Teams & Riders Peter Sagan discussion thread.

[KGB]

Re: Re:

2012 was probably Sagan's strongest season.In Brabantsje Pijl he smoked GVA(Gilbert helper that time)and even Gilbert at line.Was super strong Sagan whole year.

2013. But I think 2016 was better - climbing-wise, 2013 was best though.

Thanks you are right. Watching him 2012-13 was just great.Even Sunday win I would exchange for those two seasons.

 

[Red Rick]

I would want to distinguish between diversity in ability and diversity in palmares. As much as Cavendish is a one trick pony, his palmares looks as diverse as it could be. Perhaps it misses GW or something, but that's about it.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

2012 was probably Sagan's strongest season.In Brabantsje Pijl he smoked GVA(Gilbert helper that time)and even Gilbert at line.Was super strong Sagan whole year.

2013. But I think 2016 was better - climbing-wise, 2013 was best though.

I think he was even stronger (at least as strong) last year as in '16.

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

2012 was probably Sagan's strongest season.In Brabantsje Pijl he smoked GVA(Gilbert helper that time)and even Gilbert at line.Was super strong Sagan whole year.

2013. But I think 2016 was better - climbing-wise, 2013 was best though.

I think he was even stronger (at least as strong) last year as in '16.

I think that too but the outcome was not nearly as satisfying as 2016.

His 2015 post classic form was also frightening. Actually, for three years straight he has been quite impeccable.

I must admit that I have a hard time rating his strength this year. His Roubaix exploit was arguably one of his best ever performances (probably the best) but otherwise he has seemed subpar. I guess Amstel might clarify (although Roubaix probably already did). If he can follow the best on the Keutenberg and the Eyserbosweg it will be impressive.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

2012 was probably Sagan's strongest season.In Brabantsje Pijl he smoked GVA(Gilbert helper that time)and even Gilbert at line.Was super strong Sagan whole year.

2013. But I think 2016 was better - climbing-wise, 2013 was best though.

I think he was even stronger (at least as strong) last year as in '16.

2016 is easy to overrate cause Cancellara wasn't where he needed to be.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

2012 was probably Sagan's strongest season.In Brabantsje Pijl he smoked GVA(Gilbert helper that time)and even Gilbert at line.Was super strong Sagan whole year.

2013. But I think 2016 was better - climbing-wise, 2013 was best though.

I think he was even stronger (at least as strong) last year as in '16.

2016 is easy to overrate cause Cancellara wasn't where he needed to be.

Agree. In Flanders, he went up against Kwiatkowski who did a Kwiatkowski and Sep Vanmarcke who he cracked and afterwards smoked on Paterberg, just like he did this year, more or less. Classic Sep. Its very hard to rate tho, but I think he overall was at this best level in 2017 where he was pretty unlucky and went up against absolute peak Greg van Avermaet and out of this world Gilbert in Flanders.

 

[tomorrow]

Re: Re:

2012 was probably Sagan's strongest season.In Brabantsje Pijl he smoked GVA(Gilbert helper that time)and even Gilbert at line.Was super strong Sagan whole year.

2013. But I think 2016 was better - climbing-wise, 2013 was best though.

I think he was even stronger (at least as strong) last year as in '16.

I think that too but the outcome was not nearly as satisfying as 2016.

His 2015 post classic form was also frightening. Actually, for three years straight he has been quite impeccable.

I must admit that I have a hard time rating his strength this year. His Roubaix exploit was arguably one of his best ever performances (probably the best) but otherwise he has seemed subpar. I guess Amstel might clarify (although Roubaix probably already did). If he can follow the best on the Keutenberg and the Eyserbosweg it will be impressive.

Well, if he really is among the contenders in Amstel, than it could be something. Even gva last year couldn't bridge with kwiatek, and he's supposed to better climber than Sagan and was in the form of his life. In addition, the problem also is, that bora has too many options here with mccarthy and Majka, and somehow they can't handle the many cards well. Strade and Flanders showed that. Even in Roubaix they probably got just lucky in Sagan having a really good day on which, he surprisingly had been let go. They should forget the tactics and race purely on intuition. Sagan seems to be the only rider, with whom is Majka willing to cooperate. The should join the attack on kruisberg and let McCarthy watch the from the back. If it came together again, he could be a good pick for the finale based on his last efforts in similar terrain.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

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.

I think Boonen, Cancellara, Valverde, Contador and Nibali are still ahead of Sagan. But he's certainly in the same league with Gilbert, Froome and Cavendish. Froome is little debatable here, if he's in the first or in the second group. Based on results only he should be in the first, but with that huge dark cloud looming over his head, I'm closer to put him in the 2nd, and I think he'll be more than happy to stay there (but that's a topic for other side of this forum).

It is on the face of it bizarre to suggest that alleged clinic issues might relegate one rider while proven clinic issues apparently do not relegate two others. A discussion for the other place however.

What I meant is that he will most probably lose one GT victory, and it's not the same if you have 5 or 4 GT wins. Valverde and Contador already lost their wins.

That’s less unreasonable, but “GT wins” is a bit of a misleading concept when it comes to differentiating between the very best in the peloton. A Giro win is worth more than a Vuelta win, while a Tour win is worth a multiple of the other two. I don’t particularly like the Tour’s dominant position in the sport, but that dominant position is very real. It’s a bit like counting RVV, E3 and GW as “cobbled classics” without noting that the Ronde is different.

It always makes me laugh when people say that Nibali has won “all three Grand Tours” as if that feat ranked anywhere near as high as winning the Tour three times. Nibali is one of the few current riders who will be remembered as at least a minor great of the sport, but it’s not because he won a Vuelta. (A Vuelta where the other guys on the podium were Ezekiel Mosquera and Peter Velits!)

 

[Netserk]

In Froome's case, it might 'just' be a Vuelta, but it's also a Tour-Vuelta double (which adds significantly more than it being the missing third GT). I certainly rate that double as equal or above two Tour wins.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re:

In Froome's case, it might 'just' be a Vuelta, but it's also a Tour-Vuelta double (which adds significantly more than it being the missing third GT). I certainly rate that double as equal or above two Tour wins.

I’d rank a Giro Tour double above two Tour wins, maybe even just behind three Tour wins because it’s so insanely hard to do. But not a Tour Vuelta. Both because the Vuelta is inherently less prestigious and because there’s a very random element to the Vuelta in terms of form. Tour Vuelta is a pretty big accomplishment but I don’t think any multiple Tour winner, including Froome, would swap one of their Tour wins for such a double.

 

[toolittle]

[quote="

It was part of a very prestigious World Cup (something GW and E3 didn't achieved), and I will not waste my words about value of Canadian classics.

There are many factors to influence a race importance. Historical, geometrical, UCI, Prize, difficulty, a lot of factors.
At the end, publicity and competition level are most important factors.

Public factor
- A race that could draw attention from peoples. It is prestigious. If nobody care about it..., it won't be a great race.
Commercial or political values are the most important.
Race intensity factor
- A race that best athletes will prepare their best for the race in the expense of other races.
Best guys will try to train for the route and adjust himself for requirements of the race.

We all see.
Best sprinters want to have their best during TDF and MSR.
Best climber/all rounder/puncher want to peak during TDF
Best Cobbled stone riders peak at RVV and PR.. That's a reason Tomeke never win the Omloop. Someone target Omloop and peak his form there. Boonen came there with training form.
At the end, most of hilly classics lost a bit of it's importance. For example, riders for Giro or TDF won't reach their peak during Ardennes classics week.

WC or OR becomes top prestigious race recent decade. Route changes from year to year. But you will see best riders will try his best to strike there. High publicity and commercial value is the factor behind.

Veulta and Tour are GT. A sprint win in Tour means a lot more than Veulta. It is different world. The start list could tell you.

 

[Blanco]

[quote="

It was part of a very prestigious World Cup (something GW and E3 didn't achieved), and I will not waste my words about value of Canadian classics.

There are many factors to influence a race importance. Historical, geometrical, UCI, Prize, difficulty, a lot of factors.
At the end, publicity and competition level are most important factors.

Public factor
- A race that could draw attention from peoples. It is prestigious. If nobody care about it..., it won't be a great race.
Commercial or political values are the most important.
Race intensity factor
- A race that best athletes will prepare their best for the race in the expense of other races.
Best guys will try to train for the route and adjust himself for requirements of the race.

We all see.
Best sprinters want to have their best during TDF and MSR.
Best climber/all rounder/puncher want to peak during TDF
Best Cobbled stone riders peak at RVV and PR.. That's a reason Tomeke never win the Omloop. Someone target Omloop and peak his form there. Boonen came there with training form.
At the end, most of hilly classics lost a bit of it's importance. For example, riders for Giro or TDF won't reach their peak during Ardennes classics week.

WC or OR becomes top prestigious race recent decade. Route changes from year to year. But you will see best riders will try his best to strike there. High publicity and commercial value is the factor behind.

Veulta and Tour are GT. A sprint win in Tour means a lot more than Veulta. It is different world. The start list could tell you.

My post was a respond to some poster here who wanted to downplay importance of that race, and at the same time he raised the importance of some other races. I only pointed to the fact that this particular race is on the UCI highest rank since 1989 (that's 29 years!), which these other races aren't, so by no means this race is inferior to those mentioned by that poster, especially not to races who achieved that status couple of years ago.

Now, what was the point of your response? I lost you a little bit here...

And by the way you have lots of false statements here:

1)Best puncheur want to peak during the TDF. False. Why would he want that if he's not in the same time a GC rider? They peak for the Ardennes week.

2)Riders for TDF won't reach their peak during Ardennes. False. Look at Valverde, Dan Martin, Nibali, Purito... Riders who have a good shot at Ardennes certainly can peak for them, and again at the Tour.

3)WC becomes top prestigious race in recent decade. False. WC is the most prestigious one day race since 1927!

4)Best cobbles riders peak at RVV and PR. This is true, but I would like to ask you one question, when else would they peak? And for what race? They have 5 weeks of racing on cobble stones in March/April and of course they would peak for that. Or do you think riders like Terpstra, Vanmarcke, Stybar, Naesen and co. should aim for some other races? (I wouldn't know which ones would they be ). There are some exceptions of course, like Sagan, Kristoff, Degenkolb, even Van Avermaet, but thay are more versatile and can shine in other type of races, so they could have two or even three peaks of form throughout the year.

 

[Netserk]

Yet Nibali hasn't peaked for Liège since 2012. Contador only took it seriously in 2010. Bardet, Dumoulin, Barguil etc. are not at their very best either. Many riders who could contend do not peak for it like Schleck did.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re:

Yet Nibali hasn't peaked for Liège since 2012. Contador only took it seriously in 2010. Bardet, Dumoulin, Barguil etc. are not at their very best either. Many riders who could contend do not peak for it like Schleck did.

GC climbers who are not also top puncheurs sometimes don’t peak for Ardennes week because, while winning is possible, they are not suited enough to the hilly classics for a win to be likely. Peaking for a race where they will be outsiders is a bad use of form. Those who are top puncheurs, and thus are not long shot outsiders, do peak for it. If you can only win solo with a long range attack you are pretty much by definition not a top contender for the Ardennes races and so your absence or lack of form does little to change the quality of the field. The top puncheurs are Valverde, Martin, Alaphillipe and co, not Froome or Dumoulin.

 

[Blanco]

Re:

Yet Nibali hasn't peaked for Liège since 2012. Contador only took it seriously in 2010. Bardet, Dumoulin, Barguil etc. are not at their very best either. Many riders who could contend do not peak for it like Schleck did.

Nibali tried to peak in 2015 though, when he rode the Tour which my point precisely is, other years he was riding Il Giro. And now he tries to peak again, also while targeting the Tour.
Contador was not a serious contender, he tried, he was decent, in Fleche more than decent, but he choose other build up for the Tour.
Bardet also tries almost every year to be a contender in this races, but for him it's very hard to win some of these.

As I see it, it's perfectly possible to peak for both.

 

[hrotha]

If half of those GC climbers only peaked for races they are likely to win, they would never peak at all.

 

[Netserk]

And currently Nibali is 5th favorite (odds-wise) for Liège, on par with Kwiatkowski who is 4th. Hardly a "long shot outsider".

 

[Koronin]

The only time Valverde did not peak for the Ardennes was 2016 when he was racing the Giro and he still won Fleche Wallone. LBL that year had other obstacles for him including cold weather and snow (both of which he hates and adversely affect his racing) along with a small cobbled climb that he didn't believe would make any difference to the race when in reality it did.

 

[toolittle]

Re:

Yet Nibali hasn't peaked for Liège since 2012. Contador only took it seriously in 2010. Bardet, Dumoulin, Barguil etc. are not at their very best either. Many riders who could contend do not peak for it like Schleck did.

One of my buddy is a MTB XC racer. He is a good rider but not the greatest one. Normally, he finished within top 3~5 in important races such as continental cup or championship.

His coach helped him to hit his lifetime peak during a continental game. He got a gold medal there and beaten the best 2 riders there easily. He started to target the race since he was 25 and the race happened when he was 29.

Professional cycling seasons repeat every 365 days. So, Elite group such as Sagan must look for peaks for each season to strike his targets. He could has a few periodic peaks during a year. But a real peak can only be 2 or 1.

For GT riders, they need to maintain a good form for a period of time. Then, has his best during most demanding days. Timing is very important. I don't think it is possible to have 2 real peaks for 15 days in a year.

Google training peaks, some related information could be found.

 

[toolittle]

Re: Re:

Yet Nibali hasn't peaked for Liège since 2012. Contador only took it seriously in 2010. Bardet, Dumoulin, Barguil etc. are not at their very best either. Many riders who could contend do not peak for it like Schleck did.

GC climbers who are not also top puncheurs sometimes don’t peak for Ardennes week because, while winning is possible, they are not suited enough to the hilly classics for a win to be likely. Peaking for a race where they will be outsiders is a bad use of form. Those who are top puncheurs, and thus are not long shot outsiders, do peak for it. If you can only win solo with a long range attack you are pretty much by definition not a top contender for the Ardennes races and so your absence or lack of form does little to change the quality of the field. The top puncheurs are Valverde, Martin, Alaphillipe and co, not Froome or Dumoulin.

Abilities - (sprint, recovery, interval etc) could improve thought training. But normally, increase one ability might be in the expense of others. Improvement accumulated slowly slowly.

Most gifted persons will train up to win most important races if possible.

The greatest means best of the bests. They will target the races with highest commercial values for example, Tour de France, WCRR and ORR and manage to beat others there.

Second bests may
- try to reach a life time peak @ a period of time and strike.
- target other races.

I believe Sagan is centennial rider. (if not centennial, 30 years at least). He could beat others even with a normal form. He might go to bar and sleep late a night before he won an important race next day.

I would describe Cadel Evans as one of the best riders around. He looks to have high discipline. He trained up for the Tour although he isn't a natural climber. He managed to beat another beast "Cancellera" when he was in his life time peak during world championship. Of course, he is not Sagan. There are riders in similar level around.

 

[toolittle]

Re: Re:

In my opinion, Nibali could be classified as greatest rider( if not greatest, will be very very close to the greatest)
At least, he won one of the most important race, TDF once.

He won Giro and Veulta easily when he is @ real peak. He won even he was not @ real peak.
He won MSR although the route not fit him well.
He won some important hilly classics which demand more on interval training rather than recovery and climbing abilities.

In my opinion, Contador is greatest for sure. Mark Cavendish is greatest for sure. Boonen and Cancellera are greatest for sure.

 

[toolittle]

Re: Re:

In my opinion, Nibali could be classified as greatest rider if not (very close to the greatest)
At least, he won one of the most important race, TDF once.

He won Giro and Veulta easily when he is @ real peak. He won even he was not @ real peak.
He won MSR although the route not fit him well.
He won some important hilly classics which demand more on interval training rather than recovery and climbing abilities.

In my opinion, Contador is greatest for sure. Mark Cavendish is greatest for sure. Boonen and Cancellera are greatest for sure.

Cycling races are not as structural as football. Too many factors.

I believe all of us understand winner UEFA Europa League means totally different from UEFA Champions League.
You cannot say "Win 5 UEFA Europa Leagues" = a win in UEFA Champions League.

Only UEFA Champions League counts when we are talking about best team.
UEFA Europa Leagues win means a good or great team or one of the top level team. Nothing means best.

 

[Dragontearz]

Is this still a Peter Sagan discussion thread?

 

[Jspear]

Re:

Is this still a Peter Sagan discussion thread?

No. The most important thing to talk about in most threads these days is Valverde. Then we have to bring up Nibali.

I predict he’ll be 2nd in Amstel.

 

[Leinster]

Re: Re:

Is this still a Peter Sagan discussion thread?

No. The most important thing to talk about in most threads these days is Valverde. Then we have to bring up Nibali.

I predict he’ll be 2nd in Amstel.

Who, Nibali or Valverde?