If a road cyclist's career is a bell curve, you'd have to say that Cav has shown himself to be head and shoulders above all other sprinters in history. Even if he's dropped off from his absolute peak now, you don't win 3 sprint stages in the Tour de France without still being at the top level. He's had a peak probably higher any other sprinter in history, and sustained a high level for much longer than anyone who came even close to reaching the same level.
That's all you can really look at when it comes to comparing riders; how they compare to their opposition at the time. Would Mercx win 34 stages with the current tour format? No way, but then Cav probably wouldn't win 33 stages in Mercx's era either. Personally, when it comes to winning stages of the Tour, I'd say that 33 sprint stages in the modern race is already a greater achievement than 34 stages in Mercx's era, simply because there were a lot more stages on offer back then, especially with half stages counting in the total. But I know that's pretty subjective. Cav isn't going to come close to matching Mercx's all round achievements in cycling. He's a much more specialised rider. But I think he has reached a higher peak in his particular specialism, which is winning sprint stages. Take away Mercx, who was an exception, and I think Cav's achievements rank alongside the very top in cycling.
To all those who are saying "anyone could win with that leadout", I would simply ask "well why didn't they then?" I think the answer is simple. There are two reasons. Firstly, winning stages is about more than speed in the final 200m. Let's not kid ourselves, Cav is still very fast. But if it was all about speed then Cav would have way more than 33 victories because he was the fastest sprinter in the world for many years. Very rarely is a sprint solely down to speed, even on the track. Cav is one of the best in sprints because he's also one of the best when it comes to planning, preparing, adjusting and simply intuiting responses to situations on the road. He's won both with leadouts and without, across multiple teams, proving that he has skills beyond just those required in the final 200m. It's not like he just magically appears in the team for the sprint. His organisation and attitude is a big part of the reason the leadout is so good.
Secondly, Ok, maybe Cav doesn't have the same top end speed now that he used to. Why is he in the DQS team then instead of someone else then? Simple, because he's proved that he brings a huge amount of other skills to his team, including organisation, dedication, intuition, and let's not forget, experience. That comes from having already proved himself the best sprinter in history. If Cav is benefiting from a good leadout at the moment, that's because he's earned his place in a way other riders simply haven't. You don't get gifted stage victories in the Tour, you don't get gifted team leadership in the Tour, and particularly not as a sprinter. You have to earn it all.
Winning sprints is a team effort, and even as a good sprinter you have to earn that support from a team. That's why we've seen the situation with Merlier and Philipsen on previous stages, because it's about your standing in your team at least as much as it's about speed. Cav may not have done as much winning in the last few years as some other riders, but his success in the years before has earned him the right to be part of a strong team.
Would anyone win with the DQS leadout? No way. Has anyone else earned the right to have the DQS leadout? There's a case for Bennett if you think it's injury more than relations with the team that's keeping him out, but aside from Bennett, no, otherwise they'd be there instead of Cav. Who's the best sprinter at the moment? Today, it's Cav, in a couple of days it could be someone else.
But Cav has earned his wins. Chapeau!
That's all you can really look at when it comes to comparing riders; how they compare to their opposition at the time. Would Mercx win 34 stages with the current tour format? No way, but then Cav probably wouldn't win 33 stages in Mercx's era either. Personally, when it comes to winning stages of the Tour, I'd say that 33 sprint stages in the modern race is already a greater achievement than 34 stages in Mercx's era, simply because there were a lot more stages on offer back then, especially with half stages counting in the total. But I know that's pretty subjective. Cav isn't going to come close to matching Mercx's all round achievements in cycling. He's a much more specialised rider. But I think he has reached a higher peak in his particular specialism, which is winning sprint stages. Take away Mercx, who was an exception, and I think Cav's achievements rank alongside the very top in cycling.
To all those who are saying "anyone could win with that leadout", I would simply ask "well why didn't they then?" I think the answer is simple. There are two reasons. Firstly, winning stages is about more than speed in the final 200m. Let's not kid ourselves, Cav is still very fast. But if it was all about speed then Cav would have way more than 33 victories because he was the fastest sprinter in the world for many years. Very rarely is a sprint solely down to speed, even on the track. Cav is one of the best in sprints because he's also one of the best when it comes to planning, preparing, adjusting and simply intuiting responses to situations on the road. He's won both with leadouts and without, across multiple teams, proving that he has skills beyond just those required in the final 200m. It's not like he just magically appears in the team for the sprint. His organisation and attitude is a big part of the reason the leadout is so good.
Secondly, Ok, maybe Cav doesn't have the same top end speed now that he used to. Why is he in the DQS team then instead of someone else then? Simple, because he's proved that he brings a huge amount of other skills to his team, including organisation, dedication, intuition, and let's not forget, experience. That comes from having already proved himself the best sprinter in history. If Cav is benefiting from a good leadout at the moment, that's because he's earned his place in a way other riders simply haven't. You don't get gifted stage victories in the Tour, you don't get gifted team leadership in the Tour, and particularly not as a sprinter. You have to earn it all.
Winning sprints is a team effort, and even as a good sprinter you have to earn that support from a team. That's why we've seen the situation with Merlier and Philipsen on previous stages, because it's about your standing in your team at least as much as it's about speed. Cav may not have done as much winning in the last few years as some other riders, but his success in the years before has earned him the right to be part of a strong team.
Would anyone win with the DQS leadout? No way. Has anyone else earned the right to have the DQS leadout? There's a case for Bennett if you think it's injury more than relations with the team that's keeping him out, but aside from Bennett, no, otherwise they'd be there instead of Cav. Who's the best sprinter at the moment? Today, it's Cav, in a couple of days it could be someone else.
But Cav has earned his wins. Chapeau!