Rank 1-4: Boonen, Cancellara, Contador & Valverde

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
PremierAndrew said:
DFA123 said:
Exactly, that confirms it. Easier to win GT's than hilly monuments.
This is up there with the most stupid posts I've read on this forum
Not surprised with that kind of reading comprehension. If you take things out of context then they will seem stupid. :rolleyes:

In the modern era it is clearly easier for the top GT riders to win a GT than it is for the top hilly classic riders to win monuments. A quick look at the odds makes that clear. The favourites for GTs are usually around evens - or even lower - before the race. The favourites for hilly monuments are usually a longer shot than 5/1. The competition has so much more depth in monuments and tactics and luck play such a greater role.
We could argue for years if it's harder to win monuments or gt's and right now I don't care which one is harder to win. But what is the point of the whole discussion? Do you seriously want to say a monument win is worth more than a gt win? Because I don't see any other reason why one should even argue about this.
DFA123 said:
El Pistolero said:
Valv.Piti said:
Hilly monuments, not monuments. Valverde obviously has no chance of winning Roubaix and hardly a chance in MSR or Flanders if not preparing 100% for those races which is hard with the Ardennes AND 2 GT's in mind.
Nibali was third in Milan-San Remo, second in LBL and third in the Tour all in the same year.

I thought Valverde was so incredibly versatile and competitive in every race?
So podiums count now then do they? :confused:

In that case lets look at Valverde's 2014. 3rd Vuelta, 2nd Lombardia, 3rd WC, 2nd LBL, 3rd Strade Bianche and 4th at the Tour de France. Plus wins at FW and San Sebastian. You won't find a rider with a season anything like that versatility and consistency in the last 25 years.
Thats just not what the two posts above were about.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
DFA123 said:
El Pistolero said:
Contador has won 9 Grand Tours, what on earth are you talking about? (Let's keep doping out of this discussion as we all know how Valverde achieved his pre-ban wins).

Contador won Grand Tour(s) in 2007 (Tour), 2008 (Giro, Vuelta), 2009 (Tour), 2010 (Tour), 2011 (Giro), 2012 (Vuelta), 2014 (Vuelta) and 2015 (Giro). That's 8 seasons where he won a Grand Tour. Any Grand Tour is bigger than the 5 Monuments. Only the World Championships and Olympics can compete with the "lesser" GTs in prestige.

Contador also won Paris-Nice (2007, 2010), Vuelta al Pais Vasco (2008, 2009, 2014, 2016), Volta a Catalunya (2011) and Tirreno-Adriatico (2014). I consider these races to be more prestigious than the likes of La Flèche Wallonne and Clasica San Sebastian.
It's easy for one of the top 3 riders in the world to win a GT each season these days. All they have to do is avoid the 1 or 2 riders stronger than them in peak form, avoid crashing and make sure they don't carelessly lose time on flat stages. Then they should win. Contador has basically padded out his palmares by beating second rate or tired rivals at the Giro and Vuelta in recent years.

It's uch harder for one of the strongest riders to win a monument. The top riders are always there in prime form, and you only have one shot at it. Luck and tactics can often take it out of your hands and the strongest riders often don't win - particularly in the two hilly monuments.

Ultimately Contador has ridden the Tour de France - by far his biggest race - nine times. By the record books he's won it twice - and one of those was because the strongest rider was pulled with less than a handful of stages to go. He hasn't come close to winning it for six years. Him winning the Vuelta when everyone else is tired and focused on other things, is a bit like how Gilbert still picks up the odd stage win or the odd Amstel gold here and there, but he also hasn't come close to winning a monument for five years.

The comparison is strong.
Glad you finally recognize that Valverde is second rate. Also couldn't win the Giro this year (and only made it on the podium because Kruijswijk crashed).

If we're going to scrap Contador's third Tour win you might as well scrap every race Valverde won. The only way he won those races was because he was a major doper. Don't be a hypocrite.

Contador crashed out numerous times for the Tour, which is why he hasn't been able to win it since 2010. But hey, if you want to ignore context, by all means do continue...

Oh and in 2014 Contador beat Chris Froome in the Vuelta, after they both crashed out the Tour. Froome's injuries were less severe and he had more time to recover. Yeah, such terrible competition!
Sorry, but this is just a bad excuse. If for six years in a row you haven't been in contention for the win, it's not a coincidence any longer.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

Hugo Koblet said:
El Pistolero said:
DFA123 said:
El Pistolero said:
Contador has won 9 Grand Tours, what on earth are you talking about? (Let's keep doping out of this discussion as we all know how Valverde achieved his pre-ban wins).

Contador won Grand Tour(s) in 2007 (Tour), 2008 (Giro, Vuelta), 2009 (Tour), 2010 (Tour), 2011 (Giro), 2012 (Vuelta), 2014 (Vuelta) and 2015 (Giro). That's 8 seasons where he won a Grand Tour. Any Grand Tour is bigger than the 5 Monuments. Only the World Championships and Olympics can compete with the "lesser" GTs in prestige.

Contador also won Paris-Nice (2007, 2010), Vuelta al Pais Vasco (2008, 2009, 2014, 2016), Volta a Catalunya (2011) and Tirreno-Adriatico (2014). I consider these races to be more prestigious than the likes of La Flèche Wallonne and Clasica San Sebastian.
It's easy for one of the top 3 riders in the world to win a GT each season these days. All they have to do is avoid the 1 or 2 riders stronger than them in peak form, avoid crashing and make sure they don't carelessly lose time on flat stages. Then they should win. Contador has basically padded out his palmares by beating second rate or tired rivals at the Giro and Vuelta in recent years.

It's uch harder for one of the strongest riders to win a monument. The top riders are always there in prime form, and you only have one shot at it. Luck and tactics can often take it out of your hands and the strongest riders often don't win - particularly in the two hilly monuments.

Ultimately Contador has ridden the Tour de France - by far his biggest race - nine times. By the record books he's won it twice - and one of those was because the strongest rider was pulled with less than a handful of stages to go. He hasn't come close to winning it for six years. Him winning the Vuelta when everyone else is tired and focused on other things, is a bit like how Gilbert still picks up the odd stage win or the odd Amstel gold here and there, but he also hasn't come close to winning a monument for five years.

The comparison is strong.
Glad you finally recognize that Valverde is second rate. Also couldn't win the Giro this year (and only made it on the podium because Kruijswijk crashed).

If we're going to scrap Contador's third Tour win you might as well scrap every race Valverde won. The only way he won those races was because he was a major doper. Don't be a hypocrite.

Contador crashed out numerous times for the Tour, which is why he hasn't been able to win it since 2010. But hey, if you want to ignore context, by all means do continue...

Oh and in 2014 Contador beat Chris Froome in the Vuelta, after they both crashed out the Tour. Froome's injuries were less severe and he had more time to recover. Yeah, such terrible competition!
Sorry, but this is just a bad excuse. If for six years in a row you haven't been in contention for the win, it's not a coincidence any longer.
How is crashing out a bad excuse? Please do tell me. In 2015 he already won the Giro and still placed top ten in the Giro.

But sure, Contador is past it... That's a better explanation on why he hasn't performed in the Tour since 2010. :rolleyes: Ever ridden inside a peloton of 200 men? It's about time they reduce the size of teams to 5 riders only. The Tour would be more open, less crashes and more excitement. Ask any veteran in the peloton and they'll tell you that riding inside the peloton has become more dangerous last few years because there are riders out there taking a lot of risks... Not everyone can afford a 35 million euros team like Chris Froome to keep them save...
 
Re: Re:

Hugo Koblet said:
El Pistolero said:
DFA123 said:
El Pistolero said:
Contador has won 9 Grand Tours, what on earth are you talking about? (Let's keep doping out of this discussion as we all know how Valverde achieved his pre-ban wins).

Contador won Grand Tour(s) in 2007 (Tour), 2008 (Giro, Vuelta), 2009 (Tour), 2010 (Tour), 2011 (Giro), 2012 (Vuelta), 2014 (Vuelta) and 2015 (Giro). That's 8 seasons where he won a Grand Tour. Any Grand Tour is bigger than the 5 Monuments. Only the World Championships and Olympics can compete with the "lesser" GTs in prestige.

Contador also won Paris-Nice (2007, 2010), Vuelta al Pais Vasco (2008, 2009, 2014, 2016), Volta a Catalunya (2011) and Tirreno-Adriatico (2014). I consider these races to be more prestigious than the likes of La Flèche Wallonne and Clasica San Sebastian.
It's easy for one of the top 3 riders in the world to win a GT each season these days. All they have to do is avoid the 1 or 2 riders stronger than them in peak form, avoid crashing and make sure they don't carelessly lose time on flat stages. Then they should win. Contador has basically padded out his palmares by beating second rate or tired rivals at the Giro and Vuelta in recent years.

It's uch harder for one of the strongest riders to win a monument. The top riders are always there in prime form, and you only have one shot at it. Luck and tactics can often take it out of your hands and the strongest riders often don't win - particularly in the two hilly monuments.

Ultimately Contador has ridden the Tour de France - by far his biggest race - nine times. By the record books he's won it twice - and one of those was because the strongest rider was pulled with less than a handful of stages to go. He hasn't come close to winning it for six years. Him winning the Vuelta when everyone else is tired and focused on other things, is a bit like how Gilbert still picks up the odd stage win or the odd Amstel gold here and there, but he also hasn't come close to winning a monument for five years.

The comparison is strong.
Glad you finally recognize that Valverde is second rate. Also couldn't win the Giro this year (and only made it on the podium because Kruijswijk crashed).

If we're going to scrap Contador's third Tour win you might as well scrap every race Valverde won. The only way he won those races was because he was a major doper. Don't be a hypocrite.

Contador crashed out numerous times for the Tour, which is why he hasn't been able to win it since 2010. But hey, if you want to ignore context, by all means do continue...

Oh and in 2014 Contador beat Chris Froome in the Vuelta, after they both crashed out the Tour. Froome's injuries were less severe and he had more time to recover. Yeah, such terrible competition!
Sorry, but this is just a bad excuse. If for six years in a row you haven't been in contention for the win, it's not a coincidence any longer.
Not allowed to participate, doing Giro/Tour double, crashed out some times. Contador's relationship with the Tour hasn't been the last years, but he has shown he is still one of the, if not the, greatest stage-racer of his generation. He has won each grand tour 3 times and smaller stage races numerous times as well.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
How is crashing out a bad excuse? Please do tell me. In 2015 he already won the Giro and still placed top ten in the Giro.

But sure, Contador is past it... That's a better explanation on why he hasn't performed in the Tour since 2010. :rolleyes: Ever ridden inside a peloton of 200 men? It's about time they reduce the size of teams to 5 riders only. The Tour would be more open, less crashes and more excitement. Ask any veteran in the peloton and they'll tell you that riding inside the peloton has become more dangerous last few years because there are riders out there taking a lot of risks... Not everyone can afford a 35 million euros team like Chris Froome to keep them save...
Staying on your bike is part of the race too. In 2014 he was already minutes behind when he crashed out anyway. In 2015 he faced a very weak opposition in the Giro and finished 10 minutes down in the Tour. In 2013 he had no excuse, he was just bad.

Contador isn't past it I would say, but there are other riders (well, at least one) who's simply better now.

I do agree that reducing teamsizes is a very good idea.

Bardamu said:
Not allowed to participate, doing Giro/Tour double, crashed out some times. Contador's relationship with the Tour hasn't been the last years, but he has shown he is still one of the, if not the, greatest stage-racer of his generation. He has won each grand tour 3 times and smaller stage races numerous times as well.
As above.

That doesn't change the fact that Contador is indeed the best GT rider of his generation.
 
Mar 22, 2011
410
0
0
Re: Re:

An important indicator of best/legend.... everyone is watching him, marking him, ride against him... then he still manage to win... win the biggest race.

Who?
Boonon... Sprint, solo... no one could match him
Cancellara... Signiture solo win... on one could stop him to win
Gilbert... Nonstop win... AGR, FW.. everyone is marking him on LBL.. Oh no, cannot stop. Then, WC... just watch him to launch and win.
Contador... Win by minutes
Mark Cavendish... Sprint in WC and many races. When he is on his peak.., just fastest.

Another indicator is team's schedule for races...
Best GC riders of biggest team... target TDF. 2nd tier GC riders... Giro or Vuelta. Will team sky ask Froome target Giro instead of TDF?
Best Cobbled riders of biggest team.. target PR and Tour of Flanders

Again, best riders will win the biggest races. If never won biggest, he is not the best.

Valverde is great. But not best or legend. PCS system is a way to measure whether a great rider is working hard. Not to measure Legend/best
 
Mar 22, 2011
410
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
El Pistolero said:
DFA123 said:
PremierAndrew said:
DFA123 said:
Exactly, that confirms it. Easier to win GT's than hilly monuments.
This is up there with the most stupid posts I've read on this forum
Not surprised with that kind of reading comprehension. If you take things out of context then they will seem stupid. :rolleyes:

In the modern era it is clearly easier for the top GT riders to win a GT than it is for the top hilly classic riders to win monuments. A quick look at the odds makes that clear. The favourites for GTs are usually around evens - or even lower - before the race. The favourites for hilly monuments are usually a longer shot than 5/1. The competition has so much more depth in monuments and tactics and luck play such a greater role.
You don't actually believe that do you? Poels, the winner of this year's LBL, is nothing more than a domestique in races like the Giro or Tour.
There are about 25 riders at the start of every monument that have a realistic shot at winning it. There are about three in most GTs. All teams are trying to win a monument - in GTs only about five teams are solely focused on the GC. All the contenders peak for monuments, they don't for GTs.

Of course the depth is much greater in monuments. The fact that a rider like Poels can win shows how unpredictable and impossible to control they are for the favourites. The exact opposite of a GT - where the strongest rider basically has to commit a major tactical blunder or crash not to win.
Except PR or Tour of Flanders, any strong team and strongest riders will schedule a team of their best riders peak for a classics? So, it is more unpredictable.
Actually, PR and Tour of flanders are quite predictable when Boonen / Cancellara at their best.
Gilbert, with full team support @ 2011, LBL is predictable.
 
Mar 22, 2011
410
0
0
Re: Re:

Versatile

1. Ability :
TT - Power output for a period of time / aero
Sprint - Short range power output (Uphill sprint = watts/weight in short distance)
Cobbled - Special endurance
Hilly - Climb = watts / weight
One days classics - recovery after a series speed change or interval
GT - Climb and endurance + little TT
2. Skill :
Bike handling skill
Tactics
Leadership (to let teammate or management support him)
Riding in different climax
Downhill
Riding in various terrians.
Focus or Espirit

As GTs are dominate by climbs, most climbers do well in hilly and GT.

Who is most Versatile rider?
Valverde - Hilly/GT and what else?
Sir Bradley - He has show his hand in PR.
Cadel Evans - MTB World Cup winner.

For me, Bradley wiggins and cadel evans are the most versatile riders since sean kelly.
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re:

Miburo said:
Nibal and Gilbert are the only guys who can win every classic.

Maybe piti too, but he's not super impressive on flat cobbles, so idk
Nibali? Yeah, sure. He won total of ONE classics (2 if you count Plouay) during his 10 year career. He has a shot, but it could take some 30-40 years to do that :lol:

Gilbert in his 2010-2011 form maybe, although Roubaix would be impossible IMO. In post 2011 form no freaking way!

Valverde no. He could never win Roubaix, Ronde would also be mission impossible. Heck even MSR is very low chance, he was never a top 10.

Only guy who stands a chance is Peter Sagan
 
I agree that Sagan would be the only one who realistically could win all 5 monuments. I think the following riders could top-10 in all, at least, if they focused purely on monuments: Valverde. Nibali, Kwito, Cancellara and Gilbert. All at their best very versatile. Gilbert probably the second closest to Sagan, but he only had 2-3 really good years. He has been rather underwhelming before and after his dominant year(s).
 
Mar 22, 2011
410
0
0
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
Miburo said:
Nibal and Gilbert are the only guys who can win every classic.

Maybe piti too, but he's not super impressive on flat cobbles, so idk
Nibali? Yeah, sure. He won total of ONE classics (2 if you count Plouay) during his 10 year career. He has a shot, but it could take some 30-40 years to do that :lol:

Gilbert in his 2010-2011 form maybe, although Roubaix would be impossible IMO. In post 2011 form no freaking way!

Valverde no. He could never win Roubaix, Ronde would also be mission impossible. Heck even MSR is very low chance, he was never a top 10.

Only guy who stands a chance is Peter Sagan
Nibali/Gilbert/Valverde are close to end of professional life.
Sagan is still young. He need to lose weight for winning LBL or lambordi.
If Sagan is willing to do it, it is possible. But I think he is not going to target it.
Sagan is a powerhouse with endurance and skill. Weight stop him from climbing fast.
Hard to give-up Green jersey, PR/Flanders, sprints for less-important races LBL or GDL.

Monster as Sean Kelly failed to achieve. Let see if Sagan could do it.
Only coaches and sciencists behind Sagan know if he got real protential. First of all, he need to win PR and MSR before 29. Then, takes 1~2 years for losing weight and races. Come back for GTs or Hilly classics.

New team may help him for future success. Tinkoff has too many targets and Ace riders to take care.
Bora... he is the only one.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
I agree that Sagan would be the only one who realistically could win all 5 monuments. I think the following riders could top-10 in all, at least, if they focused purely on monuments: Valverde. Nibali, Kwito, Cancellara and Gilbert. All at their best very versatile. Gilbert probably the second closest to Sagan, but he only had 2-3 really good years. He has been rather underwhelming before and after his dominant year(s).
You forgot a VERY important name my friend ;) someone who already has a top-10 in 4 monuments and was actually very close in the 5th one as well.
 
Re: Re:

Flamin said:
Valv.Piti said:
I agree that Sagan would be the only one who realistically could win all 5 monuments. I think the following riders could top-10 in all, at least, if they focused purely on monuments: Valverde. Nibali, Kwito, Cancellara and Gilbert. All at their best very versatile. Gilbert probably the second closest to Sagan, but he only had 2-3 really good years. He has been rather underwhelming before and after his dominant year(s).
You forgot a VERY important name my friend ;) someone who already has a top-10 in 4 monuments and was actually very close in the 5th one as well.
Martin Elmiger? :)
 
Re: Re:

Billie said:
Flamin said:
Valv.Piti said:
I agree that Sagan would be the only one who realistically could win all 5 monuments. I think the following riders could top-10 in all, at least, if they focused purely on monuments: Valverde. Nibali, Kwito, Cancellara and Gilbert. All at their best very versatile. Gilbert probably the second closest to Sagan, but he only had 2-3 really good years. He has been rather underwhelming before and after his dominant year(s).
You forgot a VERY important name my friend ;) someone who already has a top-10 in 4 monuments and was actually very close in the 5th one as well.
Martin Elmiger? :)
Good one, but he was never close in the 5th :)
 
Re: Re:

Flamin said:
Valv.Piti said:
I agree that Sagan would be the only one who realistically could win all 5 monuments. I think the following riders could top-10 in all, at least, if they focused purely on monuments: Valverde. Nibali, Kwito, Cancellara and Gilbert. All at their best very versatile. Gilbert probably the second closest to Sagan, but he only had 2-3 really good years. He has been rather underwhelming before and after his dominant year(s).
You forgot a VERY important name my friend ;) someone who already has a top-10 in 4 monuments and was actually very close in the 5th one as well.
Obviously GVA, yeah. My bad

The reason Sagan realistically has a shot is due to how Lombardia (sometimes) and L-B-L (always) is ridden. The same reason why GVA is a really good shout. I think these names have much greater chance than types like Nibali and Valverde due how cycling has evolved.
 
Lombardia depends so much on the parcours. On this years parcours both GVA and Sagan could easily contend if they don't go hard on the bigger climbs. Don't think it's worth for them to change everything to win the other monuments without having won the monuments in their own specialty first.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
If Wiggo can top ten in Roubaix, I'm sure Nibs can do the same.

Obviously no currently active cyclist has a realistic shot at winning all five, but if Nibali wanted, he could top ten all Monuments. He already finished on the podium of 3 Monuments after all... The reason why he hasn't won more classics is because Grand Tours has always been his main focus and he has never been a cyclist with consistent form throughout the season. He peaks for specific periods.
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re:

El Pistolero said:
If Wiggo can top ten in Roubaix, I'm sure Nibs can do the same.

Obviously no currently active cyclist has a realistic shot at winning all five, but if Nibali wanted, he could top ten all Monuments. He already finished on the podium of 3 Monuments after all... The reason why he hasn't won more classics is because Grand Tours has always been his main focus and he has never been a cyclist with consistent form throughout the season. He peaks for specific periods.
Yeah but podiums are nothing, let alone top 10's. Right?
 
Re:

El Pistolero said:
If Wiggo can top ten in Roubaix, I'm sure Nibs can do the same.

Obviously no currently active cyclist has a realistic shot at winning all five, but if Nibali wanted, he could top ten all Monuments. He already finished on the podium of 3 Monuments after all... The reason why he hasn't won more classics is because Grand Tours has always been his main focus and he has never been a cyclist with consistent form throughout the season. He peaks for specific periods.
Wiggins was twice the time triallist and rouleur that Nibali is. While Nibali would be a lot better on the cobbled sectors on a rainy edition, it would be extremely hard for him to hold any advantage he has coming out of those sectors.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
El Pistolero said:
If Wiggo can top ten in Roubaix, I'm sure Nibs can do the same.

Obviously no currently active cyclist has a realistic shot at winning all five, but if Nibali wanted, he could top ten all Monuments. He already finished on the podium of 3 Monuments after all... The reason why he hasn't won more classics is because Grand Tours has always been his main focus and he has never been a cyclist with consistent form throughout the season. He peaks for specific periods.
Wiggins was twice the time triallist and rouleur that Nibali is. While Nibali would be a lot better on the cobbled sectors on a rainy edition, it would be extremely hard for him to hold any advantage he has coming out of those sectors.
And yet Nibali has multiple solo wins on his name and Wiggins has zero of those... In fact Wiggo only has one win on his name that wasn't a TT (excluding GCs, as he won those because of his time trial skills)
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
El Pistolero said:
If Wiggo can top ten in Roubaix, I'm sure Nibs can do the same.

Obviously no currently active cyclist has a realistic shot at winning all five, but if Nibali wanted, he could top ten all Monuments. He already finished on the podium of 3 Monuments after all... The reason why he hasn't won more classics is because Grand Tours has always been his main focus and he has never been a cyclist with consistent form throughout the season. He peaks for specific periods.
Wiggins was twice the time triallist and rouleur that Nibali is. While Nibali would be a lot better on the cobbled sectors on a rainy edition, it would be extremely hard for him to hold any advantage he has coming out of those sectors.
And yet Nibali has multiple solo wins on his name and Wiggins has zero of those... In fact Wiggo only has one win on his name that wasn't a TT (excluding GCs, as he won those because of his time trial skills)
Well by that logic, Porte is a bigger favourite for Paris Roubaix next year than Vandenbergh
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
El Pistolero said:
If Wiggo can top ten in Roubaix, I'm sure Nibs can do the same.

Obviously no currently active cyclist has a realistic shot at winning all five, but if Nibali wanted, he could top ten all Monuments. He already finished on the podium of 3 Monuments after all... The reason why he hasn't won more classics is because Grand Tours has always been his main focus and he has never been a cyclist with consistent form throughout the season. He peaks for specific periods.
Wiggins was twice the time triallist and rouleur that Nibali is. While Nibali would be a lot better on the cobbled sectors on a rainy edition, it would be extremely hard for him to hold any advantage he has coming out of those sectors.
And yet Nibali has multiple solo wins on his name and Wiggins has zero of those... In fact Wiggo only has one win on his name that wasn't a TT (excluding GCs, as he won those because of his time trial skills)
Well by that logic, Porte is a bigger favourite for Paris Roubaix next year than Vandenbergh
Both Nibali and Wiggins have shown something on cobbles, Porte hasn't. And Vandenbergh couldn't win a race if he was the only contender.

Just because you're good at time trials doesn't mean you can just solo away in road races. Wiggo doesn't have the explosiveness to create a gap in the first place, let alone maintain it. If Wiggo was there in 2014 Nibali would have dropped him like all the others.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
El Pistolero said:
If Wiggo can top ten in Roubaix, I'm sure Nibs can do the same.

Obviously no currently active cyclist has a realistic shot at winning all five, but if Nibali wanted, he could top ten all Monuments. He already finished on the podium of 3 Monuments after all... The reason why he hasn't won more classics is because Grand Tours has always been his main focus and he has never been a cyclist with consistent form throughout the season. He peaks for specific periods.
Wiggins was twice the time triallist and rouleur that Nibali is. While Nibali would be a lot better on the cobbled sectors on a rainy edition, it would be extremely hard for him to hold any advantage he has coming out of those sectors.
And yet Nibali has multiple solo wins on his name and Wiggins has zero of those... In fact Wiggo only has one win on his name that wasn't a TT (excluding GCs, as he won those because of his time trial skills)
Well by that logic, Porte is a bigger favourite for Paris Roubaix next year than Vandenbergh
Both Nibali and Wiggins have shown something on cobbles, Porte hasn't. And Vandenbergh couldn't win a race if he was the only contender.

Just because you're good at time trials doesn't mean you can just solo away in road races. Wiggo doesn't have the explosiveness to create a gap in the first place, let alone maintain it. If Wiggo was there in 2014 Nibali would have dropped him like all the others.
Doesn't need to solo away for a top 10 finish
 
Mar 22, 2011
410
0
0
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Flamin said:
Valv.Piti said:
I agree that Sagan would be the only one who realistically could win all 5 monuments. I think the following riders could top-10 in all, at least, if they focused purely on monuments: Valverde. Nibali, Kwito, Cancellara and Gilbert. All at their best very versatile. Gilbert probably the second closest to Sagan, but he only had 2-3 really good years. He has been rather underwhelming before and after his dominant year(s).
You forgot a VERY important name my friend ;) someone who already has a top-10 in 4 monuments and was actually very close in the 5th one as well.
Obviously GVA, yeah. My bad

The reason Sagan realistically has a shot is due to how Lombardia (sometimes) and L-B-L (always) is ridden. The same reason why GVA is a really good shout. I think these names have much greater chance than types like Nibali and Valverde due how cycling has evolved.
GVA is versatile enough. But not strong enough. He need some luck to win one of biggest race. He could win 5 if he could try very races 100 times @ his peak.

Only the one with highest level of instinct aerobic physical fitness could achieve all monuments win.
It seems that Sagan has such level of physical.
Specialized bicycle tried their best to hook with Sagan but not someone else. I believe the reason behind is the instinct physical fitness data from lab test.

But whether he could lose weight as Froome? I suspect.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY