My top ten, on talent

[Hugo Koblet]

Isn't talent just results divided by age?

 

[Red Lobster]

Isn't talent just results divided by age?

No, that would be "age averaged results" ...?

 

[tobydawq]

I don’t mind, it’s interesting what others think. Like philippe thys is a good one

You just said you were sorry if people didn't agree, and now you don't mind.

 

[Charlyghoul]

You just said you were sorry if people didn't agree, and now you don't mind.

Really?
Let’s not play silly boys, you know what I mean.

 

[Wyndbrook]

Really?
Let’s not play silly boys, you know what I mean.

You are going to burn yourself out mate, take a breather and relax for a few days.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Comparing eras in sport is like playing darts without the barrel and the tip: pointless

 

[Charlyghoul]

Comparing eras in sport is like playing darts without the barrel and the tip: pointless

Ah come on friend, it’s part of the fun of being a sports fan, some level of comparison is valid no?
Otherwise how to compare even two athletes in the same era ? One has better lung capacity or something, nobody is the same.

 

[Oldman]

Comparing eras in sport is like playing darts without the barrel and the tip: pointless

Or: le cheval est mort.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Ah come on friend, it’s part of the fun of being a sports fan, some level of comparison is valid no?
Otherwise how to compare even two athletes in the same era ? One has better lung capacity or something, nobody is the same.

Oh I agree it can be fun, but it's pointless nonetheless.

 

[Vinther1991]

When I think of talent, I think of potential, like how good could a rider be if they had the right motivation, support, race planning, avoided injury and illness.
I think Mark Padun and Carlos Betancur were extremely talented, but the circumstances of their careers prevented them from showing it fully. I think Tao Geoghegan Hart is another example of a rider I truly believe had an exceptional talent, higher than what his results suggest, but at least he won a Giro.

There are not enough data on them for me to put them near the top however.
I think the opposite camp is people like Valverde, I basicly see no missed potential, he probably even overachieved compared to his talent, winning monuments marginally through passive riding, and a peloton that didn’t invest in challenging him.

With that established, I think Pogacar is the biggest talent in history, perhaps tied with Merckx, but certainly it is those two. The dominance Pogacar showed in 2024 and so far in 2025 is practically unprecedented. He is not the greatest rider in history yet, as longetivety is a key factor, and he isn’t at the top in terms of palmares yet, but his peak level over a season is insane, so he could get there, hence I consider him the most talented.
I think Maertens also belongs in the discussion, his peak level was grotesque.

Others during my time watching the sport (1999-today) that I consider insanely talented would be:

Cavendish - The most dominant sprinter I have seen, even when clearly declined from his prime, he could still win Tour stages. Insane. 35 wins, and considering how many years he was absent because of injuries, a team that couldn’t get him in shape or support him well in sprints, I think he could have gotten even more.

Kittel - Underrated imo, the only sprinter who may have matched Cavendish at times. Very short career, but omg was he strong when he really hit peak level. 5 stage wins in 2017 TdF, post-2011, Pogacar in 2024 is the only other rider achieving this.

Evenepoel - Complete roller coaster career. But one should never forget his ability to nuke an entire peloton, Pogacar-style, when he hits the day.

Vingegaard - Might as well throw him in, clearly the second most talented GT rider of the generation, and the gap to number three (probably Roglic) is quite big. He was even the best GT rider for two years.

Van der Poel - Results speak for themselves, absolute domination.

Froome - From 2013-2018 he was automatically top favorite in every single Grand Tour he started in, that really says it all. He could shred the competition when he peaked.

Contador - His level in 2008-2009 showed how insanely good he could get, a testament to his crazy talent. His 2009 Tour win is probably the greatest GT performance I have seen outside Pogacar 2024 TdF. Unfortunately he struggled to quite find that peak level again, the only exception being the 2011 Giro and the 2014 season.

Sagan - If you saw him during his prime, you know what I mean. The potential was higher though.

Gilbert - Maybe also a case of missed potential. The 2011 season showed how good he could be. I think BMC failed to give him the right coaching and support, so he simply didn’t peak for the season goals during the years where he should have been best. Still, his career’s autumn earned him the extra wins he needed to enter the history books.

Armstrong and Ullrich - Doping or not, the talent was clearly there.

Basso - Same as above, but I might add that we probably never got to see the best Basso. 2006 Giro was a destruction of the peloton, Basso was preparing himself to become the new GT dominator when Operation Puerto got discovered.

 

[Peyroteo94]

When I think of talent, I think of potential, like how good could a rider be if they had the right motivation, support, race planning, avoided injury and illness.
I think Mark Padun and Carlos Betancur were extremely talented, but the circumstances of their careers prevented them from showing it fully. I think Tao Geoghegan Hart is another example of a rider I truly believe had an exceptional talent, higher than what his results suggest, but at least he won a Giro.

There are not enough data on them for me to put them near the top however.
I think the opposite camp is people like Valverde, I basicly see no missed potential, he probably even overachieved compared to his talent, winning monuments marginally through passive riding, and a peloton that didn’t invest in challenging him.

With that established, I think Pogacar is the biggest talent in history, perhaps tied with Merckx, but certainly it is those two. The dominance Pogacar showed in 2024 and so far in 2025 is practically unprecedented. He is not the greatest rider in history yet, as longetivety is a key factor, and he isn’t at the top in terms of palmares yet, but his peak level over a season is insane, so he could get there, hence I consider him the most talented.
I think Maertens also belongs in the discussion, his peak level was grotesque.

Others during my time watching the sport (1999-today) that I consider insanely talented would be:

Cavendish - The most dominant sprinter I have seen, even when clearly declined from his prime, he could still win Tour stages. Insane. 35 wins, and considering how many years he was absent because of injuries, a team that couldn’t get him in shape or support him well in sprints, I think he could have gotten even more.

Kittel - Underrated imo, the only sprinter who may have matched Cavendish at times. Very short career, but omg was he strong when he really hit peak level. 5 stage wins in 2017 TdF, post-2011, Pogacar in 2024 is the only other rider achieving this.

Evenepoel - Complete roller coaster career. But one should never forget his ability to nuke an entire peloton, Pogacar-style, when he hits the day.

Vingegaard - Might as well throw him in, clearly the second most talented GT rider of the generation, and the gap to number three (probably Roglic) is quite big. He was even the best GT rider for two years.

Van der Poel - Results speak for themselves, absolute domination.

Froome - From 2013-2018 he was automatically top favorite in every single Grand Tour he started in, that really says it all. He could shred the competition when he peaked.

Contador - His level in 2008-2009 showed how insanely good he could get, a testament to his crazy talent. His 2009 Tour win is probably the greatest GT performance I have seen outside Pogacar 2024 TdF. Unfortunately he struggled to quite find that peak level again, the only exception being the 2011 Giro and the 2014 season.

Sagan - If you saw him during his prime, you know what I mean. The potential was higher though.

Gilbert - Maybe also a case of missed potential. The 2011 season showed how good he could be. I think BMC failed to give him the right coaching and support, so he simply didn’t peak for the season goals during the years where he should have been best. Still, his career’s autumn earned him the extra wins he needed to enter the history books.

Armstrong and Ullrich - Doping or not, the talent was clearly there.

Basso - Same as above, but I might add that we probably never got to see the best Basso. 2006 Giro was a destruction of the peloton, Basso was preparing himself to become the new GT dominator when Operation Puerto got discovered.

You completely forgot the most obvious answer: Nibali!

 

[YavorD]

Froome - From 2013-2018 he was automatically top favorite in every single Grand Tour he started in, that really says it all. He could shred the competition when he peaked.

Uhm Froome being called "a talent" really seems strange.
I mean, by 25 years of age most of us/people who watched at at the time probably didn't even know who Froome was and usually by 25 we have a decent view about who is really talented.. And even Sky themselves rated him below WT level of talent.

 

[SHAD0W93]

He hardly has any opponents because he is so much better than the rest.

He just dominated the tour while being sick himself.

And crashing.

 

[Vinther1991]

You completely forgot the most obvious answer: Nibali!

I don’t think he was so obviously talented. Judging from his palmares, he was never super dominant, but mostly a contender for GT wins, who managed to pull the longest straw on some occasions.
Vuelta 2010 was close with Mosquera, who to be fair was a cheater, but then you got Anton who crashed out and Rodriguez who hadn’t learned yet how to TT.
The Giro 2016 he only won because Kruijswijk crashed.
The Tour 2014 he won dominantly, but Froome and Contador crashed out, Porte got sick, Quintana skipped the Tour and Rodriguez was recovering from an injury. Nibali might have won anyway, but it would not have been by a lot.
Giro 2013 he did win easily, however.

 

[Peyroteo94]

I don’t think he was so obviously talented. Judging from his palmares, he was never super dominant, but mostly a contender for GT wins, who managed to pull the longest straw on some occasions.
Vuelta 2010 was close with Mosquera, who to be fair was a cheater, but then you got Anton who crashed out and Rodriguez who hadn’t learned yet how to TT.
The Giro 2016 he only won because Kruijswijk crashed.
The Tour 2014 he won dominantly, but Froome and Contador crashed out, Porte got sick, Quintana skipped the Tour and Rodriguez was recovering from an injury. Nibali might have won anyway, but it would not have been by a lot.
Giro 2013 he did win easily, however.

Exactly. This is why you should mention Nibali instead of Valverde. Nibali (massively) overachieved in his career.

 

[Penninepeddler]

Think the original list (albeit hard to define just 10) overlooks some of the more "classics" type guys and is mainly GT GC/climber focused.

But all 10 there are undoubtedly incredible talents ofc and I probably wouldnt change more than say 2-3 of them.

 

[Charlyghoul]

s

Think the original list (albeit hard to define just 10) overlooks some of the more "classics" type guys and is mainly GT GC/climber focused.

But all 10 there are undoubtedly incredible talents ofc and I probably wouldnt change more than say 2-3 of them.

admittedly there’s a focus on grand tours, though most of them are profilic in one days too.

 

[gunara]

This thread is surely in the top ten, on ambiguity, or confusion.

I'm not even sure myself how to spot talent easily in sports like cycling, is it pure physiology? Or what else counts? Racing instinct? I don't even know how much talent play parts in bike handling etc.. And someone include Froome in the list of talented riders here anyway. And we can't agree on Nibali. At least I can 'feel' talent in watching Sagan. But it might just be a feeling. Which is not as strong a feeling as when watching Diego Armando did his things.

 

[ashhutch1997]

For me, Jan Ullrich is one of the most talented riders of all time. He absolutely destroyed everyone in the 1997 TDF and he was only 23, after Arcalis people were genuinely saying he was the next Merckx. Unfortunately he wasn't discipline enough and we never got to see how good he'd have been in his prime.
If Jan Ullrich had the same mindset as Armstrong he'd have been an all time great IMO.

 

[Charlyghoul]

This thread is surely in the top ten, on ambiguity, or confusion.

I'm not even sure myself how to spot talent easily in sports like cycling, is it pure physiology? Or what else counts? Racing instinct? I don't even know how much talent play parts in bike handling etc.. And someone include Froome in the list of talented riders here anyway. And we can't agree on Nibali. At least I can 'feel' talent in watching Sagan. But it might just be a feeling. Which is not as strong a feeling as when watching Diego Armando did his things.

Of course racing instinct and bike handling is a part of it. Nibali won more than he would have on just physical terms. Even changing gear in a best moment or not the best moment is also talent

 

[Krzysztof_O]

For me, Jan Ullrich is one of the most talented riders of all time. He absolutely destroyed everyone in the 1997 TDF and he was only 23, after Arcalis people were genuinely saying he was the next Merckx. Unfortunately he wasn't discipline enough and we never got to see how good he'd have been in his prime.
If Jan Ullrich had the same mindset as Armstrong he'd have been an all time great IMO.

Being 10 kg overweight 3 months before the Tour didn't help Jan. He liked gummy bears and nutella a lot. Legend anyway.

 

[ashhutch1997]

Being 10 kg overweight 3 months before the Tour didn't help Jan. He liked gummy bears and nutella a lot. Legend anyway.

100% still a legend, one of the riders who made me fall in love with cycling. IMO there were only two years where he was at his full potential, 1997 and 2006...

 

[TrekCyclist]

Ullrich is certainly high up in the list, if it is about physical talent.
Unfortunately, regarding the mental side it is very much the opposite.
Thats why his career was as it is.

 

[Vinther1991]

Exactly. This is why you should mention Nibali instead of Valverde. Nibali (massively) overachieved in his career.

Ah, sorry, overlooked what you had highlighted in bold. I think Valverde and Nibali both overachieved, so they both deserve a mention.

 

[Vinther1991]

Uhm Froome being called "a talent" really seems strange.
I mean, by 25 years of age most of us/people who watched at at the time probably didn't even know who Froome was and usually by 25 we have a decent view about who is really talented.. And even Sky themselves rated him below WT level of talent.

As I understand the word talent, it is “highest achievable level”. At his best Froome could nuke all the other GC contenders. That he didn’t manage to reach that level until 26-27 years of age, suggests that he didn’t have the right people around him to give him the perfect training schedule, nutrition plan, plus he was suffering from a parasitic infection.
It was a hidden talent. He would likely have achieved even more had he gotten the right support earlier.