Question Rate the 2020 Giro'd Italia

Rate the 2020 Giro d'Italia

  • 10

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • 9

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • 8

    Votes: 23 26.1%
  • 7

    Votes: 25 28.4%
  • 6

    Votes: 15 17.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 5 5.7%
  • 4

    Votes: 8 9.1%
  • 3

    Votes: 6 6.8%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    88
  • This poll will close: .
Jun 4, 2019
29
23
630
The 103rd Giro is over, and it's definitely going to go down as a memorable one for a few reasons. Thankfully the race arrived to Milan safely after 21 stages, altough obviously we had to deal with the big changes to saturday's stage (and well, friday's too I guess). Now it's time to discuss how good the race actually was.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I gave it a 7. Some good attacking racing and great to see some more younger ones coming through to squeeze the older ones into retirement. There's a new bunch arrived which means some of the die hards are gonna have to just reminisce and find a new Fav to drool over. The same is gonna happen in the Vuelta, out with the old in with the new. The future is looking bright
 
I thought the startlist very weak - and then it just got significantly weaker.
The last week especially, though, was very exciting and produced a lot of drama, on and of the roads.
With some bigger names in contention it certainly would have been better for me. Hindley and Hart seem like nice guys, I don't begrudge it to them, but it left me wondering whether they are the new stars or just occupying a vacant space.
Almeida fought hard and deserved the attention.
Ganna was a beauty to watch, but did not deliver much surprise, apart from him climbing a bit better than (I) expected.
The Nibali fixation of the forum was honestly too much for me.

All in all - a good GT, interesting, but lacking some depth in quality. If I would vote, it would be something like a 6.
 
Reactions: gunara
I generally don't rate races based on the startlist quality. But I gotta say that the lack of strong teams often triggered defensive racing in the first two weeks, especially in some hilly/medium mountain stages.

The Stelvio stage was one for the ages and the battle between the emerging talents was very entertaining in the end. Still, I believe the riders didn't make a particularly good use of whay I think was a spectacular route.

The good: top Ganna, Etna, Stelvio, Almeida, Sagan stage.
The bad: lack of action in hilly stages, no real fight in the sprints, riders leaving due to COVID.
The ugly: Madonna di Campiglio, the Morbegno fiasco, Nibali never attacking.

Overall I'm unsure if a 6 or a 7. Using @Netserk approach probably a 6 (2011, 2015, 2016 and 2018 better).
 
Really hard to rate. I stand with my statement from a few days ago that people would praise this race a lot more if the final battle was between riders with bigger names. The Alps stages (with the exception of Madonna) were really excellent, with absolute carnage on Piancavallo, the Stelvio and even the fairly easy Sestriere stage. The Etna was also great and I actually think many of the medium mountain stages were also pretty entertaining although there wasn't much gc action.

Frankly, if those three guys eventually battling for the gc weren't TGH vs Kelderman and Hindley but Nibali vs Thomas and TGH, I guarantee you this forum would be going crazy calling it the best gt since the giro 2010. And tbh, I actually think I would have enjoyed it a lot more in that case.
I at least just couldn't really get invested into a battle between guys I know hardly anything about and Wilco the walking meme Kelderman. I can appreciate how brutal the carnage on the Stelvio was and that we had great racing for tens of kilometres, but it didn't feel epic. I didn't watch it with my mouth open not believing what I just witnessed. Yeah, cool, they just dropped Wilco Kelderman, so what? Am I supposed to jump out of my seat.
There was simply something lacking.
 
The start in Sicily was excellent. After that there was kind of a lull GC wise until the time trial, which is really not great. The stage Sagan won was very entertaining though. Piancavallo was good. Madonna di Campiglio is competing for the worst high mountain stage I have ever watched. That has to say something, since I watched Morzine 2016 in its entirety.
Stelvio was legendary, loved it, as was "my" stage with the result of two riders entering the final stage tied for time. Didn't really like it though, that on the three decisive mountain stages there was not really an attack that made the difference, it was tempo riding by Hindley or Dennis that made the damage.
Hard to say, but I don't think I can give it more than a 6.
 
I missed a lot of the Giro, but what little I did see was basically just people following a domestic or another up climbs. I won't vote because it wouldn't be right, but if I did I don't think I'd give it more than a 4 or a 5.
 
Like the Tour, a difficult one to rate, albeit for different reasons. The Stelvio stage was the best mountain stage in over two years and Sestriere was very good too, but other that that, little stands out. It's essentially the 2011 Tour with a better (less poor?) first two weeks. Like with the Tour, I'm torn between giving a 6 or a 7, Friday's farce means it gets the lower of the two (again, like the Tour).
 
I much preferred the Tour this year. Dennis brought the race to life when it was just coasting along. Couple of the race favouries went out early. Always had some doubt about Kelderman holding it together. Nibali didn't have it nor did Fuglsang. Fuglsang did what he usually does in grand tours, a top 10. The altered routes didn't help but it probably wouldn't have changed the podium much. Maybe Kelderman would have missed out. Would have preferred the three time trials converted into two and have had an extra intermediate stage or a short mountain stage. I gave it a 4.
 
Gave it a 6. Virus messed things up a bit. But positives was a kind of changing of the guard, the Slevio stage, Rohan Dennis's amazing super dom performance and the close finish. Probably Thomas would have won easily if he stayed upright but staying upright is important if you want to win Grand Tours.
 
Jul 2, 2019
132
119
1,030
8 (really a 7 but it gets a bonus point for being the Giro) . Despite some bad elements, not all of which were the race's fault, I can't rate a race which had the Etna and Stelvio races anything below a 7 (Etna is up there as one of the best MTF stages I've seen live, right up there with Foix 2019) Good GC fight, even if the TT was a foregone concluson, and some fun intermediate stages, especially Sagan and Ganna's wins, make things entertaining before the final week.

The main negative for me was that some of the intermediate stages which the organizers probably hoped would cause some GC drama simply didn't- Stage 5, the Gran Fondo stage, and especially San Daniele del Friuli are what I'm thinking here- but organizers can't force the riders to attack, they can only encourage it.
 
Last edited:
I gave it a 7. There were 4 really truly great stages (Etna, Piancavallo, Cancano, Sestriere) but not much else after that. I enjoyed the breakaway battles for what they were but it would've been nice to see more GC races, even if it was just on one of stages 5, 10, 13 or 16. At first I found it hard to enjoy the GC battle due to lack of star power but by the end it felt right, TGH and Hindley were the two best climbers in the race and they made huge differences when they had to and the final climb up to Sestriere was super exciting. I think this race was really hurt by losing Kruijswijk to covid, IMO he would have been up there with those two and it would have made it feel a little bit more like a "bigger" race.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I can't say it gave me enough as a GT, it didn't feel grand. Before Piancavallo the only relevance to GC action were contenders being bad and pulling out altogether. The field was weak, not because of its lacking of big names, but because its awful form of its supposed big GC names despite their bragging about good numbers. The fact that the two strongest riders were not designated leaders of their teams made it even clearer that nobody supposed to be good was good. I don't even think Wilco did anything special for his capability, he's just not awful.
Ganna looked to be the only top class show here. And Sagan in Tortoreto also felt top class. Other feels like an extended Tour du Suisse materials (with better riders riding Dauphiné), except that fricking Rohan was now the 3rd best climber.
But I like the 2 protagonists, and there were fun racings, so not quite 4, it's 5.
 
6

I don't like rating races, because athletic quality and entertainment value are two completely different things. The Tour victories of Merckx and Hinault would probably get a low rating, because they had no suspense.

The athletic quality of the GC battle was rather low. Ineos' reserve leader beats two guys who would normally ride for a fourth place at best. However I do think Hart was underrated, and he might have more good GCs in the future. Sagan's stage win and Ganna's time trials were top level.

The entertainment value was very high in stage 18 and 20, a suspenseful climax in the high mountains. However in stages 4 to 13 not much important happened in the GC, the traditional boring middle part of the Giro.

In short this Giro had an exciting denouement, but a top rider in shape could have won this by five minutes.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
7

It was quite exciting to watch, but it easily could have been better. Just like everyone said already, the start in Sicily was very good, but then afterwards not much happened until the time trial - there weren't any major Apennine stages or anything too challenging for the GC riders in week 2. Piancavallo stage was surprisingly good though. In week 3 the stage layout was wrong - I'm surprised that Vegni is surprised that no-one attacked on the Madonna di Campiglio stage; why would you if the next day is the queen stage? The Stelvio stage was very good, a war of attrition basically, though it's a pity that it's hard to link anything with Stelvio from the east. Morbegno was a farce (though I don't think the organisers are responsible here; it's down to the riders, they knew what was coming), and Sestriere was disappointing, though I didn't expect more from the rerouted stage. Overall, very good to watch, but could have easily been even better.
 
I voted a 3. One of the dullest GTs in recent memory. Even if one ignores the weak field, nothing of note really even happened before the final climb. I expect that of the Tour but not the Giro.
It is possible that my negative view is a reaction to Rob Hatch calling ever single moderately interesting stage the "ride of the century." So I would accept arguments for as high as 5.
 
A strong 7, better than the Tour.
A strong start in Sicily, the Ganna stage win on Montescuro and the decent first week uphill finish on stage 9.
Week 2 had the Sagan stage, the Colli Euganei stage won by Ulissi and Piancavallo plus the ITT.
Week 3 had Stelvio and Sestriere before the final TT.
The negatives were some contenders having to leave early because of crashes and Corona and the no contest of the gc riders one 3 of the hilly stages, Vieste, Nove Colli and the Friuli stage. Having the final rest day after stage 16 and before Madonna di Campiglio (an useless Mtf) would have saved the Friuli stage.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts