Rider of the year 2018

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

Re: Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

So we have:
1. Froome – (also 3rd at TdF)
2. S. Yates – (because of number of GT stage wins)
3. GT
4. Dumoulin – (2 x 2nd)
5. Lopez – (2 x 3rd)
6. Valverde – (WCRR + Abu Dhabi + Catalunya)
7-8. Sagan – (P-R + Gent)
Terpstra – (RVV + E3)
9. Nibali (MSR) – but was 2nd at Lombardia
10. Pinot (Lombardia) – stages at Vuelta
11. Jungels (LBL) – yes, the only one WT win…
12-13. Roglic - (Basque +Romandie)
Kwiatkowski - (Tirreno + TdP)

And I don't know how to rank Viviani.

GT stage more important than a monument? Yes of course

No, only if necessary to point whom of GT winners should be ranked higher..

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

One more remark,
yes, having in mind what Simon showed us during 4/5 Giro and that he won Vuelta - yes, I may admit that he was The Rider of 2018.
But if sb says it was Dumo, Valverde or Pinot - it's pure 100% ridiculous fanboyism.

 

[Koronin]

Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

So we have:
1. Froome – (also 3rd at TdF)
2. S. Yates – (because of number of GT stage wins)
3. GT
4. Dumoulin – (2 x 2nd)
5. Lopez – (2 x 3rd)
6. Valverde – (WCRR + Abu Dhabi + Catalunya)
7-8. Sagan – (P-R + Gent)
Terpstra – (RVV + E3)
9. Nibali (MSR) – but was 2nd at Lombardia
10. Pinot (Lombardia) – stages at Vuelta
11. Jungels (LBL) – yes, the only one WT win…
12-13. Roglic - (Basque +Romandie)
Kwiatkowski - (Tirreno + TdP)

And I don't know how to rank Viviani.

In case you forgot Valverde also had 2 GT stage wins to go along with his WCRR, Abu Dhabi, Catalunya plus 3 stage wins in those two WT Stage races. Obviously this is on what you put in what your criteria is. (Of course we all have different criteria and some of us don't value GTs as high as other races).

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

So we have:
1. Froome – (also 3rd at TdF)
2. S. Yates – (because of number of GT stage wins)
3. GT
4. Dumoulin – (2 x 2nd)
5. Lopez – (2 x 3rd)
6. Valverde – (WCRR + Abu Dhabi + Catalunya)
7-8. Sagan – (P-R + Gent)
Terpstra – (RVV + E3)
9. Nibali (MSR) – but was 2nd at Lombardia
10. Pinot (Lombardia) – stages at Vuelta
11. Jungels (LBL) – yes, the only one WT win…
12-13. Roglic - (Basque +Romandie)
Kwiatkowski - (Tirreno + TdP)

And I don't know how to rank Viviani.

In case you forgot Valverde also had 2 GT stage wins to go along with his WCRR, Abu Dhabi, Catalunya plus 3 stage wins in those two WT Stage races. Obviously this is on what you put in what your criteria is. (Of course we all have different criteria and some of us don't value GTs as high as other races).

Yeah, he just conjured up that ridiculous system so he could rank Valverde very low.

Not to be taken seriously.

Also, saying Sagan had a worse season than López is just daft.

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

Re: Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

So we have:
1. Froome – (also 3rd at TdF)
2. S. Yates – (because of number of GT stage wins)
3. GT
4. Dumoulin – (2 x 2nd)
5. Lopez – (2 x 3rd)
6. Valverde – (WCRR + Abu Dhabi + Catalunya)
7-8. Sagan – (P-R + Gent)
Terpstra – (RVV + E3)
9. Nibali (MSR) – but was 2nd at Lombardia
10. Pinot (Lombardia) – stages at Vuelta
11. Jungels (LBL) – yes, the only one WT win…
12-13. Roglic - (Basque +Romandie)
Kwiatkowski - (Tirreno + TdP)

And I don't know how to rank Viviani.

In case you forgot Valverde also had 2 GT stage wins to go along with his WCRR, Abu Dhabi, Catalunya plus 3 stage wins in those two WT Stage races. Obviously this is on what you put in what your criteria is. (Of course we all have different criteria and some of us don't value GTs as high as other races).

Yes, you are right.
And could you please establish and show us your own criteria which may explain why Valverde is "Rider of the year", instead of CF, SY, GT, TD, MAL..?

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

Re: Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

So we have:
1. Froome – (also 3rd at TdF)
2. S. Yates – (because of number of GT stage wins)
3. GT
4. Dumoulin – (2 x 2nd)
5. Lopez – (2 x 3rd)
6. Valverde – (WCRR + Abu Dhabi + Catalunya)
7-8. Sagan – (P-R + Gent)
Terpstra – (RVV + E3)
9. Nibali (MSR) – but was 2nd at Lombardia
10. Pinot (Lombardia) – stages at Vuelta
11. Jungels (LBL) – yes, the only one WT win…
12-13. Roglic - (Basque +Romandie)
Kwiatkowski - (Tirreno + TdP)

And I don't know how to rank Viviani.

In case you forgot Valverde also had 2 GT stage wins to go along with his WCRR, Abu Dhabi, Catalunya plus 3 stage wins in those two WT Stage races. Obviously this is on what you put in what your criteria is. (Of course we all have different criteria and some of us don't value GTs as high as other races).

Yeah, he just conjured up that ridiculous system so he could rank Valverde very low.

Not to be taken seriously.

Also, saying Sagan had a worse season than López is just daft.

As above.

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

So we have:
1. Froome – (also 3rd at TdF)
2. S. Yates – (because of number of GT stage wins)
3. GT
4. Dumoulin – (2 x 2nd)
5. Lopez – (2 x 3rd)
6. Valverde – (WCRR + Abu Dhabi + Catalunya)
7-8. Sagan – (P-R + Gent)
Terpstra – (RVV + E3)
9. Nibali (MSR) – but was 2nd at Lombardia
10. Pinot (Lombardia) – stages at Vuelta
11. Jungels (LBL) – yes, the only one WT win…
12-13. Roglic - (Basque +Romandie)
Kwiatkowski - (Tirreno + TdP)

And I don't know how to rank Viviani.

In case you forgot Valverde also had 2 GT stage wins to go along with his WCRR, Abu Dhabi, Catalunya plus 3 stage wins in those two WT Stage races. Obviously this is on what you put in what your criteria is. (Of course we all have different criteria and some of us don't value GTs as high as other races).

Yeah, he just conjured up that ridiculous system so he could rank Valverde very low.

Not to be taken seriously.

Also, saying Sagan had a worse season than López is just daft.

As above.

Usage of my eyes throughout the season.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

So we have:
1. Froome – (also 3rd at TdF)
2. S. Yates – (because of number of GT stage wins)
3. GT
4. Dumoulin – (2 x 2nd)
5. Lopez – (2 x 3rd)
6. Valverde – (WCRR + Abu Dhabi + Catalunya)
7-8. Sagan – (P-R + Gent)
Terpstra – (RVV + E3)
9. Nibali (MSR) – but was 2nd at Lombardia
10. Pinot (Lombardia) – stages at Vuelta
11. Jungels (LBL) – yes, the only one WT win…
12-13. Roglic - (Basque +Romandie)
Kwiatkowski - (Tirreno + TdP)

And I don't know how to rank Viviani.

In case you forgot Valverde also had 2 GT stage wins to go along with his WCRR, Abu Dhabi, Catalunya plus 3 stage wins in those two WT Stage races. Obviously this is on what you put in what your criteria is. (Of course we all have different criteria and some of us don't value GTs as high as other races).

Yeah, he just conjured up that ridiculous system so he could rank Valverde very low.

Not to be taken seriously.

Also, saying Sagan had a worse season than López is just daft.

As above.

Usage of my eyes throughout the season.

What Tobydawq said.

Plus: As I said in my comments I also include the injury Valverde had last year and how he returned from that. The fact that he had 14 wins which is one short of his personal record for most wins in a single season.

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

Re: Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

So we have:
1. Froome – (also 3rd at TdF)
2. S. Yates – (because of number of GT stage wins)
3. GT
4. Dumoulin – (2 x 2nd)
5. Lopez – (2 x 3rd)
6. Valverde – (WCRR + Abu Dhabi + Catalunya)
7-8. Sagan – (P-R + Gent)
Terpstra – (RVV + E3)
9. Nibali (MSR) – but was 2nd at Lombardia
10. Pinot (Lombardia) – stages at Vuelta
11. Jungels (LBL) – yes, the only one WT win…
12-13. Roglic - (Basque +Romandie)
Kwiatkowski - (Tirreno + TdP)

And I don't know how to rank Viviani.

In case you forgot Valverde also had 2 GT stage wins to go along with his WCRR, Abu Dhabi, Catalunya plus 3 stage wins in those two WT Stage races. Obviously this is on what you put in what your criteria is. (Of course we all have different criteria and some of us don't value GTs as high as other races).

Yeah, he just conjured up that ridiculous system so he could rank Valverde very low.

Not to be taken seriously.

Also, saying Sagan had a worse season than López is just daft.

As above.

Usage of my eyes throughout the season.

So finally we have your own measurable criteria. Eyes.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re:

As I see it:

1) Simon Yates
2) Geraint Thomas
3) Chris Froome
4) Peter Sagan
5) Alejandro Valverde
6) Thibaut Pinot
7) Nikki Terpstra

All of these guys took at least one “big 9” (GTs, Monuments, WCRR) win and also won notable other stuff. I don’t think Thomas belongs even near this company at any other point in his career, but winning the Tour is winning the Tour. Most years the Tour and a couple of stages beats anyone who hasn’t won two of the “big 9”. He’d be top this year if Yates hadn’t won so many GT stages and loads of other things as well as his GT. The rest of the top 10 is an argument between guys who won a huge race but little else (Nibali, Jungels), guys who won lots of other stuff (Alaphilippe, Viviani) and a guy who nearly won big races all season (Dumoulin).

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

It's not the point in this thread to fell sorry because of sb's injury or to count sb's 2nd class wins.

 

[Koronin]

Re:

It's not the point in this thread to fell sorry because of sb's injury or to count sb's 2nd class wins.

That's your opinion and as I said everyone has their own criteria for the reason they choose a particular rider for rider of the year or a specific athlete in another sport for player of the year in whichever sport.

 

[Robert5091]

Yateses achievements at the Giro then the Vuelta was the surprise of the year. Froome & TommyD were expected to fight it out for the Giro & TdF - though G's seeming ease of his TdF was another surprise.

 

[Nirvana]

I think Valverde had a consistency in week long races that with the WC give him the edge over everyone else in a year in which no one has won two big races, considering that at the Tour he didn't want to go and he went clearly out of shape he basically failed only two races in the entire season.

 

[dastott]

GT, S. Yates, Froome, Dumoulin, Valverde. In that order. Don’t forget GT won the Tour including 2 summit finishes, Dauphine and should have won Tirreno too.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

So we have:
1. Froome – (also 3rd at TdF)
2. S. Yates – (because of number of GT stage wins)
3. GT
4. Dumoulin – (2 x 2nd)
5. Lopez – (2 x 3rd)
6. Valverde – (WCRR + Abu Dhabi + Catalunya)
7-8. Sagan – (P-R + Gent)
Terpstra – (RVV + E3)
9. Nibali (MSR) – but was 2nd at Lombardia
10. Pinot (Lombardia) – stages at Vuelta
11. Jungels (LBL) – yes, the only one WT win…
12-13. Roglic - (Basque +Romandie)
Kwiatkowski - (Tirreno + TdP)

And I don't know how to rank Viviani.

In case you forgot Valverde also had 2 GT stage wins to go along with his WCRR, Abu Dhabi, Catalunya plus 3 stage wins in those two WT Stage races. Obviously this is on what you put in what your criteria is. (Of course we all have different criteria and some of us don't value GTs as high as other races).

Yes, you are right.
And could you please establish and show us your own criteria which may explain why Valverde is "Rider of the year", instead of CF, SY, GT, TD, MAL..?

How about UCI World Ranking, or Procyclingstats, or CQ ranking, or any other damn ranking!

 

[Singer01]

Maybe you could all write your criteria down for next year now. So you can't just select your favourite rider and make talk up whatever they won as being most important.

 

[topcat]

1. Nibali
2. -10. Dsq

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

So we have:
1. Froome – (also 3rd at TdF)
2. S. Yates – (because of number of GT stage wins)
3. GT
4. Dumoulin – (2 x 2nd)
5. Lopez – (2 x 3rd)
6. Valverde – (WCRR + Abu Dhabi + Catalunya)
7-8. Sagan – (P-R + Gent)
Terpstra – (RVV + E3)
9. Nibali (MSR) – but was 2nd at Lombardia
10. Pinot (Lombardia) – stages at Vuelta
11. Jungels (LBL) – yes, the only one WT win…
12-13. Roglic - (Basque +Romandie)
Kwiatkowski - (Tirreno + TdP)

And I don't know how to rank Viviani.

In case you forgot Valverde also had 2 GT stage wins to go along with his WCRR, Abu Dhabi, Catalunya plus 3 stage wins in those two WT Stage races. Obviously this is on what you put in what your criteria is. (Of course we all have different criteria and some of us don't value GTs as high as other races).

Yes, you are right.
And could you please establish and show us your own criteria which may explain why Valverde is "Rider of the year", instead of CF, SY, GT, TD, MAL..?

How about UCI World Ranking, or Procyclingstats, or CQ ranking, or any other damn ranking!

Well, here's a "damn ranking" for you

https://dataride.uci.ch/Results/iframe/RankingDetails/7?disciplineId=10&groupId=3&momentId=29734&disciplineSeasonId=89&rankingTypeId=1&categoryId=22&raceTypeId=0

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

Just to clarify, cause I'm not quite sure I get your system, if a rider (A) wins all 5 monuments in one year and another rider (B) wins 1 grand tour, your system means that you pick rider B as the better rider? Or how do you see it?

 

[Blanco]

Nice try You of course know that this ranking doesn't include all races on the calendar. In fact it doesn't include probably the biggest one-day race on the calendar, World Championships Road Race. Add only that race and we will have a different winner, the same one who's 1st in all those rankings I listed in previous post

 

[roundabout]

You wrote any other damn ranking, not me. And that's an actual ranking, not your extra arbitrary one.

 

[Bot. Sky_Bot]

Re: Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

Just to clarify, cause I'm not quite sure I get your system, if a rider (A) wins all 5 monuments in one year and another rider (B) wins 1 grand tour, your system means that you pick rider B as the better rider? Or how do you see it?

Yes, you are right, in this system rider B would be better (which is nonsense).
That's why I've just bolded the main assumption for my system. And if sb won all 5 monuments this assumption would of course fail but in that case the thread "Rider of the year.." probably would be pointless.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The problem with your system is that it massively overvalues GTs. Like, by a huge amount. Enough that, given your username and posting history, is going to open you up to accusations of bias especially when your categorisation leads to an all-British 2/3 Sky top 3. Even if those are not unreasonable riders to put top 3 at all, producing a ranking which is so heavily tilted in favour of one type of racing will be seen just as several of El Pistolero's old "objective rankings" were, rankings which would usually be shaped to heavily inflate the value of races won by his preferred rider in the comparison and deflate the value of races won by his less preferred rider or ignore them entirely, such as when he did a comparison of Sagan and Valverde, omitting stage races entirely from the comparison and extirpating races like San Sebastián from the record so as to support his personal viewpoint.

in lieu of a particularly dominant Classics rider or anybody picking up a huge amount of smaller stage races and so forth, the top 3 achieved by your ranking is not an unreasonable one, though I would personally rank Yates above Froome because although Froome achieved the higher overall GC placements across the two combined races, and the Tour is of course the biggest fish, Yates' Giro was far more memorable and high profile than Froome's Tour. Thomas is hard to rank in comparison to them. I mean, he won the Tour and fairly convincingly, but there's less that we can take for posterity from it. We'll remember Yates in Sappada in the maglia rosa and his barking orders at the Colombians to work in the Vuelta, and of course we'll remember Froome's Bardonecchia assault (and Bennett's response) for years to come and, while "being memorable" shouldn't be a factor in this more than actual achievements, it does nevertheless play a part.

Oh, and in case anybody thought I was losing my touch, can we talk about Anna van der Breggen a moment? 1st in Strade Bianche, the Ronde van Vlaanderen, La Flèche Wallonne, Liège-Bastogne-Liège, the Emakumeen Saria and the Worlds Road Race (by miles), 2nd in La Course (in the tensest chasedown in years), the national, European AND World Time Trials, 3rd in the Emakumeen Bira and the Boels Rentals Tour. Annemiek's second half of the season was phenomenal too - 3 stage wins and the GC at the Giro, 1st at La Course, 1st in Veenendaal-Veenendaal, 1st with 3 stage wins at the Boels Rentals Tour and 1st in the Worlds Time Trial, with a stage win and 2nd on GC at Emakumeen Bira and a podium at the Ronde van Vlaanderen and Liège-Bastogne-Liège. And 7th in the Worlds Road Race with a fractured knee. Annemiek is awesome.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Re: Re:

Reading some rankings I decided to revise mine (of course is absolutely non-objective ).
First, in such so close year, without any racer with multiple overall WT wins, what should be the base for the ranking? My suggestion:
1. GT wins
2. (if necessary GT podiums)
3. (if necessary GT stage wins)
4. GT multiple podiums
5. (if necessary) GT stage wins
6. Monuments & WCRR wins
7. (if necessary) WT multiple stages overall wins (and if..) WT 1 stage overall wins
8. (if necessary) Monuments & WCRR podiums (and if..) WT 1stage overall wins
9. WT multiple stages overall wins
If we are talking about “Rider of the year” total number of wins (including 2nd and 3rd class of races) shouldn’t be taken into account.

Just to clarify, cause I'm not quite sure I get your system, if a rider (A) wins all 5 monuments in one year and another rider (B) wins 1 grand tour, your system means that you pick rider B as the better rider? Or how do you see it?

Yes, you are right, in this system rider B would be better (which is nonsense).
That's why I've just bolded the main assumption for my system. And if sb won all 5 monuments this assumption would of course fail but in that case the thread "Rider of the year.." probably would be pointless.

Okay, yeah, it was just a hypothetical scenario. I don't think I would have had to go to the extreme cases to prove that your system is flawed though. It seems like you even recognize it yourself, since you agree that applying the logics of your system in a strict manner leads to nonsense conclusions.