Teams & Riders The Big 6

[Bolder]

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.

We can agree to disagree. Personally I love Roglic and only wish he had gotten a better nights sleep before the TDF ITT in 2020...

 

[CyclistAbi]

We can agree to disagree.

This sounds reasonable.

 

[gunara]

How sure are we that Vinge has no potential to be closer to Pog in versatility? If he's in a team with less winner, would we have not seen more of him?

And I have very little doubt about Remco having it. He's just taking his time now and learning fast.

About Wout, I never cheer for him and I love llmaestro, but it's ridiculous to dismiss him from a talk about cycling supermen. Really? How scary should someone be in a Tour?

MvdP and Roglic win at will, too, only seemingly stoppable by the other four.

This Big 6, to me, is real.

 

[Akuryo]

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 problem isn't his lack of versatility. It's that he usually loses against one of the other 5 in every terrain. While he is a jack of all traits, he gets 2nd way too often in the "important" races. It's actually amazing that of all the monuments he has ridden he was only once worse than 14th yet at the same time was only able to take one victory...

 

[Krzysztof_O]

How sure are we that Vinge has no potential to be closer to Pog in versatility? If he's in a team with less winner, would we have not seen more of him?

Why not trying Ardennes classics then? No Wout, no Primoz and yet they don't take Vinge. He's a full time stage racer.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Green jersey at the Tour while being a superdom is something that alone can put van Aert up there. For future seasons maybe he should focus more on sprint. Then at lets say worlds to launch Remco and wait for it if it will come down to sprint. At a race such as MSR basically the same thing with Roglič. At PR more or less not to have a flat and one team member being there at the finish line. Trophy cabinet buffet will come for van Aert too.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Meanwhile van Aert really couldn't care less:

Wout van Aert goes on mammoth bikepacking trip on racing break

Belgian logs over 300km on gravel bike for two-day trip to Champagne region in France

www.cyclingnews.com

 

[Red Rick]

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.

To me it's a pretty bad way to look at versatility to just call everything Roglic does as "that's just climbing bro" when he has more time trial wins than Van Aert, including the Olympic TT where he destroyed everyone. I'm pretty sure we can stretch this and just say Pogacar winning De Ronde and contending in Milano Sanremo is also "just climbing" And if you wanna give Van Aert so much credit for his climbing than you have to give Roglic credit for his sprinting.

Van Aerts effective range of winning big races is still only MSR, RVV and PR with WC/OG RR/ITT, and that range minus the ITT has been fairly normal over the years.

If you wanna define versatility as 'top 50 at literally everything' then it gets super pointless because then you will flatout always exclude any GC/Liege type cause they'll never be top 50 pure sprinters.

 

[Andy schleck]

What domestique wins 3 stages in every grand tour he participates in?

I really like your pic. The great António morgado!

 

[jmdirt]

This may be a hot take guys but I do think Andy Murray isnt part of the Big 6.

The hierarchy between them will be up for debate, but Pog on top and WvA on the bottom right now shouldnt be that controversial

Any criticism to Vingegaard being one dimensional should 100% also apply to MvdP

MvdP is farther from being one dimensional than any rider in the platoon.

 

[Cookster15]

The problem isn't his lack of versatility. It's that he usually loses against one of the other 5 in every terrain. While he is a jack of all traits, he gets 2nd way too often in the "important" races. It's actually amazing that of all the monuments he has ridden he was only once worse than 14th yet at the same time was only able to take one victory...

If we measure by wins yes. But measuring by strengths across all terrains WvA is unrivaled. His ability to sprint is the biggest differentiator to the other 5. The others can TT and climb. Pog's "sprint" is only relative to other climbers - like how Valverde was, plus Pog can win at Flanders and potentially even PR (as can WvA) - but Pog will never win a mass sprint against genuine sprinters. Against genuine sprinters there has been nobody I can remember who can do it all like WvA - since Merckx. Climbing is Wout's biggest weakness. But then he was driving Jumbo on Grand Colombier when Bernal was dropped and of course the following year he won the double ascent to Ventoux stage.

To put Wout into context, imagine Vingegaard or even Pog winning a mass sprint against the best sprinters (ridiculous yes ):

https://www.cyclingnews.com/races/tour-de-france-2020/stage-5/results/

Or Imagine Cav winning on Ventoux (yes ridiculous but WvA is ridiculous ):

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-wout-van-aert-claims-best-victory-ever-over-mont-ventoux/

And WvA has also won elite TTs. He can do it all.

The other 5 "lose" to WvA more often. There is no "problem". None of the other 5 can do anything remotely impressive - even Pog. This is why Wout deserves to be "the big 6". I would rate him towards the bottom but he certainly deserves to be in this conversation.

 

[Red Rick]

MvdP is farther from being one dimensional than any rider in the platoon.

Based on him racing a schedule that's the single most common schedule for a classics rider?

 

[Gigs_98]

To me it's a pretty bad way to look at versatility to just call everything Roglic does as "that's just climbing bro" when he has more time trial wins than Van Aert, including the Olympic TT where he destroyed everyone. I'm pretty sure we can stretch this and just say Pogacar winning De Ronde and contending in Milano Sanremo is also "just climbing" And if you wanna give Van Aert so much credit for his climbing than you have to give Roglic credit for his sprinting.

Van Aerts effective range of winning big races is still only MSR, RVV and PR with WC/OG RR/ITT, and that range minus the ITT has been fairly normal over the years.

If you wanna define versatility as 'top 50 at literally everything' then it gets super pointless because then you will flatout always exclude any GC/Liege type cause they'll never be top 50 pure sprinters.

But I mean you basically give the argument why Roglic isn't comparable to Pogacar yourself. You cannot say "it's all just climbing" because Roglic cannot do the things Pogacar does (i.e. contending in races like Ronde or MSR). So clearly there has to be more to it than "just climbing".

Also I'm not arguing Roglic isn't versatile, just that Van Aert is more versatile. Of course Roglic is a great TT'er and has a decent sprint, but just because the number of races he can win is very high that doesn't automatically mean he is super versatile. It's mostly that being a great climber with a good sprint is a skillset that will win you loads of races. It's what made Valverde the great that he was and I'd argue Valverde himself was never the versatile rider people claimed he was.

 

[jmdirt]

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.

Isn't riding harder earlier a tactic?

 

[tobydawq]

To me it's a pretty bad way to look at versatility to just call everything Roglic does as "that's just climbing bro" when he has more time trial wins than Van Aert, including the Olympic TT where he destroyed everyone. I'm pretty sure we can stretch this and just say Pogacar winning De Ronde and contending in Milano Sanremo is also "just climbing" And if you wanna give Van Aert so much credit for his climbing than you have to give Roglic credit for his sprinting.

Van Aerts effective range of winning big races is still only MSR, RVV and PR with WC/OG RR/ITT, and that range minus the ITT has been fairly normal over the years.

If you wanna define versatility as 'top 50 at literally everything' then it gets super pointless because then you will flatout always exclude any GC/Liege type cause they'll never be top 50 pure sprinters.

Good God...

Of course Roglic should get points for his sprinting (and I would call him very versatile - he just doesn't really ride a versatile set of races), but saying that Van Aert's range is 'fairly normal' and then just focusing on monuments and GTs and only that is also suuuuuuuper pointless.

 

[gunara]

Why not trying Ardennes classics then? No Wout, no Primoz and yet they don't take Vinge. He's a full time stage racer.

I'm not sure why, team's priority maybe? I just saw winning the last Itzulia differently than winning a Tour or, say, a typical Dauphiné

 

[Big Doopie]

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.

isn't that maybe more about getting rid of the super teams. three minutes wasn't enough because UAE had enough good doms to bring pog within range. same can be said for other teams (jumbo for sure).

i definitely prefer the strongest riders winning tho. definitely. so i do not mind the wearing out of the opposition at all.

 

[Red Rick]

Good God...

Of course Roglic should get points for his sprinting (and I would call him very versatile - he just doesn't really ride a versatile set of races), but saying that Van Aert's range is 'fairly normal' and then just focusing on monuments and GTs and only that is also suuuuuuuper pointless.

If we're gonna include lesser races, we're gonna add a lot more classics for Roglic than we add stage races for Van Aert.

Unless you mean versatility is all about stage wins in stage races, in which case, when I look at GTs I still have bad news for you.

 

[tobydawq]

If we're gonna include lesser races, we're gonna add a lot more classics for Roglic than we add stage races for Van Aert.

Unless you mean versatility is all about stage wins in stage races, in which case, when I look at GTs I still have bad news for you.

What do you mean? Wout is a probable winner in around 18 stages per Grand Tour.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

I'm not sure why, team's priority maybe? I just saw winning the last Itzulia differently than winning a Tour or, say, a typical Dauphiné

It was his own decision not to ride the Ardennes, because they haven't brought him much success so far in his career.

 

[Salvarani]

What do you mean? Wout is a probable winner in around 18 stages per Grand Tour.

God forbid if he only wins 17 of those.

 

[Blanco]

So much talk about versatility, like it's the ultimate quality. Yes it's good, you can be a contender in many races, but that alone won't bring you biggest wins. Ask Van Aert...

 

[hayneplane]

I love threads like these that make a lot of sense and are total nonsense at the same time.

More sense, like somebody alluded to, is it to devide top riders per discipline. And one day races or monuments shouldn't be thrown on the same pile either. The lbs field weighs like 10 kg less on average than the Paris roubaix field for instance. And while mvdp might fluke a lbl win in his career or pogacar Paris roubaix, neither will be favourite for those races.

I do the general sentiment though, it feels like for a fun race, either none of them should start, or all of them.

Pogacar was the widespread 3rd favourite for Paris Roubaix this year despite it being known to be not any chance of him showing up. He would have been a worthy top favourite as well.

 

[tobydawq]

So much talk about versatility, like it's the ultimate quality. Yes it's good, you can be a contender in many races, but that alone won't bring you biggest wins. Ask Van Aert...

But it is an impressive quality.

 

[hayneplane]

MvdP is farther from being one dimensional than any rider in the platoon.

Not when you purely consider his road racing career to date. Sure he is also outstanding at CX and MTB but this is not directly relevant here.