Is Simon Gerrans the best ever Australian roadie?

[theyoungest]

I always thought Gerrans was a perennial under-achiever. Therefore, Cadel gets my vote.

Underachiever? What the hell? He got the most out of his talent, I reckon.

 

[manafana]

tipping him to go and win tour down under but needs do something in the classics this season to be at same level as Cadel.

 

[Echoes]

The quote was from Hinault himself, he thought it was a stupid race. Of course there are risks on mountains but what I meant by risk was having a fall and missing the main targets for the season for those riders. The grand tours. Maybe Hinault was contracted to ride the race and I had no idea he rode it so many times.

The interview was just soar grapes for losing to Moser in 1980 (so where does this preposterous idea that he rode it just once comes from)

His hatred towards Paris-Roubaix was hyped by the media. Hinault had enough respect for the grandeur of Paris-Roubaix as he showed in 1982. Ludo Peeters was ahead on his way to winning it, while behind they were just lurking at each other but suddenly Hinault led the chase all by himself because he did not want to see Peeters win, whom he considered a second-tier rider (unfairly !), favouring Raas' victory.

In this interview from 2011 (FR) he's saying: "People always thought I did not like Paris-Roubaix. It's not really that. It's just that [...] I did not want to run the risk of breaking a collarbone or a hip. But racing Paris-Roubaix also helped me [...]. Today when I see a youngster I'm telling he must race Paris-Roubaix at the start [...] in order to learn. [...] Cobbles are part of cycling. Just like the track, cyclocross or mountainbike. A champion should be able to adapt to every terrain. "

In this interview (1980 in French) he's saying that even though he's a bit lightweight, if he's got the will to do it he can do it. Moser has a weight advantage. Raas & De Vlaeminck are often racing on cobbles in Belgium and that's why they are more comfortable with cobbles than him.

At the question whether or not he can consider himself a champion without winning Paris-Roubaix he says he never considered himself a champion, just a cycling rider who tries to do his job at best, he does not look for a palmares but if I'm lucky enough to win it, it's fine.

In those days riders like Hinault were expected to ride all the classics. The sport has changed a lot especially the amount of race days per year. Now good riders select their events but back in Hinault's time they were expected to ride most of the big events. The sport has changed a lot especially the amount of race days per year. Now good riders select their events but back in Hinault's time they were expected to ride most of the big events.

Today the best riders are racing about 80 days a year, which is not much less than then (given the fact that there are much less kermesses). We are no longer in the nineties nor in the early noughties.

There were many "specialized" riders in those days but they were the lesser riders. The best raced most of the big races because they were the best. Now they are just softies, Cancellara aside.

 

[movingtarget]

The interview was just soar grapes for losing to Moser in 1980 (so where does this preposterous idea that he rode it just once comes from)

His hatred towards Paris-Roubaix was hyped by the media. Hinault had enough respect for the grandeur of Paris-Roubaix as he showed in 1982. Ludo Peeters was ahead on his way to winning it, while behind they were just lurking at each other but suddenly Hinault led the chase all by himself because he did not want to see Peeters win, whom he considered a second-tier rider (unfairly !), favouring Raas' victory.

In this interview from 2011 (FR) he's saying: "People always thought I did not like Paris-Roubaix. It's not really that. It's just that [...] I did not want to run the risk of breaking a collarbone or a hip. But racing Paris-Roubaix also helped me [...]. Today when I see a youngster I'm telling he must race Paris-Roubaix at the start [...] in order to learn. [...] Cobbles are part of cycling. Just like the track, cyclocross or mountainbike. A champion should be able to adapt to every terrain. "

In this interview (1980 in French) he's saying that even though he's a bit lightweight, if he's got the will to do it he can do it. Moser has a weight advantage. Raas & De Vlaeminck are often racing on cobbles in Belgium and that's why they are more comfortable with cobbles than him.

At the question whether or not he can consider himself a champion without winning Paris-Roubaix he says he never considered himself a champion, just a cycling rider who tries to do his job at best, he does not look for a palmares but if I'm lucky enough to win it, it's fine.



Today the best riders are racing about 80 days a year, which is not much less than then (given the fact that there are much less kermesses). We are no longer in the nineties nor in the early noughties.

There were many "specialized" riders in those days but they were the lesser riders. The best raced most of the big races because they were the best. Now they are just softies, Cancellara aside.

Thanks for that. Interesting. Yes that was my point even Hinault was wanting to avoid injuries in PR. Raas and Roger DV were much bigger riders than Hinault of course. As for the idea he rode it once, it's just my defective memory, not enough Omega 3 or whatever. Riders were much hungrier in those days and the money was smaller of course except for the elite. I remember when the first Aussies went over to Europe and even the criteriums and kermesse racing were so competitive it sometimes resulted in violence and the non Euros were resented at first. Even Hinault was dismissive of Anderson in his first Tour and did not know who he was or did not care.

 

[nepetalactone]

Underachiever? What the hell? He got the most out of his talent, I reckon.

Never so true as it was today (well maybe that one day in San Remo).

 

[peterst6906]

tipping him to go and win tour down under but needs do something in the classics this season to be at same level as Cadel.

Agree.

He's not even at the same overall career level as McEwan yet, let alone Cadel (and it could be argued that McEwan is better than Cadel at a career level).

So for me, Gerran's currently is no better than 3rd place with both Evans and McEwan ahead of him in either order.

 

[greenedge]

There were many "specialized" riders in those days but they were the lesser riders. The best raced most of the big races because they were the best. Now they are just softies, Cancellara aside.

Sagan
10 chars

 

[brilleaben]

Best Australian sprinter in history. Did McEwan ever beat Sagan and Greipel? No, sir.

 

[Taxus4a]

For TDU I think so.

Evans is the best of australian history by far. The second would be difficult to say...Porte is in that way, but we will see, for the moment O Grady, Mc Ewen and Neil Sthephens deserve that second place... buf Goss is in the way as well.

 

[Arredondo]

Evans is the just the best, simply for the fact he won the Tour and WC. But watch Anderson's palmares, that just impressive stuff.

Amstel Gold Race
Championnat de Zürich
Paris-Tours
Henninger Turm
Tour de Suisse
Dauphiné
Tour of Romandy

Well, can't be any discussion who's the better one isnt it?

 

[42x16ss]

Evans
Anderson

McEwen








Gerrans
O'Grady
Porte
Goss
Stephens

 

[42x16ss]

Evans is the just the best, simply for the fact he won the Tour and WC. But watch Anderson's palmares, that just impressive stuff.

Amstel Gold Race
Championnat de Zürich
Paris-Tours
Henninger Turm
Tour de Suisse
Dauphiné
Tour of Romandy

Well, can't be any discussion who's the better one isnt it?

Anderson also had the misfortune of racing at the same time as Hinault, Lemond, Fignon, Kelly, De Vlaeminck (his final years), Zoetemelk, Roche, Delgado, Van Impe and Millar.

 

[greenedge]

Armstrong, Ulrich, Basso, Vino, Menchov, Levi,Valverde, Contador, Sastre, Shlecks' and Skyborgs.

 

[Echoes]

Evans
Anderson
[...]

According to my own point ranking

Phil Anderson 1958- AUS 200
Cadel Evans 1977- AUS 191
Robbie McEwen 1972- AUS 98
Sir Hubert Opperman 1904- AUS 51
Danny Clark 1951- AUS 47
Simon Gerrans 1980- AUS 45
Allan Peiper 1960- AUS 25
Matthew Goss 1986- AUS 24
Michael Wilson 1960- AUS 21
Richie Porte 1985- AUS 17

Notable mention for Gary Clively, Clyde Sefton, Don Allan and Graeme Gilmore but they are surely behind.


I'd put an asterisk for McEwen because all his performances were made out of bunch sprint wins. For the rest, I disqualified some of the riders mentioned on this thread for unmentionable reasons on this section.

 

[Taxus4a]

I think that today Evans showed that at least is the current best australian, but for me there is no doubt he is the best in history.

 

[heinkel12]

Mentioning Gerrans in the same breath as Evans is a travesty! Evans is on another level completely and is the best ever Australian roadman. Anderson would be next and I would rate O"Grady and McEwan before Gerrans.

Simon is a wheelsucking opportunist who has got the most out of his ability as possible but realistically he is nowhere near as talented as those guys mentioned above and is also probably behind Russell Mockridge who was killed before he could get back to Europe.

 

[Echoes]

Sure McEwen was not a wheelsucking opportunist

Gotta love those modern cycling fans and their tolerance towards sprinters' wheelsucking. As if their sprint gives them every right.

Mockridge was nothing more than a kermess rider in Europe, with archaic training methods.

 

[karlboss]

Evans is obviously top. 2nd is interesting, overall rider Anderson, Sprinter McEwen, then two stage hunters in O'grady, and Gerrans?

I'd probably go McEwen, Anderson, O'grady, Gerrans. I can see Gerrans jumping over O'Grady and Anderson, but not McEwen. Having said, if you have no regard for sprinters then things change.

 

[jaylew]

Documentate, please. Hinault rode it at least 7 times and finished 5 times, right ! He liked it more than people said he did. No rider has ever won it on first attempt !

It's not a dangerous race, just a tricky one, said Fignon. If Paris-Roubaix is dangerous, what about all these GT's with their descents where so many already died !

Evans is 68kg form weight. He's heavier than say Stybar.

No way Evans is heavier than Stybar.

 

[42x16ss]

Armstrong, Ulrich, Basso, Vino, Menchov, Levi, Valverde, Contador, Sastre, Shlecks' and Skyborgs.

Really? Not on the same level as the guys I listed - good riders all of them but not the calibre of Hinault, Lemond, Fignon, Kelly etc.

 

[Ferminal]

After those time bonuses to day I think that's enough for Gerrans to edge out the rest.

 

[greenedge]

Really? Not on the same level as the guys I listed - good riders all of them but not the calibre of Hinault, Lemond, Fignon, Kelly etc.

Froome (future results will elevate him) and Menchov then. The Shlecks are also great climbers/ were competing against Evans in both 2008/2011.

No Basso

 

[Echoes]

No way Evans is heavier than Stybar.

According to L'Équipe Evans' form weight is 68kg and Stybar's is 67kg.

 

[auscyclefan94]

It will be fun to see this question put to bed tomorrow on Wilunga.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I may have made to look a bit silly considering today's result but I don't see wheelsucking as a overly great quality to win the overall of a bike race.