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

Should we change the thread title?


  • Total voters
    116
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.
Many riders have better results at their age than Nibali had at the same age. Do you expect for everyone of them to have a better career than Nibali?

Like Skjelmose as an example. Compare their trajectories at the age of Skjelmose now, does that make you conclude that he will have a better career (most likely) than Nibali?
 
Many riders have better results at their age than Nibali had at the same age. Do you expect for everyone of them to have a better career than Nibali?

Like Skjelmose as an example. Compare their trajectories at the age of Skjelmose now, does that make you conclude that he will have a better career (most likely) than Nibali?
My first sentence literally said: Obviously the best comparison is made at the end
 
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.
How long are we gonna make a generation? Because Contador and Froome's primes have 0 overlap.

One thing that is already a fact is that no 2 riders ever locked out the top 2 spots like Pogacar and Vingegaard did at the Tour in the past 3 years. And they're 24 and 27 respectively.
 
Nibali overachieved massively in his career.
No he didn't.

Nibali was a talent from the start. Not in the English media maybe, he wasn't a junior phenomenon, he wasn't a "sure thing" like Gesink after the U23 according to the English media, but he showed that he was a guy with potential fast. First Giro at 22 1/2, 19th in GT, a year later 11 Giro, 19th TdF, where he crashed while being on his way to a top 10. One year later 7th in GC, and at the latest at this point it was clear he was going to be a possible future GT winner. But really already after 08 it looked promising. Unlike Pogacar, Remco he was a guy that still had a big margin when he turned pro, developed steadily. He didn't overachieve. He just was criminally underestimated by english media pages like Cyclingnews. Before the Tour 12 even Van den Broeck was more highly regarded than him, places higher in previews than Nibali. (I thought he would win that Tour, but ok, Wiggins-Froome, argh)
 
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.
It’s debatable, I agree. I think we can safely say the right answer on the generation question isn't critical to my point.

To the rest of all this, there’s probably a thread to discuss Nibali’s career trajectory.
 
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
Disagree a bit, while agreeing with a lot.

He finally won MSR when he didn't even try anymore, that win was a bit lucky. Looked like Sagan decided not to chase, not feeling like having to do the whole work while then being countered by others. And when he went nobody probably thought a not very in form Nibali could go through. So tempo out, but Nibali's class was enough to win even when he clearly didn't have the form of other years. Wasn't the best, but his endurance and fighting spirit won it that day. Grande Nibali!

IMO Nibali's career has to be split in 2 halfes. Debut till 2013, then 2014 on. The old Nibali rode a lot, rode to win, which didn't always work. Until 13 though he was there in spring, Tirreno, fighting for Milano Sanremo and Liège wins. Just never worked, but he wasn't that far off. His lack of sprint didn't help.
From 14 on he was mostly focused on 1 goal, 14+15 TdF, nothing really before, spring a far cry from previous years. And IMO that was a mistake. When he finally won MSR in 18 it was great, but as I said, don't think his form was all that, he just benefited from his class and the race situation. He basically gave up on the spring, but instead concentrating on his 1 GT, and was then there for Lombardia.

Which was the thing that pissed me off to no end. After 14 he should have gone full classics immediately, while of course still going for the GTs. Flanders? you say could not win, I'm not so sure, IMO something like that fit him quite well. Remember the crazy TA stage where he went off the front with Sagan, the over the top walls one after another? Or a "wally" Oman stage? Those short steep intense climbs fit him quite well, he really should have tried Flanders. Not wait until late in his career and with a basically non-existent spring form. 2015, 2016 17 would have been the time. But by then he had basically given up on the spring. And then won Sanremo 18! As for Roubaix, after his pavé show at the Tour, that was worth a try too, but can understand the reluctance to start there. More than in Flanders you do risk the whole season there.
But his spring form, season planning from 14 onwards just was very frustrating, try it dammit, Nibali didn't have to be scared of anybody in MSR, RVV, LBL. Maybe he never wins any of them, but at least try.
Rio 2016, I was convinced he'd won that.
Firenze 13, the crash cost him I think. Don't remember him being involved in the Uran crash, thought he was ahead of him still? But ok, just think that without his own crash he wouldn't have had to chase Rodriguez later while having Costa and Valverde on his wheel, but could be wrong.
Don't remember the early Lombardias, but ok.

Generally agree with the feeling, just not some details
 
  • Like
Reactions: hayneplane
Ok ok, Remco...

Makes no sense to compare Remco and Nibali at this point, Remco is a guy who simply won't develop much further, like Pogacar. Or like Quintana from an earlier generation. They turn pro at already such a high level that they are almost at their peak already. Peak for Remco-Pogacar? 25? Already now?
Guys like Nibali just developed slower, getting better year by year and peaking later, 27+ "Normal" superstars if you want.

As for Remco and the Vuelta... keep reading here, but only here (but then don't really chase Remco news in other places, just like it here, this place is fun) that he was heavier than 2022. Is there any credible source for that? To me seems doubtful, if he was indeed heavier (somebody wrote 3-4 kg) wouldn't that have been the first thing everybody would have said after the Tourmalet stage? But I heard nothing at all about that until after the Vuelta, and then only here...

And of course Remco should keep focusing on GTs. MSR-RVV-FW-LBL in spring, TdF, Olympics, Worlds, then Lombardia. Perfect program for 24. MSR and RVV try to stick to Pogacar and see how it goes, of course try to win Liège, TdF go in with GC ambitions. then see. Olympics, Worlds and Lombardia of course with ambitions to win. Or help Wout beat Mathieu, if it looks he can't win it himself. Tour: If he is beaten badly by Jumbo and Pogacar it's not the end of the world, try again a year later. Due to his Lombardia crash 20 and Covid 23 his GT experience is still light. While he probably is near his peak, he is lacking in experience in GTs still. His GT future due to that, first time TdF as well, doesn't have to be measured in comparison to Jumbo-Pogacar, but the rest. He ends up third, beating Carapaz/Mas/Hindley/Rodriguez, whoever shows up, ok. He ends in their group, roughly same level, still ok, experience,. If he's beaten clearly by then, (but don't really expect that) then it's worrisome, another collapse like on the Tourmalet stage too. Then maybe avoid the short-stage festival in July and just ride the GT with proper mountain stages, length wise. The Giro.

And at some point of course Remco should try to finally win important 1 week stage races. He'll never live up to his nickname, the new Simon Spilak, if he doesn't:)
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
Which was the thing that pissed me off to no end. After 14 he should have gone full classics immediately, while of course still going for the GTs. Flanders? you say could not win, I'm not so sure, IMO something like that fit him quite well. Remember the crazy TA stage where he went off the front with Sagan, the over the top walls one after another? Or a "wally" Oman stage? Those short steep intense climbs fit him quite well, he really should have tried Flanders. Not wait until late in his career and with a basically non-existent spring form. 2015, 2016 17 would have been the time. But by then he had basically given up on the spring. And then won Sanremo 18! As for Roubaix, after his pavé show at the Tour, that was worth a try too, but can understand the reluctance to start there. More than in Flanders you do risk the whole season there.
But his spring form, season planning from 14 onwards just was very frustrating, try it dammit, Nibali didn't have to be scared of anybody in MSR, RVV, LBL. Maybe he never wins any of them, but at least try.
Rio 2016, I was convinced he'd won that.
Firenze 13, the crash cost him I think. Don't remember him being involved in the Uran crash, thought he was ahead of him still? But ok, just think that without his own crash he wouldn't have had to chase Rodriguez later while having Costa and Valverde on his wheel, but could be wrong.
Don't remember the early Lombardias, but ok.

Generally agree with the feeling, just not some details
I agree on the bolded, he may have had a chance if he started racing it when he was quite young, but after 2017 he was just to late.

As for Firenza 2013, maybe you'r right about the Uran crash, but i still remember Nibali being quite tentative on the last Fiesole descent, he was probably scared after the crash, altough it is to be said that he was always more confortable descending in the dry than wet
 
In the context of Evenepoel. You can’t just cut that part out… although you probably can just to troll the thread again
You made it a general point, at least justified it as such. But - arguendo - how come it applies to Evenepoel and not Skjelmose when the comparison is with Nibali? I know. Because you already know your answer and look for reasons that suit it.

If it doesn't make sense to reduce the expectation of their career achievements to their trajectories at a very young age, then that should be just as true in the one comparison as the next. So no, I don't think it makes sense to only compare Evenepoel with what Nibali achieved at that age.
 
You made it a general point, at least justified it as such. But - arguendo - how come it applies to Evenepoel and not Skjelmose when the comparison is with Nibali? I know. Because you already know your answer and look for reasons that suit it.

If it doesn't make sense to reduce the expectation of their career achievements to their trajectories at a very young age, then that should be just as true in the one comparison as the next. So no, I don't think it makes sense to only compare Evenepoel with what Nibali achieved at that age.
Because it's Evenepoel, and not Skjelmose.