Tortoise and hare maybe, but Arnie is getting close.97 for Demare.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Tortoise and hare maybe, but Arnie is getting close.97 for Demare.
Under, I find it difficult to see that he stays this motivated to have a season like this year, every yearAnyone wanna take an over/under on Pogacar's career victories?
I'll go 231.5
I can't see him winning more than 6 races if he follows his usual schedule.He won 8 times in a season in which he crashed out of 2 stage races and mysteriously underperformed in another.
The chance of him making it to 100 went way up this year, and basically he has to fall off a cliff or promptly retire next year. And typically decline in the absence of illness or major injury doesn't go that quickly.
The amount he wins is very dependent on his schedule and who he races against as well. And typically he doesn't race against Pogacar outside of the GTs and he does a really good job farming in the races where the other mutants aren't there.
Like the biggest reason to assume he'll win less next year is that it's fairly likely one of Vingegaard and Pogacar will show up at the Vuelta.
Even assuming he keeps going for a while, it's not a certainty, mainly because wins tend to drop much faster than placements when decline starts to kick in. He needs another 12 wins, starting at age 35. If we look at some similar-ish rider types who were still really good at 34:If Roglic rides another 2-3 seasons he should pick up 100. He’s a threat on the punchy climbs and if out of GC to all breakaways. The end to this year was a big help to getting closer.
Valverde got over 30 wins after the age of 36.Roglic will not win 100 races. I already said this and some people laughed. Next year is probably his last year in peak shape. It is very usual to see riders fading after 36 years old
People can't ever take Valverde as an example. Valverde was an unique outlier and went completely off the pattern.Valverde got over 30 wins after the age of 36.
If you have such a peak level like Roglic, even if you decline, you can still take a lot of wins with a right calendar.
And Roglic is a late starter. Such riders often decline a bit slower towards their late thirties.
Only late compared to the recent trend. Roglic started on the road in 2012 aged 23. By comparison Cadel Evans was 24 when he switched to the road from MTB. Evans declined almost immediately after his Tour win when he was aged 34. Roglic is now 34. Valverde is an obvious outlier.And Roglic is a late starter. Such riders often decline a bit slower towards their late thirties.
Cadel Evans took 26% of his career wins after he had turned 35.Only late compared to the recent trend. Roglic started on the road in 2012 aged 23. By comparison Cadel Evans was 24 when he switched to the road from MTB. Evans declined almost immediately after his Tour win when he was aged 34. Roglic is now 34. Valverde is an obvious outlier.
They still started earlier than Pogacar and have less 40 winsCount cyclocross and MTB (they are on bikes and getting paid) and Van Aert and VDP are already there.
No, he is not better than Valverde in one day races. In stage races, of course he is.The best comparisons for a rider on his way to 100 wins are a bunch of guys who won between 25 and 50?
I think it's wildly wrong to compare his current level to the level of these guys. He's much better, the only thing is there's 2 riders who are better stage racers still. Then he's pretty much breakeven vs Evenepoel in stage races and he clobbers everyone else for fun still.
For however much people say 'don't compare anyone with Valverde', Roglic is easily better than Valverde at 35 he just happens to have to compete with better opposition in GTs.
The best comparisons for a rider on his way to 100 wins are a bunch of guys who won between 25 and 50?
I think it's wildly wrong to compare his current level to the level of these guys. He's much better, the only thing is there's 2 riders who are better stage racers still. Then he's pretty much breakeven vs Evenepoel in stage races and he clobbers everyone else for fun still.
For however much people say 'don't compare anyone with Valverde', Roglic is easily better than Valverde at 35 he just happens to have to compete with better opposition in GTs.
Foul, non sequitur!They still started earlier than Pogacar and have less 40 wins
If you want to compare to riders of his calibre - Contador won 8 in 2.5 years after his final Giro win, Nibali won 3 in almost 5 years after his Sanremo win, Jalabert (who will remain miles ahead of Roglic) dwindled to 3 and 5 wins for the year in his final two seasons. Valverde is a crazy outlier in all respects, there is a strong case to be made that he hadn't peaked yet at 35.The best comparisons for a rider on his way to 100 wins are a bunch of guys who won between 25 and 50?
I think it's wildly wrong to compare his current level to the level of these guys. He's much better, the only thing is there's 2 riders who are better stage racers still. Then he's pretty much breakeven vs Evenepoel in stage races and he clobbers everyone else for fun still.
For however much people say 'don't compare anyone with Valverde', Roglic is easily better than Valverde at 35 he just happens to have to compete with better opposition in GTs.
This. Roglic will not be here much more years, specially after his interview talking how he considered retirement after crashed out in the Tour. Maybe 2027 will be his final season.If you want to compare to riders of his calibre - Contador won 8 in 2.5 years after his final Giro win, Nibali won 3 in almost 5 years after his Sanremo win, Jalabert (who will remain miles ahead of Roglic) dwindled to 3 and 5 wins for the year in his final two seasons. Valverde is a crazy outlier in all respects, there is a strong case to be made that he hadn't peaked yet at 35.
And fwiw, Valverde was also better in the classics and racing a win-friendlier schedule in his mid-30s compared to current Roglic.
2027 being his final season is easily late enough if he doesn't suffer a meaningful decline (as in losing to Mas in a Vuelta levels) next year, though. And if he does, then he would probably be near irrelevant by 2028 anyway.This. Roglic will not be here much more years, specially after his interview talking how he considered retirement after crashed out in the Tour. Maybe 2027 will be his final season.
Roglic' loss condition is absolutely ageing out of winning, assuming he doesn't retire at the end of next season or gets screwed over by major injury. If he's still at more or less the same level next year, he should be able to match this year's 8 (and counting) wins, especially if injuries hurt him a bit less and then it's hard to see the final 4 or so wins not coming. So he would have to decline next year to fall short of 100.And neither were ever as good at winning many races as Roglic was.
Roglic' loss condition isn't aging out of winning, it's scheduling + an early retirement.