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

Page 117 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
He's better than Van Aert at climbing but that's it. Van Aert is better or at least equal in all other aspects
Look, I also think that Pogacar and Van Aert are better riders. But if we're speaking about this year specifically, than I must give an edge to Vingegaard. Man won the Tour, the biggest race of the year (of which I'm not a fan at all), beating Pogacar fair and square in the process. Pogacar and Van Aert both won a lot this year, including some memorable wins and performances, but they can't compensate lack of big wins imo.
We still have some big races to go, so we're far from done deal, but as things stand right now it's Vingegaard all the way.
We had some kond of similar situation in 2014 for example, with Valverde winning left and right throughout the whole year, and being a contender in almost every race he entered, but he simply didn't had big wins, so both Nibali (tour winner) and Contador (second most consistent performer of the year, and Vuelta winner), were considered better riders that year.
 
Look, I also think that Pogacar and Van Aert are better riders. But if we're speaking about this year specifically, than I must give an edge to Vingegaard. Man won the Tour, the biggest race of the year (of which I'm not a fan at all), beating Pogacar fair and square in the process. Pogacar and Van Aert both won a lot this year, including some memorable wins and performances, but they can't compensate lack of big wins imo.
We still have some big races to go, so we're far from done deal, but as things stand right now it's Vingegaard all the way.
We had some kond of similar situation in 2014 for example, with Valverde winning left and right throughout the whole year, and being a contender in almost every race he entered, but he simply didn't had big wins, so both Nibali (tour winner) and Contador (second most consistent performer of the year, and Vuelta winner), were considered better riders that year.
Eh, that is just your opinion. I care more about performances throughout the entire year rather than who was the best in one race (even if it was the biggest race of the year). You only care about big wins and that is fine by me but I don't see it that way at all.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Eh, that is just your opinion. I care more about performances throughout the entire year rather than who was the best in one race (even if it was the biggest race of the year). You only care about big wins and that is fine by me but I don't see it that way at all.
Actually no, I rate consistency higher, but I think you can't be the rider of the year if you didn't score at least one of the 9 biggest races (10 in Olympic year).
I already mentioned 2014 year, Valverde was magnificent that year, winning left and right, had 11 wins, among them Fleche, San Sebastian, Vuelta stage, had GT podium, 2 monument podiums, worlds podium, was 4th at the Tour, 3rd at Strade, 4th at Amstel, etc. But he hadn't got big win, so Contador get Velo d'Or.
 
Eh, that is just your opinion. I care more about performances throughout the entire year rather than who was the best in one race (even if it was the biggest race of the year). You only care about big wins and that is fine by me but I don't see it that way at all.
You don't have to care one way or the other to predict who will win the Velo d'Or. It's not like you can influence the outcome.
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
Actually no, I rate consistency higher, but I think you can't be the rider of the year if you didn't score at least one of the 9 biggest races (10 in Olympic year).
I already mentioned 2014 year, Valverde was magnificent that year, winning left and right, had 11 wins, among them Fleche, San Sebastian, Vuelta stage, had GT podium, 2 monument podiums, worlds podium, was 4th at the Tour, 3rd at Strade, 4th at Amstel, etc. But he hadn't got big win, so Contador get Velo d'Or.
Contador being consistent asf that season also has to do something with it. Finished top 2 in all 5 1-week races he participated. Winning 2 out of 4 1-week WT stage races, which could as well been 4 out of 4 if things went right a bit more.

But I also believe Vingegaard should get it if Velo d'Or was given at this point in the season. It's not like he has been inconsistent. He finished 2 times 2nd and 1 time 6th in the WT 1-week stage race he did, and likely was the best rider in the Dauphiné, but it so happened that the leader was on his team.
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
Actually no, I rate consistency higher, but I think you can't be the rider of the year if you didn't score at least one of the 9 biggest races (10 in Olympic year).
I already mentioned 2014 year, Valverde was magnificent that year, winning left and right, had 11 wins, among them Fleche, San Sebastian, Vuelta stage, had GT podium, 2 monument podiums, worlds podium, was 4th at the Tour, 3rd at Strade, 4th at Amstel, etc. But he hadn't got big win, so Contador get Velo d'Or.
I agree that they'll give Vingegaard the Velo d'Or (who cares tbh), I'm just saying that throughout the year Vingegaard wasn't better and I'm convinced that the difference will be even more obvious by the end of the year. Vingegaard isn't even going to ride the Vuelta or World Championships and if he does Lombardia I don't expect him to show himself either since he seems to perform rather poorly in one day races for whatever reason.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Aug 24, 2022
4
5
15
Because winning the Tour matters a lot, and in the end Van Aert didn't win a monument either.

Van Aerts entire argument basically rests on being flashy in TdF breakaway stages, while Vingegaard at least dropped the 2 single most powerful climbing performances in the last 15 years in the Tour de France.

Even for sheer quantity Van Aert isn't that much better. He has 9 wins vs Vingegaards 6.

Finally it's also weird that Vingegaards win gets treated like Nibali in 2014 a little bit. He was up there before July, he just didn't win much.
Ask the whole peloton and directors which rider is just on another level and 90 percent will answer Van Aert. He is by far the most respected all-round cyclist. Check all the interviews. Pogacar, Wiggins, Van Der poel, pidcock, Sagan, roglic etc...., They all agreed who is by far the best in the world now: Wout Van Aert. Have u ever seen a tour de France winner praising a teammate with such admiration as
vingegaard did this year about van aert.
 
Aug 24, 2022
4
5
15
Because winning the Tour matters a lot, and in the end Van Aert didn't win a monument either.

Van Aerts entire argument basically rests on being flashy in TdF breakaway stages, while Vingegaard at least dropped the 2 single most powerful climbing performances in the last 15 years in the Tour de France.

Even for sheer quantity Van Aert isn't that much better. He has 9 wins vs Vingegaards 6.

Finally it's also weird that Vingegaards win gets treated like Nibali in 2014 a little bit. He was up there before July, he just didn't win much.
Ooooh red Rick, if only u would have some basic knowledge about cycling . Every pro cyclist has been throwing praise at van aerts performances this year. It's not all about winning tours or monuments, it's about who just is the best rider, check what pogy, roglic, evenepoel, Vanderpoel, Yates, all answered this year when asked who is the best rider in 2022. All agreed. Van aert it is
 
Aug 24, 2022
4
5
15
Today’s stage win alone gives him a good case. He did, after all, just drop the entire Tour de France peloton, on a climb, and win the stage. Even the strongest climbers in the world - Jonas Vingegaard, Primož Roglič and Tadej Pogačar - could not match him, and Roglič may find himself to have been significant collateral damage in Van Aert’s attack, since he was distanced by Van Hooydonck’s surge while his team-mate Vingegaard was not. If the sole criterion for being the best cyclist in the world is to win a bike race, then Van Aert already qualifies.
However, the best cyclist doesn’t always win the bike race. Paradoxically it’s the run of second places that reinforces his claim to be the best in the world. He was second in the Copenhagen time trial, to the surprise winner Yves Lampaert. He followed that result with second places in the two subsequent bunch sprints. Time trialling and sprinting offer sufficiently different physiological challenges that to be able to compete in both is already vanishingly rare. Wout van Aert not only came within a whisker of winning both, but has now just won on a puncheur’s finish. (In case his all-round credentials weren’t already now fully established, remember that he also won a mountain stage of last year’s Tour.) Van Aert can win bunch sprints, TTs, on hilly courses and occasionally in the mountains. There’s nobody else in cycling who can do that - even Pogačar doesn’t figure in bunch sprints.
Being the best cyclist in the world means different things as different riders’ careers ebb and flow. Road cycling has such a broad range of challenges and events that points systems or even races alone rarely tell the full story. Sometimes the best cyclist in the world is the rider who is winning the Tour de France, the sport’s biggest race; sometimes it’s the rider who is dominating the Classics. Sometimes they are male, sometimes they are female. Sometimes it’s impossible to even tell: in 2012, Bradley Wiggins won the Tour and several other stage races while Tom Boonen won all four major Belgian spring Classics, and comparing was a matter of personal taste. Through spring and early summer last season, Mathieu van der Poel was the best cyclist in the world; then Pogačar took over, with wins in Liège-Bastogne-Liège, the Tour de France and Il Lombardia. Now it’s Wout van Aert.
But even beyond the results and run of high placings, it’s clear that Van Aert is illuminating this Tour de France with his riding style and presence. It’s Wout van Aert’s Tour - everybody else is just riding in it.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan

ASK THE COMMUNITY