Teams & Riders Offical Wout Van Aert isn't a Belgian Pozzato?

Page 114 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I think it was pretty obvious what his point was, even though it could have been put a bit more eloquently.
Yes, but it absolutely makes no sense to make such a point when you are describing Wout van Aert considering the Tour he has had where he proved to be the most dominant rider across all terrain through 3 weeks. It would have made sense if he was some kind of lab experiment, only capable of dropping watts in specific scenarios or whatever. Everybody knows there are more things to road racing than strength, lol, which is why the point just doesnt make any sense.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
most dominant rider across all terrain through 3 weeks.
What does that even mean outside of ignoring he gets beaten in flat sprints from good positions and that he drops 15 minutes on most mountain stages.

I can understand that if you think consistency and versatility are super important, Van Aert is a better rider than Vingegaard. Fine. But how Van Aert being like the 20th climber in the Tour equates to him being more versatile than Pogacar who was basically the best rider in both Milano Sanremo, RVV and was flying on the cobbled stage of the Tour just blows my mind.
 
Things thats pointless: Argue on Van Aert with Red Rick and Ilmaestro.

Im specifically talking about Tour de France, so I dno why you bring up some one day races in the spring (especially Flanders, since you know Van Aert had corona) and yes, I consider Wout van Aert to have been the best rider in France due to his versatility across all disciplines. Not the best sprinter, not at all the best climber, but the best puncheur, the best rouleur and the best domestique.
 
What does that even mean outside of ignoring he gets beaten in flat sprints from good positions and that he drops 15 minutes on most mountain stages.

I can understand that if you think consistency and versatility are super important, Van Aert is a better rider than Vingegaard. Fine. But how Van Aert being like the 20th climber in the Tour equates to him being more versatile than Pogacar who was basically the best rider in both Milano Sanremo, RVV and was flying on the cobbled stage of the Tour just blows my mind.
Dude...

You probably still believe that there are 50 better climbers in the world than Van Aert after you made your pretty little list.
 
WVA was the strongest riders in the tour de France no doubt. The only race he didn't contend (either to win or to domestique) was Champs Elysee sprint. But Pogacar is het best rider in het world considering there's absolutely no terrain in which he wouldn't be a possible winner besides perhaps the purely flat sprints.

This being said, if WVA continues his form in the last couple of races, he's the favourite to win the Velo d'Or (or door I don't know anymore) because he's been performing all the way since the opening cobble classic (omloop) trough E3, PR, LBL, Dauphiné and TdF.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Pog was a few pedal strokes off cracking MVDP in Flanders, and I think MVDP is a close to undroppable as there is on those climbs. I have a hard time believing that WVA could've stuck with them unless he and Jumbo had done something earlier on to alter the course of the race and prevent Pog from being so aggressive.
It shouldn't be hard to believe considering he already did exactly that in the edition he lost by a few centimetres and was in stellar shape until he had COVID. It would have been weird if he didn't stick with them.
 
WVA was the strongest riders in the tour de France no doubt. The only race he didn't contend (either to win or to domestique) was Champs Elysee sprint. But Pogacar is het best rider in het world considering there's absolutely no terrain in which he wouldn't be a possible winner besides perhaps the purely flat sprints.

This being said, if WVA continues his form in the last couple of races, he's the favourite to win the Velo d'Or (or door I don't know anymore) because he's been performing all the way since the opening cobble classic (omloop) trough E3, PR, LBL, Dauphiné and TdF.
Van aert has to win wolrd championships to be considered as Velo d'or candidate.
 
Sounds like a points-based argument. Pog has way more.
It's not points based per se. Besides his victories/points my main arguments are:

  • Pogacar underperformed in the tour (a bit harsh, I know, but it is the new Merckx) whereas WVA was up there in every race he participated.
  • guys like MVP or Vingegaard, while both have done some impressive riding, don't show enough consistency for me
  • WVA was both a winner but perhaps the best domestique in the tour. And before people start making the joke again, obviously a super domestique woun't win velo d'or, but the fact that he can both win stages in a dominating fashion AND domestique from cobbles to the high mountains (and even a pseudo lead out for Laportes win in the tour) makes it impressive
  • I fully expect him to be up there in the remaining one day races (Canada) and the WC
Those arguments are for me, the reason he would be the rightfull winner of the velo d'or.

I like how WvA has now won "countless semi-classics," as if it's not humanly possible to count up to "2."
I paraphrased. He won countless semi classics and stage races in both Dauphine and TdF. Better?
Doesn't change my point in any way.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
It's not points based per se. Besides his victories/points my main arguments are:

  • Pogacar underperformed in the tour (a bit harsh, I know, but it is the new Merckx) whereas WVA was up there in every race he participated.
  • guys like MVP or Vingegaard, while both have done some impressive riding, don't show enough consistency for me
  • WVA was both a winner but perhaps the best domestique in the tour. And before people start making the joke again, obviously a super domestique woun't win velo d'or, but the fact that he can both win stages in a dominating fashion AND domestique from cobbles to the high mountains (and even a pseudo lead out for Laportes win in the tour) makes it impressive
  • I fully expect him to be up there in the remaining one day races (Canada) and the WC
Those arguments are for me, the reason he would be the rightfull winner of the velo d'or.



I paraphrased. He won countless semi classics and stage races in both Dauphine and TdF. Better?
Doesn't change my point in any way.
Giving Pog *** for underperforming while saying Van Aert didn't underperform in Sanremo, Roubaix or Liege is just next level
 
I fully expect him to be up there in the remaining one day races (Canada) and the WC
This point is the problem with the velo d'or discussion we are having

The final races of the season will likely decide the velo door, because there are no clear winner. But you can't award it based on expectations, we just have to wait

If Pogacar wins WC or Lombardia, he is velo d'or

If Hindley wins vuelta or Lombardia, he is velo d'or

If van aert wins wold championship, he can be velo d'or

If Evenepoel wins vuelta or WC or Lombardia, he can be velo d'0r

If Vingegaard win some other big race, he is velo d'or.

If we stop the season right now, in early August, my top 3 would be:

1. Vinegaard

Because he won the biggest race of the year in the most emphatic style, defeating the invincible

2 and 3 would be Evenpoel and Pogacar, I can't decide.

Evepoel has the big win. Pogacar failed at his objectives, both to win a monument and to win the tour, but he is the best rider in the wolrd and the top points scorer

I can't consider van aert at this point because he's basically the same as pogacar but without being able to get a grand tour podium.


Someone like Van Baarle or vdp could also be considered if he won worlds. We just have to wait
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan and Boes
It's not points based per se. Besides his victories/points my main arguments are:

  • Pogacar underperformed in the tour (a bit harsh, I know, but it is the new Merckx) whereas WVA was up there in every race he participated.
  • guys like MVP or Vingegaard, while both have done some impressive riding, don't show enough consistency for me
  • WVA was both a winner but perhaps the best domestique in the tour. And before people start making the joke again, obviously a super domestique woun't win velo d'or, but the fact that he can both win stages in a dominating fashion AND domestique from cobbles to the high mountains (and even a pseudo lead out for Laportes win in the tour) makes it impressive
  • I fully expect him to be up there in the remaining one day races (Canada) and the WC
Those arguments are for me, the reason he would be the rightfull winner of the velo d'or.



I paraphrased. He won countless semi classics and stage races in both Dauphine and TdF. Better?
Doesn't change my point in any way.
Still a bit of a Mr Consistency argument. Both Pog and Van Aert have failed at their major objectives this year. They can both rectify that at the Worlds but I don't think it's fair giving the prize to someone who has not won won of the biggest nine races. So for now it's Vingegaard in pole position.
 
I have no idea how the velo d'or is being decided or who is in the actual jury, and frankly i don't really care about these sorts of things as they usually get political. If it's decided by hard results you can just do a peeing contest to see who won the biggest race(s). If the point is to award the best overall rider then i expect people to use their eyes and their brains, and whomever would say Van Aert does not qualify should get the fck off this forum and find another hobby, lol. While Van Aert may not have won a big prize (remember he was also taken out by Covid for his early season goals), he was nothing short of majestic at the Tour and actually throughout the season overall.

Personally, i think the ''best rider'' should not be about results. Because if it's about results, just look at PCS pick the guy with most wins, most points or biggest wins. So if you also look at how offensive a rider has been riding regardless of result, the amount of work a rider did for the team, the amount of times he took initiative, how impressive his efforts were regardless of result etc, then Van Aert has to be considered the prime candidate. If you need to factor in results on top of that, then maybe Pogacar comes alongside, with Vingegaard and Evenepoel behind them. That's how i see it.

PS: If Hindley is being considered by the jury for riding like a chicken during 3 weeks and strike in the last 13 and a half seconds of the race, then i can only hope the jury also finds a different hobby.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
I have no idea how the velo d'or is being decided or who is in the actual jury, and frankly i don't really care about these sorts of things as they usually get political. If it's decided by hard results you can just do a peeing contest to see who won the biggest race(s). If the point is to award the best overall rider then i expect people to use their eyes and their brains, and whomever would say Van Aert does not qualify should get the fck off this forum and find another hobby, lol. While Van Aert may not have won a big prize (remember he was also taken out by Covid for his early season goals), he was nothing short of majestic at the Tour and actually throughout the season overall.

Personally, i think the ''best rider'' should not be about results. Because if it's about results, just look at PCS pick the guy with most wins, most points or biggest wins. So if you also look at how offensive a rider has been riding regardless of result, the amount of work a rider did for the team, the amount of times he took initiative, how impressive his efforts were regardless of result etc, then Van Aert has to be considered the prime candidate. If you need to factor in results on top of that, then maybe Pogacar comes alongside, with Vingegaard and Evenepoel behind them. That's how i see it.

PS: If Hindley is being considered by the jury for riding like a chicken during 3 weeks and strike in the last 13 and a half seconds of the race, then i can only hope the jury also finds a different hobby.
Most patriotic Belgian fan on the forum says he doesn't care for these awards, but then passionately declares that Belgian Wout Van Aert is the prime candidate because he is 'majestic'.


Hahahahahahaahahahahaa!!

Can't make that up

Apparently winning velo d'or is about doing random stupid breakaways in tour de france and working for your team leader.

All the Van Aert fans are saying velo d'or is not about results, because Van Aert doesn't have the results to be velo d'or.

He doesn't have a big win and is far outclassed on points argument by Pogacar.

Saying Van aert is the best overall rider when Poagacar can do anything Van aert can do plus win grand tours. Just brilliant.
 
Most patriotic Belgian fan on the forum says he doesn't care for these awards, but then passionately declares that Belgian Wout Van Aert is the prime candidate because he is 'majestic'.


Hahahahahahaahahahahaa!!

Can't make that up

Apparently winning velo d'or is about doing random stupid breakaways in tour de france and working for your team leader.

All the Van Aert fans are saying velo d'or is not about results, because Van Aert doesn't have the results to be velo d'or.

He doesn't have a big win and is far outclassed on points argument by Pogacar.

Saying Van aert is the best overall rider when Poagacar can do anything Van aert can do plus win grand tours. Just brilliant.
Maybe you should try reading. No, i don't care about velo d'or as for reasons i have stated, just like ballon d'or, actual performances only matter after the politics have been discussed.

Hahahahahahahaahaha!! The guy claiming Masnada is a better rider than Van Aert and Evenepoel is now the voice of reason who will point out bias among other posters! Whahahahaa.

Indeed, can't make that stuff up.

If you bothered to read, you would understand i am not saying it does NOT have to be points/results based. I'm merely saying that IF the idea for the reward is to reward the best overall rider, and not the rider with the best results per se, then yes, in that case Van Aert has to be considered a/the prime candidate. If you do NOT want that, and only look at results, then just look at PCS and decide.
 
If the argument is about who is most likely to actually win the Velo d'Or, and not about who should win it, then I'd recommend studying the record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vélo_d'Or

As of now, if the season ended here, my prediction would be: Vingegaard 1st, Pogi 2nd, Van Aert 3rd.

In recent years, Ala and Bala have been the weakest winners, and I'm surprised that Sagan didn't make the top-3 in 2018.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS