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

[Red Rick]

I've always rated calling counterarguments 'trolling' tbh.

 

[Netserk]

You participated. That’s like saying I didn’t start the war, I just fought in it.

No. A subject that was on topic for this thread was brought up by someone else and I then participated in the conversation about that subject. Your analogy would fit if I had responded with something that was off-topic and against the rules.

This is not an appreciation thread. Non-fanboys are allowed to discuss the rider.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

No, your direct rival Rogla suffering from crashing out of the Tour and later crashing out of the Vuelta after dropping Evenepoel twice in the high mountains is not the same as Vingegaard and Pogi never starting the Vuelta in 2022.

Accidents outside the control of Rogla, MvdP & Pogi were the lucky circumstances of Evenepoel's victories.

Pogi and Vingegaard never had Paris-Nice in their schedule this year, so of course it doesn't matter that they are not here. Buitrago crashed (twice), and that is indeed a lucky incidence for Jorgenson, but he was already dropped by him when that happened, and his first crash was his own error.

Evenepoel was leading the Vuelta, the HC stages were over. He didn't win the Vuelta because Roglic crashed out. Quite hypocritical to claim otherwise while ignoring the reason Evenepoel lost time in the HC stages was... because he crashed 2 days prior.

The only valid argument here is that Roglic did not have a good prep to that Vuelta, which is why Evenepoel mopped the floor with him in the first 10 stages.

But AMracer gave multiple "excuses" why Evenepoel had won races. Another one was "no Pogi", i take it you read that? Hence this argument is on the table, making your entire claim void. You said "one is not the same" so, since you clearly meant the example i posted of PN, that means you agreed to that that very moment, since the other three were the same.

Ah, Buitrago's crash was his own error? But Roglic' in the Vuelta wasn't? I blame Fred Wright for Buitrago's crash too!

So yes, you agreed to the fact that crashing out (yes, own fault) is a valid argument, you agreed that not being there is a valid argument because you specifically argued against "one" which was not the same. Therefor all my arguments are valid: No Pogi, no Vinge, Buitrago crashed when he was still ahead of Jorgenson (you can't even say that about Roglic because he was trailing in GC in the Vuelta).

Misattribution again. Quote me for that claim.
It's boring to have a conversation with someone who has a conversation with himself.

I don't have to quote you. I said logical deduction.
You butted in on an ongoing discussion, where this was the premise of the poster i was responding to.

Post the IQ thing again.

 

[Carrick-On-Seine]

No, your direct rival Rogla suffering from crashing out of the Tour and later crashing out of the Vuelta after dropping Evenepoel twice in the high mountains is not the same as Vingegaard and Pogi never starting the Vuelta in 2022.

Accidents outside the control of Rogla, MvdP & Pogi were the lucky circumstances of Evenepoel's victories.

Trying to T-bone Fred Wright was outside of Roglic's control?
He fell off his bike through no fault of anyone else. Vuelta done.

 

[Netserk]

Trying to T-bone Fred Wright was outside of Roglic's control?
He fell off his bike through no fault of anyone else. Vuelta done.

No, that was the fault of Rogla. Crashing out of the Tour was not.

 

[Netserk]

I don't have to quote you. I said logical deduction.

Show your syllogism.

 

[Berniece]

No. A subject that was on topic for this thread was brought up by someone else and I then participated in the conversation about that subject. Your analogy would fit if I had responded with something that was off-topic and against the rules.

No my analogy still stands.

 

[Salvarani]

And why the blame is on DS, but not on Remco himself?

It is just the latest excuse.

 

[Lequack]

It is just the latest excuse.

It's actually Roglic's fault.

Renaat and José saw strong Remco Evenepoel in Paris-Nice: "But Roglic has ruined things a bit"​

“We should not keep whining about those who were not there. The person who was there was Primoz Roglic. But he ruined things a little for Evenepoel because he kept keeping an eye on him. So the others could take advantage and stay away.”

Renaat en José zagen sterke Remco Evenepoel in Parijs-Nice: "Maar Roglic heeft de boel een beetje verpest" | sporza

Remco Evenepoel zelf blikte tevreden terug op zijn eerste rittenkoers op Franse bodem. Wat zijn de conclusies van ons commentaarduo Renaat Schotte en José De Cauwer na Parijs-Nice? "Het scheelde één tactische beslissing of hij had alle klassementen gewonnen", klinkt het, samen met een puntje van...

sporza.be

 

[Salvarani]

I've always rated calling counterarguments 'trolling' tbh.

It is manipulative, toxic and just straight up bullying.

When you cant respond anymore and have to make it personal. Showing the lowest form of so called IQ and getting emotional.

 

[Salvarani]

It's actually Roglic's fault.

Renaat and José saw strong Remco Evenepoel in Paris-Nice: "But Roglic has ruined things a bit"​

“We should not keep whining about those who were not there. The person who was there was Primoz Roglic. But he ruined things a little for Evenepoel because he kept keeping an eye on him. So the others could take advantage and stay away.”

Renaat en José zagen sterke Remco Evenepoel in Parijs-Nice: "Maar Roglic heeft de boel een beetje verpest" | sporza

Remco Evenepoel zelf blikte tevreden terug op zijn eerste rittenkoers op Franse bodem. Wat zijn de conclusies van ons commentaarduo Renaat Schotte en José De Cauwer na Parijs-Nice? "Het scheelde één tactische beslissing of hij had alle klassementen gewonnen", klinkt het, samen met een puntje van...

sporza.be

Lol.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

It's actually Roglic's fault.

Please stop trolling with this. This is not the first time you've posted it and repeating it doesn't make it true. You are purposely taking things out of context that should be taken figuratively and not literally.

All he is saying is that Evenepoel kept his eyes on Roglic, while Roglic was -unlike what everybody expected- not the rival he should have been keeping an eye on, as it turned out.

 

[Lequack]

I don't take it too seriously, I know it's just some reporters overanalyzing things.

 

[Netserk]

I don't take it too seriously, I know it's just some reporters overanalyzing things.

I think it stems from the same need to defend the honour of Evenepoel as my example with the twitter-rando:

Remco-splaining will reach a whole other level. Just earlier today in Danish cycling twitter, I saw some Belgian rando lecturing on the proper interpretation of Evenepoel (I guess he had no problem interpreting Danish):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1765749411240407485

View: https://twitter.com/Puncheur_music/status/1765749411240407485

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I don't take it too seriously, I know it's just some reporters overanalyzing things.

It's not about overanalyzing, because it's true. Had he known in advance Roglic was not a threat, he wouldn't have needed to respond to his attack on stage 6 and let the others close the gap. He then could have countered the decisive move later. But it's hindsight 20/20. This time it just is remarkable because it was Roglic and we all expected Roglic to be the man to beat in a race like this, which he usually is.

 

[red_flanders]

It's not about overanalyzing, because it's true. Had he known in advance Roglic was not a threa[t], he wouldn't have needed to respond to his attack on stage 6 and let the others close the gap. He then could have countered the decisive move later. But it's hindsight 20/20. This time it just is remarkable because it was Roglic and we all expected Roglic to be the man to beat in a race like this, which he usually is.

On the other hand, he didn't cover an attack by a guy who was ahead of him in the race. Jorgenson went, and won. So he either didn't have it (kinda doubt that) or blew it. Or a little of both, as things usually are. *Shrug*

He was probably almost as strong as Jorgenson, and had a little advantage in the TTT. He wasn't strong enough to overcome a (not minor as he put it) tactical mistake.

Hopefully he learns. He's no choice but to chalk it up and move on.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I think it stems from the same need to defend the honour of Evenepoel as my example with the twitter-rando:

Almost as bad as the constant and incessant need to ridicule Evenepoel/riders of your chosing?

 

[EddyMazzoleni]

No, your direct rival Rogla suffering from crashing out of the Tour and later crashing out of the Vuelta after dropping Evenepoel twice in the high mountains is not the same as Vingegaard and Pogi never starting the Vuelta in 2022.

Accidents outside the control of Rogla, MvdP & Pogi were the lucky circumstances of Evenepoel's victories.

Pogi and Vingegaard never had Paris-Nice in their schedule this year, so of course it doesn't matter that they are not here. Buitrago crashed (twice), and that is indeed a lucky incidence for Jorgenson, but he was already dropped by him when that happened, and his first crash was his own error.

One should also consider that Evenepoel was dropped in the 2022 Vuelta only in the stages directly following his own crash. If he doesn't have that fall, is Roglic as threatening as he was starting the last week (which in hindsight is already a relatively small one, as Remco rode just fine after he recovered). Also, why is this argument never used for others.
Roglic wins 2023 Giro, Remco had Covid
Pogi wins 2023 Lombardy, Remco crashed.

 

[LesDiablesRouges]

Please stop trolling with this. This is not the first time you've posted it and repeating it doesn't make it true. You are purposely taking things out of context that should be taken figuratively and not literally.

All he is saying is that Evenepoel kept his eyes on Roglic, while Roglic was -unlike what everybody expected- not the rival he should have been keeping an eye on, as it turned out.

It will not happen again with Roglic as he's done. His magical mystery tour ended when he left Visma.

 

[scribers]

::ring::
“Hello?”
“You suck at tactics remco”
::thunk::

 

[DoYouEvenRideBruh]

It's not about overanalyzing, because it's true. Had he known in advance Roglic was not a thread, he wouldn't have needed to respond to his attack on stage 6 and let the others close the gap. He then could have countered the decisive move later. But it's hindsight 20/20. This time it just is remarkable because it was Roglic and we all expected Roglic to be the man to beat in a race like this, which he usually is.

He does have a very active thread on this very forum, though

 

[seasidehiking]

Reading this thread is like groundhog day 😂😂😂

 

[Barkintheeye]

Once again one must hand it to Remco. He leaves no one unaffected and he has some air around him - for good and for bad - that emanate interest, emotions and viewing, all good for cycling.

Personally I prefer profiles such as MVDP and WVA that do their "talking" through riding or riders like Pogacar and Sagan that have that particular "glimpse in the eye"-attitude paired with an extraordinary capacity ('had' in Sagan's case) but there's still room for the likes of Remco. Yet I would rather see him in one day races than in the Grand Tours.

 

[seasidehiking]

Once again one must hand it to Remco. He leaves no one unaffected and he has some air around him - for good and for bad - that emanate interest, emotions and viewing, all good for cycling.

Personally I prefer profiles such as MVDP and WVA that do their "talking" through riding or riders like Pogacar and Sagan that have that particular "glimpse in the eye"-attitude paired with an extraordinary capacity ('had' in Sagan's case) but there's still room for the likes of Remco. Yet I would rather see him in one day races than in the Grand Tours.

Thats the thing. You write a fairly reasonable post in my opinion. However Remco has been criticised in the press because this year he is actually fairly modest in his predictions. For instance the tour he says stage wins maybe podium, same for PN if last week. He was humble and didnt predict him annihilating his opponents. Now they he got criticised for that. The thing is, he can never win for some. Regardless what he does. And that makes me a fan, cause he gets so much criticism. Eventhough he has already done so much.

 

[Wvv]

Once again one must hand it to Remco. He leaves no one unaffected and he has some air around him - for good and for bad - that emanate interest, emotions and viewing, all good for cycling.

Personally I prefer profiles such as MVDP and WVA that do their "talking" through riding or riders like Pogacar and Sagan that have that particular "glimpse in the eye"-attitude paired with an extraordinary capacity ('had' in Sagan's case) but there's still room for the likes of Remco. Yet I would rather see him in one day races than in the Grand Tours.

Thats the thing. You write a fairly reasonable post in my opinion. However Remco has been criticised in the press because this year he is actually fairly modest in his predictions. For instance the tour he says stage wins maybe podium, same for PN if last week. He was humble and didnt predict him annihilating his opponents. Now they he got criticised for that. The thing is, he can never win for some. Regardless what he does. And that makes me a fan, cause he gets so much criticism. Eventhough he has already done so much.

What most of us forget to consider, is how riders are viewed inside the pro peloton. Remco indeed affects a lot of cycling 'fans' and divides them clearly because of his outspokenness. However, he is more popular among colleagues than for example Van Aert and Sagan. And I'm not that biased here, cause I support Wout very much. The best example that I could never get my head around is Cancellara, who was despised by so many riders, and still some people thought Boonen was the arrogant one.

Anyway. I'm often annoyed by all the beef and unfair criticism Remco gets. Certainly on this forum. Most of the time I let it pass, cause I don't want to stir things up even more.