Male Cyclist of the year (2014)?

[Tonton]

Nibali, period. No Boonen, Cancellara, Gilbert with multiple classics wins, so the title must go to a GT guy, no questions asked. Not his fault if Dawg and AC abandoned. I just feel uncomfortable that he did so racing for...you know what I mean

 

[Jspear]

Mellow Velo believes Valverde should have won the award.

my bad.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Nibali, period. No Boonen, Cancellara, Gilbert with multiple classics wins, so the title must go to a GT guy, no questions asked. Not his fault if Dawg and AC abandoned. I just feel uncomfortable that he did so racing for...you know what I mean

So the Tour winner is always the best stage racer of the year

 

[Inquitus]

Should be exclude the likes of Contador and Nibali for being doping certs? or is this a full *** poll?

 

[pigoonse]

Best: Contador
Most consistent/performed throughout the season: Valverde
Biggest single performance/race: Nibali
Honourable mentions to: Gerrans & Kristoff.

Agree with Netserk - with an added honorable mention to Kwiato.

 

[Tonton]

So the Tour winner is always the best stage racer of the year

Usually yes In this case, he had the bells to call it his priority, attacked on stage 2, attacked again on the cobbles, created a gap on Dawg and AC, fair and square. He dominated the race before and after they abandoned.

I can understand voting for AC. At the Dauphine, he showed that he was the boss. He would have beat Dawg at the TdF. Then he won a great Vuelta with style. Valverde? Don't get me started...

 

[Mellow Velo]

Thank god they realize that there are other races in the season other than the Tour. Having a great Tour doesn't mean you had a great season. They recognize that AC not only did well in the Vuelta, but in the entire season.

Actually, this is what I meant.
If only folks weren't so intent on trying to reading my mind.

You would always expect a bunch of journos to heavily favour the obvious race.
The fact that they don't and have considered the Vuelta, in conjunction with some prime week races more significant that a Tour win, a nationals jersey, but some very indifferent warm up performances, is good.

There you go. My two pence worth.

 

[Pippo_San]

The way Nibbles dominated in France was totally unequalled.
He's the man of the year speaking about GTs.

On the other hand I gotta admit I fell a bit in love with Valv-Piti this year. He's still somehow a loser to me, but what a classy guy. Loved him throughout the year, and he gets my vote.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Nibali's Tour victory was by far the most impressive achievement this season. Being the first to win 4 Stages without a time trial as a non sprinter since Merckx I think says all you need to know even though the competition was limeted. But overall this year he wasn't that great. He was massively outstanding in 3 weeks, but that isn't what the question should be about in my opinion.

After considering and looking at the results for a while, to my surprise, I have to go with Contador. He delivered Top class in pretty much every race he entered. (Somehow I thought there had to be someone more outstanding)

Generally speaking though this season lacked a real outstanding winner. But that's actually more exiting anyway.

Since I can't vote Moviestar, I still go with Contador.

 

[Echoes]

Actually, this is what I meant.
If only folks weren't so intent on trying to reading my mind.

You would always expect a bunch of journos to heavily favour the obvious race.
The fact that they don't and have considered the Vuelta, in conjunction with some prime week races more significant that a Tour win, a nationals jersey, but some very indifferent warm up performances, is good.

Are you for real?

They just voted for the guy whom they thought would've won Bore if he hadn't had what they thought was bad luck, right?

What has Contadull done on the classics? Nothing. How many days has he raced? 65. Less than most top riders, right? So arguing that he was consistent throughout the year, let me laugh!

The journos from Vélo d'or realise that there are other races than Bore? But lol, yeah beside Bore there's the Tour of Italy or the Tour of Spain but that's it.

The classics never had any existence in their minds, right? In 2003, they should have awarded Van Petegem or at least Bettini but they awarded Armstrong, right?

So, awarding Cancellara or Terpstra would probably never have crossed their minds...

 

[LaFlorecita]

They just voted for the guy whom they thought would've won Bore if he hadn't had what they thought was bad luck, right?

No, they didn't.

What has Contadull done on the classics? Nothing.

You are correct.

How many days has he raced? 65.

Again correct.

Less than most top riders, right?

Less than Nibali and Valverde. More than Froome and Quintana. Let's not forget Contador would have had 75 race days had he not crashed out of the Tour.

So arguing that he was consistent throughout the year, let me laugh!

But he was consistent. 2-1-2-1-2-1 were his results in the stage races he finished.

The journos from Vélo d'or realise that there are other races than Bore? But lol, yeah beside Bore there's the Tour of Italy or the Tour of Spain but that's it.

Obviously they care about the 1 week races too, otherwise they would have given the award to Nibali.

The classics never had any existence in their minds, right? In 2003, they should have awarded Van Petegem or at least Bettini but they awarded Armstrong, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vélo_d'Or

In the last 10 years, a classics rider won 4 times, in 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011. In 2007, 2008 and 2012 a classics rider was second. In 2009 a classics rider was third.

So, awarding Cancellara or Terpstra would probably never have crossed their minds...

Let's wait for the final results, perhaps Terpstra finished 1 point behind Contador you're just panicking for nothing like on Wednesday when you freaked out about Cancellara not winning International Flandrien when the winner hadn't even been announced yet.

If Contador wins and classics riders don't, it is not proof that the journalists don't care about the classics. It means they rate Contador's season, consisting of stage races, higher than those of the classics riders. Just accept the fact that most people, including most journalists, don't share your opinion about stage races.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Are you for real?

They just voted for the guy whom they thought would've won Bore if he hadn't had what they thought was bad luck, right?

What has Contadull done on the classics? Nothing. How many days has he raced? 65. Less than most top riders, right? So arguing that he was consistent throughout the year, let me laugh!

The journos from Vélo d'or realise that there are other races than Bore? But lol, yeah beside Bore there's the Tour of Italy or the Tour of Spain but that's it.

The classics never had any existence in their minds, right? In 2003, they should have awarded Van Petegem or at least Bettini but they awarded Armstrong, right?

So, awarding Cancellara or Terpstra would probably never have crossed their minds...

LOL.
I'm taking it from both sides.
Am I for real?
You obviously haven't read many posts in this thread.

 

[Jspear]

No, they didn't.



You are correct.



Again correct.



Less than Nibali and Valverde. More than Froome and Quintana. Let's not forget Contador would have had 75 race days had he not crashed out of the Tour.



But he was consistent. 2-1-2-1-2-1 were his results in the stage races he finished.



Obviously they care about the 1 week races too, otherwise they would have given the award to Nibali.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vélo_d'Or

In the last 10 years, a classics rider won 4 times, in 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011. In 2007, 2008 and 2012 a classics rider was second. In 2009 a classics rider was third.



Let's wait for the final results, perhaps Terpstra finished 1 point behind Contador you're just panicking for nothing like on Wednesday when you freaked out about Cancellara not winning International Flandrien when the winner hadn't even been announced yet.

If Contador wins and classics riders don't, it is not proof that the journalists don't care about the classics. It means they rate Contador's season, consisting of stage races, higher than those of the classics riders. Just accept the fact that most people, including most journalists, don't share your opinion about stage races.

Very good post. The other thing I would ask is: did any one rider shine throughout the classics season? Terpstra did do well over all, but his record isn't 2-1-2-1-2-1.

Echoes what classics rider has a record better than 2-1-2-1-2-1?

 

[nobilis]

Since you're including .1 races to appraise the season of Contador, how about we talk about Valverde and a record of 1-5-2-4-3 for stage races
and 1-3-1-1-4-1-2-1-3-2 for 1-day classics/races and 2nd in RR nationals and 1st in TT nationals and at least tried himself at some cobbled races and performed decently there?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Since you're including .1 races to appraise the season of Contador, how about we talk about Valverde and a record of 1-5-2-4-3 for stage races
and 1-3-1-1-4-1-2-1-3-2 for 1-day classics/races and 2nd in RR nationals and 1st in TT nationals and at least tried himself at some cobbled races and performed decently there?

okay, and if we don't include .1 races Contador's record is 1-2-1-2-1, even better actually Contador got most of his wins in the WT while Valverde mostly won Spanish .1 races with barely any competition

 

[Netserk]

The correct record for Valverde is:

Stage races: 27-1-5-2-4-3
One-day races: 1-16-3-1-44-36-63-1-27-4-1-2-1-2-1-3-2

 

[LaFlorecita]

The correct record for Valverde is:

Stage races: 27-1-5-2-4-3
One-day races: 1-16-3-1-44-36-63-1-27-4-1-2-1-2-1-3-2

Good point and only WT?

 

[nobilis]

At least he fights on many fronts and still can get wins and podiums. He's a more complete rider than Contador, objectively speaking.

And the comparison won't be complete if you don't include Contador's record in 1-day races : 6-34

 

[Red Rick]

Are you for real?

They just voted for the guy whom they thought would've won Bore if he hadn't had what they thought was bad luck, right?

What has Contadull done on the classics? Nothing. How many days has he raced? 65. Less than most top riders, right? So arguing that he was consistent throughout the year, let me laugh!

The journos from Vélo d'or realise that there are other races than Bore? But lol, yeah beside Bore there's the Tour of Italy or the Tour of Spain but that's it.

The classics never had any existence in their minds, right? In 2003, they should have awarded Van Petegem or at least Bettini but they awarded Armstrong, right?

So, awarding Cancellara or Terpstra would probably never have crossed their minds...

Dunno if you've been living under a ****ing stone, but neither Canc nor Terpstra should've crossed their minds.

I rarely see such a long post made up of 100% grade A bullcrap

 

[Red Rick]

They could've picked

The most consistent rider who didn't win anything huge as best of the year. yeah right

The guy who won one GT after his most important opponents crashed out and didn't show anything good the rest of the year. yeah right

One of multiple one day racers who had a monument win and a couple of other good performances but didn't really stand out. yeah right

The guy who destroyed the first half of the year, was the best climber in every race he entered, caused annihilation on a mountain stage we haven't seen in years all by himself, crashed out of his main target whilst in blistering form only to come back from an injury and win a GT anyway.

 

[Netserk]

At least hi fights on many fronts and still can get wins and podiums. He's a more complete rider than Contador, objectively speaking.

And the comparison won't be complete if you don't include Contador's record in 1-day races : 6-34

No one has argued that Contador was more complete than Valverde. He was just simply better overall this year and got better results.

 

[HSNHSN]

Voted for Kristoff, a monument win, a great TDF, varois one day race wins and a beast in RVV. With a little bit of luck he'd have been on the podium in Paris-Roubaix. Kwiat, Valverde and Contador are the other guys that you could pick.

This, exactly. Cyclist of the year isn't about points or races won, it's about the way they raced, the way they won. To me, this year, it's Kristoff that managed to excite me most and I hope he'll manage to continue doing so in the following years and preferably win some monuments.

Can anyone explain why Gerrans should be voted for? I've watched most important races this year and I have to say he wasn't that impressive at all. He won LBL, I have to give you that, but then, it was possibly the most boring LBL ever (at least the most boring I've ever seen). And apart from that? He didn't win the WC he was supposed to win...

(Disclaimer: I've never watched Tour Down Under and never will.)

 

[LaFlorecita]

No one has argued that Contador was more complete than Valverde. He was just simply better overall this year and got better results.

Exactly. He's not more complete, he's simply a whole lot better at the thing he does best.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Valverde for the win. Respect for his season.

 

[Mellow Velo]

The correct record for Valverde is:

Stage races: 27-1-5-2-4-3
One-day races: 1-16-3-1-44-36-63-1-27-4-1-2-1-2-1-3-2

Good point and only WT?

The problem is, when you do the same for Bertie, you get:

Stage races: 1-2-1-2-1
One day races: 34..............

This is the reason, I can't give him rider of the year.
Sorry, but there you go.