The Green jersey is clearly a sprinters competition. Look at who competes in it, (sprinters), look at who wins it (sprinters) , look at who the points allocations favour, (sprinters).
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... it's a duck. So please, no more of this nonsense about it being a points competition and not a sprinters competition.
If it's a sprinters competition then, you don't want the 2nd or 3rd best sprinter winning it, you want the best sprinter winning it.... surely? The question is... did the points allocations award the Green Jersey to the right person? Was it a fair result?
Have a look at the top 3 results
Petacchi: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 8th 10th: 243 points
Cavendish: 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 9th, 12th: 232 points
Hushovd: 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 7th, 9th 10th, 10th, 11th, 14th: 222 points
This doesn't include the intermediate sprints (which I don't have) and which influence the outcome too but to a lesser extent.
The points system is telling us that these three guys were very closely matched. If you take Cav as the central pivot, Petacchi and Hushovd are within +or- 5% of Cav's result.
Complete nonsense. It's a sprinters competition and Cav was by far and away the best sprinter. He totally dominated Petacchi yet history will remember him as the winner of the Green Jersey.