Rider of the year 2018

[Rollthedice]

Results do matter. Froome no. 1, Thomas, TdF winner plus two stages and Dauphine would be second, Yates for one GT win and countless GT stages won third, Valverde for his WCRR and Dumoulin for his consistency close the top five.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Yes, of course I'm Sky fanboy so I wll give my personal rankings in previous 4 years:
2014:
GT winners: Quintana, Nibali, Contador
But Contador won TA + Pais Vasco, so Contador was the best (and I'm not a Contador fan because of obvious one reason) - I had to apply my 7th point of my system.
2015:
Contador vs. Froome vs. Aru
So Aru better than Froome thanks to his 2nd place at Giro (and I'm not a Aru fan).
2016:
Nibali vs. Froome vs. Quintana
So Quintana also better than Froome, because of his wins at Catalunya and Romandie (Froome - only Dauphine) - also 7th point of my system.
2017:
Dumo vs. Froome (TdF & Vuelta).
Froome, no doubts.

I just think you're putting far too much of a bias in your considerations towards the GTs and in fact stage races in general - and also seemingly very heavily weighted towards the GC to the exclusion of all else in such that "rider of the year" is a straight head to head between the GT winners. I think Sagan had a better 2016 than any of the GT winners, and I think we all know that I say that with quite some reluctance. With you on Contador for 2014, and I think it's hard to argue against Froome for 2017, but I think you also have to consider Kristoff in 2015. For example, in 2009 surely Cavendish should merit some consideration for best rider of the year, as with Menchov being awol after the Giro, Contador calling his season to a close in July and Valverde being great everywhere he went but riding only the one GT due to his being unwelcome in Italy, Cav's season that year was dominant to a level hitherto unforeseen, and again, I'm sure if you weren't here in the days of HTC's dominant train of pain others can fill you in on my opinion of them.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

By that logic, Valverde just won a few reduced bunch sprints this year.

Wow, a contender for worst analogy of the year here. Even if you count every one of Valverde's wins as a reduced bunch sprint, he still won ten of them. TEN. That's orders of magnitude more than a couple of TTs.

But he didn't just win that, he also won the GC of 4 stage races.

complains about bad analogy, immediately brings everything back to solely quantity of wins.

Err, no. Valverde won the World Championships, a WT stage race and GT stage wins. The point is that he had the quality and the quantity. And it is clearly the combination of quantity and quality of wins that decides rider of the year.

As Blanco said, winning just two TTs all year leaves you way too short on the quantity side to be in serious consideration.

If we're suddenly valuing 2nd place and high positions as nearly as good as wins, then I'm sure you would heartily agree that Valverde should be regarded as rider of the year all those times he podiumed GTs and WCs? As surely you wouldn't just be twisting the criteria to suit your favourites?

Viviani also won 2 GCs this year. And he won more sprints.

Does quality of races suddenly have to count now?

Bit embarrassing to be bringing Viviani's name into the conversation for Best Rider of 2018.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

For me Valverde. Followed closely by Yates and then probably Viviani (I'm missing him here as sprinter who won the most)

Dumoulin didn't win enough big races to contend here. If the thread title was most consistent rider of the year then yes

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

By that logic, Valverde just won a few reduced bunch sprints this year.

Wow, a contender for worst analogy of the year here. Even if you count every one of Valverde's wins as a reduced bunch sprint, he still won ten of them. TEN. That's orders of magnitude more than a couple of TTs.

But he didn't just win that, he also won the GC of 4 stage races.

complains about bad analogy, immediately brings everything back to solely quantity of wins.

Err, no. Valverde won the World Championships, a WT stage race and GT stage wins. The point is that he had the quality and the quantity. And it is clearly the combination of quantity and quality of wins that decides rider of the year.

As Blanco said, winning just two TTs all year leaves you way too short on the quantity side to be in serious consideration.

If we're suddenly valuing 2nd place and high positions as nearly as good as wins, then I'm sure you would heartily agree that Valverde should be regarded as rider of the year all those times he podiumed GTs and WCs? As surely you wouldn't just be twisting the criteria to suit your favourites?

Viviani also won 2 GCs this year. And he won more sprints.

Does quality of races suddenly have to count now?

Bit embarrassing to be bringing Viviani's name into the conversation for Best Rider of 2018.

The thing is that I am not arguing that Dumoulin had a better season than Valverde. I am arguing that Valverde didn't have the best season by applying the arguments in his favor to other riders.

To have Valverde on top, you have to put all the Tier 1 races in the same bracket, then put a ridiculous emphasis on wins in micky mouse races over non wins in Tier 1 races and you have to completely disregard the historical significance of certain achievements and you have to disregard in what manner races were won.

Froome was the first since Pantani in '98 to podium the Tour after winning the Giro.

Valverde was the first to win the WC after winning GC stages and a bunch of other stuff since Sagan in 2017, 2016, and 2015.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

The thing is that I am not arguing that Dumoulin had a better season than Valverde. I am arguing that Valverde didn't have the best season by applying the arguments in his favor to other riders.

To have Valverde on top, you have to put all the Tier 1 races in the same bracket, then put a ridiculous emphasis on wins in micky mouse races over non wins in Tier 1 races and you have to completely disregard the historical significance of certain achievements and you have to disregard in what manner races were won.

Froome was the first since Pantani in '98 to podium the Tour after winning the Giro.

Valverde was the first to win the WC after winning GC stages and a bunch of other stuff since Sagan in 2017, 2016, and 2015.

Cool, in that case we agree. Froome by a landslide. It was still a terible analogy though.

 

[tobydawq]

Valverde was the by far best rider of the first three months. His superiority in the events he rode at the early races was incredible, and it was founded in the mountains - something people continuously try to tell me he is not an expert in riding in. Also, his exploits in Strade Bianche, where he might have been on the level of Benoot but lost out due to defensive tactics and Dwars door Vlaanderen were noteworthy and made sure he had shone brightly in the disciplines as far-ranging as cobbles, gravel, sprints and mountains, displaying an un-matched versatility where only a couple of semi-lacklustre time trials prevented him from conquering the whole palette.

His form lasted into Amstel Gold Race, where he was the strongest rider of the race but lost out because Sagan was able to match his attacks. Then he was beaten on his own hill, and against QuickStep in LBL there was nothing much he could do because everybody rode against him.

He came back in Route d'Occitanie where he put on a show on the last day that I haven't seen many other of the contenders in this thread make. He did the same in Murcia. I know they're not big races, but he really has entertained his fans - something he has been able do to because of his extremely high level.

The Tour was not good, but then he almost won the Vuelta and after having looked dead, he bounced back two weeks later and secured himself the jersey he has been wanting to put on for a decade and a half.

So don't come here with the "he's only won some sprints" nonsense.

As with Sagan, he is the reference point whenever he pins on a number, and that tells me more of a quality of a rider than if you randomly win a monument because of tactics like Nibali and Jungels.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Im going Valverde, Yates and Froome.

 

[Põhja Konn]

Re: Re:

I'm very much of the opinion that because he didn't win any of his big goals, Dumoulins season is being heavily undervalued in this thread. He was the closest challenger at both, the Giro and the Tour and made the last four-man selection in WCRR, while also being the runner-up in both TT disciplines.

While Froome was able to take the Giro , it required one of the most controversial performances of the decade to achieve it. However, Dumoulins exploits at the Worlds lift him to another level when entire seasons performance is in question.

Obviously in the longer run we predominantly remember victories and winners and not narrow nearmisses and other lower placings, but this particular thread is about evaluating the season that just ended and about which far more than just wins and winners are fresh in the memory. As such the importance of a singular win (however big the race is) should not be overestimated.

Yeah I think Dumoulin was definitely one of the most impressive riders this year, and he kinda didn't get the reward for it. Especially when discussing entire careers of riders of this level, we're mostly talking GT, WC and monument wins, so he kinda fell flat there this year.

Like in level he was easily top 3 for me with Froome and Yates. But not in results.

I hope Deuxmoulin can stop the streak next year.

But as I understand, this thread was not solely about comparing results. At least your OP left it open for interpretation. And, imo, it shouldn't be only about results, as at this moment in time memories are fresh enough for us to take into account lot more factors than mere results in the record books.

As such, only Froome can reasonably be argued to be ahead of Dumoulin. Put it this way, it basically took the repeat performances of Landis and Horner in back to back GTs, and by two different riders at that, to deny Dumoulin a GT win this year.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

By that logic, Valverde just won a few reduced bunch sprints this year.

Wow, a contender for worst analogy of the year here. Even if you count every one of Valverde's wins as a reduced bunch sprint, he still won ten of them. TEN. That's orders of magnitude more than a couple of TTs.

But he didn't just win that, he also won the GC of 4 stage races.

complains about bad analogy, immediately brings everything back to solely quantity of wins.

Viviani also won 2 GCs this year. And he won more sprints.

Does quality of races suddenly have to count now?

Yeah, and he had a great season, better than Dumoulin...

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

I'm very much of the opinion that because he didn't win any of his big goals, Dumoulins season is being heavily undervalued in this thread. He was the closest challenger at both, the Giro and the Tour and made the last four-man selection in WCRR, while also being the runner-up in both TT disciplines.

While Froome was able to take the Giro , it required one of the most controversial performances of the decade to achieve it. However, Dumoulins exploits at the Worlds lift him to another level when entire seasons performance is in question.

Obviously in the longer run we predominantly remember victories and winners and not narrow nearmisses and other lower placings, but this particular thread is about evaluating the season that just ended and about which far more than just wins and winners are fresh in the memory. As such the importance of a singular win (however big the race is) should not be overestimated.

Yeah I think Dumoulin was definitely one of the most impressive riders this year, and he kinda didn't get the reward for it. Especially when discussing entire careers of riders of this level, we're mostly talking GT, WC and monument wins, so he kinda fell flat there this year.

Like in level he was easily top 3 for me with Froome and Yates. But not in results.

I hope Deuxmoulin can stop the streak next year.

But as I understand, this thread was not solely about comparing results. At least your OP left it open for interpretation. And, imo, it shouldn't be only about results, as at this moment in time memories are fresh enough for us to take into account lot more factors than mere results in the record books.

As such, only Froome can reasonably be argued to be ahead of Dumoulin. Put it this way, it basically took the repeat performances of Landis and Horner in back to back GTs, and by two different riders at that, to deny Dumoulin a GT win this year.

Ultimately it is sport and the riders ride for Win. Dumoulin won virtually nothing so I have really tough times to consider him in Top 3. To me Yates is just that small inch above Thomas as the best of the bunch. Froome bit ahead of Valverde for 3rd. I don't regard WCRR higher than any of the monuments and a GC just edges those one day races slighly for me. Valverde does not rank higher than i.e Nibali in one day races, but his early year stage race record takes him to Top 4 loud and clear.

Dumoulin probably 5th, but I agree some writers that he was somewhat un-spectacular and dissapointing whole season. It seems he is not able to make winning difference anywhere else than in TT's and that migth become issue also in future GC ambitions.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I’m not biased in favour of GTs, probably the reverse, but I don’t see how anyone who didn’t win one this year can crack the top 3 because nobody took multiple very big wins. There is no reasonable case for Valverde and no case at all for Dumoulin.

Compare for instance Thomas and Valverde: The Tour is a much bigger win than the WCRR. The Dauphine is a bigger win than Catalunya. Two Tour stages are bigger wins than two Vuelta stages. Looking at tier one (big 9) wins, Thomas is miles ahead. Looking at tier two (in this case GT stages and major one week races), Thomas only gets further ahead. You have to give frankly absurd weight to quantity of tiny wins to put Valverde even close. Not only is his season defining win less important, there just aren’t important enough secondary wins to back it up.

There is a case for any of the GT winners, but in my view the one for Froome is clearly weaker than those for Thomas or Yates. Ranking him against Thomas presents essentially the same core difficulty for his partisans as that faced by Valverde fans: his big win is closer in value to a Tour win, but ultimately it is still clearly less valuable to win a Giro. Two Giro stages are again outranked by two Tour stages. He has no other wins to weigh against the Dauphine. He’s closer to Thomas than Valverde, because a Giro is a lot better than the WCRR, but instead of giving absurd weight to little wins, you have to give absurd weight to failing to complete a Giro-Tour double. That brings us back to the Dumoulin problem: when you are ranking the best of the best, impressive failures are still ultimately failures.

There is no plainly obvious equivalent problem for Yates. He has the requisite big win to belong in the discussion in the first place. He has more tier two wins than anyone else. He also has various lesser wins. Ranking him and Thomas is essentially down to subjective weighting of the Tour and just how much more a winner of a lesser GT has to do overcome that weight. Yates did quite a lot more, enough for me to put him first, but Ive no beef with anyone who picks Thomas.

 

[sir fly]

You know it's been a great season when there's so much disagreement even about the criteria for ranking.

 

[Koronin]

Wait are people also counting podiums? Well Valverde also has a TON of those as well including podiums at Fleche Wallone, a stage at the Tour, stages in a few other races and other one day races. He had only a handful of races/stages where he didn't finish in the top 15 overall (which happens to include his one cobbled race). Oh yeah he finished with the top cobbled riders in that cobbled race he raced this year. No other GC contender can say that.

 

[sir fly]

Can't tell why, but I think you might be biased, Koronin.

 

[tobydawq]

Re:

I’m not biased in favour of GTs, probably the reverse, but I don’t see how anyone who didn’t win one this year can crack the top 3 because nobody took multiple very big wins. There is no reasonable case for Valverde and no case at all for Dumoulin.

Compare for instance Thomas and Valverde: The Tour is a much bigger win than the WCRR. The Dauphine is a bigger win than Catalunya. Two Tour stages are bigger wins than two Vuelta stages. Looking at tier one (big 9) wins, Thomas is miles ahead. Looking at tier two (in this case GT stages and major one week races), Thomas only gets further ahead. You have to give frankly absurd weight to quantity of tiny wins to put Valverde even close. Not only is his season defining win less important, there just aren’t important enough secondary wins to back it up.

There is a case for any of the GT winners, but in my view the one for Froome is clearly weaker than those for Thomas or Yates. Ranking him against Thomas presents essentially the same core difficulty for his partisans as that faced by Valverde fans: his big win is closer in value to a Tour win, but ultimately it is still clearly less valuable to win a Giro. Two Giro stages are again outranked by two Tour stages. He has no other wins to weigh against the Dauphine. He’s closer to Thomas than Valverde, because a Giro is a lot better than the WCRR, but instead of giving absurd weight to little wins, you have to give absurd weight to failing to complete a Giro-Tour double. That brings us back to the Dumoulin problem: when you are ranking the best of the best, impressive failures are still ultimately failures.

There is no plainly obvious equivalent problem for Yates. He has the requisite big win to belong in the discussion in the first place. He has more tier two wins than anyone else. He also has various lesser wins. Ranking him and Thomas is essentially down to subjective weighting of the Tour and just how much more a winner of a lesser GT has to do overcome that weight. Yates did quite a lot more, enough for me to put him first, but Ive no beef with anyone who picks Thomas.

You make some good points here, but I don't totally agree with your premises.

First of all, the manner in which a race is won definitely should be taken into account. So regarding the Catalonia vs Dauphiné comparison, Thomas was gifted the win through the ridiculous TTT (the same happened in Tirreno where he was unlucky with an untimely mechanical), and Valverde won his race by himself (and also won Abu Dhabi Tour which is WorldTour too, however much you may dislike it). Further, I disagree that Dauphiné is a bigger win in and of itself than the Volta as it's a preparation race, which the Volta isn't.

Also, I definitely rank WCRR much, much higher than MSR and Lombardia but I accept that not everybody agrees with that.

Finally, the fact that Thomas was only really at the top of his game for a couple of months speaks against him for me. But that is just a personal preference.

 

[bambino]

Re:

I’m not biased in favour of GTs, probably the reverse, but I don’t see how anyone who didn’t win one this year can crack the top 3 because nobody took multiple very big wins. There is no reasonable case for Valverde and no case at all for Dumoulin.

Compare for instance Thomas and Valverde: The Tour is a much bigger win than the WCRR. The Dauphine is a bigger win than Catalunya. Two Tour stages are bigger wins than two Vuelta stages. Looking at tier one (big 9) wins, Thomas is miles ahead. Looking at tier two (in this case GT stages and major one week races), Thomas only gets further ahead. You have to give frankly absurd weight to quantity of tiny wins to put Valverde even close. Not only is his season defining win less important, there just aren’t important enough secondary wins to back it up.

There is a case for any of the GT winners, but in my view the one for Froome is clearly weaker than those for Thomas or Yates. Ranking him against Thomas presents essentially the same core difficulty for his partisans as that faced by Valverde fans: his big win is closer in value to a Tour win, but ultimately it is still clearly less valuable to win a Giro. Two Giro stages are again outranked by two Tour stages. He has no other wins to weigh against the Dauphine. He’s closer to Thomas than Valverde, because a Giro is a lot better than the WCRR, but instead of giving absurd weight to little wins, you have to give absurd weight to failing to complete a Giro-Tour double. That brings us back to the Dumoulin problem: when you are ranking the best of the best, impressive failures are still ultimately failures.

There is no plainly obvious equivalent problem for Yates. He has the requisite big win to belong in the discussion in the first place. He has more tier two wins than anyone else. He also has various lesser wins. Ranking him and Thomas is essentially down to subjective weighting of the Tour and just how much more a winner of a lesser GT has to do overcome that weight. Yates did quite a lot more, enough for me to put him first, but Ive no beef with anyone who picks Thomas.

This more or less summarizes my thinking that I tried to express earlier. Could not agree more.

 

[DBotero]

Re:

Results do matter. Froome no. 1, Thomas, TdF winner plus two stages and Dauphine would be second, Yates for one GT win and countless GT stages won third, Valverde for his WCRR and Dumoulin for his consistency close the top five.

Sounds about right.
Grande Alejandro got his missing golden,I'm very happy with it,but I don't see how his season was better than of Froome,Thomas or Yates.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

I’m not biased in favour of GTs, probably the reverse, but I don’t see how anyone who didn’t win one this year can crack the top 3 because nobody took multiple very big wins. There is no reasonable case for Valverde and no case at all for Dumoulin.

Compare for instance Thomas and Valverde: The Tour is a much bigger win than the WCRR. The Dauphine is a bigger win than Catalunya. Two Tour stages are bigger wins than two Vuelta stages. Looking at tier one (big 9) wins, Thomas is miles ahead. Looking at tier two (in this case GT stages and major one week races), Thomas only gets further ahead. You have to give frankly absurd weight to quantity of tiny wins to put Valverde even close. Not only is his season defining win less important, there just aren’t important enough secondary wins to back it up.

There is a case for any of the GT winners, but in my view the one for Froome is clearly weaker than those for Thomas or Yates. Ranking him against Thomas presents essentially the same core difficulty for his partisans as that faced by Valverde fans: his big win is closer in value to a Tour win, but ultimately it is still clearly less valuable to win a Giro. Two Giro stages are again outranked by two Tour stages. He has no other wins to weigh against the Dauphine. He’s closer to Thomas than Valverde, because a Giro is a lot better than the WCRR, but instead of giving absurd weight to little wins, you have to give absurd weight to failing to complete a Giro-Tour double. That brings us back to the Dumoulin problem: when you are ranking the best of the best, impressive failures are still ultimately failures.

There is no plainly obvious equivalent problem for Yates. He has the requisite big win to belong in the discussion in the first place. He has more tier two wins than anyone else. He also has various lesser wins. Ranking him and Thomas is essentially down to subjective weighting of the Tour and just how much more a winner of a lesser GT has to do overcome that weight. Yates did quite a lot more, enough for me to put him first, but Ive no beef with anyone who picks Thomas.

You make some good points here, but I don't totally agree with your premises.

First of all, the manner in which a race is won definitely should be taken into account. So regarding the Catalonia vs Dauphiné comparison, Thomas was gifted the win through the ridiculous TTT (the same happened in Tirreno where he was unlucky with an untimely mechanical), and Valverde won his race by himself (and also won Abu Dhabi Tour which is WorldTour too, however much you may dislike it). Further, I disagree that Dauphiné is a bigger win in and of itself than the Volta as it's a preparation race, which the Volta isn't.

Also, I definitely rank WCRR much, much higher than MSR and Lombardia but I accept that not everybody agrees with that.

Finally, the fact that Thomas was only really at the top of his game for a couple of months speaks against him for me. But that is just a personal preference.

Wrong. Thomas would've won Dauphine even if TTT results are not taken into account.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

I’m not biased in favour of GTs, probably the reverse, but I don’t see how anyone who didn’t win one this year can crack the top 3 because nobody took multiple very big wins. There is no reasonable case for Valverde and no case at all for Dumoulin.

Compare for instance Thomas and Valverde: The Tour is a much bigger win than the WCRR. The Dauphine is a bigger win than Catalunya. Two Tour stages are bigger wins than two Vuelta stages. Looking at tier one (big 9) wins, Thomas is miles ahead. Looking at tier two (in this case GT stages and major one week races), Thomas only gets further ahead. You have to give frankly absurd weight to quantity of tiny wins to put Valverde even close. Not only is his season defining win less important, there just aren’t important enough secondary wins to back it up.

There is a case for any of the GT winners, but in my view the one for Froome is clearly weaker than those for Thomas or Yates. Ranking him against Thomas presents essentially the same core difficulty for his partisans as that faced by Valverde fans: his big win is closer in value to a Tour win, but ultimately it is still clearly less valuable to win a Giro. Two Giro stages are again outranked by two Tour stages. He has no other wins to weigh against the Dauphine. He’s closer to Thomas than Valverde, because a Giro is a lot better than the WCRR, but instead of giving absurd weight to little wins, you have to give absurd weight to failing to complete a Giro-Tour double. That brings us back to the Dumoulin problem: when you are ranking the best of the best, impressive failures are still ultimately failures.

There is no plainly obvious equivalent problem for Yates. He has the requisite big win to belong in the discussion in the first place. He has more tier two wins than anyone else. He also has various lesser wins. Ranking him and Thomas is essentially down to subjective weighting of the Tour and just how much more a winner of a lesser GT has to do overcome that weight. Yates did quite a lot more, enough for me to put him first, but Ive no beef with anyone who picks Thomas.

You make some good points here, but I don't totally agree with your premises.

First of all, the manner in which a race is won definitely should be taken into account. So regarding the Catalonia vs Dauphiné comparison, Thomas was gifted the win through the ridiculous TTT (the same happened in Tirreno where he was unlucky with an untimely mechanical), and Valverde won his race by himself (and also won Abu Dhabi Tour which is WorldTour too, however much you may dislike it). Further, I disagree that Dauphiné is a bigger win in and of itself than the Volta as it's a preparation race, which the Volta isn't.

Also, I definitely rank WCRR much, much higher than MSR and Lombardia but I accept that not everybody agrees with that.

Finally, the fact that Thomas was only really at the top of his game for a couple of months speaks against him for me. But that is just a personal preference.

[x]The manner in which they are won matters
[x] ranks the WCRR much, much higher than all the monuments

These are mutually exclusive this year.

 

[Koronin]

Please tell me what Thomas and Froome did outside of the Giro, Tour and Dauphine? I'm sorry but I do NOT put any of those races over any of the other WT races on the calendar. To me the Tour ranks well below most of the other WT races. Heck I personally put a few continental races over the Tour just because I happen to like them better.
As Tobydawq said Valverde was dominant in the first 3 months of the season. Possibly even more dominant than Quickstep as a team were at that point in the season. No one else in the peloton can say that for any time frame.

 

[bambino]

Re:

Please tell me what Thomas and Froome did outside of the Giro, Tour and Dauphine? I'm sorry but I do NOT put any of those races over any of the other WT races on the calendar. To me the Tour ranks well below most of the other WT races. Heck I personally put a few continental races over the Tour just because I happen to like them better.
As Tobydawq said Valverde was dominant in the first 3 months of the season. Possibly even more dominant than Quickstep as a team were at that point in the season. No one else in the peloton can say that for any time frame.

Your prestige to Tour is your personal opinion which you are entitled. I just don't think many here agrees on that. Especially when it actually fits to your biased agenda.

I don't like Yates, Thomas nor Froome. But I still don't have a problem to admit they were the Top 3.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Please tell me what Thomas and Froome did outside of the Giro, Tour and Dauphine? I'm sorry but I do NOT put any of those races over any of the other WT races on the calendar. To me the Tour ranks well below most of the other WT races. Heck I personally put a few continental races over the Tour just because I happen to like them better.
As Tobydawq said Valverde was dominant in the first 3 months of the season. Possibly even more dominant than Quickstep as a team were at that point in the season. No one else in the peloton can say that for any time frame.

Your prestige to Tour is your personal opinion which you are entitled. I just don't think many here agrees on that. Especially when it actually fits to your biased agenda.

I don't like Yates, Thomas nor Froome. But I still don't have a problem to admit they were the Top 3.

I do have Yates in my top 3 but Froome and Thomas aren't even close as they did nothing outside of those 3 races. Yes I do value the classics more than the GTs. To me the GTs should not hold anymore weight and esp not the Tour. To me consistency throughout the season is much much more important which is why I rank Sagan very high on my list even if he didn't have the season this year he had last year.

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

I’m not biased in favour of GTs, probably the reverse, but I don’t see how anyone who didn’t win one this year can crack the top 3 because nobody took multiple very big wins. There is no reasonable case for Valverde and no case at all for Dumoulin.

Compare for instance Thomas and Valverde: The Tour is a much bigger win than the WCRR. The Dauphine is a bigger win than Catalunya. Two Tour stages are bigger wins than two Vuelta stages. Looking at tier one (big 9) wins, Thomas is miles ahead. Looking at tier two (in this case GT stages and major one week races), Thomas only gets further ahead. You have to give frankly absurd weight to quantity of tiny wins to put Valverde even close. Not only is his season defining win less important, there just aren’t important enough secondary wins to back it up.

There is a case for any of the GT winners, but in my view the one for Froome is clearly weaker than those for Thomas or Yates. Ranking him against Thomas presents essentially the same core difficulty for his partisans as that faced by Valverde fans: his big win is closer in value to a Tour win, but ultimately it is still clearly less valuable to win a Giro. Two Giro stages are again outranked by two Tour stages. He has no other wins to weigh against the Dauphine. He’s closer to Thomas than Valverde, because a Giro is a lot better than the WCRR, but instead of giving absurd weight to little wins, you have to give absurd weight to failing to complete a Giro-Tour double. That brings us back to the Dumoulin problem: when you are ranking the best of the best, impressive failures are still ultimately failures.

There is no plainly obvious equivalent problem for Yates. He has the requisite big win to belong in the discussion in the first place. He has more tier two wins than anyone else. He also has various lesser wins. Ranking him and Thomas is essentially down to subjective weighting of the Tour and just how much more a winner of a lesser GT has to do overcome that weight. Yates did quite a lot more, enough for me to put him first, but Ive no beef with anyone who picks Thomas.

You make some good points here, but I don't totally agree with your premises.

First of all, the manner in which a race is won definitely should be taken into account. So regarding the Catalonia vs Dauphiné comparison, Thomas was gifted the win through the ridiculous TTT (the same happened in Tirreno where he was unlucky with an untimely mechanical), and Valverde won his race by himself (and also won Abu Dhabi Tour which is WorldTour too, however much you may dislike it). Further, I disagree that Dauphiné is a bigger win in and of itself than the Volta as it's a preparation race, which the Volta isn't.

Also, I definitely rank WCRR much, much higher than MSR and Lombardia but I accept that not everybody agrees with that.

Finally, the fact that Thomas was only really at the top of his game for a couple of months speaks against him for me. But that is just a personal preference.

Wrong. Thomas would've won Dauphine even if TTT results are not taken into account.

Yes, he might still have won without it, but he was impossible to beat because of it.

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

I’m not biased in favour of GTs, probably the reverse, but I don’t see how anyone who didn’t win one this year can crack the top 3 because nobody took multiple very big wins. There is no reasonable case for Valverde and no case at all for Dumoulin.

Compare for instance Thomas and Valverde: The Tour is a much bigger win than the WCRR. The Dauphine is a bigger win than Catalunya. Two Tour stages are bigger wins than two Vuelta stages. Looking at tier one (big 9) wins, Thomas is miles ahead. Looking at tier two (in this case GT stages and major one week races), Thomas only gets further ahead. You have to give frankly absurd weight to quantity of tiny wins to put Valverde even close. Not only is his season defining win less important, there just aren’t important enough secondary wins to back it up.

There is a case for any of the GT winners, but in my view the one for Froome is clearly weaker than those for Thomas or Yates. Ranking him against Thomas presents essentially the same core difficulty for his partisans as that faced by Valverde fans: his big win is closer in value to a Tour win, but ultimately it is still clearly less valuable to win a Giro. Two Giro stages are again outranked by two Tour stages. He has no other wins to weigh against the Dauphine. He’s closer to Thomas than Valverde, because a Giro is a lot better than the WCRR, but instead of giving absurd weight to little wins, you have to give absurd weight to failing to complete a Giro-Tour double. That brings us back to the Dumoulin problem: when you are ranking the best of the best, impressive failures are still ultimately failures.

There is no plainly obvious equivalent problem for Yates. He has the requisite big win to belong in the discussion in the first place. He has more tier two wins than anyone else. He also has various lesser wins. Ranking him and Thomas is essentially down to subjective weighting of the Tour and just how much more a winner of a lesser GT has to do overcome that weight. Yates did quite a lot more, enough for me to put him first, but Ive no beef with anyone who picks Thomas.

You make some good points here, but I don't totally agree with your premises.

First of all, the manner in which a race is won definitely should be taken into account. So regarding the Catalonia vs Dauphiné comparison, Thomas was gifted the win through the ridiculous TTT (the same happened in Tirreno where he was unlucky with an untimely mechanical), and Valverde won his race by himself (and also won Abu Dhabi Tour which is WorldTour too, however much you may dislike it). Further, I disagree that Dauphiné is a bigger win in and of itself than the Volta as it's a preparation race, which the Volta isn't.

Also, I definitely rank WCRR much, much higher than MSR and Lombardia but I accept that not everybody agrees with that.

Finally, the fact that Thomas was only really at the top of his game for a couple of months speaks against him for me. But that is just a personal preference.

[x]The manner in which they are won matters
[x] ranks the WCRR much, much higher than all the monuments

These are mutually exclusive this year.

I don't understand this post and I didn't say "all monuments".