Teams & Riders The official Primož Roglič is the new Rominger thread

Page 57 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
so why wasnt he dominant in the third ? it kind of proves our point doesnt it
So next year we can assume the racing should be much more open and reckless. Young guns will take their shot and established teams will need to strategize and respond. That may be the problem for Ineos, Astana and Jumbo...who can last 3 weeks?
The eventual winners may be those that can respond and adjust strategy most fluidly.
That's assuming all of the guys we're talking about are at some relative peak parity, which never seems to be the case. The most recent GT winners include guys that are adaptable, guys that seize the opportunity and are somewhat/very lucky and one guy that ground out a win against diminishing competition.
I'll project that the TdF has to be the Big Prize next year for Ineos (whoever they settle on), Jumbo and some wild card. Jumbo should let TD check his recovery before assigning him leadership as he is strong enough to wreck himself for a race, a season and a recovery season. His best race would likely be the Giro but it could be too early and the Vuelta is too crazy. Froome is in that category but Ineos will reload a replacement very quickly and he'll be fading into their history. Astana...will never quite get it together although Superman should win the Vuelta; it would only be fair.
 
Reactions: topt
I posted this in the Rate the Vuelta thread, but maybe it fits in here too, just for comparing Giro/Vuelta performance

This is an interesting comparison but it doesn't take into account an important fact: Vuelta's climbs are shorter than at the Tour and the Giro. On such climbs cyclists obviously can achieve higher wattage (shorter effort). In addition, on short steep climbs (like at the Vuelta) cyclists achieve highest possible VAM numbers (vertical velocity): not sure how w/kg were calculated here but they can be derived from VAM.
 
so why wasnt he dominant in the third ? it kind of proves our point doesnt it
We don´t have any real evidence for this outside of the last TT. The Giro had no real mountain stage in the first half of the race. He was dominant in TT and did not lose any time on flat or hilly stages. He lost time on every single mountain stage.
 
May 29, 2019
65
22
230
World Championships schedule looks rather intensive. On the up side, we will get to enjoy watching it. Good luck!

P.S. As for the Giro 2019 and discussions if Roglič can climb or not. In a few months time, there will be plenty of climbing on the schedule again, best to wait and see. I don't feel that Giro 2019 third week will play any special role, when it comes to TJV and scheduling GT races in 2020. In addition, if Giro climbs are too problematic for Roglič, TDF 2020 should likely be a better fit anyway.
 
May 20, 2017
144
17
1,860
We don´t have any real evidence for this outside of the last TT. The Giro had no real mountain stage in the first half of the race. He was dominant in TT and did not lose any time on flat or hilly stages. He lost time on every single mountain stage.
No he didnt, i dont what your problem is with roglic but at least stop lying.
He wasnt dominant in the last TT, why was that ?
Could it be he was really cooked, there aren many riders that were so dominant in the spring and than go to win the Giro
 
Last edited:
No he didnt, i dont what your problem is with roglic but at least stop lying.
He wasnt dominant in the last TT, why was that ?
Could it be he was really cooked, there aren many riders that were so dominant in the spring and than go to win the Giro
Well, not being dominant in a TT after a hard block of mountain stages is quite usual for riders like roglic. His stage 21 performance this year is comparable to dumoulin's in 2017 when he won the giro. Then you look at last years tdf TT and you see that roglic didn't perform well there either after another block of hard mountain stages and if anything I'd argue Roglic's shape seemed to only improve in that race. I think there are signs that roglic's weak shape in the giro was at least partly due to a badly timed peak, but imo the final TT isn't one of them
 
Well, not being dominant in a TT after a hard block of mountain stages is quite usual for riders like roglic. His stage 21 performance this year is comparable to dumoulin's in 2017 when he won the giro. Then you look at last years tdf TT and you see that roglic didn't perform well there either after another block of hard mountain stages and if anything I'd argue Roglic's shape seemed to only improve in that race. I think there are signs that roglic's weak shape in the giro was at least partly due to a badly timed peak, but imo the final TT isn't one of them
Dumoulin got 2nd after a flat TT specialist in a flat ITT

Roglic got 11th in a hilly ITT and was even beaten by Nibali, who he was assumed to beat by like 30s ahead of the stage
 
No he didnt, i dont what your problem is with roglic but at least stop lying.
He wasnt dominant in the last TT, why was that ?
Could it be he was really cooked, there aren many riders that were so dominant in the spring and than go to win the Giro
I don´t have any problems with Roglic but maybe you have a problem with me not thinking that he is the best in the world. I am not really lying I just forgot about stage 19 where he finished with the leaders group. Only one that was allowed to go on that day was MAL who gained 44s on the leaders group.

Stage 12: Landa...Nibali, Carapaz, Roglic +0:28
Stage 13: Landa... Carapaz +0:18...Roglic, Nibali + 1:37
Stage 14: Carapaz...Landa, Roglic, Nibali +1:54
Stage 15: Carapaz, Nibali...Landa +0:25...Roglic +0:40 (that was the stage were he crashed)
Stage 16: Landa, Carapaz, Nibali...Roglic +1:22
Stage 17: Landa...Carapaz +0:12...Roglic, Nibali +0:19
Stage 19: all same time
Stage 20: Landa...Carapaz, Nibali + 0:04...Roglic + 0:54

My overall point is pretty obvious. He was getting droped in the mountains every single time when Landa, Carapaz or Nibali went all out with their attacks. It might be because of the crash/ilness. It might be because the level of competition was better in the Giro.
It is difficult to judge his Giro performance because he looked good in the first two weeks (no mountain stages) and dominated the TTs. Just as dominant as he looked in the Vuelta.
How am I supposed to judge his climbing level in the first two weeks (prior to crash/potential ilness) without any mountain stages.
 
Reactions: SafeBet
I don´t have any problems with Roglic but maybe you have a problem with me not thinking that he is the best in the world. I am not really lying I just forgot about stage 19 where he finished with the leaders group. Only one that was allowed to go on that day was MAL who gained 44s on the leaders group.

Stage 12: Landa...Nibali, Carapaz, Roglic +0:28
Stage 13: Landa... Carapaz +0:18...Roglic, Nibali + 1:37
Stage 14: Carapaz...Landa, Roglic, Nibali +1:54
Stage 15: Carapaz, Nibali...Landa +0:25...Roglic +0:40 (that was the stage were he crashed)
Stage 16: Landa, Carapaz, Nibali...Roglic +1:22
Stage 17: Landa...Carapaz +0:12...Roglic, Nibali +0:19
Stage 19: all same time
Stage 20: Landa...Carapaz, Nibali + 0:04...Roglic + 0:54

My overall point is pretty obvious. He was getting droped in the mountains every single time when Landa, Carapaz or Nibali went all out with their attacks. It might be because of the crash/ilness. It might be because the level of competition was better in the Giro.
It is difficult to judge his Giro performance because he looked good in the first two weeks (no mountain stages) and dominated the TTs. Just as dominant as he looked in the Vuelta.
How am I supposed to judge his climbing level in the first two weeks (prior to crash/potential ilness) without any mountain stages.
My take is that Roglic came into the Giro way too hot and he was only slightly saved by the Giro being effectively only an 8 day race in the mountains. Gavia taken out at Landa having to work for Carapaz saved his podium too.

I have a similar take on the tactical games with Nibali. Roglic didn't do anything cause he was bad, Nibali made big tactical mistakes. This is on both stage 13 and stage 14.

Roglic rode a bad TT cause he was just bad by the end of that Giro. That's not to say I think he's necessarily great at doing a TT when gassed. I think Dumoulin is a little better at that still.
 
May 20, 2017
144
17
1,860
Well, not being dominant in a TT after a hard block of mountain stages is quite usual for riders like roglic. His stage 21 performance this year is comparable to dumoulin's in 2017 when he won the giro. Then you look at last years tdf TT and you see that roglic didn't perform well there either after another block of hard mountain stages and if anything I'd argue Roglic's shape seemed to only improve in that race. I think there are signs that roglic's weak shape in the giro was at least partly due to a badly timed peak, but imo the final TT isn't one of them
I think it had something to do with him winning the queen stage the day before, he did win it on the downhill but he was also the only guy attacking
 
May 20, 2017
144
17
1,860
I don´t have any problems with Roglic but maybe you have a problem with me not thinking that he is the best in the world. I am not really lying I just forgot about stage 19 where he finished with the leaders group. Only one that was allowed to go on that day was MAL who gained 44s on the leaders group.

Stage 12: Landa...Nibali, Carapaz, Roglic +0:28
Stage 13: Landa... Carapaz +0:18...Roglic, Nibali + 1:37
Stage 14: Carapaz...Landa, Roglic, Nibali +1:54
Stage 15: Carapaz, Nibali...Landa +0:25...Roglic +0:40 (that was the stage were he crashed)
Stage 16: Landa, Carapaz, Nibali...Roglic +1:22
Stage 17: Landa...Carapaz +0:12...Roglic, Nibali +0:19
Stage 19: all same time
Stage 20: Landa...Carapaz, Nibali + 0:04...Roglic + 0:54

My overall point is pretty obvious. He was getting droped in the mountains every single time when Landa, Carapaz or Nibali went all out with their attacks. It might be because of the crash/ilness. It might be because the level of competition was better in the Giro.
It is difficult to judge his Giro performance because he looked good in the first two weeks (no mountain stages) and dominated the TTs. Just as dominant as he looked in the Vuelta.
How am I supposed to judge his climbing level in the first two weeks (prior to crash/potential ilness) without any mountain stages.
perhaps you should look at other races also, he didnt start racing in Giro 19, who won the queen stages in 17 and 18 TDF ?
 
perhaps you should look at other races also, he didnt start racing in Giro 19, who won the queen stages in 17 and 18 TDF ?
2017 is not really relevant for a discussion about his GC-climbing abilities because he was in the breakaway.

2018 is interesting. He lost nearly a minute on the 1st real mountain stage vs Thomas and 40s vs Froome and Dumoulin. The stage to Alpe D`Huez is hard to judge because of the chaos after Nibalis crash but he lost some seconds to all relevant GCs guys again. After the crash he followed Nibali (who suffered from a broken vertebrae) and limited his loses.
On stage 14 he was able to gain a few seconds on the last km. Finishing 8s in front of the leaders group. On stage 17 he could follow Thomas and TD while Froome lost time. Bernal carried from up the mountain and probably saved the podium for him.
On stage 19 Roglic used the final decent and gained 19s on the leaders. In the final TT he lost the podium.

Overall he wasn´t able to follow the best climbers in the alps but was among the very best in the pyrenees. The final TT was just as bad as this years final Giro TT.
We also have to consider that both Froome and TD already raced a hard Giro in may.


If I had to judge Roglics overall ability I would say that he is probably the best one-week stage racer right now but I am not convinced that he is among the top 5 GT riders. That doesn´t mean that he cannot win a GT as we just saw him win the Vuelta. It just depends on the level of competition and the course. More time trials and less long + high altitude mountain stages are in his favor.
Right now I think that Bernal, Thomas, healthy Froome and TD are still better. Carapaz and Nibali are at least on the same level.
 
Last edited:
May 20, 2017
144
17
1,860
2017 is not really relevant for a discussion about his GC-climbing abilities because he was in the breakaway.

2018 is interesting. He lost nearly a minute on the 1st real mountain stage vs Thomas and 40s vs Froome and Dumoulin. The stage to Alpe D`Huez is hard to judge because of the chaos after Nibalis crash but he lost some seconds to all relevant GCs guys again. After the crash he followed Nibali (who suffered from a broken vertebrae) and limited his loses.
On stage 14 he was able to gain a few seconds on the last km. Finishing 8s in front of the leaders group. On stage 17 he could follow Thomas and TD while Froome lost time. Bernal carried from up the mountain and probably saved the podium for him.
On stage 19 Roglic used the final decent and gained 19s on the leaders. In the final TT he lost the podium.

Overall he wasn´t able to follow the best climbers in the alps but was among the very best in the pyrenees. The final TT was just as bad as this years final Giro TT.
We also have to consider that both Froome and TD already raced a hard Giro in may.


If I had to judge Roglics overall ability I would say that he is probably the best one-week stage racer right now but I am not convinced that he is among the top 5 GT riders. That doesn´t mean that he cannot win a GT as we just saw him win the Vuelta. It just depends on the level of competition and the course. More time trials and less long + high altitude mountain stages are in his favor.
Right now I think that Bernal, Thomas, healthy Froome and TD are still better. Carapaz and Nibali are at least on the same level.
He was THE ONLY ONE that was attacking in stage 19 and finally managed to get away on the descent, also he wasnt even a leader coming in to 18 tour

Bernal really, Bernal ??? he didnt beat roglic once, I am done here
 
He was THE ONLY ONE that was attacking in stage 19 and finally managed to get away on the descent, also he wasnt even a leader coming in to 18 tour

Bernal really, Bernal ??? he didnt beat roglic once, I am done here
And that´s why it doesn´t make sense to discuss with fanboys. Bernal just won the Tour de France and showed himself to be the strongest climber in the 3rd week (ignoring Pinots injury).
Roglic beat a 39 year old Valverde and a 20 year old youngster that was more or less helping him to win.
Is it blasphemous to think that Bernal is a better climber and GT rider than Roglic? I don´t think so.
 
2017 is not really relevant for a discussion about his GC-climbing abilities because he was in the breakaway.

2018 is interesting. He lost nearly a minute on the 1st real mountain stage vs Thomas and 40s vs Froome and Dumoulin. The stage to Alpe D`Huez is hard to judge because of the chaos after Nibalis crash but he lost some seconds to all relevant GCs guys again. After the crash he followed Nibali (who suffered from a broken vertebrae) and limited his loses.
On stage 14 he was able to gain a few seconds on the last km. Finishing 8s in front of the leaders group. On stage 17 he could follow Thomas and TD while Froome lost time. Bernal carried from up the mountain and probably saved the podium for him.
On stage 19 Roglic used the final decent and gained 19s on the leaders. In the final TT he lost the podium.

Overall he wasn´t able to follow the best climbers in the alps but was among the very best in the pyrenees. The final TT was just as bad as this years final Giro TT.
We also have to consider that both Froome and TD already raced a hard Giro in may.


If I had to judge Roglics overall ability I would say that he is probably the best one-week stage racer right now but I am not convinced that he is among the top 5 GT riders. That doesn´t mean that he cannot win a GT as we just saw him win the Vuelta. It just depends on the level of competition and the course. More time trials and less long + high altitude mountain stages are in his favor.
Right now I think that Bernal, Thomas, healthy Froome and TD are still better. Carapaz and Nibali are at least on the same level.
I am a fan of Roglič and I see nothing wrong with your post.

I can't proclaim him the best GT rider right now either. You need to win TdF at least once to deserve this title. But I also can't call the best GT rider someone who wins the Tour once and never wins another GT again, which I think is in Thomas' case. I agree a healthy Froome would be the best, but we don't know if he'll ever get to the level he was before the injury and the same could be said about Dumoulin. For Bernal logic suggests he'll only get better from now on but as we have seen with Quintana and Lopez, that's not always the case for early bloomers. Carapaz and Nibali are also in the conversation but the former needs to replicate his performance next year to really be considered the best among the best, the latter hasn't won a GT since 2016.

So all of these riders have arguments going for or against them. It's up in the air right now really. Depends on people preferences. It looks like we have to wait for next year to have a clearer picture.

What you can't deny is that Roglič's run has been impressive. Even if you look only at GTs. 4th, 3rd and 1st in the first three GTs you do for GC is impressive no matter what. If you consider that among the GT riders he is one of only few who also races in one week races to win (between the above mentioned only him an Bernal really do this lately), it gets even more impressive.
 
Reactions: dastott and Carols
To me, the conversation for the best GC rider should automatically include those that have won GTs during the past year or so. So that includes Thomas, S Yates, Carapaz, Bernal, and Roglic. Then looking back a little farther and taking context into the equation adds Froome* and Dumoulin*, whose future condition is something of an unknown. No other rider should be in the conversation. I'm excluding Nibali because he hasn't been the best rider in a GT in several years and he's now at the age that continued performance deterioration should be expected.

If we're talking right now, the last two, Froome and Dumoulin, are clearly not at the top. If we're talking expected performances in the next year's GTs, it of course looks different. You could come up with some sort of probability-weighted expected performance.

I think for Dumoulin there's close to a 100% chance he will be as good or better than in the past, as he is young and his injury was fairly minor, just horribly managed.

For Froome, I would suggest there's something like a 30% chance he's as good as ever, a 40% chance he'll be back but at the level of current Quintana, more or less, and a 30% chance he just won't be able to get it back. Obviously, those numbers are a stab in the dark and the ultimate result will be one of those outcomes, but for now the rational approach would be to assign probabilities and predict accordingly. Therefore, I'm predicting him to be in the running for a podium but not winning.

Then, you'd have to assume a typical Tour route with ~2 TTs, a couple punchy stages, possibility of splits on some "easy" stages, and some high mountain stages. You'd weight each riders capabilities against such a route.

Then, you'd factor in age (progression/deterioration).

Lastly, you'd ignore the impact of team strength, as we are discussing rider capabilities.

So here's my list of how I'd expect the top guys to stack up if they all do the Tour next year:

  1. Dumoulin - assumes 100% strength and potential progression due to age
  2. Bernal - assumes progression due to age
  3. Thomas - assumes deterioration due to age, lack of focus
  4. Carapaz - assumes progression due to age
  5. Roglic - assumes progression due to career trajectory
  6. Froome - assumptions above*
  7. Yates - assumes flat progression due to uneven performance trajectory
*If Froome returns to 100% strength, he and Dumoulin will again duke it out as the best two GC riders IMO.

Note: if I had to assign myself as a fan, I prefer them in this order: Dumoulin, Roglic, Froome, Bernal, Carapaz, Yates
 
Reactions: dastott
Generally I think slow steady progression in pure featherweight climbers doesn't happen all that much at all and flatten out very quickly after their major breakthrough. The ones who also have classic potential or are bigger TTers develop more slowly
 
Reactions: dastott
I’m not sure how you can make a credible argument that Nibali is the best GT rider right now. He hadn’t been the best climber or TTrr in a recent GT, not had he won since Crushweak blundered in 2016.

You could credibly point to any of the others, as they have either actually won a GT in the last two seasons or, in the case of Dumoulin, got 2/2 in Giro/Tour, which is pretty amazing.

Specifically, Froome won 4 straight GTs and still got 3rd in the fifth GT, the Tour. It would be odd to exclude him unless you are assuming vastly different weighted probability performance.
 
Also,
I’m not sure how you can make a credible argument that Nibali is the best GT rider right now. He hadn’t been the best climber or TTrr in a recent GT, not had he won since Crushweak blundered in 2016.

You could credibly point to any of the others, as they have either actually won a GT in the last two seasons or, in the case of Dumoulin, got 2/2 in Giro/Tour, which is pretty amazing.

Specifically, Froome won 4 straight GTs and still got 3rd in the fifth GT, the Tour. It would be odd to exclude him unless you are assuming vastly different weighted probability performance.
Also, Froome got 1/3 and Dumoulin 2/2 in the 2018 Giro/Tour double; Nibali got 2/some number so low I can’t even remember. Injuries matter, but, again, not sure how Nibali could be considered THE best right now.
 
I’m not sure how you can make a credible argument that Nibali is the best GT rider right now. He hadn’t been the best climber or TTrr in a recent GT, not had he won since Crushweak blundered in 2016.

You could credibly point to any of the others, as they have either actually won a GT in the last two seasons or, in the case of Dumoulin, got 2/2 in Giro/Tour, which is pretty amazing.

Specifically, Froome won 4 straight GTs and still got 3rd in the fifth GT, the Tour. It would be odd to exclude him unless you are assuming vastly different weighted probability performance.
I didn't say he was the best.

I simply said he belonged on the list.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS