Teams & Riders Jakob Fuglsang discussion thread

Page 38 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I don't think he should. The line-up in the Giro is not frightening. It's his biggest chance for a GT win ever, and his level seems to be there. He definitely needs to give it a go.

As Netserk says, his current GT level is unknown. But why shouldn't it have increased like his general level has done in the past couple of years?

And him having crashed before, is not predictive of him crashing again. I doubt people would say that Remco shouldn't race anymore monuments because of what happened today.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Nice win and all, but that doesn't make him a Giro contender nor proves that he is suddenly capable to maintain a high level over three weeks - he couldn't last year, when he was crazy strong in the spring and dauphine. What would have changed? He might top 5, but only because the start list looks pretty weak besides Nibali, Carapaz, S. Yates and Evenepoel (admittedly, he is unproven in GTs)
 
Reactions: Red Rick
Nice win and all, but that doesn't make him a Giro contender nor proves that he is suddenly capable to maintain a high level over three weeks - he couldn't last year, when he was crazy strong in the spring and dauphine. What would have changed? He might top 5, but only because the start list looks pretty weak besides Nibali, Carapaz, S. Yates and Evenepoel (admittedly, he is unproven in GTs)
I don't care much about Fuglsang, but did he not crash twice last year? So "he did not maintain his level over three weeks" is actually quite mean. ;)
 
I don't care much about Fuglsang, but did he not crash twice last year? So "he did not maintain his level over three weeks" is actually quite mean. ;)
I forgot his first crash, or to be more precise, I thought his first crash (the bloody eye and some cuts I think) was the one that made him quit the race. Regardless, he was clearly a level below the best in the mountains e.g. Pinot and Buchmann, who he defeated a month prior. The injury certainly played a part (I’m a Contador fan, I would know!), but it wasn’t a broken leg, dislocated shoulder or muscle tears. He should be able to top 5 given the weak field, but there are at least those guys I’ve mentioned that are proven GT contenders bar Evenepoel. Isn’t Bardet also riding giro?
 
I forgot his first crash, or to be more precise, I thought his first crash (the bloody eye and some cuts I think) was the one that made him quit the race. Regardless, he was clearly a level below the best in the mountains e.g. Pinot and Buchmann, who he defeated a month prior. The injury certainly played a part (I’m a Contador fan, I would know!), but it wasn’t a broken leg, dislocated shoulder or muscle tears. He should be able to top 5 given the weak field, but there are at least those guys I’ve mentioned that are proven GT contenders bar Evenepoel. Isn’t Bardet also riding giro?
But one thing I don't understand. Today, we see that he smashes his competitors. He doesn't beat them, he mauls them. Leagues better. Why do we assume that those same people will suddenly, magically be able to be better than him at the same sport, just because the name of the event is "Giro d'Italia" rather than "Il Lombardia"?

I think recovery arguments are way overrated and way overused. Look at the riders' levels at cycling currently, and it will tell you a great deal more than, "Oh, but he once cracked on stage 18 of whatever GT 6 years ago, so he has no chance".
 
But one thing I don't understand. Today, we see that he smashes his competitors. He doesn't beat them, he mauls them. Leagues better. Why do we assume that those same people will suddenly, magically be able to be better than him at the same sport, just because the name of the event is "Giro d'Italia" rather than "Il Lombardia"?

I think recovery arguments are way overrated and way overused. Look at the riders' levels at cycling currently, and it will tell you a great deal more than, "Oh, but he once cracked on stage 18 of whatever GT 6 years ago, so he has no chance".
Well, some ride themselves into form ( like Nibali for instance ) and some move away from their peak of the season. ( Fuglsang is already very strong but can he peak again for Giro? )
 
But one thing I don't understand. Today, we see that he smashes his competitors. He doesn't beat them, he mauls them. Leagues better. Why do we assume that those same people will suddenly, magically be able to be better than him at the same sport, just because the name of the event is "Giro d'Italia" rather than "Il Lombardia"?

I think recovery arguments are way overrated and way overused. Look at the riders' levels at cycling currently, and it will tell you a great deal more than, "Oh, but he once cracked on stage 18 of whatever GT 6 years ago, so he has no chance".
I think gaps are inflated because the overall level of the peloton is a lot more varied because of the COVID break, and that's the main reason we're seeing such large differences in really hard races.I think those differences regress more towards as the season continues. So yeah, it will very largely come down to it being Il Giro. There is simply a huge difference between day to day recovery and one day endurance.

In fact, this one day race improvement seems quite largely unrelated to his stage race results. He won the Dauphine in both 2017 and 2019, while 2017 was definitely more impressive. Then in 2017 he went on to finish s.t. in the queen stage, before dropping out.

That's not to say I think Fuglsang has peaked in GTs, or that he can't win. But I still consider him an outsider, and to consider him a favorite over Nibali with their respective track record based on a one day race 2 months before the Giro, that's a gigantic leap to take imo.
 
I think gaps are inflated because the overall level of the peloton is a lot more varied because of the COVID break, and that's the main reason we're seeing such large differences in really hard races.I think those differences regress more towards as the season continues. So yeah, it will very largely come down to it being Il Giro. There is simply a huge difference between day to day recovery and one day endurance.

In fact, this one day race improvement seems quite largely unrelated to his stage race results. He won the Dauphine in both 2017 and 2019, while 2017 was definitely more impressive. Then in 2017 he went on to finish s.t. in the queen stage, before dropping out.

That's not to say I think Fuglsang has peaked in GTs, or that he can't win. But I still consider him an outsider, and to consider him a favorite over Nibali with their respective track record based on a one day race 2 months before the Giro, that's a gigantic leap to take imo.
But Nibali is way over the hill, and Fuglsang is at the top of his ;)
 
But one thing I don't understand. Today, we see that he smashes his competitors. He doesn't beat them, he mauls them. Leagues better. Why do we assume that those same people will suddenly, magically be able to be better than him at the same sport, just because the name of the event is "Giro d'Italia" rather than "Il Lombardia"?

I think recovery arguments are way overrated and way overused. Look at the riders' levels at cycling currently, and it will tell you a great deal more than, "Oh, but he once cracked on stage 18 of whatever GT 6 years ago, so he has no chance".
We assume that, because the difference as Rick said, is one day endurance vis-a-vis day to day recovery. People like Nibali and Carapaz have proven that they are able to replicate and decrease less in strength than others over the course of three weeks (they have both won GTs as you know), whereas post-2016 Fuglsang could be given leeway as an unproven quantity in that regard because of crashes in 2017 and 2019. However, his bad 2018 Tour might provide a hint, which we might not draw definitive conclusions from, but at the very least a counter-argument to the "Fuglsang 2.0 is unproven in GTs". He has taken a huge leap in one day races and a step up in stage races (a quick look on his palmares; used to be between 5th and 11th, even in 2013, and now usually podium or 4th), but this doesn't necessarily directly translate to GTs. I understand, that we only have last year's Vuelta (in which he only went for stages) and the 2018 Tour, which is a very small sample to draw a certain conclusion from, but I don't agree that being leagues better in one day races makes him a bigger Giro favorite than the likes of Nibali, Carapaz and Yates. Besides, Nibali has since 2014 been doing super-peaks instead of being in good all year - some people do ride themselves into form, while others might be at or close to their peak now, or are blessed with having a high and easily maintainable base level (Valverde...until recent times? and perhaps Fuglsang himself post-2016)
 
As someone who generally rates GT's over monuments, I'd usually be encouraging Jakob to continue with his current plan.

However, he is clearly one of the best few hilly one day riders in the peloton now (maybe even the best). LBL is on October 4 (the same day that the Giro starts). He would be, at minimum, a 20% chance to defend his title there, and to land a third monument. At the Giro his is probably at best, a 5% chance to win, and that's as the field currently stands. There is a great chance that a strong GC rider or two will have bad luck early on in the Tour, abandon, and switch their goal to the Giro (especially given the current weak field, it should be extra tempting to pull out early after a bad day in the crosswinds for example).

As well as LBL, there is Amstel on October 10, and Flanders on October 18. Jakob could be very strong in these races. Why not target these one day races (Vlasov may well be a contender in the Giro anyway) and then race the Vuelta, relatively fresh? In such a congested schedule it makes even more sense for lesser GC riders to target the Vuelta imo. In a normal season, if you race the Giro, then you can usually race the Vuelta also. In this season this is not the case. Jakob is sacrificing a lot for this Giro as I see it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY