Teams & Riders Peter Sagan discussion thread.

[del1962]

Congrats to Sagan and what a great way to do it

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

Im afraid he still is overrated, particularly in the mainstream media - experts and commentators, for example, stating he is the best cyclist of his generation really rubs me the wrong way. He clearly isn't at this moment. But I am glad that he finally abandoned whining and took the bulls by he horns, just like Boonen advised him to.

Who's the best rider of this generation?

Well, I rate all of Contador, Cancellara, Boonen, Nibali, Gilbert and Valverde higher than Sagan.

Sagan already has a better palmares than Valverde at age 27...

Better than Gilbert only, out of those 6

 

[cyclopsnoobie]

Re: Re:

O.K. i have just checked couple of legends stats at age of 28 (Rick Van Looy, Roger De Vlaeminck, Johan Museeuw, Sean Kelly, Cancellara, Boonen, Eddy Merckx) and better stats in Sagan’s age had only Vlaeminck, Moser, Kelly and Merckx.

………..but….but…..Merckx stats …. wtf….it is like from some freaking horror movie - NOBODY CAN EVER COME CLOSE …..really “Canibal” suits him perfectly

 

[jaylew]

Re: Re:

1990 > 1971 > any other year you feel like bringing up

Merckx has a better palmares than all of the 1990 riders combined lol.

But one person is not a generation.

Plus, no other year has Camenzind.

So why is 1990 so good? It's basically just Sagan and Quintana. A very good versatile sprinter, and the 2nd best stage racer of his generation. Take those two out and you have a bunch of guys who either have one isolated big win to their name, or have achieved absolutely nothing.

Really? I think you're being a bit harsh and your standards are too high. There are a bunch of guys from 1990.

Hell, Kwia has won Worlds, MSR, Strade x 2, Amstel, TA, San Sebastian, E3, and has a bunch of other great results.

 

[Bardamu]

Re: Re:

Im afraid he still is overrated, particularly in the mainstream media - experts and commentators, for example, stating he is the best cyclist of his generation really rubs me the wrong way. He clearly isn't at this moment. But I am glad that he finally abandoned whining and took the bulls by he horns, just like Boonen advised him to.

Who's the best rider of this generation?

Well, I rate all of Contador, Cancellara, Boonen, Nibali, Gilbert and Valverde higher than Sagan.

I think we have different definitions of generations

I definitely rate Contador, Cancellara, Boonen and Nibali higher than Sagan. Valverde probably too.

I don't really see them being from the same generation as Sagan, and I wouldn't rate Cancellara and Boonen higher as Sagan. Winning three world championships in a row is no small feat. He "only" has two monuments and I'm sure some will follow, although I don't think there will be many But his performances in the Tour de France are also way more impressive than those of some of these riders. It remains the most important race on the calendar and he manages to perform ever year.

If Nibali manages to win the Worlds this year (and LBL perhaps) I'd rate him as the best rider of both generations.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

1990 > 1971 > any other year you feel like bringing up

Merckx has a better palmares than all of the 1990 riders combined lol.

But one person is not a generation.

Plus, no other year has Camenzind.

So why is 1990 so good? It's basically just Sagan and Quintana. A very good versatile sprinter, and the 2nd best stage racer of his generation. Take those two out and you have a bunch of guys who either have one isolated big win to their name, or have achieved absolutely nothing.

Really? I think you're being a bit harsh and your standards are too high. There are a bunch of guys from 1990.

Hell, Kwia has won Worlds, MSR, Strade x 2, Amstel, TA, San Sebastian, E3, and has a bunch of other great results.

Sure, but if we compare wins with 1945 for example, the 1990 generation are miles behind. Adding riders like Matthews, Felline and Pinot to the list doesn't really contribute much. We're really talking about two, maybe three riders born in 1990 who will be talked about in 30 years time. And none of them will win anything like what Merckx won.

 

[Bardamu]

Comparing generations is stupid anyway. Even Merckx himself said he would never have won as much now as he did back then. There were fewer top quality riders, most of the peloton rode the same races and just a handful of countries were providing cyclists to the peloton.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Im afraid he still is overrated, particularly in the mainstream media - experts and commentators, for example, stating he is the best cyclist of his generation really rubs me the wrong way. He clearly isn't at this moment. But I am glad that he finally abandoned whining and took the bulls by he horns, just like Boonen advised him to.

Who's the best rider of this generation?

Well, I rate all of Contador, Cancellara, Boonen, Nibali, Gilbert and Valverde higher than Sagan.

Sagan already has a better palmares than Valverde at age 27...

Better than Gilbert only, out of those 6

Sagan is leauges above valverde, just compare their wins lol. WC > Vuelta, 2 different Monuments > 1 Monument, Green jersey in the Tour >>>> Vuelta points jersey, 8 Tour stages > 3 Tour stages.

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

Sagan is leauges above valverde, just compare their wins lol. WC > Vuelta, 2 different Monuments > 1 Monument, Green jersey in the Tour >>>> Vuelta points jersey, 8 Tour stages > 3 Tour stages.

Lol, does it never matter when a rider wins a race for the second time?

And is it just victories that count? I'm not asking you specifically but the room generally. If so, that would explain why so many people are talking about Nibali in these discussions, when ability-wise, he clearly is an inferior rider to Sagan and Valverde.

 

[KGB]

Sagan is leauges above Valverde?you sound like Contador fanboy then.

 

[Sestriere]

Re: Re:

Sagan is leauges above valverde, just compare their wins lol. WC > Vuelta, 2 different Monuments > 1 Monument, Green jersey in the Tour >>>> Vuelta points jersey, 8 Tour stages > 3 Tour stages.

Lol, does it never matter when a rider wins a race for the second time?

And is it just victories that count? I'm not asking you specifically but the room generally. If so, that would explain why so many people are talking about Nibali in these discussions, when ability-wise, he clearly is an inferior rider to Sagan and Valverde.

Victories reflect ability.

 

[Bardamu]

Re: Re:

Sagan is leauges above valverde, just compare their wins lol. WC > Vuelta, 2 different Monuments > 1 Monument, Green jersey in the Tour >>>> Vuelta points jersey, 8 Tour stages > 3 Tour stages.

Lol, does it never matter when a rider wins a race for the second time?

And is it just victories that count? I'm not asking you specifically but the room generally. If so, that would explain why so many people are talking about Nibali in these discussions, when ability-wise, he clearly is an inferior rider to Sagan and Valverde.

The variety of the victories of Nibali gives him the edge. GT's are the most prestigious races in cycling and he has won them all. But where most GT riders nowadays solely focus on stage races Nibali also manages to win prestigious one-day races. Should have won Olympics as well (I know, doesn't count) and we are not merely comparing talent because that is difficult to compare. Just like Contador Nibali is able to steal our hearts in the way he wins races. His attacking style has given him some of his biggest victories instead of relying on a sprint.

 

[tobydawq]

But Nibali only really won one GT where he wasn't lucky that a more probable winner crashed out. Antón, Froome/Alberto, Kruijswijk.

I don't want to hold that too much against him but for me he is very obviously not as talented as Sagan and Valverde. Sagan could have won much more but has often been tactically challenged both with making stupid decisions himself and having been put in impossible situations by a cowardly crowd of other favourites. Valverde has just been dumb, which explains his lack of an Il Lombardia and a Worlds title.

And of course tactical awareness counts when considering the quality of riders but I just feel like Nibali has over-achieved massively. He probably doesn't care about that, though.

But when he is at a race he is often not the talking point nor the favourite. Sagan and Valverde almost always are. And that should count for a lot as well because it reflects their qualities. And it annoys me that Valverde's many victories are just shrugged at and labelled as unimportant (when he rides impressively) or unimpressive (when he rides conservatively).

 

[Blanco]

117 wins > 104 wins
Vuelta + 7 GT podiums + 14 GT stages >>> anything Sagan ever did in GT's, and anything Sagan WILL EVER DO
6 biggest stage races + 16 others >>> anything Sagan ever did and will do in stage races
4 Monuments + 7 big classics + 17 other one-day races < (but only slightly), 3 WC + 2 Monuments + 7 big classics + 10 other one-day races

The only thing where Sagan has the advantage is sprints. To me it's quite clear who has the better palmares, but Sagan is much younger, he has time to catch up.

 

[Jancouver]

QS "almost" signed Sagan ... just wondering how many monuments he would already have if he was on a better team as he spent most of his career riding with almost no support.

 

[Bardamu]

Re:

But Nibali only really won one GT where he wasn't lucky that a more probable winner crashed out. Antón, Froome/Alberto, Kruijswijk.

I don't want to hold that too much against him but for me he is very obviously not as talented as Sagan and Valverde. Sagan could have won much more but has often been tactically challenged both with making stupid decisions himself and having been put in impossible situations by a cowardly crowd of other favourites. Valverde has just been dumb, which explains his lack of an Il Lombardia and a Worlds title.

And of course tactical awareness counts when considering the quality of riders but I just feel like Nibali has over-achieved massively. He probably doesn't care about that, though.

But when he is at a race he is often not the talking point nor the favourite. Sagan and Valverde almost always are. And that should count for a lot as well because it reflects their qualities. And it annoys me that Valverde's many victories are just shrugged at and labelled as unimportant (when he rides impressively) or unimpressive (when he rides conservatively).

I agree, but as a GT rider Valverde has underperformed a bit. Only 1 Vuelta is not impressive. But unlike most GT riders he can do much more. In my opinion he should have won the Tour and/or WC to be considered the very best of his generation. For me he is still top 3, but I would rate Contador and Nibali higher and Gilbert at the same level.

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

But Nibali only really won one GT where he wasn't lucky that a more probable winner crashed out. Antón, Froome/Alberto, Kruijswijk.

I don't want to hold that too much against him but for me he is very obviously not as talented as Sagan and Valverde. Sagan could have won much more but has often been tactically challenged both with making stupid decisions himself and having been put in impossible situations by a cowardly crowd of other favourites. Valverde has just been dumb, which explains his lack of an Il Lombardia and a Worlds title.

And of course tactical awareness counts when considering the quality of riders but I just feel like Nibali has over-achieved massively. He probably doesn't care about that, though.

But when he is at a race he is often not the talking point nor the favourite. Sagan and Valverde almost always are. And that should count for a lot as well because it reflects their qualities. And it annoys me that Valverde's many victories are just shrugged at and labelled as unimportant (when he rides impressively) or unimpressive (when he rides conservatively).

I agree, but as a GT rider Valverde has underperformed a bit. Only 1 Vuelta is not impressive. But unlike most GT riders he can do much more. In my opinion he should have won the Tour and/or WC to be considered the very best of his generation. For me he is still top 3, but I would rate Contador and Nibali higher and Gilbert at the same level.

Just hang on for a little more than five months

 

[Jancouver]

Dillier:

"With Peter, I would say he's like an angel and a devil in the same person," Dillier said with a wry smile. "An angel because he worked with me very well; a devil, because if you go with him in a man-to-man sprint for the finish line, he's hard to beat."

"I’m very happy that I was in position to fight for the win, and a little disappointed that I didn’t manage to win," Dillier said. "Still, I was there with the best rider of his generation in a sprint for Paris-Roubaix, so I can’t be too disappointed. I’ll just hope to go one better in the years to come."

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

But Nibali only really won one GT where he wasn't lucky that a more probable winner crashed out. Antón, Froome/Alberto, Kruijswijk.

I don't want to hold that too much against him but for me he is very obviously not as talented as Sagan and Valverde. Sagan could have won much more but has often been tactically challenged both with making stupid decisions himself and having been put in impossible situations by a cowardly crowd of other favourites. Valverde has just been dumb, which explains his lack of an Il Lombardia and a Worlds title.

And of course tactical awareness counts when considering the quality of riders but I just feel like Nibali has over-achieved massively. He probably doesn't care about that, though.

But when he is at a race he is often not the talking point nor the favourite. Sagan and Valverde almost always are. And that should count for a lot as well because it reflects their qualities. And it annoys me that Valverde's many victories are just shrugged at and labelled as unimportant (when he rides impressively) or unimpressive (when he rides conservatively).

I agree, but as a GT rider Valverde has underperformed a bit. Only 1 Vuelta is not impressive. But unlike most GT riders he can do much more. In my opinion he should have won the Tour and/or WC to be considered the very best of his generation. For me he is still top 3, but I would rate Contador and Nibali higher and Gilbert at the same level.

But let me ask you something, on which criteria you would count Gilbert as an equal to Valverde?
Gilbert is brilliant one-day racer, but so is Valverde. I won't deny that Gilbert has an advantage in that depart, but not so big. But what happen's when we turn into discussion other areas, like GT's, stage races, and victories in general. Valverde has a huge advantage in every of these. To me they're not equal, not even close. Gilbert is one level below riders like Valverde, Contador, Nibali, Boonen and Cancellara. He could be compared to Sagan though, although I would say that Peter just surpassed him with this victory.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

But Nibali only really won one GT where he wasn't lucky that a more probable winner crashed out. Antón, Froome/Alberto, Kruijswijk.

What is it about Antón's later career that makes people so confident that he would have won, especially since he crashed with a whole week still left, including a long ITT and almost all the mountain stages? Now, you just said "a more probable winner", but I disagree with that too.

 

[Bardamu]

Re: Re:

But Nibali only really won one GT where he wasn't lucky that a more probable winner crashed out. Antón, Froome/Alberto, Kruijswijk.

I don't want to hold that too much against him but for me he is very obviously not as talented as Sagan and Valverde. Sagan could have won much more but has often been tactically challenged both with making stupid decisions himself and having been put in impossible situations by a cowardly crowd of other favourites. Valverde has just been dumb, which explains his lack of an Il Lombardia and a Worlds title.

And of course tactical awareness counts when considering the quality of riders but I just feel like Nibali has over-achieved massively. He probably doesn't care about that, though.

But when he is at a race he is often not the talking point nor the favourite. Sagan and Valverde almost always are. And that should count for a lot as well because it reflects their qualities. And it annoys me that Valverde's many victories are just shrugged at and labelled as unimportant (when he rides impressively) or unimpressive (when he rides conservatively).

I agree, but as a GT rider Valverde has underperformed a bit. Only 1 Vuelta is not impressive. But unlike most GT riders he can do much more. In my opinion he should have won the Tour and/or WC to be considered the very best of his generation. For me he is still top 3, but I would rate Contador and Nibali higher and Gilbert at the same level.

But let me ask you something, on which criteria you would count Gilbert as an equal to Valverde?
Gilbert is brilliant one-day racer, but so is Valverde. I won't deny that Gilbert has an advantage in that depart, but not so big. But what happen's when we turn into discussion other areas, like GT's, stage races, and victories in general. Valverde has a huge advantage in every of these. To me they're not equal, not even close. Gilbert is one level below riders like Valverde, Contador, Nibali, Boonen and Cancellara. He could be compared to Sagan though, although I would say that Peter just surpassed him with this victory.

Gilbert has won three different monuments, won WC RR when the whole peloton knew what he was going to do. Like you said that reflects his qualities. He won Amstel 4 times which is arguably the most prestigious one-day race outside the monuments and WC RR. He never "stole" a victory, he always won by being the strongest.

You mention his lack of success in stage races which is fair, but Boonen and Cancellara failed there as well. And I rate Gilbert higher than both of them as a classics specialist because he is able to have success in nearly every terrain unlike for example Boonen who the ten last years of his career ended his season in april.

And Gilbert isn't that bad in stage races, he has won stages in every GT and always did so in an impressive way.

 

[Blanco]

You put too much on versatility. I mean it's important but only when the margins are slim, for example if two riders have the same amount of victories. But if one rider had won 8 biggest one day races and other 5, things are clear. Not to mention that Boonen has almost twice as victories as Gilbert has.

 

[yaco]

Trentin suffers a stable fracture of the thoracic spine.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

But Nibali only really won one GT where he wasn't lucky that a more probable winner crashed out. Antón, Froome/Alberto, Kruijswijk.

What is it about Antón's later career that makes people so confident that he would have won, especially since he crashed with a whole week still left, including a long ITT and almost all the mountain stages? Now, you just said "a more probable winner", but I disagree with that too.

Anton may not have won the race but his career certainly took a dive after that.

 

[Koronin]

Re:

117 wins > 104 wins
Vuelta + 7 GT podiums + 14 GT stages >>> anything Sagan ever did in GT's, and anything Sagan WILL EVER DO
6 biggest stage races + 16 others >>> anything Sagan ever did and will do in stage races
4 Monuments + 7 big classics + 17 other one-day races < (but only slightly), 3 WC + 2 Monuments + 7 big classics + 10 other one-day races

The only thing where Sagan has the advantage is sprints. To me it's quite clear who has the better palmares, but Sagan is much younger, he has time to catch up.

Remember Valverde's 14 GT stage wins include wins in all 3 Grand Tours, something Sagan does not have. Not to mention that those 8 total GT podiums include at least one in each of the GT's. Something Sagan will never get.

I'd also add all of Valverde's podiums as well including the 6 at the Worlds (which is still a record), along with podiums at Lombardia and many other one day races. Sagan typically either wins or isn't on the podium. Thus meaning those podiums help to make his one day races more impressive.

Now Sagan can get more impressive one day race palmares, however he will NEVER have the GT palmares Valverde has and it's highly unlikely he'll ever have the stage race palmares either.