• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread

Page 850 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Should we change the thread title?


  • Total voters
    112
I meant I believe he's a bigger talent than Nibali, who won all three GTs. This doesn't mean Remco shall do likewise, but to say he doesn't have the stuff for GTs is, I think, premature to say.
He surely is, but Nibali wasn't the biggest talent out there, yet he had a phenomenal career. In terms of GT's purely, there's a long way in front of Remco to reach Nibali.
 
Lol, maybe I want to compare them at the end.
Obviously the best comparison is made at the end, but you are now already saying that you doubt he'll reach the palmares of a rider as Nibali. I'm saying maybe the trajectories should be compared at the same age, since I would assume younger riders still have time to grow. Maybe Remco will plateau and never win a GT again, but that's a weird thing to say for someone who already won one. So I found the assumption that Nibali will have had a better career than Remco weird.
 
Nibali had 52 Pro wins and Remco is already at 50. Regarding the quality of those wins, the PCS all time ranking could be used as a reasonable reference. Remco currently has 68% of the points of Nibali. Unless Remco fades the coming years and never reaches his current level it is hard to see why he wouldn't surpass Nibali and this in a period with exceptional competitors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andre and Berniece
Nibali had 52 Pro wins and Remco is already at 50. Regarding the quality of those wins, the PCS all time ranking could be used as a reasonable reference. Remco currently has 68% of the points of Nibali. Unless Remco fades the coming years and never reaches his current level it is hard to see why he wouldn't surpass Nibali and this in a period with exceptional competitors.
Nibali raced against exceptional riders, as well, and he is one himself.
 
Nibali had 52 Pro wins and Remco is already at 50. Regarding the quality of those wins, the PCS all time ranking could be used as a reasonable reference. Remco currently has 68% of the points of Nibali. Unless Remco fades the coming years and never reaches his current level it is hard to see why he wouldn't surpass Nibali and this in a period with exceptional competitors.
The dangers of data his that you forget you are comparing the incomparable.
It's a good exercise to compare riders from different seasons through overall points, but if you forget that it's a comparison with many flaws and not really an objective measure of how one rider fares with another, you tend to get to not very amusing conclusions.

For the sake of comparison, winning 1000 points with a win at the Tour is not the same as five wins in Grande Premio Miguel Indurain (5x200). But in terms of points, it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salvarani
I was thinking about Valverde, Contador, Froome, Sagan, Cancellara, Pinot, Evans, Joaquim Rodríguez, Quintana and so on. It was a really bad time, I guess.
Good point. There's also no data for factoring points based on the overall quality of the field.

But I think it's an overall tendency to think that past riders had an easier time than all the epic wins of your favorite rider ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Salvarani
The dangers of data his that you forget you are comparing the incomparable.
It's a good exercise to compare riders from different seasons through overall points, but if you forget that it's a comparison with many flaws and not really an objective measure of how one rider fares with another, you tend to get to not very amusing conclusions.

For the sake of comparison, winning 1000 points with a win at the Tour is not the same as five wins in Grande Premio Miguel Indurain (5x200). But in terms of points, it is.
Data has its limitations but it's the best tool we have. Qualitative assessment are partly subjective and as such always reason for controversy.
 
Obviously the best comparison is made at the end, but you are now already saying that you doubt he'll reach the palmares of a rider as Nibali. I'm saying maybe the trajectories should be compared at the same age, since I would assume younger riders still have time to grow. Maybe Remco will plateau and never win a GT again, but that's a weird thing to say for someone who already won one. So I found the assumption that Nibali will have had a better career than Remco weird.
Yeah, I think that Nibali will have better GT career than Remco. Nibali had a great career as a Grand Tour rider, I doubt Remco will surpass him, I find nothing weird about that.
Overall, although Nibali was very complete rider, Remco will end up as a better rider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
For me Nibali has an incredible palmares because of his overall talent and grit, but I would say it's a rider that overextended his palmares over other more talented riders than himself through daring and cunning.
I will never forget that cobble stage in the tour, he did it much better than Pogi. Truly amazing. And Fuglesang was even better that day, truly spectacular.
 
Good point. There's also no data for factoring points based on the overall quality of the field.

But I think it's an overall tendency to think that past riders had an easier time than all the epic wins of your favorite rider ;)
It's difficult. The best thing is to say that on average they are comparable if they are years and not decades apart and if you are only looking at an overall score. If you look at particular wins such as TdF wins or monument wins it becomes important.
 
Data has its limitations but it's the best tool we have. Qualitative assessment are partly subjective and as such always reason for controversy.
Data is a tool, but as any tool, it is ambiguous. You have to be able to frame it in order to make it "talk" wisely. Otherwise you're just a sorcerer's apprentice spilling out "facts" about "rankings" and "performances" in order to justify your already subjective preferences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salvarani
He’s 23. He’s facing the best generation of GC riders since the 80s.
This is very debatable.
The previous generation had 3 of the 7 riders winning all GTs (Contador, Froome, Nibali). And 3 more riders who podiumed all GTs (Valverde, Quintana, Rodriguez).

Current generation looks stacked but I'd wait a few years to gauge their historical value.
 
He overachieved GT by a small amount but underachieved classics somewhat
No, he didn't. In classics he won a MSR because nobody cared about him and he took advantage of that. He was a very smart rider but he never had the skillset to win a MSR. But MSR is a lottery, Pogacar will probably never win it and he is better than peak Nibali by a long margin. Sagan never won a MSR too. Nibali could have won a Liège (2012 I think?) but he never was close in other monuments, not in Flandres, not in Roubaix, not in MSR (other editions), not in Worlds (was close in making podium in 2013). He never underachieved in classics. In GT's, he is an overachiever. He would never win a Tour against Froome or Contador but he won. He was very lucky in a couple of GT's too. But for some reason his nickname is The shark of Messina and I miss guys like Nibali, guys like him try everything to win and always find a way to win. He really belongs to the old italian school (and probably he is the last) who are fierceful competitors and those guys were part of my youth as a big fan of cycling. Oh man, miss my boys Di Luca, Bartoli, Bettini, Cippo, Sovoldelli, Simoni, Garzelli, etc.
 
Last edited:
Data is a tool, but as any tool, it is ambiguous. You have to be able to frame it in order to make it "talk" wisely. Otherwise you're just a sorcerer's apprentice spilling out "facts" about "rankings" and "performances" in order to justify your already subjective preferences.
Sure. That's why using a relatively balanced tools such as PCS is reasonable but not perfect. There is a thread in this forum with a similar ranking system that could be used too and may be better. The best would be to ask a capable and neutral third party to do an objective study using tools like this and other data points if we want more depth. In any case, all qualitative discussions here are colored and quantitave may be if the data is fitted to the arguments but even if it can be trusted as objective it has limitations and can only be used for approximations.
 
No, he didn't. In classics he won a MSR because nobody cared about him and he took advantage of that. He was a very smart rider but he never had the skillset to win a MSR. But MSR is a lottery, Pogacar will probably never win it and he is better than peak Nibali by a long margin. Sagan never won a MSR too. Nibali could have won a Liège (2012 I think?) but he never was close in other monuments, not in Flandres, not in Roubaix, not in MSR (other editions), not in Worlds (was close in making podium in 2013). He never underachieved in classics. In GT's, he is an overachiever. He would never win a Tour against Froome or Contador but he won. He was very lucky in a couple of GT's too. But for some reason his nickname is The shark of Messina and I miss guys like Nibali, guys like him try everything to win and always find a way to win. He really belongs to the old italian school (and probably he is the last) who are fierceful competitors and those guys were part of my youth as a big fan of cycling. Oh man, miss my boys Di Luca, Bartoli, Bettini, Cippo, Sovoldelli, Simoni, Garzelli, etc.
He won Milano San Remo 'cause he had great endurance and the race that year was hard because of rain and head wind, none of the favourite was able to produce a decent acceleration on the Poggio. Trentin tried to chase him on the flat but exploded after 500 meters. He was the best that day. Plus he has a podium and 2 other top 10 to his name in the race.
Also, he lost Liege to flipping Iglinsky, while in the 2013 WC he was really strong, but crashed in the second to last lap, and had to make it back to the field, then lost ground after Uran crashed in front of him in the last descent and subsequently had to close Rodriguez.
In 2016 ORR he was in the front group with Henao and a toasted Majka but crashed in the descent,
He also crashed in 2010, 2012 and 2013 Lombardia when he had a shot at all 3, especially the last.
Nibali could not win Flander, but when it came to climby and hilly one day races, he was as good as anyone in the 2010s