Only catching up now but felt it worth pointing out what a monumentally bad take this is.... Roche better than Kelly? .... Whatever way you've been watching cycling all these years, you've been doing it wrong.Like I've said elsewhere, if you havn't won the Tour there is somebody with a bigger, better engine than you. Now you can argue that Roche only won the Tour because Lemond got shot. But you can't rewrite history. The Irishman got his Tour and that is that. All the more splendid and memorable in a magical 87 in which he got the "Grand Slam". Kelly could not win the Tour. This is also undeniable. Ergo, in my book, Roche was the greater champion.
(Also Kelly finished fourth at the tour despite being forced to go after sprint stages and chase breakaways to stop them from mopping up points in the green jersey comp... I think it's a bit much to say it's undeniable that he 'couldn't' win the tour. He was never even allowed try)