I don't like total dominators of the sport. One, it's boring, second it's a sign of a niche sport, third it's often a case for the clinic.
And I think Evenepoel wouldn't have been as dominant here if he had been up against the very best.
BUT on the other hand it's not the responsibility of the cyclists to make a race more open. I hate it when wins are really gifted - if you're the strongest, take it. What is a win worth that's gifted to you? (I get that it's worth something, because people might see your palmares but not know the story behind, but for me as a spectator it's not worth that much and I don't enjoy it.)
If there is someone who can dominate a field, then there is no reason why he should hold back artificially.
In my eyes it is the responsibility of those who make the routes of stage races to at least try to get a certain suspense by making different kinds of routes, which do not always favour the same guys, and by giving the riders something for different tactical options to play with. If it doesn't work out for one or the other race, well, then that's totally okay, it just shouldn't happen every time.
Is tennis a niche sport? I can't think of any non-niche individual sport that doesn't have dominators, so I think your second point is incorrect. And while winners of all physical competitions are (to some degree) a case for the clinic, I think you'd have dominators even in fantasy land without doping.