IG Markets Ranking - It's finally there

[roundabout]

Expert panel? Phil Ligget Paul Sherwen, David Bailsford, Sean Yates, Matt Rendell and a special guest rider from Sky every month?

Hah.

It's Alasdair Fotheringham, Rupert Guinness, Raymond Kerckhoffs, Steven Farrand, Ciro Scognamiglio and Duncan Alexander (for stats)

Also there are ex-pros involved.

 

[Lanark]

I think to say that they would be invented for cav is quite cynical. I don't think he is quite that highly regarded.

It was a joke. But some noticable comparisons between CQ and this:

Higher at CQ

6 Samuel Sanches (13 at IG) (smart move by the CQ guys, getting the Hitch's support)
14 Romain Feillu (24)
17 Giovanni Visconti (37)
23 José Rojas (42)
27 Peter Sagan (56)
49 Bjorn Leukemans (62)
49 Tiago Machado (97)

Higher in the IG ranking

4 Mark Cavendish (10 at CQ)
14 Daniel Martin (22 at CQ)
15 Thor Hushovd (25 at CQ)
22 Levi Leipheimer (42 at CQ)
28 Nick Nuyens (75 at CQ)
32 Geraint Thomas (64 at CQ)
50 Johan Vansummeren (124 at CQ)
66 Mark Renshaw (193 at CQ)
84 Markel Irizar (203 at CQ)
94 Christopher Sutton (300 at CQ) (wtf happened here?)

Well speaking English, or riding for an English team, does seem to help, but I'll stop joking about that Surprising though that in a ranking that claims to support panache, Voeckler is lower (19) than he is at CQ (13).

 

[roundabout]

The problem I see with that expert panel thing is, how are they going to rate performances at races that don't have TV coverage? They're going to miss lots if they just go by the reports.

The bonus points from the panel are for the Tour only it seems.

http://www.igmarkets.co.uk/content/files/Scoring System - Bonuses.pdf

Rider of the month is probably possible to do without TV coverage just based on reports and results.

 

[Andy99]

The British bias would also explain the high rating of Strade Bianche, which seems to be a big race among British fans (bigger than among Northern European fans, for instance).

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I always thought the UK was in Northern Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe

 

[Anonymous]

No doubt. You can't even see where the riders got their points in this ranking.

And CQ isn't just a ranking, it's pretty much a database of all cycling results since they started the site.

They make some really weird choices in this ranking, like the bonus points:


To be honest, the first two points seem to have been invented to give Cavendish more points. And I'm not quite sure why stage 1 and 21 are queen stages (well, 21 probably to get Cavendish a little higher in the ranking). I really don't like a ranking that uses an 'expert panel' in the first place. Makes it too subjective. And some of those bonus points seem a bit redundant. If someone wins to GT's in one year, he will get a metric ton of points anyway, why give him more bonus points?

first stage of the Tour - Prestigious
Last stage of the Tour - Prestigious
and then main Pyranees stage and main Alpine stage.

 

[Anonymous]

The British bias would also explain the high rating of Strade Bianche, which seems to be a big race among British fans (bigger than among Northern European fans, for instance).

the race that sky did not get invited to this year?

 

[The Hitch]

So what are the points for winning Tour vs winning Giro vs winning Vuelta?

 

[Mambo95]

So what are the points for winning Tour vs winning Giro vs winning Vuelta?

1200 v 960 v 720

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

So what are the points for winning Tour vs winning Giro vs winning Vuelta?

100x vs 80x vs 60x

 

[Lanark]

So what are the points for winning Tour vs winning Giro vs winning Vuelta?

If I get it right:

Tour 1200
Giro 960
Vuelta 720

I like that they've ranked the GT's, but the Vuelta is too low now. For a win in Tirreno or Suisse you already get 600 points, the Vuelta should be a lot higher than that.

 

[theyoungest]

the race that sky did not get invited to this year?

Yes, and what was your reaction to that? I remember a sense of disappointment.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, and what was your reaction to that? I remember a sense of disappointment.

very dissapointed because its a beautiful race to watch. Was still great to watch but obviously with the absence of particular teams that you support it loses a little excitement

 

[hrotha]

Yes, and what was your reaction to that? I remember a sense of disappointment.

I don't think TeamSkyFans represents the average British cycling fan. Most of us in this forum are pretty hardcore.

 

[The Hitch]

1200 v 960 v 720

If I get it right:

Tour 1200
Giro 960
Vuelta 720

I like that they've ranked the GT's, but the Vuelta is too low now. For a win in Tirreno or Suisse you already get 600 points, the Vuelta should be a lot higher than that.

Thanks. And i agree. To make the Vuelta only slightly more than a TDF warmup. Unacceptable.

Giero should be worth more as well.

 

[theyoungest]

I don't think TeamSkyFans represents the average British cycling fan. Most of us in this forum are pretty hardcore.

Let me rephrase it, British cycling connoisseur

Just trying to find the reason why Strade Bianche is ranked so high, because it doesn't belong there.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Thanks. And i agree. To make the Vuelta only slightly more than a TDF warmup. Unacceptable.

Giero should be worth more as well.

The ratio of tour to giro to vuelta is fundamentally reasonable - it is unfortunate that single week races are so close on their heels however.

 

[Parrulo]

question: are we supposed to care about this?

will this ranking be used for anything?

btw the vuelta being worth 500 less points then the tour and then giro being worth 240 less then the tour is pathetic.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Thanks. And i agree. To make the Vuelta only slightly more than a TDF warmup. Unacceptable.

Giero should be worth more as well.

In that case the Vuelta is overvalued as it's only slightly more than a WC warm-up.

 

[Bye Bye Bicycle]

question: are we supposed to care about this?

will this ranking be used for anything?

It's worth discussing five pages long (until now).

I couldn't care less.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think TeamSkyFans represents the average British cycling fan. Most of us in this forum are pretty hardcore.

I think thats fair to say, most british "cycling" fans havnt heard of flanders let alone strade bianche. (although we are doing our best to educate them and I have noticed a considerable difference in peoples knowledge over the last year or so on the site. Its still all about the Tour, but they are getting there)

Let me rephrase it, British cycling connoisseur

Just trying to find the reason why Strade Bianche is ranked so high, because it doesn't belong there.

I think theres two ways of looking at it.
The technical side, where it stands in the calendar as far as prestige, field, ranking points go.

And then there is the emotional side. Its a beautiful race tough race, pretty much always exciting and in the more hardcore fans eyes it is one of the more attractive races on the calendar.

It really depends if you want rankings based on pure logic, or a little bit of emotion.

I for one am pleased that Strade Bianche has been recognised. Anything that brings it to more fans awareness is a good thing. Personally for me, Strade Bianche is easily as good a race to watch as Amstel, E3 etc. Wether or not it is up there in terms of prestige, obviously it isnt, but from a pure fans point of view, its just as good a race to watch if not better.

 

[Parrulo]

It's worth discussing five pages long (until now).

I couldn't care less.

fives pages for you. this is barely over 1 page for me

 

[Mambo95]

I like that they've ranked the GT's, but the Vuelta is too low now. For a win in Tirreno or Suisse you already get 600 points, the Vuelta should be a lot higher than that.

While I agree with you on basic points for winning, in winning a GT, a rider will accumulate far more extra points from stage places, days in leaders jerseys, mountains classification, points classification.

As an example for the last winners of the three races you mention, the extras are:

Vuelta (Nibali): 372
T-A (Evans): 90
TDS (Leipheimer): 95

Which makes the final totals:

Vuelta: 1092 (34% extras)
T-A: 690 (13% extras)
TDS: 695 (14% extras)

 

[Parrulo]

While I agree with you on basic points for winning, in winning a GT, a rider will accumulate far more extra points from stage places, days in leaders jerseys, mountains classification, points classification.

As an example for the last winners of the three races you mention, the extras are:

Vuelta (Nibali): 372
T-A (Evans): 90
TDS (Leipheimer): 95

Which makes the final totals:

Vuelta: 1092 (34% extras)
T-A: 690 (13% extras)
TDS: 695 (14% extras)

it still is too close imo.

 

[Mambo95]

I think theres two ways of looking at it.
The technical side, where it stands in the calendar as far as prestige, field, ranking points go.

And then there is the emotional side. Its a beautiful race tough race, pretty much always exciting and in the more hardcore fans eyes it is one of the more attractive races on the calendar.

There's also the personal bias side. SB is owned by RCS/Gazzetta and one of the experts on the panel who decided these things works for Gazzetta

 

[theyoungest]

While I agree with you on basic points for winning, in winning a GT, a rider will accumulate far more extra points from stage places, days in leaders jerseys, mountains classification, points classification.

As an example for the last winners of the three races you mention, the extras are:

Vuelta (Nibali): 372
T-A (Evans): 90
TDS (Leipheimer): 95

Which makes the final totals:

Vuelta: 1092 (34% extras)
T-A: 690 (13% extras)
TDS: 695 (14% extras)

This seems fair. Certainly last year's Vuelta, which no matter how you look at it, wasn't hotly contested.

I haven't read all the details, but is there a way in which a Vuelta with, say, Contador, Schleck, Samu, Menchov, etc. all competing for the win would be rated higher than a Vuelta with Nibali and Mosquera battling it out?