Peter Sagan vs. Mark Cavendish. Who has the best palmares.

[Ferminal]

Not much of a contest is it?

The real debate looks like it will be [at end of respective careers] Valverde v Sagan.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

Not much of a contest is it?

The real debate looks like it will be [at end of respective careers] Valverde v Sagan.

That's even more apples and oranges. Not to mention it won't be even close, but because it's apples and oranges it's subjective as ***.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Why is Cipo so overrated around here? The Giro organisers fed him so much, and his record in the Tour isn't amazing

Back to Sagan v Cav, age is irrelevant as far as this topic is concerned. Sagan clearly more talented and will have much better palmares by the end of his career but it's pretty close right now

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

Not much of a contest is it?

The real debate looks like it will be [at end of respective careers] Valverde v Sagan.

Sagan already has 3 big victories (Ronde van Vlaanderen and double world champion) against Valverde's four big wins (3 times LBL and one Vuelta). And honestly, 5 green jerseys at the Tour is much better than a Vuelta win.

So as far as I'm concerned, Sagan is already ahead of Valverde. He already won more Tour stages even.

When it comes to (semi-)classics Valverde only won FW 4 times and San Sebastian twice. Sagan won GP de Montreal, GP de Quebec, Gent-Wevelgem twice, E3 Harelbeke and the Brabantse Pijl. So as far as I'm concerned, he's already ahead there as well. Sagan also won the European Championships (I can't classify this as a big win yet and it's not a classic either).

Sagan has 92 UCI wins (+ 5 green jerseys in the Tour) while Valverde has 98 wins (not counting the Tour stage win he got after Ricco got dqed, it doesn't count in my book).

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

Why is Cipo so overrated around here? The Giro organisers fed him so much, and his record in the Tour isn't amazing

Back to Sagan v Cav, age is irrelevant as far as this topic is concerned. Sagan clearly more talented and will have much better palmares by the end of his career but it's pretty close right now

Yes and no. Had Cav won this year's WC he'd be ahead of Sagan, but he didn't and one extra WC on Sagan's palmares is a pretty big gap between them. Especially because Cav doesn't really stand a chance at the next 3 World Championships.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Not much of a contest is it?

The real debate looks like it will be [at end of respective careers] Valverde v Sagan.

Sagan already has 3 big victories (Ronde van Vlaanderen and double world champion) against Valverde's four big wins (3 times LBL and one Vuelta). And honestly, 5 green jerseys at the Tour is much better than a Vuelta win.

So as far as I'm concerned, Sagan is already ahead of Valverde. He already won more Tour stages even.

When it comes to (semi-)classics Valverde only won FW 4 times and San Sebastian twice. Sagan won GP de Montreal, GP de Quebec, Gent-Wevelgem twice, E3 Harelbeke and the Brabantse Pijl. So as far as I'm concerned, he's already ahead there as well. Sagan also won the European Championships (I can't classify this as a big win yet and it's not a classic either).

Sagan has 92 UCI wins (+ 5 green jerseys in the Tour) while Valverde has 98 wins (not counting the Tour stage win he got after Ricco got dqed, it doesn't count in my book).

But they're completely different types of riders to the point where, while there's plenty of overlap in their skillsets, your comparisons are, as usual, incredibly selective in what you count. Sagan is a classics rider with great sprint credentials, Valverde is a classics/stage race hybrid. In a great many races Sagan is a designated sprinter, so of course he will have more UCI wins for this period of time than somebody who often is thinking about their GC position. For this reason Sagan also has a lot more freedom to stagehunt than Valverde, because nobody cares if Peter Sagan goes up the road in an intermediate stage at a GT, whereas Valverde will almost never be far enough down to be allowed to escape.

While their head to heads in big races saw you include the Vuelta (I don't agree that multiple green jerseys equates to more than a Vuelta, as frankly I don't rate the maillot vert as an achievement since the sprint-weighting), you then compare ONLY their one-day racing palmarès, which neglects a huge area of cycling in which Valverde holds all the cards. Sure, Sagan has a better palmarès in terms of semi-Classics, but in terms of short stage races and week races, the only ones Sagan has are Pologne and California, whereas Valverde has multiple Dauphinés, multiple Catalunyas, multiple Burgoses and every short stage race around Spain. Which, while many of them have pretty little value now, many of them when he was winning them a decade ago had some pretty great fields.

Of course, you've also limited it solely to wins. Both riders have a huge palmarès of near-misses, 2nds and 3rds etc. in major races. Valverde has multiple Lombardia podiums, multiple Worlds podiums, and several GT podiums spread across all three of them, and both riders have an enviable collection of stage wins, although Sagan's are going to be enormously numerically superior by the time the two have both retired Valverde has a larger number of memorable and high profile stage wins owing to his tendency to pick them up in major GC stages in the mountains, whereas Sagan's are mixed between escapes and throwaway stages with some sprints thrown in for good measure.

Ultimately, they're no more similar as riders than Sagan and Cavendish. Judging their palmarès against one another can only be utterly subjective, and your criteria are, as ever, selective in order to support the conclusion you want to draw, removing from consideration large areas where Valverde has the upper hand (which is no surprise after the last Valverde comparison exercise you did where you selectively removed several races).

Until then, it's an apples vs. oranges exercise, and has limited value. The riders we need to be comparing Sagan to in the most recent eras (going back we'd probably be looking at the likes of Kelly, of course, or maybe Olaf Ludwig) are those who were versatile Classics men. Bettini, certainly. Gilbert and Cancellara, maybe, but they only have partial overlap with him. Michele Bartoli, perhaps? Peter van Petegem? Museeuw (after all he won Züri-Metzgete twice along with his Northern Classics palmarès)? Zabel in terms of the obstacles he could get over, but Zabel was never as aggressive a racer as Sagan.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Why is Cipo so overrated around here? The Giro organisers fed him so much, and his record in the Tour isn't amazing

Back to Sagan v Cav, age is irrelevant as far as this topic is concerned. Sagan clearly more talented and will have much better palmares by the end of his career but it's pretty close right now

Yes and no. Had Cav won this year's WC he'd be ahead of Sagan, but he didn't and one extra WC on Sagan's palmares is a pretty big gap between them. Especially because Cav doesn't really stand a chance at the next 3 World Championships.

Completely irrelevant if theyre both retiring tomorrow and we're comparing today's palmares. Cav is a world champion across two disciplines unlike Sagan, and will go down as the GOAT sprinter, whereas Sagan would just go down as an awesome classics rider but not the best

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

But they're completely different types of riders to the point where, while there's plenty of overlap in their skillsets, your comparisons are, as usual, incredibly selective in what you count. Sagan is a classics rider with great sprint credentials, Valverde is a classics/stage race hybrid. In a great many races Sagan is a designated sprinter, so of course he will have more UCI wins for this period of time than somebody who often is thinking about their GC position. For this reason Sagan also has a lot more freedom to stagehunt than Valverde, because nobody cares if Peter Sagan goes up the road in an intermediate stage at a GT, whereas Valverde will almost never be far enough down to be allowed to escape.

First of all, thanks for the long and interesting post (no sarcasm!). Since this topic is about Sagan vs. Cavendish my post about Valverde wasn't really meant to be as exhaustive as it should be, although I do think it's an interesting topic and I might make a thread about it in the future if people aren't getting tired of these comparison threads. I personally think they're interesting at least. And it looks like a Sagan vs. Valverde battle could be more interesting in terms of debate.

Keep in mind though that Sagan has never won a GT stage from a breakaway. Valverde has at least once if my memory serves me right (Tour de France 2012). In the 2011 Vuelta Sagan even broke away with Nibali during a stage for the stage win. He did something similar in the echelon stage at the Tour de France this year with Froome. Both of these stages were very memorable. I still remember the discussions about Nibali's team-mate out-sprinting him for bonus seconds vividly.

While their head to heads in big races saw you include the Vuelta (I don't agree that multiple green jerseys equates to more than a Vuelta, as frankly I don't rate the maillot vert as an achievement since the sprint-weighting), you then compare ONLY their one-day racing palmarès, which neglects a huge area of cycling in which Valverde holds all the cards. Sure, Sagan has a better palmarès in terms of semi-Classics, but in terms of short stage races and week races, the only ones Sagan has are Pologne and California, whereas Valverde has multiple Dauphinés, multiple Catalunyas, multiple Burgoses and every short stage race around Spain. Which, while many of them have pretty little value now, many of them when he was winning them a decade ago had some pretty great fields.

I think it's hard to argue that winning the Green Jersey five times is not more impressive than winning the Vuelta once. Only one rider has won more Green Jerseys. The fact that Sagan is not a pure sprinter in a competition that clearly favors pure sprinters makes it more impressive for me. He needs to work harder for his points than the likes of Cavendish and Kittel.

Yes, I did ignore stage races in my post, but has Valverde won enough prestigious stage races to be called a better rider than Sagan? I personally don't think so.

From my recollection Sagan won the Giro di Sardedgnia, the Tour de Pologne (WT) and the Tour of California. Especially California was impressive as he won a relatively long TT and did very well on the only mountain stage of the race. We're talking about someone who can beat Cavendish during a sprint, but also hang on in the mountains if he really wants to!

As for Valverde, he only won the Volta a Catalunya once. In total he has won 3 WT stage races (not including GTs). He has never won the Vuelta al Pais Vasco which is in my opinion the most prestigious one-week stage race in Spain. He has also never won Paris-Nice or the Tirreno-Adriatico which are, in my humble opinion, the most important short stage races in professional cycling. I personally don't value those smaller Spanish stage races all that much. It surely isn't enough to tip the scales in favor of Valverde. Sagan could probably win the Driedaagse van de Panne-Koksijde numerous times if he really wanted to, but he rather skips or abandons the race to focus on the Ronde van Vlaanderen instead. The same can be said about the Tour of Belgium, but he's in California then because that race is more important to his sponsors (and because of the inclusion of mountains he normally doesn't stand a chance there, except for when he did in 2015 of course).

Ultimately, they're no more similar as riders than Sagan and Cavendish. Judging their palmarès against one another can only be utterly subjective, and your criteria are, as ever, selective in order to support the conclusion you want to draw, removing from consideration large areas where Valverde has the upper hand (which is no surprise after the last Valverde comparison exercise you did where you selectively removed several races).

I think the fact that they're different riders makes the comparisons more interesting and it encourages debate. It's always nice to see what one cycling fan values over the other. Some, for example, value sprint wins higher than breakaway wins and while I can understand their logic, I personally don't agree with it.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Why is Cipo so overrated around here? The Giro organisers fed him so much, and his record in the Tour isn't amazing

Back to Sagan v Cav, age is irrelevant as far as this topic is concerned. Sagan clearly more talented and will have much better palmares by the end of his career but it's pretty close right now

Yes and no. Had Cav won this year's WC he'd be ahead of Sagan, but he didn't and one extra WC on Sagan's palmares is a pretty big gap between them. Especially because Cav doesn't really stand a chance at the next 3 World Championships.

Completely irrelevant if theyre both retiring tomorrow and we're comparing today's palmares. Cav is a world champion across two disciplines unlike Sagan, and will go down as the GOAT sprinter, whereas Sagan would just go down as an awesome classics rider but not the best

Classics are classics because these races have been around for more than a 100 years (in most cases at least)! Purely focusing on winning flat stages with sprint trains is relatively new to cycling. My point is: it's much easier to be the GOAT sprinter than it is to be the GOAT classics rider. Eddy Merckx's track record in the classics is unlikely to be ever broken.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But that's why I specified that, right now, those Spanish short stage races aren't worth much but back 10-15 years ago, they really were. There were double figure numbers of Spanish teams in the top two tiers, and the races drew some strong fields. If you look at Castilla y León back when Contador was winning it and compare it to the Castilla y León in 2016 when Valverde won it, it's like night and day, like comparing the Peace Races won by Uwe Ampler and Lech Piasecki in the 80s with the ones won by Scarponi and Cheula in the mid 2000s. Szurkowski's 4 are worth so much more than Wesemann's 5 it's unreal. Some of Valverde's stage race wins are pretty meh, sure. Remember there's also a pretty solid edition of Romandie he had taken away.

Your memory is playing up with Sagan's California if you call that a long TT that he won - the original TT was a decent length (around 25k iirc) but due to weather and organizational issues they had to hastily rearrange it, the eventual TT was around the car park of a theme park and was around 11km in length. It remains to be seen if over a longer TT Sagan could have been as strong; certainly if he hadn't been so well-placed GC wise with only Mount Baldy as a genuine significant climb in the race he likely wouldn't have gone as deep for it. I still maintain that Sagan's best wins are the 2011 Tour de Suisse stage and the Tirreno-Adriatico one from about 2013 where Nibali passed Froome on the GC. Sagan's win into Córdoba is probably his most interesting GT stage because that was a really unusual situation with 3 from the same team escaping and escaping on the descent as well.

I also find that Sagan may have originally gone to California because it suited his sponsors but in more recent years it's just well-suited to him. The all-glitz-and-glamour all-surface-no-feeling vibe off the bike suits him to a tee, the race routes are full of stages which regularly include enough obstacles to prevent pure bunch sprints while seldom being steep or long enough, or close to the finish enough, to prevent a group coming to the line, which perfectly suits him as he can get over those obstacles and aside from the designated mountain stages with the summit finishes there's generally wide roads which favour the chase on the run-in which means we regularly see the reduced group sprint, a format in which he truly excels. Likewise the Tour de Suisse, which regularly includes a couple such stages. Yes, the guy can mix it up in pure flat sprints too, but in those stages the guys he's sprinting against are not the Cavs and Kittels of the world but the likes of JJ Rojas and Max Richeze, so it's no surprise to see him padding his stats in that kind of race, because while in a pure flat sprint he'll get the occasional win and some impressive placements, any sprint in bunches that are heavily reduced will always see him favoured until the group gets small enough that he's dropped (whereupon we get to the kind of groups where Valverde is a favourite because of his finishing kick too).

 

[orangerider]

Jury is still out on this since Sagan is still young with so many years of competition-level strength ahead of him. Cav on the decline, but we know he can still rack up more Tour wins, to gain the total stage win title. On the other hand, Cav's silver medal on the track in Rio was a severe blow to putting him on the pedestal. Good, but just not good enough. Likewise, Sagan needs to win a few classic rides, such as PR at least twice before we can classify him as a legend, and/or at least one more Worlds title to match the likes of Freire, preferably needs 4 World titles to earn a statue. At it stands now, Sagan needs to salute Cav though.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

But they're completely different types of riders to the point where, while there's plenty of overlap in their skillsets, your comparisons are, as usual, incredibly selective in what you count. Sagan is a classics rider with great sprint credentials, Valverde is a classics/stage race hybrid. In a great many races Sagan is a designated sprinter, so of course he will have more UCI wins for this period of time than somebody who often is thinking about their GC position. For this reason Sagan also has a lot more freedom to stagehunt than Valverde, because nobody cares if Peter Sagan goes up the road in an intermediate stage at a GT, whereas Valverde will almost never be far enough down to be allowed to escape.

First of all, thanks for the long and interesting post (no sarcasm!). Since this topic is about Sagan vs. Cavendish my post about Valverde wasn't really meant to be as exhaustive as it should be, although I do think it's an interesting topic and I might make a thread about it in the future if people aren't getting tired of these comparison threads. I personally think they're interesting at least. And it looks like a Sagan vs. Valverde battle could be more interesting in terms of debate.

Keep in mind though that Sagan has never won a GT stage from a breakaway. Valverde has at least once if my memory serves me right (Tour de France 2012). In the 2011 Vuelta Sagan even broke away with Nibali during a stage for the stage win. He did something similar in the echelon stage at the Tour de France this year with Froome. Both of these stages were very memorable. I still remember the discussions about Nibali's team-mate out-sprinting him for bonus seconds vividly.

While their head to heads in big races saw you include the Vuelta (I don't agree that multiple green jerseys equates to more than a Vuelta, as frankly I don't rate the maillot vert as an achievement since the sprint-weighting), you then compare ONLY their one-day racing palmarès, which neglects a huge area of cycling in which Valverde holds all the cards. Sure, Sagan has a better palmarès in terms of semi-Classics, but in terms of short stage races and week races, the only ones Sagan has are Pologne and California, whereas Valverde has multiple Dauphinés, multiple Catalunyas, multiple Burgoses and every short stage race around Spain. Which, while many of them have pretty little value now, many of them when he was winning them a decade ago had some pretty great fields.

I think it's hard to argue that winning the Green Jersey five times is not more impressive than winning the Vuelta once. Only one rider has won more Green Jerseys. The fact that Sagan is not a pure sprinter in a competition that clearly favors pure sprinters makes it more impressive for me. He needs to work harder for his points than the likes of Cavendish and Kittel.

Yes, I did ignore stage races in my post, but has Valverde won enough prestigious stage races to be called a better rider than Sagan? I personally don't think so.

From my recollection Sagan won the Giro di Sardedgnia, the Tour de Pologne (WT) and the Tour of California. Especially California was impressive as he won a relatively long TT and did very well on the only mountain stage of the race. We're talking about someone who can beat Cavendish during a sprint, but also hang on in the mountains if he really wants to!

As for Valverde, he only won the Volta a Catalunya once. In total he has won 3 WT stage races (not including GTs). He has never won the Vuelta al Pais Vasco which is in my opinion the most prestigious one-week stage race in Spain. He has also never won Paris-Nice or the Tirreno-Adriatico which are, in my humble opinion, the most important short stage races in professional cycling. I personally don't value those smaller Spanish stage races all that much. It surely isn't enough to tip the scales in favor of Valverde. Sagan could probably win the Driedaagse van de Panne-Koksijde numerous times if he really wanted to, but he rather skips or abandons the race to focus on the Ronde van Vlaanderen instead. The same can be said about the Tour of Belgium, but he's in California then because that race is more important to his sponsors (and because of the inclusion of mountains he normally doesn't stand a chance there, except for when he did in 2015 of course).

Ultimately, they're no more similar as riders than Sagan and Cavendish. Judging their palmarès against one another can only be utterly subjective, and your criteria are, as ever, selective in order to support the conclusion you want to draw, removing from consideration large areas where Valverde has the upper hand (which is no surprise after the last Valverde comparison exercise you did where you selectively removed several races).

I think the fact that they're different riders makes the comparisons more interesting and it encourages debate. It's always nice to see what one cycling fan values over the other. Some, for example, value sprint wins higher than breakaway wins and while I can understand their logic, I personally don't agree with it.

Sagan is certainly on a good path, but to reach the heights of Don Alejandro Valverde..., well it's still a long way.
Let me remind you of something, which you deliberately never mention, and if someone else does that, you quickly downplay importance of it - the rankings (WT, CQ, ProCycling, you name it!). I would also remind you, before you downplay it once more, that here mentioned Peter Sagan was delighted when he won this competition.
UCI/WT Rankings: 7,5,22,1,4,1,2,5,3,1,1,4 (Valverde)
CQ Rankings: 6,4,14,2,3,1,1,4,4,1,1,5 (Valverde)
You could try to find riders with similar results in the past, I'm sure some interesting names would pop out

 

[Keram]

It is definitely great to discuss this topic basically on your opinions and subjectively evaluating of races but lets involve some stats here. According PCS Sagan is ahead of Cav already http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=Peter_Sagan_HeadToHead&c=6&ids=140797,140768
But he is way behind Alejandro now http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=Peter_Sagan_HeadToHead&c=6&ids=140797,140924

I dont know how reliable is PCS in this but when I compare Sagan season to Gilbert 2011 http://www.procyclingstats.com/ride...lectAnalysis=Filter&s140797=2016&s140855=2011

Tom Boonen 2005 http://www.procyclingstats.com/ride...lectAnalysis=Filter&s140797=2016&s140750=2005

Long story short based solely on PCS points in single seasons Sagan had highest sum PCS points since 76 Maertens season. I dont know how they have covered seasons before 00´s but I think this Sagan season could be best cyclist season of 21st century

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

It is definitely great to discuss this topic basically on your opinions and subjectively evaluating of races but lets involve some stats here. According PCS Sagan is ahead of Cav already http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=Peter_Sagan_HeadToHead&c=6&ids=140797,140768
But he is way behind Alejandro now http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=Peter_Sagan_HeadToHead&c=6&ids=140797,140924

I dont know how reliable is PCS in this but when I compare Sagan season to Gilbert 2011 http://www.procyclingstats.com/ride...lectAnalysis=Filter&s140797=2016&s140855=2011

Tom Boonen 2005 http://www.procyclingstats.com/ride...lectAnalysis=Filter&s140797=2016&s140750=2005

Long story short based solely on PCS points in single seasons Sagan had highest sum PCS points since 76 Maertens season. I dont know how they have covered seasons before 00´s but I think this Sagan season could be best cyclist season of 21st century

Hmm, I still don't agree that Sagan's season is the best of the 21st century. I think two riders did better in fact: Tom Boonen in 2005 and Alberto Contador in 2008.

Boonen won E3 Harelbeke, Ronde van Vlaanderen, Paris-Roubaix, 2 stages at the Tour (forced to abandon while in Green) and the World Championships on the road. He had 14 wins that season, coincidentally just as much as Sagan this year.

Alberto Contador won the Vuelta al Pais Vasco, Giro d'Italia and the Vuelta a Espana with 2 stages. His team wasn't invited to the Tour de France that year.

 

[Red Rick]

PCS points rankings are one of few things in cycling that need to DIAF. Sagan got almost as many points for the Eneco Tour as for his WC win.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Re:

It is definitely great to discuss this topic basically on your opinions and subjectively evaluating of races but lets involve some stats here. According PCS Sagan is ahead of Cav already http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=Peter_Sagan_HeadToHead&c=6&ids=140797,140768
But he is way behind Alejandro now http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=Peter_Sagan_HeadToHead&c=6&ids=140797,140924

I dont know how reliable is PCS in this but when I compare Sagan season to Gilbert 2011 http://www.procyclingstats.com/ride...lectAnalysis=Filter&s140797=2016&s140855=2011

Tom Boonen 2005 http://www.procyclingstats.com/ride...lectAnalysis=Filter&s140797=2016&s140750=2005

Long story short based solely on PCS points in single seasons Sagan had highest sum PCS points since 76 Maertens season. I dont know how they have covered seasons before 00´s but I think this Sagan season could be best cyclist season of 21st century

That's irrelevant for two reasons

- The PCS points structure makes no sense. Races nobody cares about will often carry as many points as races that will make any winner's career

- Before 2008 or so PCS doesn't have most results. If PCS did have all results from Maertens' 1976 season, he would have at least double the points that Sagan has for 2016.
If you want to make a comparison, then count only WT races for 2016, and only the top 3 for each. And no points for leading the gc or winning points classifications. because that's the information PCS has for older races

In fact, Maertens won more races in 76 than PCS has races listed for him in any finishing position.
PCS lists 48 races, 19 of them wins. He won 54 races that year, rode around 150.

I use Maertens to make a point, but I could just as easily have mentioned Jalabert or even more recent ones.

PCS points rankings are one of few things in cycling that need to DIAF. Sagan got almost as many points for the Eneco Tour as for his WC win.

Worse, PCS gives him more points for the ENECO than you get for winning a monument :lol:
Even Wellens was given more points for winning Poland ahead of Felline and Bettiol than Hayman got for winning an epic Roubaix ahead of Boonen. What a silly, silly points structure

 

[myrideissteelerthanyours]

Voted Cav because Sagan's Green Jerseys are tarnished by the way he wins them and also people insanely underrate the wins Cav sacrificed being on the wrong team for the right money.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

Voted Cav because Sagan's Green Jerseys are tarnished by the way he wins them and also people insanely underrate the wins Cav sacrificed being on the wrong team for the right money.

Because Sagan has such strong teams? The guy's double world champion riding for a country like Slovakia (which means he gets lackluster team support).

And why are Sagan's Green Jerseys tarnished by the way he wins them? Because he does a lot more than put his nose in the wind for the last 100 meters? He goes into breakaway stages over mountains just to get more points. All Cav does is sit in the peloton all day doing nothing but relying on his team-mates. The moment the road goes up, or the moment it gets a little windy he ends up dropped.

 

[hrotha]

Sagan destroys the green jersey competition ("points classification", not "pure sprinters classification") even though the rules are increasingly biased against riders like him. How is that tarnished?

[T]he moment it gets a little windy [Cavendish] ends up dropped

He's very good in echelons.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Voted Cav because Sagan's Green Jerseys are tarnished by the way he wins them and also people insanely underrate the wins Cav sacrificed being on the wrong team for the right money.

Because Sagan has such strong teams? The guy's double world champion riding for a country like Slovakia (which means he gets lackluster team support).

And why are Sagan's Green Jerseys tarnished by the way he wins them? Because he does a lot more than put his nose in the wind for the last 100 meters? He goes into breakaway stages over mountains just to get more points. All Cav does is sit in the peloton all day doing nothing but relying on his team-mates. The moment the road goes up, or the moment it gets a little windy he ends up dropped.

:lol: Cav is one of the best in the peloton in crosswinds (although so is Sagan). When was the last time Cav wasn't in the front group in crosswinds in a major race? (Not counting this year's Froome-Sagan break in the Tour when Cav was busy trying to get a bike change after being in the front group yet again before his mechanical)

 

[Bardamu]

Re: Re:

It is definitely great to discuss this topic basically on your opinions and subjectively evaluating of races but lets involve some stats here. According PCS Sagan is ahead of Cav already http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=Peter_Sagan_HeadToHead&c=6&ids=140797,140768
But he is way behind Alejandro now http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=Peter_Sagan_HeadToHead&c=6&ids=140797,140924

I dont know how reliable is PCS in this but when I compare Sagan season to Gilbert 2011 http://www.procyclingstats.com/ride...lectAnalysis=Filter&s140797=2016&s140855=2011

Tom Boonen 2005 http://www.procyclingstats.com/ride...lectAnalysis=Filter&s140797=2016&s140750=2005

Long story short based solely on PCS points in single seasons Sagan had highest sum PCS points since 76 Maertens season. I dont know how they have covered seasons before 00´s but I think this Sagan season could be best cyclist season of 21st century

Hmm, I still don't agree that Sagan's season is the best of the 21st century. I think two riders did better in fact: Tom Boonen in 2005 and Alberto Contador in 2008.

Boonen won E3 Harelbeke, Ronde van Vlaanderen, Paris-Roubaix, 2 stages at the Tour (forced to abandon while in Green) and the World Championships on the road. He had 14 wins that season, coincidentally just as much as Sagan this year.

Alberto Contador won the Vuelta al Pais Vasco, Giro d'Italia and the Vuelta a Espana with 2 stages. His team wasn't invited to the Tour de France that year.

Sagan won the green jersey, had an extra stage, became European champion as well, won in Quebec. These even out atleast on Boonen's Paris Roubaix. Especially if you look at the way Sagan has rode this year.

 

[Brullnux]

The European Chamionships were fairly lacklustre in field really, Quebec is only fairly important and the extra stage win and green jersey at the Tour is OK, but Paris Roubaix is the pinnacle of one day racing and means much more than semi classics, and it is important to take into account the fact that Boonen own the double which is a massive achievement in itself.

 

[Mr.White]

Re:

The European Chamionships were fairly lacklustre in field really, Quebec is only fairly important and the extra stage win and green jersey at the Tour is OK, but Paris Roubaix is the pinnacle of one day racing and means much more than semi classics, and it is important to take into account the fact that Boonen own the double which is a massive achievement in itself.

So Matt Hayman's Paris-Roubaix win is worth more than Sagan's Euro win, Quebec, and green jersey + one TDF stage? Well I don't buy that!

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

The European Chamionships were fairly lacklustre in field really, Quebec is only fairly important and the extra stage win and green jersey at the Tour is OK, but Paris Roubaix is the pinnacle of one day racing and means much more than semi classics, and it is important to take into account the fact that Boonen own the double which is a massive achievement in itself.

So Matt Hayman's Paris-Roubaix win is worth more than Sagan's Euro win, Quebec, and green jersey + one TDF stage? Well I don't buy that!

Maybe not, but had he won the double yes (including another RVV)

But actually I'd personally rather come out of a season with a single Paris Roubaix than all of those.

 

[Netserk]

Another thing to note is that Boonen is the only rider since Merckx(!) to win three of the WCRR and the five monuments in the same year.