Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread

[Peyroteo94]

Pogacar won't be the best ever until he wins MSR, PR and La Vuelta (which seems certain).
He doesn't need to have as many victories as Merckx (and he won't have likely) but he needs to win every big race to really be the GOAT.

I fully agree with this. For me he is the best ever based on level/ability/talent but he needs to win everything to be considered the GOAT.
There won't be any questions if he ends his career with 15 monuments (wins in all 5) and 8 GTs (6 Tours)

 

[YavorD]

I wasnt saying goat I was saying best. Two entirely different things, note the difference please.
Everyone knows he is the best ever you dont need to be a Pogacar fan to say that at all, after the 24 season, you literally just have to use common sense, he is so much stronger than anyone weve ever seen on a bike its a joke to even discuss how much stronger he is.

Goat/greatest part is a entirely different thing, I agree for my part he needs to continue to do it longer and agree he dont need to win as much either but thats subjective and not what I said.

So what's your objective measurement of being the best other than win all the biggest races?

 

[Froome]

I wasnt saying goat I was saying best. Two entirely different things, note the difference please.
Everyone knows he is the best ever you dont need to be a Pogacar fan to say that at all, after the 24 season, you literally just have to use common sense, he is so much stronger than anyone weve ever seen on a bike its honestly a joke to even discuss it considering how much stronger he is.

Goat/greatest part is a entirely different thing, I agree for my part he needs to continue to do it longer and agree he dont need to win as much either but thats subjective and not what I said.

He is not the best ever.

Merckx was able to win races like MSR and PR. He also was able to win sprint stages. He is the most complete rider ever.

 

[YavorD]

I fully agree with this. For me he is the best ever based on level/ability/talent but he needs to win everything to be considered the GOAT.
There won't be any questions if he ends his career with 15 monuments (wins in all 5) and 8 GTs (6 Tours)

Care to elaborate how do you compare levels between eras if you're not using wins?

How do you know what level could Merckx achieve in that UAE team or how would Pogacar fare in the 70's world?

 

[James M]

So what's your objective measurement of being the best other than win all the biggest races?

How do you know what level could Merckx achieve in that UAE team or how would Pogacar fare in the 70's world?

It's not my objective measurement; these are simple facts. You measure raw power and numbers to find the best to ever sit on a bike, and it's not harder than that. That's literally what the best is.

And it's not fair, and it's also impossible to judge that part, but this is very simple. There has never been a stronger cyclist than Pogačar. It's not only facts; it's easy and shouldn't need to be explained.

 

[James M]

@YavorD It's like arguing that someone with a worse personal record than Bolt in the 100m was faster than him when they were never close to his number, just because they had the world record 50 years ago or even won more. What are you arguing? Your talking about greatness im talking about best, learn the difference.

Do you consider Kristoff better than Wva? I don't think so. What you're talking about is greatness, which I agreed with in the post above btw I dont think he is the goat either, he needs to do it longer first for that to me, I also agree he dont need to win as much as Merckx but its also subjective etc, but it's something entirely different from what I said. Big wins are what define greatness, mostly with other things indeed, but above all, big wins. That's greatness, not best

 

[YavorD]

It's not my objective measurement; these are simple facts. You measure raw power and numbers to find the best to ever sit on a bike, and it's not harder than that. That's literally what the best is.

And it's not fair, and it's also impossible to judge that part, but this is very simple. There has never been a stronger cyclist than Pogačar. It's not only facts; it's easy and shouldn't need to be explained.

So Carlos Rodriguez is better GT rider than Merckx than because he puts better numbers than him?

I've heard it all now.

 

[YavorD]

And be as dominant for multiple seasons like he did in 2024.

And that too.
But that's too much sense for plenty of people.

 

[Shortcut]

Someone wrote about what would happen if Pogacar competed in Merckx's era and vice versa. If Pogacar was born in Merckx's time, he probably wouldn't even know that cycling existed as a sport, even though he would have been born in Central Europe.

Of course, it's not Merckx's fault that he didn't have stronger competition, but statistically speaking, it is much harder to achieve the kind of results Pogacar has today, given the level of competition and the way he does it. If, in 20 years, another Pogacar is born -someone capable of winning multiple Tours and Monuments while being a top-three favorite in all five ,then, for me, he would statistically be even better than Pogacar And he would't even need to win as much as him.

By the way, wasn't Merckx also caught at "doing stuff ilegally? Doesn't that count as part of his legacy?

 

[Froome]

Someone wrote about what would happen if Pogacar competed in Merckx's era and vice versa. If Pogacar was born in Merckx's time, he probably wouldn't even know that cycling existed as a sport, even though he would have been born in Central Europe.

Of course, it's not Merckx's fault that he didn't have stronger competition, but statistically speaking, it is much harder to achieve the kind of results Pogacar has today, given the level of competition and the way he does it. If, in 20 years, another Pogacar is born -someone capable of winning multiple Tours and Monuments while being a top-three favorite in all five ,then, for me, he would statistically be even better than Pogacar And he would't even need to win as much as him.

By the way, wasn't Merckx also caught at "doing stuff ilegally? Doesn't that count as part of his legacy?

What competition? It's almost the same thing.

Just a couple guys could fight against Merckx, and it's the same now against pogacar.

You have pogacar, van der poel, evenepoel, Vingegaard, roglic in certain conditions and the rest is just farmers.

 

[YavorD]

Correct he would ride laps around Merckx even him, your getting it im impressed. Whats insane is having to explain to you the difference betwen greatness and best but then again you also thought Pogacar shouldnt win stages and conspiracy therories about why he gifted a jersey to a lad so not sure why I bother replying tbh.

Unlike emotional feelings, best is literally what I described it doesnt account for alternative universe thinking which are impossible to define.

Can we then say that WVA is the best rider in the world because he can win sprints and TTs, and mountain stages, and one day races, also can be loyal domestique and do some CX stuff in between?

I mean, following your logic, Van Aert is factually the best rider in the world cuz Pogacar cant win Champs' sprint or CX....or San Remo for what's worth.


So it's either Merckx because of the number of wins, either Van Aert for his variety of skills in cycling.

 

[Poursuivant]

How will he approach SB this weekend then, try for another 81km solo?

 

[YavorD]

What competition? It's almost the same thing.

Just a couple guys could fight against Merckx, and it's the same now against pogacar.

You have pogacar, van der poel, evenepoel, Vingegaard, roglic in certain conditions and the rest is just farmers.

I'm with you here.

People here act like Felice Gimondi and Roger de Vlaeminck are some kind of plumbers who barely rode their bike while they are greats themselves...



In 20 years people won't know Pogacar's competition nowadays and it will look like he had only Vingegaard, Van Der Poel and Evenepoel as competition.

 

[James M]

Can we then say that WVA is the best rider in the world because he can win sprints and TTs, and mountain stages, and one day races, also can be loyal domestique and do some CX stuff in between?

I mean, following your logic, Van Aert is factually the best rider in the world cuz Pogacar cant win Champs' sprint or CX....or San Remo for what's worth.


So it's either Merckx because of the number of wins, either Van Aert for his variety of skills in cycling.

Its no need to get emotional about this at all. Its literal facts that are infact common knowledge. Pogacar is the best cyclist to ever sit on a bike ever and he is it by a huge margin to the point its a joke to even discuss it, its undisputable and common knowledge.

Goat/greatness I agree, for my part he is not the goat he needs to win far longer for that and Merckx is the greatest of all time, for the moment in my book aswell but that part is also subjective. Thats it I tried, im not gonne endulge into something which are just facts, its wild to do.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

How will he approach SB this weekend then, try for another 81km solo?

The race in its extended version encourages an early attack around 80 km to go as Monte Sante Marie is the best place to attack (after drilling San Martino di Grania). Alternatively Pinzuto + Tolfe combo around 40-45 km to go can be used as well but I doubt Pogi will wait for so long.

 

[Monsi]

How will he approach SB this weekend then, try for another 81km solo?

Yeah. The race before Monte Sante Marie is harder too with the addition of the new 9 km gravel sector so UAE can tire the peloton again before Pogi's attack.

 

[YavorD]

Its no need to get emotional about this at all. Its literal facts that are infact common knowledge. Pogacar is the best cyclist to ever sit on a bike ever and he is it by a huge margin to the point its a joke to even discuss it, its undisputable and common knowledge.

Goat/greatness I agree, its also subjective, for my part he is not the goat he needs to win far longer for that and Merckx is the greatest of all time, for the moment in my book aswell. Thats it I tried, im not gonne endulge into something which are just facts, its wild to do.

He is not. He won't be untill he wins all the biggest races.
Someone could even say he won't be untill he wins TT worlds and Olympics.

 

[Shortcut]

What competition? It's almost the same thing.

Just a couple guys could fight against Merckx, and it's the same now against pogacar.

You have pogacar, van der poel, evenepoel, Vingegaard, roglic in certain conditions and the rest is just farmers.

How is the same thing racing against 200 profis from three countries for a decade and racing against 2500 from whole planet for a decade?

 

[Peyroteo94]

Care to elaborate how do you compare levels between eras if you're not using wins?

How do you know what level could Merckx achieve in that UAE team or how would Pogacar fare in the 70's world?

1: Globalization. Cycling was almost a national sport just disputed by 3/4 countries (Belgium, Italy, France, Spain). Pogacar in the 70s would not even be a cyclist.
2: Specialization. Riders can't win bunch sprints, GC, TT, cobbled and hilly classics. In the 70s they didn't prepare races, they just raced every race they could. Merckx also mentioned, he was never the best climber. In today's era, it would mean a defeat in every GT he competed.
But of course it is just my opinion.

 

[Keldergoat]

Looks like the Chinese have discovered Pogacar.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1896038327234805955

View: https://x.com/BRICSinfo/status/1896038327234805955

 

[YavorD]

1: Globalization. Cycling was almost a national sport just disputed by 3/4 countries (Belgium, Italy, France, Spain). Pogacar in the 70s would not even be a cyclist.
2: Specialization. Riders can't win bunch sprints, GC, TT, cobbled and hilly classics. In the 70s they didn't prepare races, they just raced every race they could. Merckx also mentioned, he was never the best climber. In today's era, it would mean a defeat in every GT he competed.
But of course it is just my opinion.

1. Globalization isn't necessarily a factor when we discuss level of competition.
You may have 120 nations starting in Strade but it won't mean a thing if you don't have MVDP and WVA. You may have a "friendly" between Slovenia, Netherlands and Belgium and you'd have a better field than the "global thingy" if you have Pogacar and Van's.

2. I can agree with that. But it could be also said the other way around, can't it? Riders back in the day could do a lot more than today's, so they might as well be better overall?

Edit: My point is, both things can be twisted so they fit a narrative. Meaning, we don't have an objective measure of competition and rider's level.
So if we are to conclude that someone is best ever/goat (essentially the same thing), the only thing we can somewhat objectively compare is the wins and achievements.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

We might see Pog v. Van der Poel at SB, praise Keir.

 

[Poursuivant]

We might see Pog v. Van der Poel at SB, praise Keir.

Cycling News says VDP won’t be going to SB.

 

[Peyroteo94]

1. Globalization isn't necessarily a factor when we discuss level of competition.
You may have 120 nations starting in Strade but it won't mean a thing if you don't have MVDP and WVA. You may have a "friendly" between Slovenia, Netherlands and Belgium and you'd have a better field than the "global thingy" if you have Pogacar and Van's.

2. I can agree with that. But it could be also said the other way around, can't it? Riders back in the day could do a lot more than today's, so they might as well be better overall?

Edit: My point is, both things can be twisted so they fit a narrative. Meaning, we don't have an objective measure of competition and rider's level.
So if we are to conclude that someone is best ever/goat (essentially the same thing), the only thing we can somewhat objectively compare is the wins and achievements.

How do you see a race (in this case RVV) where 9 Belgians are in the top10? Were belgians really better than riders from other nations? Or cycling wasn't relevant in other nations? Cycling wasn't developed in the 60s and 70s and just exploded later in popularity.
Is really Joe Davis better than the rocket? Just because he achieved more?

 

[Peyroteo94]

1. Globalization isn't necessarily a factor when we discuss level of competition.
You may have 120 nations starting in Strade but it won't mean a thing if you don't have MVDP and WVA. You may have a "friendly" between Slovenia, Netherlands and Belgium and you'd have a better field than the "global thingy" if you have Pogacar and Van's.

2. I can agree with that. But it could be also said the other way around, can't it? Riders back in the day could do a lot more than today's, so they might as well be better overall?

Edit: My point is, both things can be twisted so they fit a narrative. Meaning, we don't have an objective measure of competition and rider's level.
So if we are to conclude that someone is best ever/goat (essentially the same thing), the only thing we can somewhat objectively compare is the wins and achievements.

Of course not. Specialization means riders are targetting specific races to maximize their chances of winning. A rider to win a lot like Pogacar needs to be good all season and beat the very best in their favourite races/terrain. For example, if Vingegaard/Remco/MVP tried to race all important races in the season, they wouldn't be so good and so in shape for some specific races (Vingegaard in the Tour, MVP in cobbled classics, etc).