Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread

[Charlyghoul]

IIRC, Merckx raced in the 60s and 70s.
Merckx raced 13 WC RR, these are the winner nations:
Belgium - 5
Netherlands - 2
Italy - 4
Germany - 1
UK - 1

These are startlists from every WC RR Merckx won.

Startlist for World Championships ME - Road Race 1967

Competing teams and riders for World Championships ME - Road Race 1967. Top competitors are , and .

www.procyclingstats.com

Startlist for World Championships ME - Road Race 1971

Competing teams and riders for World Championships ME - Road Race 1971. Top competitors are , and .

www.procyclingstats.com

Startlist for World Championships ME - Road Race 1974

Competing teams and riders for World Championships ME - Road Race 1974. Top competitors are , and .

www.procyclingstats.com

I'm not putting startlists from other years but as you can see, Belgium was heavily favored to win WC. Less nations and Belgium had clearly more riders than a lot of other nations.
You can't run away from this.

IMO PCS is a reliable source but if someone knows these startlists are incorrect, please tell me, I don't want to have an opinion based on incorrect facts.

Spain won 5 out of a possible ten world championships from 1995 to 2004, was it down to Spain being the dominant force in cycling or was it mostly because they had Freire?

 

[Peyroteo94]

Spain won 5 out of a possible ten world championships from 1995 to 2004, was it down to Spain being the dominant force in cycling or was it mostly because they had Freire?

But you can't just look to the winner. Look to the top10. It is very common to see 4 riders of one nation in the top10 and normally are from France, Italy or Belgium.

 

[Peyroteo94]

There way more cycling nations represented in the top10 after the specialization era. This is very obvious.

 

[Charlyghoul]

But you can't just look to the winner. Look to the top10. It is very common to see 4 riders of one nation in the top10 and normally are from France, Italy or Belgium.

What about the top ten ?
3 in 67,
4 in 71,
2 in 74

When Van Looy won his two the French and Italians had strong teams, Van Looy won because he was the best one day rider there.
When Freire won his three there were 4 other spanish riders in the top 20 in 2004, in 1999 and 2001 there were none.

 

[Shortcut]

I think that charlyghoul just want this thread be full of comments and with even more pages so no one in the future will come even close too Pog's thread and that will make him GOAT here forewer. Also keeps something going on in most boring month where we can't see GOAT doing GOAT things.

 

[Charlyghoul]

There way more cycling nations represented in the top10 after the specialization era. This is very obvious.

I will say again, if cycling is so much more specialised, why are there only two consistent riders in the tour?
The only other consistent rider over the last few years has been Adam Yates, a guy who’s never won a grand tour.
In Merckx era the contenders were much more consistent and were of a much higher calibre. The top ten was always stacked with tour winners or grand tour winners.

Think of it this way, in Merckx time there was a top ten of thoroughbred Gc racehorses, Merckx was the stallion.
Now there are two stallions, and a peloton of mules.
I know which is era is better overall.

 

[Peyroteo94]

What about the top ten ?
3 in 67,
4 in 71,
2 in 74

When Van Looy won his two the French and Italians had strong teams, Van Looy won because he was the best one day rider there.
When Freire won his three there were 4 other spanish riders in the top 20 in 2004, in 1999 and 2001 there were none.

Count how many riders from France, Belgium and Italy are in the top10 and compare with nowadays. You have your answer.
If you are trying to avoid my argument, there is no chance we will have a meaningful discussion.

 

[Peyroteo94]

I will say again, if cycling is so much more specialised, why are there only two consistent riders in the tour?
The only other consistent rider over the last few years has been Adam Yates, a guy who’s never won a grand tour.
In Merckx era the contenders were much more consistent and were of a much higher calibre. The top ten was always stacked with tour winners or grand tour winners.

Think of it this way, in Merckx time there was a top ten of thoroughbred Gc racehorses, Merckx was the stallion.
Now there are two stallions, and a peloton of mules.
I know which is era is better overall.

If we look to your argument, in your opinion Djokovic is not the GOAT of tennis

 

[Charlyghoul]

Count how many riders from France, Belgium and Italy are in the top10 and compare with nowadays. You have your answer.
If you are trying to avoid my argument, there is no chance we will have a meaningful discussion.

The fact is that during Merckx era there were two Belgian winners, two Dutch winners, and three italian winners.
Hardly shows a Belgian dominance does it? It just shows Merckx’ dominance

 

[Charlyghoul]

If we look to your argument, in your opinion Djokovic is not the GOAT of tennis

Why is that ?

 

[Peyroteo94]

The fact is that during Merckx era there were two Belgian winners, two Dutch winners, and three italian winners.
Hardly shows a Belgian dominance does it? It just shows Merckx’ dominance

Do you want me to show all monuments? Your argument will go out the window.
I already showed you results from MSR, GdL, PR, RVV and LBL.
I'm done today. Let's agree to disagree (once again).

 

[Charlyghoul]

Do you want me to show all monuments? Your argument will go out the window.
I already showed you results from MSR, GdL, PR, RVV and LBL.
I'm done today. Let's agree to disagree (once again).

What monuments ?
There are great riders in every era. This era is not stronger in the worlds, you have dominant guys like Sagan (bit like Van Looy) or Pog (Merckx)

Then you have lower level guys like Rui Costa and Pedersen winning the worlds, they are much poorer winners than Adorni or Gimondi.

The tour is another ball game where it’s not comparable, the old era was much stronger here

 

[Peyroteo94]

What monuments ?
There are great riders in every era. This era is not stronger in the worlds, you have dominant guys like Sagan (bit like Van Looy) or Pog (Merckx)

Then you have lower level guys like Rui Costa and Pedersen winning the worlds, they are much poorer winners than Adorni or Gimondi.

The tour is another ball game where it’s not comparable, the old era was much stronger here

You know what monuments.

I must say I am pretty shocked with this. Eheheh

 

[Charlyghoul]

You know what monuments.

I must say I am pretty shocked with this. Eheheh

The 19 v 9 or whatever Pog is on ? In fact Pog should have the attributes to win a San remo, but he can’t do it yet

 

[Berniece]

Do you want me to show all monuments? Your argument will go out the window.
I already showed you results from MSR, GdL, PR, RVV and LBL.
I'm done today. Let's agree to disagree (once again).

We just had 8 monuments in a row won by the same two guys…

 

[Salvarani]

Pog is the GOAT

Amazing career, just so many big wins in this day and age.

What a rider!

 

[Charlyghoul]

I think if we look at results, comparing to other sports, he’s on about an Andy Murray level of all time, a bit below the true greats for the time being. I mean he can be better but he’s not there yet.

He has more talent than that of course, but we need to see results. I don’t want to sound harsh, but if he carries on moaning about retirement and fatigue, he can be the GOAT of the miserables, even above Andy.

 

[Charlyghoul]

I think Vingo has the talent to push him next year if Tadejs head is not right, I’d like to see that competition, along with a rejuvenated Remco. The top ten could look something like this.

Vingegaard
Pogacar
Lipowitz
Remco
Onley
Mas
Yates
Yates
Roglic
Jorgenson

 

[scribers]

Vingo lost by 4 1/2 minutes

 

[Charlyghoul]

Vingo lost by 4 1/2 minutes

We have seen that Pog can have a bad day, Vingo is the more consistent rider of the two. Certainly I think it would be good and more fun if Vingo can win another

 

[scribers]

Keep dreaming of miracles

 

[YavorD]

I don't get the number of countries argument in regards to the level of field.
If in the 70's you've had 4 Italians, 3 Belgians and 3 french as top dogs and now you have the same number of riders, but from 10 different countries you're still it the same level of depth.
It's just that the field is more international. Hardly a proof of quality.

If we are going to compare something, we have to only compare the top 5-10 risers as they are the ones competing with each other. Is VDP better than De Vlaemink? Is Ocaña better than Vingegaard, is Evenepoel better than Gimondi (for example)?

 

[Charlyghoul]

I don't get the number of countries argument in regards to the level of field.
If in the 70's you've had 4 Italians, 3 Belgians and 3 french as top dogs and now you have the same number of riders, but from 10 different countries you're still it the same level of depth.
It's just that the field is more international. Hardly a proof of quality.

If we are going to compare something, we have to only compare the top 5-10 risers as they are the ones competing with each other. Is VDP better than De Vlaemink? Is Ocaña better than Vingegaard, is Evenepoel better than Gimondi (for example)?

Exactly

 

[Charlyghoul]

And I would say VDP is not better than De Vlaeminck, though it’s close in Roubaix/flanders

Vingegaard is close to Ocana, I’ll give Vingo a benefit of the doubt here, but it’s close

Remco is not better than Gimondi

 

[YavorD]

Exactly

Don't get me wrong, it's (much?) harder to dominate races, like Pogacar does, nowadays then it's been in Merckx' years. But it has nothing in common with the number of countries