• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 167 - 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: 27 100.0%

  • Total voters
    27
Re: Re:

tobydawq said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
The big question to start with is whether or not he's going to be at his best already by the Ardennes or if he will need more time. I quite like the TDU but joking aside we all know it's of no importance to Valverde's career.

But it will be hugely important to him if he could win a stage. Just remember his reaction from his stage victory in 2012 - his first win after the suspension. A similar reaction might come this time, should he be good enough to win something.
Obviously very different situations, but probably. I think it was more of a celebration for actually being on that level compared to winning a stage in the race. Kinda similar to Contador. It would almost be a reverse Contador should he win a stage or even the overall.

One and only reason to watch that race. ;)
 
Re:

Zinoviev Letter said:
The big question to start with is whether or not he's going to be at his best already by the Ardennes or if he will need more time. I quite like the TDU but joking aside we all know it's of no importance to Valverde's career.

Riders seem to like the race for an early season event. They escape the cold in Europe and it's a well organized race and none of the stages are that difficult or long. The only thing that sometimes makes it hard is when the heat is too extreme which is not unusual for Adelaide at that time of year.
 
Sep 3, 2017
914
0
0
Visit site
i check on procycling stats , Valverde have less km ridden then Nibali , but he is 4 years and a half older , , of course clinic issue he has no race in 2011 , but this downplay the fact that Valverde is a freak of nature
 
Lmfao, what a guy. El País did an interview with him. He phoned Unzue to ask him if he could ride Milano - Turino, but unfortunately the latter said no. Next year, he says, his main goals of the season are Ardennes + Giro and Vuelta + world championships in Innsbruck. If it were up to him, he'd skip the Tour. He's already doing weekly trainings of more than 700k.
 
In terms of longevity - Yes
In terms of consistency - Yes
In terms of big wins - Not really
In terms of riding style - Not really (imo)

Obviously rankings try to standardise a *** load of different races of different backgrounds of which the value are all subjective, but I do think most people feel that most rankings overrate smaller races and lower top 5 and top 10 placings compared to big wins.

I do think consistency is something to be admired, but there's a point at which more smaller wins and placings lose their value relatively speaking. I don't think it's exactly linear: a 5th place in a GC might matter between the 200th and 199th place, but I think it should matter little between the 19th and 20st greatest of all times, which is at a point in all time rankings where I think we should really be talking about big wins, and honestly this is where Valverde is relatively lacking. In terms of winning GTs, Worlds, Olympics and monuments, he's like 7th or 8th this century, and about on par with Gilbert.
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
In terms of longevity - Yes
In terms of consistency - Yes
In terms of big wins - Not really
In terms of riding style - Not really (imo)

Obviously rankings try to standardise a **** load of different races of different backgrounds of which the value are all subjective, but I do think most people feel that most rankings overrate smaller races and lower top 5 and top 10 placings compared to big wins.

I do think consistency is something to be admired, but there's a point at which more smaller wins and placings lose their value relatively speaking. I don't think it's exactly linear: a 5th place in a GC might matter between the 200th and 199th place, but I think it should matter little between the 19th and 20st greatest of all times, which is at a point in all time rankings where I think we should really be talking about big wins, and honestly this is where Valverde is relatively lacking. In terms of winning GTs, Worlds, Olympics and monuments, he's like 7th or 8th this century, and about on par with Gilbert.

I had this conversation many times. Those races you've mentioned are the biggest indeed, and if we look only at the wins in this races you're maybe not far from truth. But how then is Poulidor an all-time great? Zoetemelk? Ocana? Pantani? Jalabert? Ullrich? The truth is we must look at the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is that the Grand Tour podium is also big, WC podium is also big, 5x Fleche Wallonne is huge, Pais Vasco is big, Dauphine is big, Catalunya is big, 14 GT stages is big, +100 professional wins is really big, 4x WT rankings is impressive! Take all that into acount and you'll get the right picture.
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
Red Rick said:
In terms of longevity - Yes
In terms of consistency - Yes
In terms of big wins - Not really
In terms of riding style - Not really (imo)

Obviously rankings try to standardise a **** load of different races of different backgrounds of which the value are all subjective, but I do think most people feel that most rankings overrate smaller races and lower top 5 and top 10 placings compared to big wins.

I do think consistency is something to be admired, but there's a point at which more smaller wins and placings lose their value relatively speaking. I don't think it's exactly linear: a 5th place in a GC might matter between the 200th and 199th place, but I think it should matter little between the 19th and 20st greatest of all times, which is at a point in all time rankings where I think we should really be talking about big wins, and honestly this is where Valverde is relatively lacking. In terms of winning GTs, Worlds, Olympics and monuments, he's like 7th or 8th this century, and about on par with Gilbert.

I had this conversation many times. Those races you've mentioned are the biggest indeed, and if we look only at the wins in this races you're maybe not far from truth. But how then is Poulidor an all-time great? Zoetemelk? Ocana? Pantani? Jalabert? Ullrich? The truth is we must look at the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is that the Grand Tour podium is also big, WC podium is also big, 5x Fleche Wallonne is huge, Pais Vasco is big, Dauphine is big, Catalunya is big, 14 GT stages is big, +100 professional wins is really big, 4x WT rankings is impressive! Take all that into acount and you'll get the right picture.

Poulidor is the legend of the guy who never won. I honestly think guys like Ocana and Pantani are probably overrated, their myths only grown after tragical deaths. I also think Zoetemelk, Jalabert, and Ullrich are overrated.
 

TRENDING THREADS