Prediction - best rider of the 2020s

[Krzysztof_O]

Yeah it's the difference between ability and palmares.

Honestly think 2019 Vuelta Roglic would've put 3 minutes into Bernal that Tour no worries. Wonder if Jumbo are ever kicking themselves about that scheduling decision

Yup. Roglic is a complete rider who excels in climbing, TT-ing and finishes. In terms of peak level as well as mean level during the season Roglic trumps Bernal.

As for palmares I don't think Giro + Tour is much better than 3 Vueltas. They are similar. 2 Tours > 3 Vueltas but that's another story. And besides GTs Roglic has a big advantage in achievements.

Obviously a lot can change, Bernal has more time. But speaking about 2020s Bernal's Tour is excluded and Roglic is probably only in the middle of his prime, far from being done.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I can't believe i felt for it again. It's a trick question. Make a thread discussing a couple of cyclist you have beef with claiming they will put a stamp on 30s. Only for that to fail miserably and totally different set of cyclist to emerge after.

Nice try!

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

As for palmares I don't think Giro + Tour is much better than 3 Vueltas. They are similar. 2 Tours > 3 Vueltas but that's another story.

I would honestly be very interested to hear a pro cyclist's (GC rider) take on that. I think you would be very surprised. There is a reason why Merckx for instance only won 1 Vuelta. And it's not because he lost all the other times. It's because he only rode it once, since it clashed with the other GT's on the calendar. Hinault only rode it twice (and won twice). As far as GT's go, Vuelta is by far the least prestigious of the three. It's often ridden as a prep for the worlds, it's often littered with guys who crashed in the Tour or Giro and did not make it their main season goal. I think 9 out of 10 would take the Giro+TDF over 3 Vueltas. I could be wrong though, it might be 10 out of 10 if the poll excluded home riders.

 

[Pantani_lives]

Surely it must be Valverde.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

I would honestly be very interested to hear a pro cyclist's (GC rider) take on that. I think you would be very surprised. There is a reason why Merckx for instance only won 1 Vuelta. And it's not because he lost all the other times. It's because he only rode it once, since it overlapped with the TDF. Hinault only rode it twice (and won twice). As far as GT's go, Vuelta is by far the least prestigious of the three. It's often ridden as a prep for the worlds, it's often littered with guys who crashed in the Tour or Giro and did not make it their main season goal. I think 9 out of 10 would take the Giro+TDF over 3 Vueltas. I could be wrong though, it might be 10 out of 10 if the poll excluded home riders.

Yet in recent 10-15 years the prestige of the Vuelta has grown a lot with all top guys winning it (i.e. Froome, Contador, Nibali, Quintana). Strong field is also a confirmation of that. The Vuelta is historically least prestigious but the history is changing.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Yet in recent 10-15 years the prestige of the Vuelta has grown a lot with all top guys winning it (i.e. Froome, Contador, Nibali, Quintana). Strong field is also a confirmation of that. The Vuelta is historically least prestigious but the history is changing.

When did Froome win it? Before he won his first TDF. The Vuelta is still used to let young riders take their first steps in a GT very often. If there is a strong field it's usually because it's a chance for who failed/crashed in the Tour/Giro to save their season. Roglic won it 3 times in a row while his main goals were Giro/Tour/Tour... none of which he won. If next year Pogacar doesn't win the Tour because he crashes or sickness, i'm sure he'll do the Vuelta. In case he wins the Tour again, i'm sure he will not do the Vuelta. The fact that Brabantse Pijl has some big name winners in the last years, doesn't mean it's even remotely close to a WT classic where the winners where the same.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

When did Froome win it? Before he won his first TDF. The Vuelta is still used to let young riders take their first steps in a GT very often. If there is a strong field it's usually because it's a chance for who failed/crashed in the Tour/Giro to save their season. Roglic won it 3 times in a row while his main goals were Giro/Tour/Tour... none of which he won. If next year Pogacar doesn't win the Tour because he crashes or sickness, i'm sure he'll do the Vuelta. In case he wins the Tour again, i'm sure he will not do the Vuelta.

The Tour has always been the most prestigious race by far, no doubts. But the participation of top guys in la Vuelta (i.e. Froome was doing it regularly during his prime) definitely added to its prestige. The race's prestige and field strength has grown in the last 10 years and I can't see it trailing the Giro now (esp. given stronger competition than at the Italian race recently).

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

The Tour has always been the most prestigious race by far, no doubts. But the participation of top guys in la Vuelta (i.e. Froome was doing it regularly during his prime) definitely added to its prestige. The race's prestige and field strength has grown in the last 10 years and I can't see it trailing the Giro now (esp. given stronger competition than at the Italian race nowadays).

Fair enough, but i still disagree. Froome only did the Vuelta because it came after the TDF and he had nothing to lose by doing it. He did the TDF+Vuelta double 5 times, and only won the Vuelta once out of those 5 times. It's simply more of an afterthought in many cases. Sure, many big names will compete, but only few will do so with an optimal prep and as a season goal. Roglic' wins are testament to that.

 

[Leinster]

When did Froome win it? Before he won his first TDF. The Vuelta is still used to let young riders take their first steps in a GT very often. If there is a strong field it's usually because it's a chance for who failed/crashed in the Tour/Giro to save their season. Roglic won it 3 times in a row while his main goals were Giro/Tour/Tour... none of which he won. If next year Pogacar doesn't win the Tour because he crashes or sickness, i'm sure he'll do the Vuelta. In case he wins the Tour again, i'm sure he will not do the Vuelta.

Well, Froome hadn’t “won” his first Vuelta when he went back to it multiple times to try and win it again/for the first time. It was clearly important enough to him to keep trying to get that win. And he kept going to Spain after winning the Tour (2013 was the only year he didn’t).

I think it’s clear that the move to late in the season improved the Vuelta’s standing; it became a race that a Tour contender could roll into as a secondary target, rather than a race which would disrupt/take away from preparation for the Tour.

It must be said, though, that Heras won 4 Vueltas and never threatened to win the Tour.

 

[topcat]

Pogacar. After that it's become Which rider do you like more?
We've had Roglic versus Bernal.
Honourable mentions for Valverde.
Most of these posts belong in a more poignant thread ...

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Fair enough, but i still disagree. Froome only did the Vuelta because it came after the TDF and he had nothing to lose by doing it. He did the TDF+Vuelta double 5 times, and only won the Vuelta once out of those 5 times. It's simply more of an afterthought in many cases. Sure, many big names will compete, but only few will do so with an optimal prep and as a season goal. Roglic' wins are testament to that.

It's better to have big names participating at 80% (well, this year Roglic was close to 100%) than not at all. Even if it results only from calendar.

 

[Leinster]

Fair enough, but i still disagree. Froome only did the Vuelta because it came after the TDF and he had nothing to lose by doing it. He did the TDF+Vuelta double 5 times, and only won the Vuelta once out of those 5 times. It's simply more of an afterthought in many cases. Sure, many big names will compete, but only few will do so with an optimal prep and as a season goal. Roglic' wins are testament to that.

Doesn’t that speak to how hard a race the Vuelta is to win, though?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Well, Froome hadn’t “won” his first Vuelta when he went back to it multiple times to try and win it again/for the first time. It was clearly important enough to him to keep trying to get that win. And he kept going to Spain after winning the Tour (2013 was the only year he didn’t).

I think it’s clear that the move to late in the season improved the Vuelta’s standing; it became a race that a Tour contender could roll into as a secondary target, rather than a race which would disrupt/take away from preparation for the Tour.

It must be said, though, that Heras won 4 Vueltas and never threatened to win the Tour.

Like i said in my follow up post, Froome won it only once out of 5 times while doing the double. It's like you say, a secondary target and/if it doesn't endanger your primary target. There is nothing to lose by doing it, so you might as well try. And Froome, a 4 time TDF winner, only managed to win it once out of 5 during the best years of his career.

Doesn’t that speak to how hard a race the Vuelta is to win, though?

lol... i was about to make a joke about that, that somebody would flip the argument that way. I guess if you actually believed Froome was targetting the Vuelta as a main goal, that you could make that case, but i'm thinking in reality it might be telling a different story, the one that the race simply isn't that prestigious to make it a primary goal for the best (proven) GC riders.

 

[Blanco]

Vuelta in the last 10-15 years is equally important and equally prestigious as the Giro. Ok, terrain is harder in Italy (but it is the hardest race in the world), but the field is more often than not stronger in Spain.
So to me Tour+Giro is not above 3 Vueltas, it's not even equal though, it's below...

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Ok, we're officially entering coocoo land. This is where i get out.

 

[Blanco]

Ok, we're officially entering coocoo land. This is where i get out.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Why can't I vote for Fausto Masnada?

 

[ice&fire]

I'm just wondering what ranking Andy Schleck and Froome would have had if we had this thread 10 years ago.

 

[Leinster]

Like i said in my follow up post, Froome won it only once out of 5 times while doing the double. It's like you say, a secondary target and/if it doesn't endanger your primary target. There is nothing to lose by doing it, so you might as well try. And Froome, a 4 time TDF winner, only managed to win it once out of 5 during the best years of his career.

lol... i was about to make a joke about that, that somebody would flip the argument that way. I guess if you actually believed Froome was targetting the Vuelta as a main goal, that you could make that case, but i'm thinking in reality it might be telling a different story, the one that the race simply isn't that prestigious to make it a primary goal for the best (proven) GC riders.

Well I think it was clear by 2016, when he was beaten by the Quintana/Contador ambush, that the Tour/Vuelta double was Froome’s target for the season, and the following year too. So yes, the primary goal was the Tour, but it was still hard to go and win the Vuelta, just as it was hard for Froome to win the Giro the following year and then try and win the Tour.

 

[tobydawq]

I would honestly be very interested to hear a pro cyclist's (GC rider) take on that. I think you would be very surprised. There is a reason why Merckx for instance only won 1 Vuelta. And it's not because he lost all the other times. It's because he only rode it once, since it clashed with the other GT's on the calendar. Hinault only rode it twice (and won twice). As far as GT's go, Vuelta is by far the least prestigious of the three. It's often ridden as a prep for the worlds, it's often littered with guys who crashed in the Tour or Giro and did not make it their main season goal. I think 9 out of 10 would take the Giro+TDF over 3 Vueltas. I could be wrong though, it might be 10 out of 10 if the poll excluded home riders.

If this was ten years ago, I would agree with this but recently, the Vuelta has gained a lot of prestige, and we don't see any riders using it as preparation anymore, either.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Well I think it was clear by 2016, when he was beaten by the Quintana/Contador ambush, that the Tour/Vuelta double was Froome’s target for the season, and the following year too. So yes, the primary goal was the Tour, but it was still hard to go and win the Vuelta, just as it was hard for Froome to win the Giro the following year and then try and win the Tour.

He did the double 5 times. Of those, he won the Tour 3 times and the Vuelta once. Are you trying to tell me that he did not put the Vuelta clearly behind the Tour? Or are you trying to tell me that winning the Vuelta is more difficult than the Tour? You can say "the double was his target", but that doesn't change the fact that he managed to win the hardest fought and most prestigious race of all 3 times while only winning the Vuelta once in the same period. Not sure what else there is to conclude.

If this was ten years ago, I would agree with this but recently, the Vuelta has gained a lot of prestige, and we don't see any riders using it as preparation anymore, either.

I'm sure it has. And yet the last 3 iterations had a winner who did not start the season with that as his primary goal. Strade Bianchi has also gained a lot of prestige in the last 10 years, yet nobody is debating it is anything like Paris Roubaix.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Doesn't matter how many Vuelta or Tour he won Froome can't compare to the greatness of Vincenzo.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

I'm just wondering what ranking Andy Schleck and Froome would have had if we had this thread 10 years ago.

Schleck #1 or #2 (behind Contador).
Froome - error 404.

 

[johnymax]

Bernal might not have won the most prestigious version of the TDF and Giro, but if we're talking palmares/wins, a TDF + Giro quite easily trumps 3 Vueltas. In fact, i think a lot of pros would chose Bernal's palmares regardless it lacking a monument or more one week WT races etc.

I actually agree that Tour + Giro trumps 3 Vueltas. But the difference isn't as big as some would like to tell us. Even if you say Tour + Giro equals 4 Vueltas, the difference in GT stages (15 to 2) is so massive, Roglič already surpasses Bernal taking only those into account already. Then if we add a monument, there shouldn't be any debate anymore IMO. But ok, to each its own. It really doesn't matter right now. We'll see at the end of their careers. For now I'm looking forward to see them race against each other next season.

 

[KZD]

Personally, I have many doubts that unless something out of the ordinary happens, Pogačar will be the rider of the decade with Roglić giving him a good fight until 2023-2025 or so. I also expect riders like Van Aert, Van der Poel, Pidcock and Evenepoel to mark this decade as well and they will likely be join by one or two riders that are not elite yet.