Top 10 male riders of the 21st century.

[pmcg76]

It's funny how often on this forum you'll read of the Belgian bias or the Anglo media not being able to assess things. Good thing we have some clear, objective minds of different nationalities to enlighten us.

Perhaps you'll like one of the honorable mentions I listed.

It's pretty much impossible to compare Cavendish to Nibali directly. When compared to similar riders it's imo clear that Cavendish is HC while Nibali simply isn't. As far as I am concerned someone like Cavendish'll have a spot on the list until 10 other names that are simply too good to pass up come along.

Nibali beat almost nobody of note in the GT's that he won. While that's not his fault it does speak towards how much of a GT threat he actually was (a step below the best GT riders of his time).

He won Lombardia a few times but that race has padded many a palmares in recent decades.

He did win MSR and should have won Rio 2016 and I definitely see him as a candidate for the top-10 alongside Valverde, Sagan and Roglic.

Anyway in fifteen-twenty years he probably won't seriously be considered anymore for a top-10 like this. Cavendish might though if you feel that a pure sprinter possibly can.

Winning GTs, Worlds and Monuments are the pinnacle of the sport and always have been. Sprint stages have never fallen into that category, they were pretty much regarded as a side show to give the GT contenders easier days or simply to get from point A to B. Nibali has the ultimate prize that every single person who ever picked up a bike aspired to at some point, a Tour title, plus 3 other GTs & 3 monuments showing a great variety of cycling abilities.

If you want to diminish Nibali's achievements by claiming fields were weak or whatever, I will point out that in 08-09, Petacchi, Greipel, Boonen & Bennati were all missing from the Tour sprints and in 21, Bennett, Ewan, Groenewegen & Jakobsen were all missing. Considering that only 2-3 sprinters usually win stages at any given Tour, that is a lot of opposition missing. See, two can play that game. I would also point out that's the 2011 Worlds saw the most riders finish in the same time as the winner ever, some 90 riders.

Let's put it like this, if I was to take anyone off the contenders list and put them back to the 80s, I would be confident in saying that Cav would be the one to suffer most as it was a very different sport pre 90s regards sprinting. As Netserk alluded to, sprinters are reliant on their teams to create the opportunities for them to win. That is far less applicable to the other names. on the list.

 

[pmcg76]

Unless being a sprinter is to be considered second class Cavendish is the greatest sprinter of the 21st century do far.
Therefor he deserves a place on the list.

So what if he is the greatest sprinter, it is best cyclists not best sprinter. There is nobody on the list because they are best TT rider or best climber or best domestique. It is about the riders who win the races that matter most.

 

[Hugh Januss]

So what if he is the greatest sprinter, it is best cyclists not best sprinter. There is nobody on the list because they are best TT rider or best climber or best domestique. It is about the riders who win the races that matter most.

Well Cavendish does have the same number of TDF stage wins as Merckx, so there is that!

 

[pmcg76]

Well Cavendish does have the same number of TDF stage wins as Merckx, so there is that!

Mercks greatness is not in any way based on how many stages he won at the Tour, take them away and he would still be the GOAT by a mile. Also Meckx did it in 7 Tours, 2024 is Tour number what for Cav? No comparison.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Mercks greatness is not in any way based on how many stages he won at the Tour, take them away and he would still be the GOAT by a mile. Also Meckx did it in 7 Tours, 2024 is Tour number what for Cav? No comparison.

Didn't you just say "It is about the riders who win the races that matter most"? And also if you can't spell "Mercks" or "Meckx" then why do we care what you think?

 

[Netserk]

Didn't you just say "It is about the riders who win the races that matter most"? And also if you can't spell "Mercks" or "Meckx" then why do we care what you think?

Winning a race != winning a stage in a race

 

[pmcg76]

Didn't you just say "It is about the riders who win the races that matter most"? And also if you can't spell "Mercks" or "Meckx" then why do we care what you think?

Yeah, you really got nothing if spelling is your only issue.

In the 21st century, riders winning 3 or more stages at the Tour has been achieved 20 times by sprinters, Zabel, Petacchi, McEwen, Cavendish, Greipel, Kittel, Sagan, Ewan and Philipsen. Outside of sprinters and GC winners, Pogacar, Armstrong, only one rider Van Aert(and Erik Dekker if you include 2000) has manged 3 stages in a single Tour in the same timeframe, and Van Aert is a borderline sprinter type.

What are we saying here? that sprinters are just more talented than anyone else in the Tour outside of Pogacar/ Armstrong over the last 20 years which is why they win more often, or is it perhaps that a talented sprinter wins more often because it is easier to do so due to getting more opportunities than the average rider. Based on the frequency it has happened since 2001, would it be unfair to say that a sprinter winning 3 stages is equal to any other rider winning 1 stage?

 

[proffate]

Yeah, you really got nothing if spelling is your only issue.

In the 21st century, riders winning 3 or more stages at the Tour has been achieved 20 times by sprinters, Zabel, Petacchi, McEwen, Cavendish, Greipel, Kittel, Sagan, Ewan and Philipsen. Outside of sprinters and GC winners, Pogacar, Armstrong, only one rider Van Aert(and Erik Dekker if you include 2000) has manged 3 stages in a single Tour in the same timeframe, and Van Aert is a borderline sprinter type.

What are we saying here? that sprinters are just more talented than anyone else in the Tour outside of Pogacar/ Armstrong over the last 20 years which is why they win more often, or is it perhaps that a talented sprinter wins more often because it is easier to do so due to getting more opportunities than the average rider. Based on the frequency it has happened since 2001, would it be unfair to say that a sprinter winning 3 stages is equal to any other rider winning 1 stage?

Panda specifically said you can't compare cav and nibali directly, so your argument is a strawman. Compare cav to every other sprinter you've listed and you will find he was the most dominant both at his peak and in terms of longevity.

Anyway 3:1 is obviously not the right exchange rate based solely on the statistics you've provided. Only 9 sprinters have achieved three wins in a tour this century---how many non sprinters have won at least 1? 100?

 

[Netserk]

Panda specifically said you can't compare cav and nibali directly

And he was wrong.

The last spot on the list is not part of the special Olympics, only reserved for those with certain limitations.

 

[pmcg76]

Panda specifically said you can't compare cav and nibali directly, so your argument is a strawman. Compare cav to every other sprinter you've listed and you will find he was the most dominant both at his peak and in terms of longevity.

Anyway 3:1 is obviously not the right exchange rate based solely on the statistics you've provided. Only 9 sprinters have achieved three wins in a tour this century---how many non sprinters have won at least 1? 100?

Well I would think if you are making a best off list, you kinda have to compare all the riders against each other. Froome/Contador are very different riders to Boonen/Cancellara, but you still got to weigh up their achievements.

 

[Bolder]

Didn't you just say "It is about the riders who win the races that matter most"? And also if you can't spell "Mercks" or "Meckx" then why do we care what you think?

To be fair, the possessive of "Merckx" is going to trigger a lot of autocorrect suggestions, most pretty far off the mark.

Regarding sprinters, I think they have to win a couple of big classics to really transcend their specialty. Cav has a WC and MSR but maybe one more of each elevates him to a lock on the top 10.

 

[Cookster15]

To do this fairly you need to devise a points system that takes into account the difficulty of the races objectively. I have seen these attempted in the forum before, any takers (I am too busy)?

Subjectively, for best rider, I rate versatility higher than dominance in one kind of racing eg Grand Tours. So that rules out Contador and Froome.

Winning a grand tour is worth more than a worlds, Olympics or Monument.
Winning a TdF is worth slightly more than a Giro or Vuelta.

Grand Tour stages - do we rate MTF or TT wins the same as sprint stages? IMO, no we shouldn’t.

But I cannot rate sprinters because they simply do not work as hard for their wins.

For example Robbie McKewen finished his career with 115 pro wins. Cadel Evans finished with 34. But who would argue McKewen was the better rider? Not even McKewen thinks so.

Also best GC rider isn’t the best rider. That rules out Contador and Froome.

But disappointing that above I see people still undervaluing Nibali’s 2014 TdF win because Contador and Froome couldn’t stay on their bikes? Nibs has never been stronger than he was at that period of his career. Also a formidable TT.

Maybe tomorrow I’ll try a top 10 list.

 

[Wyndbrook]

Maybe Evans is a better rider than McEwan in the above example, but I still struggle with this generally held concept that sprinters are lesser riders.
Being a team sprinter is arguably the most stressful pressurised position in team.
Do they work less hard, no of couse not. With their team support they work hard all day and then they have to deliver the win.
Is climbing in the groupetto easier than at the sharp end, not when you are hauling your heavier body up trying desperately to beat the cut off time.
By virtue of their role and body type they work hard every day, you could argue team leaders are the ones who get days off.

So personally I still think Cavendish with his exceptional longevity and his 160 plus wins is worthy of a place in the top ten of the century so far.

 

[Cassirer]

Maybe Evans is a better rider than McEwan in the above example, but I still struggle with this generally held concept that sprinters are lesser riders.
Being a team sprinter is arguably the most stressful pressurised position in team.
Do they work less hard, no of couse not. With their team support they work hard all day and then they have to deliver the win.
Is climbing in the groupetto easier than at the sharp end, not when you are hauling your heavier body up trying desperately to beat the cut off time.
By virtue of their role and body type they work hard every day, you could argue team leaders are the ones who get days off.

So personally I still think Cavendish with his exceptional longevity and his 160 plus wins is worthy of a place in the top ten of the century so far.

Mentally it might be hard, agreed, but there is no way the prototypical bunch sprinter works as hard as others during a grand tour. Everybody has to get over the same mountains, like someone already argued you can't give anyone credit for being worse at it than others. And all in all maybe 2-3km of sprinting do not even weigh out one day in a breakaway.

 

[tobydawq]

Yeah, you really got nothing if spelling is your only issue.

In the 21st century, riders winning 3 or more stages at the Tour has been achieved 20 times by sprinters, Zabel, Petacchi, McEwen, Cavendish, Greipel, Kittel, Sagan, Ewan and Philipsen. Outside of sprinters and GC winners, Pogacar, Armstrong, only one rider Van Aert(and Erik Dekker if you include 2000) has manged 3 stages in a single Tour in the same timeframe, and Van Aert is a borderline sprinter type.

What are we saying here? that sprinters are just more talented than anyone else in the Tour outside of Pogacar/ Armstrong over the last 20 years which is why they win more often, or is it perhaps that a talented sprinter wins more often because it is easier to do so due to getting more opportunities than the average rider. Based on the frequency it has happened since 2001, would it be unfair to say that a sprinter winning 3 stages is equal to any other rider winning 1 stage?

Nibali won four in 2014.

 

[Axel Hangleck]

Minnaar, Schurter........

 

[RedheadDane]

Minnaar, Schurter........

You know, there's nothing wrong with having a discussion that focuses solely on road cycling.

 

[skippo12]

If the goal was stage hunting the best GC riders in the world could lose 20 minutes in the first week and get 2-3 stage wins from the breakaway but thankfully that rarely happens. Most of them would never consider a move like that and only go for it after a crash or bad day that ruined their GC ambitions.
Most recent example would be Evenepoel in the Vuelta.

 

[pmcg76]

Maybe Evans is a better rider than McEwan in the above example, but I still struggle with this generally held concept that sprinters are lesser riders.
Being a team sprinter is arguably the most stressful pressurised position in team.
Do they work less hard, no of couse not. With their team support they work hard all day and then they have to deliver the win.
Is climbing in the groupetto easier than at the sharp end, not when you are hauling your heavier body up trying desperately to beat the cut off time.
By virtue of their role and body type they work hard every day, you could argue team leaders are the ones who get days off.

So personally I still think Cavendish with his exceptional longevity and his 160 plus wins is worthy of a place in the top ten of the century so far.

But can you explain why sprinters win more stages than anybody else? Why is it only one rider outside of the sprinters/top GC riders has able to win 3 stages in a Tour in the 21st century? Winning 3 stages in a single Tour should be a lot harder than winning one, but the sprinters have managed it in 20 out of the last 23 Tours. Are they just more talented than anybody else on the Tour or what? There has to be some explanation for such lopsided outcomes?

 

[Wyndbrook]

But can you explain why sprinters win more stages than anybody else? Why is it only one rider outside of the sprinters/top GC riders has able to win 3 stages in a Tour in the 21st century? Winning 3 stages in a single Tour should be a lot harder than winning one, but the sprinters have managed it in 20 out of the last 23 Tours. Are they just more talented than anybody else on the Tour or what? There has to be some explanation for such lopsided outcomes?

Must be More talented!

 

[Cookster15]

Maybe Evans is a better rider than McEwan in the above example, but I still struggle with this generally held concept that sprinters are lesser riders.
Being a team sprinter is arguably the most stressful pressurised position in team.
Do they work less hard, no of couse not. With their team support they work hard all day and then they have to deliver the win.
Is climbing in the groupetto easier than at the sharp end, not when you are hauling your heavier body up trying desperately to beat the cut off time.
By virtue of their role and body type they work hard every day, you could argue team leaders are the ones who get days off.

So personally I still think Cavendish with his exceptional longevity and his 160 plus wins is worthy of a place in the top ten of the century so far.

Well argued but I can’t agree. I think my opinion formed the day I saw McEwan pulling a wheelie after he coasted in with the grupetto on a Pyrenees MTF .

Seriously GC riders are a much rarer physiological breed and because they can’t ride grupetto nor take it easy on TTs I will always rate their victories higher. And how many TdF stage wins would equal 1 TdF overall win?

Almost nobody in Australia thinks McEwan had a better career than Evans.

 

[pmcg76]

Well argued but I can’t agree. I think my opinion formed the day I saw McKewen pulling a wheely after he coasted in with the grupetto on a Pyrenees MTF .

Seriously GC riders are a much rarer physiological breed and because they can’t ride grupetto nor take it easy on TTs I will always rate their victories higher. And how many TdF stage wins would equal 1 TdF overall win?

Almost nobody in Australia thinks McKewen had a better career than Evans.

I said it before, but I think the media have managed to somehow magic sprinters into this mythical realm, when in reality most of them are incredibly limited riders who would win very little without their teams providing them with the opportunities to do so. Like I said before, put Cavendish(or most other sprinters)back pre 90s, would he have a World Title? No. Milan-San Remo? Highly unlikely. 34 Tour stages? Not a hope. That is not a knock on his undoubted talent as a sprinter, it is just the reality that sprinters simply did not get those opportunities as teams were not as well organised in controlling things. It was the evolution in team tactics that changed the landscape of sprinting, not the talent level of the sprinters themselves.

 

[Cookster15]

I said it before, but I think the media have managed to somehow magic sprinters into this mythical realm, when in reality most of them are incredibly limited riders who would win very little without their teams providing them with the opportunities to do so. Like I said before, put Cavendish(or most other sprinters)back pre 90s, would he have a World Title? No. Milan-San Remo? Highly unlikely. 34 Tour stages? Not a hope. That is not a knock on his undoubted talent as a sprinter, it is just the reality that sprinters simply did not get those opportunities as teams were not as well organised in controlling things. It was the evolution in team tactics that changed the landscape of sprinting, not the talent level of the sprinters themselves.

Mostly agree with you. Not sure if its the media though, maybe depends upon where you are? Do the British rank Cavendish above Wiggins? Wiggins was Knighted.

As I mentioned, in Australia McEwen isn't rated anywhere near Evans despite McEwan finishing with more than 3 times as many wins. Our non cycling media was accustomed to Australian riders doing well winning sprint stages of the Tour. Stuart O'Grady also briefly woke them up when he won P-R. But when we had a genuine Tour de France contender who finally pulled off the big one our then Prime Minster wondered if we should call a public holiday!

 

[Pantani_lives]

Currently the top 10 male riders of the 21st century are:

Alejandro Valverde
Chris Froome
Fabian Cancellara
Alberto Contador
Tadej Pogačar
Primož Roglič
Vincenzo Nibali
Tom Boonen
Peter Sagan
Philippe Gilbert

Runner-up competition (still active):

Mark Cavendish
Nairo Quintana
Remco Evenepoel
Wout van Aert
Julian Alaphilippe
Mathieu van der Poel
Jonas Vingegaard
Michał Kwiatkowski
Geraint Thomas
Greg Van Avermaet
Alexander Kristoff
Arnaud Démare
Richard Carapaz
Egan Bernal
John Degenkolb
Jakob Fuglsang
Rui Costa
Simon Yates
Edvald Boasson Hagen

Source:

Page 35 - Rough Attempt at an All-Time Ranking

Page 35 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

forum.cyclingnews.com

Thanks for posting. Bettini would be at #11, even if you don't count his results of the previous century.

 

[Blanco]

So personally I still think Cavendish with his exceptional longevity and his 160 plus wins is worthy of a place in the top ten of the century so far.

Nope. But is worthy of a place in the top 12, behind Valverde, Contador, Cancellara, Boonen, Bettini, Froome, Pogacar, Nibali, Sagan, Gilbert and Roglic