Teams & Riders Peter Sagan discussion thread.

[tobydawq]

3 WC is of course better than six medals.

And to say that Sagan is known for winning or finishing outside the podium is probably the most wrong thing I have seen here. How could you even type that?

 

[SKSemtex]

Re: 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.

With Sagan we just do not count podiums.
Have you ever heard about his Tour podium/race ratio?

 

[tomorrow]

Re: 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.

With Sagan we just do not count podiums.
Have you ever heard about his Tour podium/race ratio?

His podium/race ratio is incredible for his entire career, not jurt tdf. He basicaly podiums in every third race he enters that is just insane.

 

[Jspear]

Oh my gosh why does Valverde have to be brought up in almost every other riders thread?!?! There’s no point in comparing these two riders. First, they have different skill sets. Second, one is much younger than the other. There’s still a lot that can happen in both of their careers, but especially Sagan’s.

 

[loge1884]

Re:

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.

QS works as a team ... their strenght is, not having a clear and designated leader ... even at the times of Tom Boonen (e.g. 2x victory of Stijn Devolder in RvV)... therefore I am not quite sure, this would work well with Peter Sagan (even though he is a teamplayer) ...

 

[Red Rick]

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.

I still see Anton winning the 2010 Vuelta if he doesn't crash out. He already had a 45s advantage, was on the form of his life, he was doing great everywhere in 2010, bonifications where huge in that Vuelta and I don't think he would've bombed the ITT like Purito did.

 

[saganftw]

sagan won tour of california...did valverde ever win cobbled race?

check mate atheists :lol:

 

[Salvarani]

GW and PR. Happy with that

He will race Amstel next???

 

[Brullnux]

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.

That's wrong, sorry. I mean, 3 WC, paris roubaix and ronde is quite clearly much better than 4 Lieges. And I have no idea what you're counting, because either you're putting Kuurne and brabantse pjil and the european championships at the same level as the vuelta a murcia (only a one day race since 2013) and Gp Miguel Indurain or you've dropped the canadian classics, both of which would be harsh. A more accurate comparison would be 4 vs 5 of the 'biggest' wins, 7 or 8 vs 10 'big' wins, and then bala would obviously win on the smaller wins count. But I'd take Sagan's one day palmares over Valverde's any day

 

[Blanco]

Re: 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.

That's wrong, sorry. I mean, 3 WC, paris roubaix and ronde is quite clearly much better than 4 Lieges. And I have no idea what you're counting, because either you're putting Kuurne and brabantse pjil and the european championships at the same level as the vuelta a murcia (only a one day race since 2013) and Gp Miguel Indurain or you've dropped the canadian classics, both of which would be harsh. A more accurate comparison would be 4 vs 5 of the 'biggest' wins, 7 or 8 vs 10 'big' wins, and then bala would obviously win on the smaller wins count. But I'd take Sagan's one day palmares over Valverde's any day

It's better I said so, but it isn't much better. Much better is Bettini's and Boonen's big wins (8 each). Valverde also has 6 medals at the WC, that is an all-time record, I think it counts for something, don't you?
I put WC, OG and Monuments into first category, WT races in second, and every other race in third, and I don't think Kuurne, Brabantse Pijl or any other race outside of those first two categories would made much of a difference when we talk about riders of this caliber.

 

[Brullnux]

But WT races aren't the biggest races. The Canadian classics, maybe, but Giro dell'Emilia, Kuurne, Brabantse Pjil and Milano-Torino (to name a few) are bigger than the hamburg race, the tdu classic, or the ridelondon one. In fact those races are on the same level as the canadian ones.

Edit: i saw the < going the wrong way, sorry

 

[Red Rick]

Why the hell does it matter? Valverde is 10 years older, Sagan is never gonna achieve what Valverde has in stage races, and Sagan will certainly far exceed Valverde's accomplishments in classics by the time he's done.

 

[toolittle]

Re: Re:

Funny Calculations.

1 TDF = 1 Giro + 1 Veulta or 2 x RRWC
1 TDF Podium = 1 Giro
1 RRWC = 1 Monument+ 1 WT Race
1 RRWC Podium = 1 Monument
1 Momentum= 2 WT Race
1 WT Stage Race = 2 x UCI 1.1 HC
1 UCI 1.1HC = 2 x UCI 1.1
1 UCI 1.1 = 2 x UCI I.2
1 UCI 1.2 = 2 x UCI 1.2 Podium
1 UCI 1.2 Podium = 2 x UCI 1.2 Top 10.

How many UCI 1.2 top 10 are as good as a TDF GC? :lol:

Win in biggest race is a measure for "Greatest"
Fail to win biggest race but do well there are "Stars"

Will you consider a basketball player who never won NBA as greatest?
Will you consider a soccer player who never won Worldcup as greatest?

Messi failed to win Worldcup, so he is a super star. But never reach Maradona level.

To be a greatest, you have to deliver in biggest race with style.
Sagan did it. Nibali did it....
If one failed in many many occasions, it is a confirmation that he is a star.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

Funny Calculations.

1 TDF = 1 Giro + 1 Veulta or 2 x RRWC
1 TDF Podium = 1 Giro
1 RRWC = 1 Monument+ 1 WT Race
1 RRWC Podium = 1 Monument
1 Momentum= 2 WT Race
1 WT Stage Race = 2 x UCI 1.1 HC
1 UCI 1.1HC = 2 x UCI 1.1
1 UCI 1.1 = 2 x UCI I.2
1 UCI 1.2 = 2 x UCI 1.2 Podium
1 UCI 1.2 Podium = 2 x UCI 1.2 Top 10.

How many UCI 1.2 top 10 are as good as a TDF GC? :lol:

Win in biggest race is a measure for "Greatest"
Fail to win biggest race but do well there are "Stars"

Will you consider a basketball player who never won NBA as greatest?
Will you consider a soccer player who never won Worldcup as greatest?

Messi failed to win Worldcup, so he is a super star. But never reach Maradona level.

To be a greatest, you have to deliver in biggest race with style.
Sagan did it. Nibali did it....
If one failed in many many occasions, it is a confirmation that he is a star.

You can't make this *** up, can you?

 

[toolittle]

Re: Re:

Funny Calculations.

1 TDF = 1 Giro + 1 Veulta or 2 x RRWC
1 TDF Podium = 1 Giro
1 RRWC = 1 Monument+ 1 WT Race
1 RRWC Podium = 1 Monument
1 Momentum= 2 WT Race
1 WT Stage Race = 2 x UCI 1.1 HC
1 UCI 1.1HC = 2 x UCI 1.1
1 UCI 1.1 = 2 x UCI I.2
1 UCI 1.2 = 2 x UCI 1.2 Podium
1 UCI 1.2 Podium = 2 x UCI 1.2 Top 10.

How many UCI 1.2 top 10 are as good as a TDF GC? :lol:

Win in biggest race is a measure for "Greatest"
Fail to win biggest race but do well there are "Stars"

Will you consider a basketball player who never won NBA as greatest?
Will you consider a soccer player who never won Worldcup as greatest?

Messi failed to win Worldcup, so he is a super star. But never reach Maradona level.

To be a greatest, you have to deliver in biggest race with style.
Sagan did it. Nibali did it....
If one failed in many many occasions, it is a confirmation that he is a star.

You can't make this **** up, can you?

Sorry, I missed something.
1 x UCI 1.2 top 10 = 2 x Master group win or 2 x Amateur race win. :idea:

 

[telencefalus]

Sagan will be one of the best cyclist of all times when he will retire , comparison with Valverde are stupid , you have to compare with boonen , cancellara , Gilbert , and now he is better of all of this so imagine at the end

 

[loge1884]

Re:

Sagan will be one of the best cyclist of all times when he will retire , comparison with Valverde are stupid , you have to compare with boonen , cancellara , Gilbert , and now he is better of all of this so imagine at the end

I imagine "being better" is having the better palmarès .... anything else is "personal taste" ...
now Tom Boonen and Philippe Gilbert had most of their big wins in classics and albeight both have more monuments than Peter has today (and it is questionable if Peter will beat Tom's 7), Peter's other success (World's, TdF stage wins, green jerseys, ...) may outweight this ,,,
However he clearly is not on par with Spartacus yet, who also won 8 stages at TdF and wore the yellow jersey 29 times (more than any rider without winning Le Tour), was many time world time trial champion and won olympic gold and a few 2nd tier tours (Tour de Suisse, Tirreno Adriatico), whereas Peter only won 3rd tier tours (Pologne, California) ...
Peter is catching up, but in my opinion is not there yet ....

 

[Blanco]

Re:

Sagan will be one of the best cyclist of all times when he will retire , comparison with Valverde are stupid , you have to compare with boonen , cancellara , Gilbert , and now he is better of all of this so imagine at the end

He's not better than any of them, except maybe Gilbert, but maybe...

 

[flechewallone]

sagan has a lot of time to win plenty more titles; and if he ever gets in a dominant team then the rest are screwed!

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

Sagan will be one of the best cyclist of all times when he will retire , comparison with Valverde are stupid , you have to compare with boonen , cancellara , Gilbert , and now he is better of all of this so imagine at the end

I imagine "being better" is having the better palmarès .... anything else is "personal taste" ...
now Tom Boonen and Philippe Gilbert had most of their big wins in classics and albeight both have more monuments than Peter has today (and it is questionable if Peter will beat Tom's 7), Peter's other success (World's, TdF stage wins, green jerseys, ...) may outweight this ,,,
However he clearly is not on par with Spartacus yet, who also won 8 stages at TdF and wore the yellow jersey 29 times (more than any rider without winning Le Tour), was many time world time trial champion and won olympic gold and a few 2nd tier tours (Tour de Suisse, Tirreno Adriatico), whereas Peter only won 3rd tier tours (Pologne, California) ...
Peter is catching up, but in my opinion is not there yet ....

Of all his accomplishments you mentioned this one is by far the least important, and I don't get why is constantly mentioned like some kind of a great achievement, cause it's not something special. Cancellara often won prologues and then he will hold that advantage during the sprinters stages, till' the first mountains. His 8 stages are far bigger achievement then those 29 days.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

Sagan will be one of the best cyclist of all times when he will retire , comparison with Valverde are stupid , you have to compare with boonen , cancellara , Gilbert , and now he is better of all of this so imagine at the end

I imagine "being better" is having the better palmarès .... anything else is "personal taste" ...
now Tom Boonen and Philippe Gilbert had most of their big wins in classics and albeight both have more monuments than Peter has today (and it is questionable if Peter will beat Tom's 7), Peter's other success (World's, TdF stage wins, green jerseys, ...) may outweight this ,,,
However he clearly is not on par with Spartacus yet, who also won 8 stages at TdF and wore the yellow jersey 29 times (more than any rider without winning Le Tour), was many time world time trial champion and won olympic gold and a few 2nd tier tours (Tour de Suisse, Tirreno Adriatico), whereas Peter only won 3rd tier tours (Pologne, California) ...
Peter is catching up, but in my opinion is not there yet ....

Of all his accomplishments you mentioned this one is by far the least important, and I don't get why is constantly mentioned like some kind of a great achievement, cause it's not something special. Cancellara often won prologues and then he will hold that advantage during the sprinters stages, till' the first mountains. His 8 stages are far bigger achievement then those 29 days.

Fully agree with this. It's nice to wear the jersey when it happens, but I don't think it's an important stat at all

sagan has a lot of time to win plenty more titles; and if he ever gets in a dominant team then the rest are screwed!

Sagan's presence in the Tour de France and WC is self limiting in this regard, his market value is a lot higher than any classics rider every was so he eats an absurd amount of budget out of the team, even if his other sponsors pay part of that money.

 

[tomorrow]

Re: Re:

Sagan will be one of the best cyclist of all times when he will retire , comparison with Valverde are stupid , you have to compare with boonen , cancellara , Gilbert , and now he is better of all of this so imagine at the end

I imagine "being better" is having the better palmarès .... anything else is "personal taste" ...
now Tom Boonen and Philippe Gilbert had most of their big wins in classics and albeight both have more monuments than Peter has today (and it is questionable if Peter will beat Tom's 7), Peter's other success (World's, TdF stage wins, green jerseys, ...) may outweight this ,,,
However he clearly is not on par with Spartacus yet, who also won 8 stages at TdF and wore the yellow jersey 29 times (more than any rider without winning Le Tour), was many time world time trial champion and won olympic gold and a few 2nd tier tours (Tour de Suisse, Tirreno Adriatico), whereas Peter only won 3rd tier tours (Pologne, California) ...
Peter is catching up, but in my opinion is not there yet ....

Of all his accomplishments you mentioned this one is by far the least important, and I don't get why is constantly mentioned like some kind of a great achievement, cause it's not something special. Cancellara often won prologues and then he will hold that advantage during the sprinters stages, till' the first mountains. His 8 stages are far bigger achievement then those 29 days.

Yet, six of those were those prologue wins. So basically him winning the prologues means the same as the yellow.

 

[Gigs_98]

I really think Sagan's palmares isn't that great yet. I mean, ofc most riders would still kill to get so many big wins, but if you compare his palmares to the ones of Boonen, Cancellara, Valverde, Nibali, Contador, Froome and others he just isn't quite there yet. I think people see Sagan's immense talent which might very well outweigh the talent of every single rider I mentioned above and assume it means he has also already been as successful as these guys.
But I think there is just no point in comparing him with these riders yet. Why make a comparison Sagan loses, when you know exactly Sagan's palmares is far from being finalized. I think these comparisons kind of give you a false picture of Sagan's success.

 

[Red Rick]

I really think Sagan's palmares isn't that great yet. I mean, ofc most riders would still kill to get so many big wins, but if you compare his palmares to the ones of Boonen, Cancellara, Valverde, Nibali, Contador, Froome and others he just isn't quite there yet. I think people see Sagan's immense talent which might very well outweigh the talent of every single rider I mentioned above and assume it means he has also already been as successful as these guys.
But I think there is just no point in comparing him with these riders yet. Why make a comparison Sagan loses, when you know exactly Sagan's palmares is far from being finalized. I think these comparisons kind of give you a false picture of Sagan's success.

Exactly. If anything, compare the palmares to othe riders at his current age.

On the other hand, except for Milan Sanremo he's basically won all he can realistically win, and Sanremo is the one race where you can be a favorite 15 times and never win it.

 

[d-s3]

We can discuss endlessly about Nibali, Gilbert, ... but Froome?
He's excellent GT rider but he would have to diversify to be comparable.