• 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!

Mental or random cycling statistics

Page 19 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Still don't get it. This is actually proving my point if anything. If Cipo was not at a GT, there were other riders who could step up and win plenty. All those riders also beat Cipo for stages at Le Tour, but Cipo was still the top sprinter overall when he was in the race

During the Cav reign 08-11, there was no real sprinter who could step up and dominate when he wasn't at a GT. All those sprinters rode more than just 4 years in their careers, Farrar was at the level of a 35-37yo Petacchi. Cav was so far ahead of the rest, but was that because he was so great or the others were not so good? We already know the answer as when Kittel, Greipel etc came along, they could also rack up the wins if any of the others were missing or off form suggesting it was a case of the others just not being so good.

I also find it ironic that Cav is put forward as the greatest based on numbers, 34 Tour stages etc, but when numbers are used to point out his opposition might not have been so good at times, suddenly there are caveats and reasons.
Cavendish does beat both Kittel and Greipel for longevity, which is why he's racked up easier Tour wins both before and after their shared era. Longevity is an absolutely vital component for any most XXX statistic. Also, the gap to the other sprinters is absolutely massive - nobody has taken even half the number of Tour bunch sprint wins he has - so whatever caveats there are don't detract much from his achievements as he would almost certainly have been the most prolific if his prime had started 5-10 years earlier or later too.
 
Still don't get it. This is actually proving my point if anything. If Cipo was not at a GT, there were other riders who could step up and win plenty. All those riders also beat Cipo for stages at Le Tour, but Cipo was still the top sprinter overall when he was in the race

During the Cav reign 08-11, there was no real sprinter who could step up and dominate when he wasn't at a GT. All those sprinters rode more than just 4 years in their careers, Farrar was at the level of a 35-37yo Petacchi. Cav was so far ahead of the rest, but was that because he was so great or the others were not so good? We already know the answer as when Kittel, Greipel etc came along, they could also rack up the wins if any of the others were missing or off form suggesting it was a case of the others just not being so good.

I also find it ironic that Cav is put forward as the greatest based on numbers, 34 Tour stages etc, but when numbers are used to point out his opposition might not have been so good at times, suddenly there are caveats and reasons.
Another factor making the early Cav years easier was Tom Boonen vacating bunch sprints in the TDF after 2007 to solely focus on the cobbled classics.
 
Still don't get it. This is actually proving my point if anything. If Cipo was not at a GT, there were other riders who could step up and win plenty. All those riders also beat Cipo for stages at Le Tour, but Cipo was still the top sprinter overall when he was in the race

During the Cav reign 08-11, there was no real sprinter who could step up and dominate when he wasn't at a GT. All those sprinters rode more than just 4 years in their careers, Farrar was at the level of a 35-37yo Petacchi. Cav was so far ahead of the rest, but was that because he was so great or the others were not so good? We already know the answer as when Kittel, Greipel etc came along, they could also rack up the wins if any of the others were missing or off form suggesting it was a case of the others just not being so good.

I also find it ironic that Cav is put forward as the greatest based on numbers, 34 Tour stages etc, but when numbers are used to point out his opposition might not have been so good at times, suddenly there are caveats and reasons.
Do you get it?
Farrar would have as many GT wins as Steels, maybe more since Garmin’s train would have been more dominate.
Cav was beat by the others as well at all the GTs and just like Cipo, Cav was still the top sprinter. Cav just won more, and he didn’t leave. Do you really think those other sprinter would have won more if Cipo bothered to show up?
Cav dominated multiple generations of sprinters, were they not so good? 2005-present Cavendish has beat.
Nor is it fair to compare 8 editions for Cipo but only 4 for Cav, that is extremely hypocritical.

Cav is thought of the greatest for many reasons not just the TdF wins and you’ve been arguing he hasn’t been and rebuffed by many since 2016. Funny how Cipo with the same caveats and more of weak competition, had the only and dominate sprint train, and organizers working their race towards him is overlooked.
 
Last edited:
Still don't get it. This is actually proving my point if anything. If Cipo was not at a GT, there were other riders who could step up and win plenty. All those riders also beat Cipo for stages at Le Tour, but Cipo was still the top sprinter overall when he was in the race

During the Cav reign 08-11, there was no real sprinter who could step up and dominate when he wasn't at a GT. All those sprinters rode more than just 4 years in their careers, Farrar was at the level of a 35-37yo Petacchi. Cav was so far ahead of the rest, but was that because he was so great or the others were not so good? We already know the answer as when Kittel, Greipel etc came along, they could also rack up the wins if any of the others were missing or off form suggesting it was a case of the others just not being so good.

I also find it ironic that Cav is put forward as the greatest based on numbers, 34 Tour stages etc, but when numbers are used to point out his opposition might not have been so good at times, suddenly there are caveats and reasons.
The one thing Cipo has over Cav besides the 57-54, with 4 more GT attempts 27-23, is he has had 4 or more GT stage wins 8 times and 10 times with 3 wins or more. Petacchi has 8 as well of 4(3) or more wins. Cav has done it 7 times but won 3 or more 11 times.
 
Do you get it?
Farrar would have as many GT wins as Steels, maybe more since Garmin’s train would have been more dominate.
Cav was beat by the others as well at all the GTs and just like Cipo, Cav was still the top sprinter. Cav just won more, and he didn’t leave. Do you really think those other sprinter would have won more if Cipo bothered to show up?
Cav dominated multiple generations of sprinters, were they not so good? 2005-present Cavendish has beat.
Nor is it fair to compare 8 editions for Cipo but only 4 for Cav, that is extremely hypocritical.

Cav is thought of the greatest for many reasons not just the TdF wins and you’ve been arguing he hasn’t been and rebuffed by many since 2016. Funny how Cipo with the same caveats and more of weak competition, had the only and dominate sprint train, and organizers working their race towards him is overlooked.
Yes take Cav out, Farrar would have 11 GT stages with 5 Tour stages, not a bad win ratio, but hardly amazing.

Then let's take Cipo out as well and Steels would have won 11 Tour stages, including winning 4, 4, 3, whilst competing against a guy, Erik Zabel who would have 15 Tour stages without Cipo. Sadly Steels career got completely derailed after 2000 by illness, by which stage he had only done 4 Tours and 1 Vuelta compared to Farrar who started all GTs between 09-11, which i didnt know. There was also Blijlevens who without Cipo would have 5 Tour stages and 13 GT stage wins in total, again similar to Farrar.

Difference being Zabel, Steels and Blijlevens were competitors in the same Tours which is exactly my point. Go outside Farrar, who were the other big sprinters in their 20s from 08-11?

Also,I not comparing 8 years(its actually 7) v 4 years, I am comparing the fact that throughout his entire Tour run, Cipo always faced off against a major sprinter in their prime whilst in Cavs dominant period, there was no such rider in their 20s, other than Greipel in 2011. Farrar might have more wins without Cav, but the likes of Abdu and Zabel would be over 20 GT wins without Cipo, whilst the likes of Blijlevens, Steels, Minali would have similar or better numbers to Farrar.

The differences in strength in depth is pretty obvious.
 
Yes take Cav out, Farrar would have 11 GT stages with 5 Tour stages, not a bad win ratio, but hardly amazing.

Then let's take Cipo out as well and Steels would have won 11 Tour stages, including winning 4, 4, 3, whilst competing against a guy, Erik Zabel who would have 15 Tour stages without Cipo. Sadly Steels career got completely derailed after 2000 by illness, by which stage he had only done 4 Tours and 1 Vuelta compared to Farrar who started all GTs between 09-11, which i didnt know. There was also Blijlevens who without Cipo would have 5 Tour stages and 13 GT stage wins in total, again similar to Farrar.

Difference being Zabel, Steels and Blijlevens were competitors in the same Tours which is exactly my point. Go outside Farrar, who were the other big sprinters in their 20s from 08-11?

Also,I not comparing 8 years(its actually 7) v 4 years, I am comparing the fact that throughout his entire Tour run, Cipo always faced off against a major sprinter in their prime whilst in Cavs dominant period, there was no such rider in their 20s, other than Greipel in 2011. Farrar might have more wins without Cav, but the likes of Abdu and Zabel would be over 20 GT wins without Cipo, whilst the likes of Blijlevens, Steels, Minali would have similar or better numbers to Farrar.

The differences in strength in depth is pretty obvious.
How many sprinters were in the peloton in the 90s compared to 00s, 10s, and present?
 
Boonen was a level below McEwen in 2006 and only won two stages in a Tour where his strongest opponent was freaking Robert Hunter in 2007. He would not have beaten Cavendish much, if at all, between 2008 and 2011.
Missed this before, Cav had much the same opposition in 08/09 as Boonen in 07 except all were a year or two older, McEwen, Hushovd, Freire, Steegmans, Hunter etc. Bennati was not there in 08 and Farrar, Ciolek being there in 09 were the main differences. So if it was weak opposition for Boonen, then it was surely the same for Cav with Boonen missing as well?
How many sprinters were in the peloton in the 90s compared to 00s, 10s, and present?
What do you mean how many? Like how does one quantify that figure? There were lots like in every generation. Not sure what you mean.
I don't think you can break it down quite like that. It's not simply a matter of removing Cavendish from the results, and then assuming the riders who got second on the stages he won, would have won if he hadn't been present.
Not my claim, I was just working of what Shadow93 was suggesting and extrapolating.
 
What do you mean how many? Like how does one quantify that figure? There were lots like in every generation. Not sure what you mean.

Not my claim, I was just working of what Shadow93 was suggesting and extrapolating.
I mean, how many more sprinters? It wasn’t a viable career choice during that timeframe, as you have pointed out on many occasions. So if there’s less sprinters in total at the top of the sport and so many wins, well you can do that math.

Which as you pointed out Farrar was the biggest competitor during that time. You’re whole argument is that the others would have won more if Cipo didn’t continue to show up and I used the same for Farrar. Just like Greipel would probably have more Tour stages and less Vuelta and Petacchi might win more.
 
Missed this before, Cav had much the same opposition in 08/09 as Boonen in 07 except all were a year or two older, McEwen, Hushovd, Freire, Steegmans, Hunter etc. Bennati was not there in 08 and Farrar, Ciolek being there in 09 were the main differences. So if it was weak opposition for Boonen, then it was surely the same for Cav with Boonen missing as well?
Like I said earlier, when you have 13 years between your first and final Tours with 4 stage wins, you're inevitably going to run into periods of weaker and periods of stronger opposition within those 13 years (and 14 editions). IMO Cavendish had weak opposition early on, but then extremely strong competition once Greipel and Kittel hit their primes, and then one final Tour with really poor opposition in 2021.
 
I was curious to know who were the riders who had stayed at least 10 professional years with his current team, and these are several things I found.
I only consider professional contracts, I ignored years as trainee. I also included years in suspension or long-term injury, if any.
If I made mistakes, whether in facts or definition, or if I leave someone, feel free to correct the lists.

Current World Tour riders with longest uninterrupted stay in their current teams (* denotes rider who never rode professionally for any other team):
19th season: Imanol Erviti (MOV)*
18th: Mathieu Ladagnous (GFC)*
17th: Robert Gesink (TJV), Jose Joaquin Rojas (MOV)
16th: Jos van Emden (TJV)
14th: Cesare Benedetti (BOH), Steven Kruijswijk (TJV), Thibaut Pinot (GFC)*, Geraint Thomas (IGD), Diego Ulissi (UAE)*
13th: Mikael Cherel (ACT)
12th: Arnaud Demare (FDJ)*, Luke Durbridge (JAY), Dmitriy Gruzdev (AST), Michael Hepburn (JAY), Salvatore Puccio (IGD)*, Luke Rowe (IGD)*
11th: Alexey Lutsenko (AST), Pieter Serry (SOQ)
10th: Julian Alaphilippe (SOQ), Anthony Delaplace (ARK), Olivier LeGac (GFC)*, Jasper Stuyven (LTK), Simon Yates (JAY)*

There are also current WT riders who are in their 10th or more seasons in their current teams, but interrupted by stint(s) in other team(s) before coming back:
14th: Andrey Zeits (AST)
12th: Dries Devenyns (SOQ), Ben Swift (IGD)
10th: Laurent Pichon (ARK)

Lastly, there are riders who spent more than 10 seasons with a team, but now are riding for other teams:
11 - Andrey Amador (CDE, MOV, now EFE), Nicolas Edet (COF, now ARK), Tim Wellens (LTB, LTD, now UAE)
10 - Niklas Arndt (ARG, GIA, SUN, now TBV), Simon Geschke (SKI, ARG, GIA etc, now COF), Zdenek Stybar (QS, now JAY), Greg Van Avermaet (BMC, now ACT),
 
Jan Janssen (2), Jean Robic(2), Charly Gaul (2), Stephen Roche (3), Octave Lapize (3), Henri Cornet (3), Egan Bernal (3), Roger Lapebie (4), Carlos Sastre (5), have all won the Tour de France. So together they have 9 TdF victories, but even combined (27) they have less days in the yellow jersey than Fabian Cancellara (29), who has never won the TdF.

Is 29 days in yellow the highest amount for somebody who has never won the tour?
 
What happened in the old days when there were split stages? If you lost the yellow jersey in the morning stage did it just count as half a day in yellow?
Depends on what you count, but I believe the traditional way of counting is the number of (full) stages after which a rider has led the general classification. So for split stages, only the general classification after the last of the split stages matter. Be aware though that sometimes they would not have split stages but two full stages in the same day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rallybanana
Like I said earlier, when you have 13 years between your first and final Tours with 4 stage wins, you're inevitably going to run into periods of weaker and periods of stronger opposition within those 13 years (and 14 editions). IMO Cavendish had weak opposition early on, but then extremely strong competition once Greipel and Kittel hit their primes, and then one final Tour with really poor opposition in 2021.
In the run against good opposition (2011-2016) he won 15 Tour stages out of 28 bunch sprints for the victory (not counting Bern, when an attacker won, nor when Cav wasn't in the first group; but I did count crosswind stages when Cav was in the first group or bunch sprints where he crashed).