Teams & Riders The Big 6

[Panda Claws]

I don't see how Van Aert can be included as he doesn't win the big races. Pidders' classic season is on a par with him but he's not big 6.
Would we have included sam Bennet in the big six in 2020 for winning green?

This is such a weird train of thought to me.

The big 6 are not the big 6 because of them winning everything but rather they win everything because that comes as a result of what truly makes them the big 6: being much better than the rest of the field.

Van Aert is far better than the rest of the field. Him not winning a monument does not change that whatsoever. You might have an argument if WVA truly got clobbered by the others but that's not really the case. He was up there in MSR, fell in RVV and was up there in PR.
RVV simply suits him less than MVDP and Pog. If Pog had raced PR this year he might have been a bit weaker than WVA/MVDP too.

When the aliens come to enslave us it won't make a difference if they do it with hypersonic weapons that we have absolutely no *** chance against or laser weaponry that we have absolutely no freaking chance against.

 

[tobydawq]

To add to my previous post, what annoys me is that there is barely tactics involved in the spring classics anymore. It's just start the final really early and automatically the strongest will survive and win. There is not much you can do to counter that because they start so damn early. This is also the main complaint I've read from the 'second' string favorites with super strong riders as Kung, Ganna, etc in the cobbles and Benoot, Pidcock etc in the ardennes.

Yeah you can anticipate but if you have to do that at 100km you are likely gassed with 30km to go anyway. And if you wait until 30km you are gonna get slaughtered anyway. Hard to counter that. There is just not 1 but 2 levels between them.
And it's not like the gap is not closeable btw. I believe with time riders like Pidcock, Healy, Skjelmose, De Lie and other 23 and under guys can close that gap eventually.

Agreed, that is a bit sad. I do prefer to see the big riders win the big races, but this year has felt a little weird. Especially in Flanders where such a strong group got 3 minutes and it still wasn't enough. That was quite an anticipatory move, though, and it was intriguing when it happened.

 

[Valanga]

I don't see how Van Aert can be included as he doesn't win the big races. Pidders' classic season is on a par with him but he's not big 6.
Would we have included sam Bennet in the big six in 2020 for winning green?

I can. He's miles ahead of the rest. Just look at GW and E3.
He can challenge the best on his terrain, he did beat them (E3 - sure only E3, but he did beat them) and might have beaten if not for bad luck (Roubaix).
He is versatile. World class TT'er, no-one that can challenge his green ambitions (if he has them), etc.
It's not only about results.

 

[Gigs_98]

I'm honestly surprised just how much sh*t WVA gets in this thread. How can anybody genuinely argue he isn't in this group?

It turns out MvdP and Pog are arguably stronger on short (cobbled) hills. Fine. What else? Just because he didn't win MSR and the Ronde because of that you want to disregard him as just another Pidcock? He was still head and shoulders above everyone other than those 2 in both MSR and all Belgian cobbled classics, and might have been the strongest in PR but was really unlucky.

This obsessive focus on the monuments is also completely disregarding WVA's biggest strenght, his versatility. WVA is the only one of these guys who can win bunch sprints in the Tour de France, is probably 2nd only to Remco in terms of TT ability and while not a gt gc contender can even win high mountain stages. If you want to criticize him for not being the very best in certain categories then you also have to criticize Roglic for only being the 3rd or probably 4th best gc rider on this list, while riding for gc's is also his only main goal. And if you want to praise people for their versatility, you have to acknowledge that Van Aert is quite a bit better than VdP in pretty much everything except being a puncheur.

If you make a list of the dominant riders of the current era I think it's not only inarguable Van Aert is on it, I think what we should argue about is if he is actually bottom of that list.

 

[Barkintheeye]

I'm honestly surprised just how much sh*t WVA gets in this thread. How can anybody genuinely argue he isn't in this group?

It turns out MvdP and Pog are arguably stronger on short (cobbled) hills. Fine. What else? Just because he didn't win MSR and the Ronde because of that you want to disregard him as just another Pidcock? He was still head and shoulders above everyone other than those 2 in both MSR and all Belgian cobbled classics, and might have been the strongest in PR but was really unlucky.

This obsessive focus on the monuments is also completely disregarding WVA's biggest strenght, his versatility. WVA is the only one of these guys who can win bunch sprints in the Tour de France, is probably 2nd only to Remco in terms of TT ability and while not a gt gc contender can even win high mountain stages. If you want to criticize him for not being the very best in certain categories then you also have to criticize Roglic for only being the 3rd or probably 4th best gc rider on this list, while riding for gc's is also his only main goal. And if you want to praise people for their versatility, you have to acknowledge that Van Aert is quite a bit better than VdP in pretty much everything except being a puncheur.

If you make a list of the dominant riders of the current era I think it's not only inarguable Van Aert is on it, I think what we should argue about is if he is actually bottom of that list.

Agree completely, a race without Wout always seems to be missing a serious contender. Quote my own previous comment:


Van Der Poel: Can win all Monuments and stage races apart from possibly LBL and Lombardia, World championships, MTB and CX races.
WVA: Can win all Monuments and stage races (apart from possibly LBL and Lombardia?), World championships, and CX races
>>> These are the best two if 1D-classics + WC + Monuments 'counts' the most and obviously the most versatile when you also consider technical ability (hence why Remco is unlikely to win Strade Bianche, P-R and RVV)

 

[geisterhome]

I'm honestly surprised just how much sh*t WVA gets in this thread. How can anybody genuinely argue he isn't in this group?

It turns out MvdP and Pog are arguably stronger on short (cobbled) hills. Fine. What else? Just because he didn't win MSR and the Ronde because of that you want to disregard him as just another Pidcock? He was still head and shoulders above everyone other than those 2 in both MSR and all Belgian cobbled classics, and might have been the strongest in PR but was really unlucky.

This obsessive focus on the monuments is also completely disregarding WVA's biggest strenght, his versatility. WVA is the only one of these guys who can win bunch sprints in the Tour de France, is probably 2nd only to Remco in terms of TT ability and while not a gt gc contender can even win high mountain stages. If you want to criticize him for not being the very best in certain categories then you also have to criticize Roglic for only being the 3rd or probably 4th best gc rider on this list, while riding for gc's is also his only main goal. And if you want to praise people for their versatility, you have to acknowledge that Van Aert is quite a bit better than VdP in pretty much everything except being a puncheur.

If you make a list of the dominant riders of the current era I think it's not only inarguable Van Aert is on it, I think what we should argue about is if he is actually bottom of that list.

I would have Wout as 2nd best after POGAČAR. I'm certain he could also win LBL and Lombardia if Pog and Remco aren't there in Top shape. Then he you have to put up Wouts versatility (sprint, cobbels) vs . Remcos climbing.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Or we are finally in an era where riders are as good as the greats if the past.

It would be hard to argue otherwise. And the general public tends to like that. Like lets say in tennis. The same group wins all. In football it's a bit better. Due to football usually being a passionate local thing. But in general only a few football superstars take most of the general attention. In moto sports there are usually two main rivals ... So in the end if we can have 6 in cycling we are already rather good. It could be worse.

 

[Sciatic]

I don't see how Van Aert can be included as he doesn't win the big races. Pidders' classic season is on a par with him but he's not big 6.
Would we have included sam Bennet in the big six in 2020 for winning green?

If this were a classroom I think the prof would say, “remember to read the question carefully before putting down your answer.” The thrust of the OP and the recent prior comments about the “Big 6” is that this year many races aren’t competitive —or are very one-sided—if only 1 of the six is riding (or stays upright), because there is such a big gap between the level of these riders and the others. Even if you “rank” Van Aert lower, his flat in the finale at Roubaix immediately made an MVDP victory a foregone conclusion. And had Wout decided not to gift the win at GW, it still would have seemed a bit less sparkling because he had no serious competition without Pogacar, MVDP, Roglic, Temci, weren’t there.
(Vingegaard is kind of an outlier in these discussions about 1-day races, but obviously included because stage races are also part of this pattern)

 

[VO2 Max]

Sagan was arguably the strongest rider for some time, but it was very hard for him to win even the races suiting him the most.

Sagan is an important reference, in 2011 would you think he'll retire with 'only' one P-R and one RVV? Except for at the Worlds, where organisation is more difficult, the others fairly quickly figured out how to beat the guy. That could have happened on Sunday at LBL if Jumbo had placed someone in the group for Tratnik to bridge to and get enough of a headstart to make it over La Redoute, maybe the plan was for Valter or Benoot to bridge to Tratnik, who knows? What's clear is with one favourite who's happy to ride the final 35km alone you need someone up front already that can at least try to neutralise it.

The fascinating dynamic we have now is that Pogačar would likely have tried the exact same thing that Evenepoel did. Then what happens? Part of what's made the RVV so great is the big 3 there trying to win in different ways: Wout probably wins a sprint, Mathieu probably best over the punchier hills, Tadej we know the best over the longer climbs, with that dynamic great racing seems almost inevitable. So it can be that Pog and Remco will try to batter each other into submission, but also that they refuse to work together and someone like Pidcock ends up with a better palmares than any of these guys

 

[Red Rick]

I'm honestly surprised just how much sh*t WVA gets in this thread. How can anybody genuinely argue he isn't in this group?

It turns out MvdP and Pog are arguably stronger on short (cobbled) hills. Fine. What else? Just because he didn't win MSR and the Ronde because of that you want to disregard him as just another Pidcock? He was still head and shoulders above everyone other than those 2 in both MSR and all Belgian cobbled classics, and might have been the strongest in PR but was really unlucky.

This obsessive focus on the monuments is also completely disregarding WVA's biggest strenght, his versatility. WVA is the only one of these guys who can win bunch sprints in the Tour de France, is probably 2nd only to Remco in terms of TT ability and while not a gt gc contender can even win high mountain stages. If you want to criticize him for not being the very best in certain categories then you also have to criticize Roglic for only being the 3rd or probably 4th best gc rider on this list, while riding for gc's is also his only main goal. And if you want to praise people for their versatility, you have to acknowledge that Van Aert is quite a bit better than VdP in pretty much everything except being a puncheur.

If you make a list of the dominant riders of the current era I think it's not only inarguable Van Aert is on it, I think what we should argue about is if he is actually bottom of that list.

I see 1 or maybe 2 poster saying he doesn't belong and it should be only 5?

As a perennial advocate of there being a Big 4 in tennis, it should clearly be a group of 6 guys as the grouping is based on dominance over the rest of the field more so than dominance over each other.

What confuses me in this discussion is how much versatility credit Van Aert and especially Van der Poel get when they don't race GCs. For versatility it's clearly Pogacar and Evenepoel ahead of the rest and even Roglic is both a monument and GT winner even if he hasn't won a monument in a hot minute. Van der Poels coverage especially is quite narrow, it just happens to cover 3 monuments and a lot of WC routes but that's still not huge width.

Spoiler

And no I don't compare Van Aert to Andy Murray to belittle him. I am a decade long Andy Murray fan. How else could I be so dour all the time.

 

[Bolder]

I define the "Big X" as riders who are clear favorites to win ANY race they enter in shape and are targeting. That's a very high bar.

Thus, atm it's Remco, Pogacar, MvdP and Vingegaard as first rank, with Roglic and Wout not quite there, maybe just a smidgen of doubt surrounding their chances. If Wout won a few more times and Roglic crashed less, there would be zero doubt.

But when any of those 6 line up, there's very short odds that one of them will win. They have the ability to outclass the field.

Interesting to me is how fast Alaf dropped off that list. In 2019-20 he was nearly a lock to podium a wide range of races. Now, he's an expensive domestique.

Of the top 6 today, Vingo and Roglic look the most vulnerable, Vingegaard bc I'm not sure the desire to be no. 1 is there and Roglic just bc of his age.

 

[Netserk]

What confuses me in this discussion is how much versatility credit Van Aert and especially Van der Poel get when they don't race GCs. For versatility it's clearly Pogacar and Evenepoel ahead of the rest and even Roglic is both a monument and GT winner even if he hasn't won a monument in a hot minute. Van der Poels coverage especially is quite narrow, it just happens to cover 3 monuments and a lot of WC routes but that's still not huge width.

Meanwhile Vingegaard apparently lacks versatility, despite being a quite versatile stage racer.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

So let's imagine all 6 of them in some kind of challenge event: I'm going to suggest an Amstel Gold sort of a course might be the most equitable. We need to remove the fact that Van Aert, Roglic and Vingegaard are on the same team, so let's have them all riding for separate teams, with 3 teammates each, but drawn from outside the top 100 riders: no superdoms.

How would it go? (Or what alternative type of route should they take to make it the most equitable possible?)

 

[CyclistAbi]

Thus, atm it's Remco, Pogacar, MvdP and Vingegaard as first rank, with Roglic and Wout not quite there, maybe just a smidgen of doubt surrounding their chances. If Wout won a few more times and Roglic crashed less, there would be zero doubt.

So Roglič didn't win 100% of the races he entered in this season. Including one where competing against Evenepoel? But i get it as even when Roglič was UCI No.1 he was still underrated. But luckily this doesn't play a role on the road.

 

[Bonimenier]

So Roglič didn't win 100% of the races he entered in this season. Including one where competing against Evenepoel? But i get it as even when Roglič was UCI No.1 he was still underrated. But luckily this doesn't play a role on the road.

It's not illogical to put the 2 guys who haven't won 1 of the 9 big races this or previous season just a tad lower than the 4 who have.

 

[CyclistAbi]

There was a chance for it at LBL. We all waited for the white group. And it ended in a ditch.

True classic.

 

[CyclistAbi]

It's not illogical to put the 2 guys who haven't won 1 of the 9 big races this or previous season just a tad lower than the 4 who have.

Usually not shown in the statistics there is such thing as circumstances. For example Roglič didn't win the Tour or Giro just yet. Still more or less has always beaten Bernal. So a tad lower or higher usually tends to be a rather subjective observation. From the perspective of some of your past comments i am sure that for you Rogla is a tad lower. Regarding everything. For me obviously not. In the end the road doesn't care about our tad. And that is on why all this top 6 cyclist will likely get beaten a tad sooner rather then latter.

 

[Sciatic]

So let's imagine all 6 of them in some kind of challenge event: I'm going to suggest an Amstel Gold sort of a course might be the most equitable. We need to remove the fact that Van Aert, Roglic and Vingegaard are on the same team, so let's have them all riding for separate teams, with 3 teammates each, but drawn from outside the top 100 riders: no superdoms.

How would it go? (Or what alternative type of route should they take to make it the most equitable possible?)

That’s a totally legit hypothetical to propose, and I’m guessing many folks would be interested to discuss.
But I admit I would like to have at least one thread that doesn’t devolve into who would beat who. I’m sure it seems weird to some of you, but I just don’t quite get that aspect. More relevant to me is what this clear “two-tiered” peloton does to race dynamics and my enjoyment watching races. When we’ve had just 1 or 2 riders who were clearly a level above everyone else that still left plenty of races that neither were in. With 4riders at that level for one day racing (Roglic really didn’t do 1-day races this spring) that leaves very few races without at least one them. Then if only one enters (AGR) or only one stays upright ( LBL) that really takes the air out of some the ballon. I mean, it’s still worth watching because these are great riders to watch. But it’s hard to not feel like something is missing.

 

[tobydawq]

I'm honestly surprised just how much sh*t WVA gets in this thread. How can anybody genuinely argue he isn't in this group?

It turns out MvdP and Pog are arguably stronger on short (cobbled) hills. Fine. What else? Just because he didn't win MSR and the Ronde because of that you want to disregard him as just another Pidcock? He was still head and shoulders above everyone other than those 2 in both MSR and all Belgian cobbled classics, and might have been the strongest in PR but was really unlucky.

This obsessive focus on the monuments is also completely disregarding WVA's biggest strenght, his versatility. WVA is the only one of these guys who can win bunch sprints in the Tour de France, is probably 2nd only to Remco in terms of TT ability and while not a gt gc contender can even win high mountain stages. If you want to criticize him for not being the very best in certain categories then you also have to criticize Roglic for only being the 3rd or probably 4th best gc rider on this list, while riding for gc's is also his only main goal. And if you want to praise people for their versatility, you have to acknowledge that Van Aert is quite a bit better than VdP in pretty much everything except being a puncheur.

If you make a list of the dominant riders of the current era I think it's not only inarguable Van Aert is on it, I think what we should argue about is if he is actually bottom of that list.

The Van Aert disrespect is one of this forum's worst traits.

I didn't particularly enjoy the Valverde disrespect either, but I got where it was coming from.

But this with Van Aert is just inexplicable. Anybody who has eyes and watches the races and not only their results should be able to see that he is without a doubt in the elite league.

 

[IndianCyclist]

The more the hype of a contest between top riders, the more likely it will end in a crash, mechanical, injury or out of form case.

 

[Bolder]

So Roglič didn't win 100% of the races he entered in this season. Including one where competing against Evenepoel? But i get it as even when Roglič was UCI No.1 he was still underrated. But luckily this doesn't play a role on the road.

Another straw man post. No one underrates Roglic.

 

[Gigs_98]

What confuses me in this discussion is how much versatility credit Van Aert and especially Van der Poel get when they don't race GCs. For versatility it's clearly Pogacar and Evenepoel ahead of the rest and even Roglic is both a monument and GT winner even if he hasn't won a monument in a hot minute. Van der Poels coverage especially is quite narrow, it just happens to cover 3 monuments and a lot of WC routes but that's still not huge width.

I agree about vdP, but I'd argue Van Aert is up there in terms of versatility, at least above Roglic. Yes, he has won both gt's and a monument, but how versatile do you have to be to do so? I mean was Andy Schleck more versatile than Van Aert for winning both? Some classics you can simply win by being a good climber and that Roglic very much is. Doesn't mean he is super versatile. It also doesn't help Roglic's case that his LBL win must be one of the luckiest monument wins in recent history. If Alaphilippe doesn't have two brain farts within 100 meters he probably finishes 4th in a 4 men group. Instead he wins.

A guy like Van Aert is basically an A or A- in absolutely everything except climbing in which he is only a B+. But because that's the only skill you really need to win gt's, he doesn't have a chance there. The same goes for Lombardia. I would actually make the argument that puts him above Remco in terms of versatility too, who aside from stage racing only ever wins one way, namely by TT'ing away from everyone. As it turns out you can win a lot of races that way, but I don't know if it makes you a versatile rider.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Pogacar is a cycling God but he's not alone. There's another, younger God in the making: Evenepoel. No matter if it's a stage-race or one-day race. They can win everywhere. It's as if Merckx and Hinault arrived in the same generation.
Then stage-race specialists: Vingegaard who's a GT monster and possibly the best climber of the current decade and Roglic, who is back and wants to prove to younger guys he's still a GT monster (he can win one-day races as well but he's not as profilic as the duo above and he focuses on stage races more).
And one-day race specialists: MVP, who is a classics legend in the making and WVA, who's a bit hard to classify as he can do many things.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Another straw man post. No one underrates Roglic.

It depends. That is if you feel that ranking Roglič as second tier is or is not underrating him. I guess there are a lot of subjective factors involved when an individual answers this question. Objectively, if we focus on this season, as that is what this thread is about, current cross section, he has raced against and beaten the cyclist you have in first tier.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

I agree about vdP, but I'd argue Van Aert is up there in terms of versatility, at least above Roglic. Yes, he has won both gt's and a monument, but how versatile do you have to be to do so? I mean was Andy Schleck more versatile than Van Aert for winning both? Some classics you can simply win by being a good climber and that Roglic very much is. Doesn't mean he is super versatile. It also doesn't help Roglic's case that his LBL win must be one of the luckiest monument wins in recent history. If Alaphilippe doesn't have two brain farts within 100 meters he probably finishes 4th in a 4 men group. Instead he wins.

A guy like Van Aert is basically an A or A- in absolutely everything except climbing in which he is only a B+. But because that's the only skill you really need to win gt's, he doesn't have a chance there. The same goes for Lombardia. I would actually make the argument that puts him above Remco in terms of versatility too, who aside from stage racing only ever wins one way, namely by TT'ing away from everyone. As it turns out you can win a lot of races that way, but I don't know if it makes you a versatile rider.

GTs, most 1-week stage races, monument, OG ITT seems pretty versatile to me. Should have won F-W too. Of course crashes significantly impact his palmares, too. I wouldn’t say he’s as versatile as Pog or Remco but he’s more so than MVDP and Vingegaard for sure.