, Worlds, Paris-Roubaix, etc...than you do.

 

[nobilis]

Interesting article on velochrono (maybe a bit OT) where they did a fictitious ranking of the World Cup that disappeared after 2004 for the UCI ProTour and that used to include 9 1-day races (but with some changes, they replaced the GP Zurich with the Flèche Wallonne). Valverde would be comfortably ahead of Kristoff and Cancellara, with Gerrans just out of the podium, just to show again the consistency of Valverde throughout the year, just for the big 1-day races.
I really miss pro cycling before the ProTour / World Tour era

http://www.velochrono.fr/actu/2014/coupe-du-monde-le-double-pour-valverde/

 

[Mellow Velo]

Interesting article on velochrono (maybe a bit OT) where they did a fictitious ranking of the World Cup that disappeared after 2004 for the UCI ProTour and that used to include 9 1-day races (but with some changes, they replaced the GP Zurich with the Flèche Wallonne). Valverde would be comfortably ahead of Kristoff and Cancellara, with Gerrans just out of the podium, just to show again the consistency of Valverde throughout the year, just for the big 1-day races.
I really miss pro cycling before the ProTour / World Tour era

http://www.velochrono.fr/actu/2014/coupe-du-monde-le-double-pour-valverde/

Thanks for this.
Love it or hate it, the old World Cup jersey carried far more credibility than any tried on since.
Valverde walks away with it.

 

[Ruudz0r]

Interesting article on velochrono (maybe a bit OT) where they did a fictitious ranking of the World Cup that disappeared after 2004 for the UCI ProTour and that used to include 9 1-day races (but with some changes, they replaced the GP Zurich with the Flèche Wallonne). Valverde would be comfortably ahead of Kristoff and Cancellara, with Gerrans just out of the podium, just to show again the consistency of Valverde throughout the year, just for the big 1-day races.
I really miss pro cycling before the ProTour / World Tour era

http://www.velochrono.fr/actu/2014/coupe-du-monde-le-double-pour-valverde/

Why did they cancel the World Cup anyway? It could still be done with the WT/PT right? I used to love it when I was a kid and I was so happy when my favourite rider (Maarten den Bakker) scored a few points for the World Cup.

 

[Netserk]

You're wasting your time. Netserk thinks only overall wins in 9 races are important.

Sauce ?

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Thanks for this.
Love it or hate it, the old World Cup jersey carried far more credibility than any tried on since.
Valverde walks away with it.

It carried exactly 0 credibility. No Fleche, no GW, 2 real classics not included, instead "local semi classics" like AGR and San Sebastian? Not even to speak of Brighton etc.

 

[Arredondo]

Yes, Cunego is another good all-rounder; I agree that he is very much under-rated, probably because he has had years where he has been off the radar. I guess you could throw Vino in there as well (GT, 2xLBL* and an Olympics is pretty handy).

All of those guys though seemed to get their results during a 4 year spell. Valverde has been strongly competitive in pretty much every race he has targeted for over 10 years (albeit with a 2 year break!).

But back in 2004, the Giro was no more then a Italian party with some good, but rather poor GC contenders (Cioni, Popovych, Valjavec etc.).

 

[Arredondo]

Also, it should be said in this context that Purito is a massive under achiever.

He had 5 years to really chase big wins. Not 15.

 

[May0maniac]

But back in 2004, the Giro was no more then a Italian party with some good, but rather poor GC contenders (Cioni, Popovych, Valjavec etc.).

Well, the 2009 Vuelta field also wasn't that great, only Valverde and Sammy had that race as a their main goal and peaked only for the Vuelta and 2009 Evans wasn't that great.

 

[Arredondo]

Well, the 2009 Vuelta field also wasn't that great, only Valverde and Sammy had that race as a their main goal and peaked only for the Vuelta and 2009 Evans wasn't that great.

But still a 2009 Evans is better then Cioni and Valjavec.

 

[jens_attacks]

and gesink people!

also mosquera was very strong. definitely higher level than in 2004 giro

 

[Red Rick]

Palmares includes good losses only if you are distinguishing between minor riders. At the top end - which is clearly where Valverde belongs - only wins matter. Valverde is too high up the ladder for third places to move him significantly. That's not an anti-Valverde attitude. It's an attitude that assumes he belongs with the top tier.

Meaningful results aren't just the "big nine" races (3GTs, 5 monuments, WC). Down the scale they also include, although with a lesser weight, the big non monument classics, the biggest one week races and GT stages. This year Valverde has out of all of those races Flèche and, if you are feeling generous, a second win in San Sebastián. Other wins are important for riders that aren't multiple winners of big races. They are a big deal for a Sonny Colbrelli or a Sam Bennett. They aren't important for a guy who has won the Vuelta and LBL twice.

Might be, but 6 podiums in the WCRR is actually a sick achievement, and he's also won the WT 3 times

 

[personal]

It seemed to me that Valverde really enjoyed this year's racing. Having fun in addition to results is what makes your season even better.

 

[TANK91]

I guess number of days also don't matter in stage races...

Silly comment really, i suppose San Remo is better than Roubaix as it is longer. G-W is crap.

 

[El Pistolero]

G-W is still a classic that 90% of the peloton would love to be able to win. Has anyone asked Degenkolb what his biggest win was this year? Or of his career?

 

[TANK91]

G-W is still a classic that 90% of the peloton would love to be able to win. Has anyone asked Degenkolb what his biggest win was this year? Or of his career?

lol even Cav has won G-W, it is well easy race. Even Cippolini has wonit ill say no more.

 

[Netserk]

lol even Cav has won G-W, it is well easy race. Even Cippolini has wonit ill say no more.

No Cav hasn't won it. Have you seen any of Cipo's wins?

 

[Arredondo]

lol even Cav has won G-W, it is well easy race. Even Cippolini has wonit ill say no more.

Cippo won in 2002 thanks to incredible racing. He closed the gap to the leaders in no time and on his own. He showed what for a great bike rider he was in that particular race.

I don't care about GW, but i guess that's just me. I think the cobbles classic are nice because of the racing, not because of the general level there.

I would love to win 1 FW or Amstel instead of 2 GW's.