Teams & Riders Peter Sagan discussion thread.

[tobydawq]

Well its not about the quantity its about the quality of the wins, isn‘t it?

Since the two race in the modern cycling era, I see no reason why the two shouldn't be compared and Pogačar's palmares is already really close to Sagan's after just 4 years as a pro.

Sagan had a career of paradoxes. His three consecutive World titles were legendary and the 7 green jersies at the Tour was also something amazing but I just find a bit disappointing than he never wore the yellow jersey in the Tour and more important than that only won two monuments, even though he still has a small chance of finally winning MSR this year (should have tried LBL in his early years too). But I think he correctly recognised that his best days on the road are over and want to have some fun in the MTB. Wishing him all the best.

He wore yellow in both 2016 and 2018.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

GUYS it is very simple.

Pogacar is 24. I would say at this stage we canno say his palmares is as good as Sagan, but Sagan is 33. Ultimately Pogacar is as good as a rider

Sagan in my opinions is maybe rider of the decade 2010-20, what he did for the sport with his achievements, his racing style and his personality was very important at a time when the sport was not in its best moments (2012-13)

 

[Squire]

Is he still greater than Pogacar?

As much as I dislike him as a rider, I have to put Froome above Sagan too. I might be the only one, but I've always felt Sagan's career has been a bit underwhelming compared to the massive hype everyone seems to have for him.

 

[Netserk]

As much as I dislike him as a rider, I have to put Froome above Sagan too. I might be the only one, but I've always felt Sagan's career has been a bit underwhelming compared to the massive hype everyone seems to have for him.

Similar to Van Aert in that regard.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

As much as I dislike him as a rider, I have to put Froome above Sagan too. I might be the only one, but I've always felt Sagan's career has been a bit underwhelming compared to the massive hype everyone seems to have for him.

In terms of monument wins, he has underperformed spectacularly. In terms of everything else, he has delivered on the hype (except for the last few years, of course). Does that average out to a bit underwhelming? Unless you’re the kind of guy who has Valverde as the greatest rider of the 21st century, absolutely. Froome as the greatest currently active rider is a no-brainer, although mainly because the competition within his generation has retired.

Similar to Van Aert in that regard.

Van Aert is actually worse in that regard so far, needs to pick up the pace if he isn’t going to end his career with fewer big wins than Sagan. And five is not really a tall order for riders of their calibre. Then again he’s had only three years of his current level and Covid has meant he’s only raced seven of what should be ‘his’ monuments in that time, so the idea that he’s a serial underperformer/nearly man in the very biggest races may yet turn out to be premature.

 

[frisenfruitig]

I think it's rather ridiculous to say WVA has been underwhelming. I mean just look at his results the past couple of years. Even if he doesn't win he's nearly always close to winning. Unless he continues to be unlucky in big races or suddenly doesn't perform at this level anymore he will win PR/RVV/WC at least once in his career. As far as monuments goes he already won the hardest one to win.

 

[tobydawq]

I think it's rather ridiculous to say WVA has been underwhelming. I mean just look at his results the past couple of years. Even if he doesn't win he's nearly always close to winning. Unless he continues to be unlucky in big races or suddenly doesn't perform at this level anymore he will win PR/RVV/WC at least once in his career. As far as monuments goes he already won the hardest one to win.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

 

[stonerider]

I think it's rather ridiculous to say WVA has been underwhelming. I mean just look at his results the past couple of years. Even if he doesn't win he's nearly always close to winning. Unless he continues to be unlucky in big races or suddenly doesn't perform at this level anymore he will win PR/RVV/WC at least once in his career. As far as monuments goes he already won the hardest one to win.

Wout was certainly a level above everyone else last year heading into Flanders and Paris Roubaix...but Covid knocked him down a couple levels. If he can ever reach either of those races in top form (his TdF level of 2022)...watch out.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Similar to Van Aert in that regard.

Please don't insult Sagan by comparing him to Belgian Pozzato

 

[Ilmaestro99]

I think it's rather ridiculous to say WVA has been underwhelming. I mean just look at his results the past couple of years. Even if he doesn't win he's nearly always close to winning. Unless he continues to be unlucky in big races or suddenly doesn't perform at this level anymore he will win PR/RVV/WC at least once in his career. As far as monuments goes he already won the hardest one to win.

Van aert consistently underperforms and fails to deliver on the biggest races. He is the mayne the strongest rider in the wolrd in terms of watts for 4 years and has only 1 big win

 

[frisenfruitig]

Van aert consistently underperforms and fails to deliver on the biggest races. He is the mayne the strongest rider in the wolrd in terms of watts for 4 years and has only 1 big win

Well that sure is an opinion to have. A stupid opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.

 

[Kaptain Kool]

Please don't insult Sagan by comparing him to Belgian Pozzato

Sagan : Van Aert
Boonen : Pozzato

No shame for WvA. He is what he is. Most riders never win only a single monument once.

 

[Netserk]

I think it's rather ridiculous to say WVA has been underwhelming. I mean just look at his results the past couple of years. Even if he doesn't win he's nearly always close to winning. Unless he continues to be unlucky in big races or suddenly doesn't perform at this level anymore he will win PR/RVV/WC at least once in his career. As far as monuments goes he already won the hardest one to win.

No more ridiculous than Sagan being underwhelming. It's true in some sense for both.

 

[Red Rick]

Well that sure is an opinion to have. A stupid opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.

The guy is treated like one of the 3 best cyclists in the world for like 3 years straight yet he has won 1 out of >40 of the biggest races in that time span. I'm not sure how that isn't underperformance.

 

[ij74]

Even if he doesn't win he's nearly always close to winning. Unless he continues to be unlucky in big races or suddenly doesn't perform at this level anymore he will win PR/RVV/WC at least once in his career.

This sounds like you are talking about Sagan.

 

[Scarponi]

There was a long period where other riders didn’t mind losing instead of bringing Sagan to the finish. Really got marked out of a lot of races

 

[Oldermanish]

As much as I dislike him as a rider, I have to put Froome above Sagan too. I might be the only one, but I've always felt Sagan's career has been a bit underwhelming compared to the massive hype everyone seems to have for him.

Just the basis of comparison is flawed.
A GT winner doesn't actually need to win a single stage, ever. Generally they don't win alot except for the all timers and they had other race wins to confirm their class.
Froome was not going to outsprint anyone. Take the instance where he and Geraint locked on to Sagan's wheel at the end of a stage attack from 7km out. Sagan rode them to a gap the field couldn't decrease, let alone close. Two team guys struggling to stay on his wheel and contributing little. Who won? Not Froome.

Sagan needed to win, period to be considered successful. His multitude of podiums and Green jerseies don't count in the hypercritical fanscape. His success happened much in spite of lack of team lead outs, keying tactics by opposing teams and opponents more interested in causing him to lose rather than attempting a win themselves. Thanks, Scarponi for pointing that out.

He also provided a much needed sense of humor and balance to a torturously serious and critical sport and it's fan base.

 

[Bolder]

There was a long period where other riders didn’t mind losing instead of bringing Sagan to the finish. Really got marked out of a lot of races

This.

 

[Extinction]

I like Sagan, but he didn't meet the expectations for his career, apart from Worlds. With his class he should have been closer to the palmares of Boonen and Cancellara at Flanders and Roubaix, for example, and should have gotten a win in San Remo too. I don't mean to be overly critical, but, again, with his class he could have had more wins in these monuments.

 

[pmcg76]

I like Sagan, but he didn't meet the expectations for his career, apart from Worlds. With his class he should have been closer to the palmares of Boonen and Cancellara at Flanders and Roubaix, for example, and should have gotten a win in San Remo too. I don't mean to be overly critical, but, again, with his class he could have had more wins in these monuments.

Agree with this even though I also agree that Sagan was heavily marked in the classics. I mean the likes of Boonen, Cancellara and further back Museeuw, Kelly would have been heavily marked as well, but they still found a way to win.

As for comparisons to Van Aert, that is fair comment regards one day racing, but I don't think Sagan ever was as amazing at the Tour as Van Aert was last few years.

I liked Sagan as a rider, but feel too he was a little overhyped because of his persona. One of the greats of the modern era, but time may not hold him in such high regard.

 

[tobydawq]

The guy is treated like one of the 3 best cyclists in the world for like 3 years straight yet he has won 1 out of >40 of the biggest races in that time span. I'm not sure how that isn't underperformance.

"Treated"

 

[tobydawq]

Just the basis of comparison is flawed.
A GT winner doesn't actually need to win a single stage, ever. Generally they don't win alot except for the all timers and they had other race wins to confirm their class.
Froome was not going to outsprint anyone. Take the instance where he and Geraint locked on to Sagan's wheel at the end of a stage attack from 7km out. Sagan rode them to a gap the field couldn't decrease, let alone close. Two team guys struggling to stay on his wheel and contributing little. Who won? Not Froome.

Sagan needed to win, period to be considered successful. His multitude of podiums and Green jerseies don't count in the hypercritical fanscape. His success happened much in spite of lack of team lead outs, keying tactics by opposing teams and opponents more interested in causing him to lose rather than attempting a win themselves. Thanks, Scarponi for pointing that out.

He also provided a much needed sense of humor and balance to a torturously serious and critical sport and it's fan base.

Okay, it wasn't as if Froome and G didn't contribute just as much as Sagan that day...

 

[Extinction]

Agree with this even though I also agree that Sagan was heavily marked in the classics. I mean the likes of Boonen, Cancellara and further back Museeuw, Kelly would have been heavily marked as well, but they still found a way to win.

As for comparisons to Van Aert, that is fair comment regards one day racing, but I don't think Sagan ever was as amazing at the Tour as Van Aert was last few years.

I liked Sagan as a rider, but feel too he was a little overhyped because of his persona. One of the greats of the modern era, but time may not hold him in such high regard.

I agree with this and, again, I don't mean to be too critical, but as you say Boonen and Cancellara were just as heavily marked at Flanders and Roubaix and the still managed to win them more.

Van Aert is a better TTer, climber and sprinter than Sagan, yet he still hasn't won Flanders or Roubaix. On the other hand, the way Sagan won his Roubaix shows his class, which in that state of grace matches Van Aert at his best. Yet Sagan unfortunately came up short on some big appointments when he was just lacking something.

 

[Unchained]

The guy is treated like one of the 3 best cyclists in the world for like 3 years straight yet he has won 1 out of >40 of the biggest races in that time span. I'm not sure how that isn't underperformance.

I have watched the exponential increase in race related video.. I could have written Sagan's I am quitting press release after I saw him talk about the puzzle that is long Covid and old age.. Looked at race and training volume for a bunch of riders.. including Valvarde as he exited..Sagan is not a victim.. He should have looked to be more innovative with marketing and leaned on mountain bike racing a while ago to try and shake things up.. or shake things out.. Each interview.. each article written you can see and hear his mounting frustration.
In my opinion his career is a bit of a firecracker.. He was a newer rider when he won in Philadelphia..2013,14? And was the biggest draw at the Tour of California..Super popular in English speaking countries.. Don't know that things could have gone any better for him..Tour results and won worlds with flair.. I hope that he can fade without saying or doing something bitter.. Is there a formula for a thirty something to race less and win more? I don't think so.. but Sagan doesn't have much snap left in my opinion.. Great racer but just is a little flat..

 

[BR2]

Before I joined this forum I thought I was a huge fan of lists and rating compared to most other people but here I find myself time and time again wondering what you are talking about. Some riders cannot be compared to each other. It's apples and pears. And sometimes there is no "true level" in comparison to which people underperformed or overperformed. Sagan has been an exciting rider, skilled, versatile, a charismatic character, a winner of many races, an athlete on the biggest stages of road cycling for many years. In my opinion that's his legacy and all these attempts at trying to figure out his "real" position in the history of cycling are doomed.