I have no idea what kind of money sprinters even make in this business. I saw an article couple years back but that covered the GC guys like Froome, Valverde etc.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
90% of riders see a decline after leaving DQS. He was never a sure thing prior the Quick-Step either. His lead out now consists of Sabatini and Consonni. One has no idea what's going on most of the time and the latter seems to put more care into his own 7th place than the result of his leader.Seems that the jury is already out there for Viviani and its not even march yet.
I actually think his form is pretty decent at the moment. He was pretty good in a reasonable hard Cadel Evans Race and the Track WC probably is a rather big goal for him so he'll wanna be in form. He obviously is a good sprinter but there are a few who are just faster.I think it's too early to judge what he can achieve, next week he will be at the Track World Championship and last week he was training on track with the national team. Maybe today's stage was a bit too hard for the kind of form he has right now.
That said I think he can still win important races but nobody expect him to win as much as he did in the last two years.
I mean, leaving QS will make your leadout worse no matter where you end up, but why did he go to Cofidis of all places? To ride with his Brother? Money? Certainly not for the chance of winning a lot of races.
Not even the most wins among WT teams.steppers ruining cycling with their dominance
Of course they win a lot of races, but I don't feel they are dominating cycling. Most of the time they are nowhere to be seen in the GC's and teams like Bora, Jumbo, Ineos and UEA are basically the same level, but aiming for different results.steppers ruining cycling with their dominance
I mean, leaving QS will make your leadout worse no matter where you end up, but why did he go to Cofidis of all places? To ride with his Brother? Money? Certainly not for the chance of winning a lot of races.
Only Ineos comes close to steppers...Of course they win a lot of races, but I don't feel they are dominating cycling. Most of the time they are nowhere to be seen in the GC's and teams like Bora, Jumbo, Ineos and UEA are basically the same level, but aiming for different results.
It doesn't show really:Only Ineos comes close to steppers...
That's simply not true. I can write you at least 10 riders who have stayed at the same level or have done better: Poels, Kwiato, De Gendt, De Plus, Schachmann, Pauwels, Gaviria, Ciolek, Cavendish, Uran... Waiting for those 90 who declined.90% of riders see a decline after leaving DQS.
I think it depends a lot on if they also lead the cobbled classics, or otherwise if they're the top sprinter that wins 4 TdF stages.I have no idea what kind of money sprinters even make in this business. I saw an article couple years back but that covered the GC guys like Froome, Valverde etc.
I’m not sure that gives the whole situation. It’s very well known that Lefevere won’t break the bank to keep riders when he’s got new ones coming through as seen every year. He’ll only pay to keep the ones that win and keep his sponsors on board, at the moment I’d think that only Alaphilippe and Evenepoel are untouchables.The jury was out when DQS decided they rather roll with Jakobsen.
In the last 7-8 years, we really have only two dominant teams, and those are Quick Step and Ineos (Sky). One team dominates in the Classics and sprints, and the other dominates in Grand Tour racing.It doesn't show really:
1. DQS - 68 wins - 9314 points
2 JV - 51 wins - 8279 points
3 Bora - 47 wins - 8181 points
4 INEOS - 26 wins - 7929 points.
Long term I think only Evenepoel is untouchable. Alaphilippe basically has had one really crazy season in which he still failed to deliver in Liege and in which the much hyped Tour was likely a fluke.I’m not sure that gives the whole situation. It’s very well known that Lefevere won’t break the bank to keep riders when he’s got new ones coming through as seen every year. He’ll only pay to keep the ones that win and keep his sponsors on board, at the moment I’d think that only Alaphilippe and Evenepoel are untouchables.
90% is obviously an exaggeration, but your list of riders isn't exactly great. Guys like Kwiat, Schachmann and De Plus did leave quite young so was to be expected they weren't going to fall of a cliff yet. Then there also a few guys you name who did do worse after they left like Gaviria and Cavendish. You could have done a better job naming 10.That's simply not true. I can write you at least 10 riders who have stayed at the same level or have done better: Poels, Kwiato, De Gendt, De Plus, Schachmann, Pauwels, Gaviria, Ciolek, Cavendish, Uran... Waiting for those 90 who declined.
Long term I think only Evenepoel is untouchable. Alaphilippe basically has had one really crazy season in which he still failed to deliver in Liege and in which the much hyped Tour was likely a fluke.
Sure. But unless he has a huge classic season or wins the WC/OG or confirms himself as Tour contender, I think it's more hype than substance. Last year basically made him a better Voeckler in regards of the Tour de France.It got him one hell of a contract last season, so for the next few years he'll ride for QS.
Long term I think only Evenepoel is untouchable. Alaphilippe basically has had one really crazy season in which he still failed to deliver in Liege and in which the much hyped Tour was likely a fluke.
If you're going to exclude those who do not fit to the notion then yes, it might be 90%.90% is obviously an exaggeration, but your list of riders isn't exactly great. Guys like Kwiat, Schachmann and De Plus did leave quite young so was to be expected they weren't going to fall of a cliff yet. Then there also a few guys you name who did do worse after they left like Gaviria and Cavendish. You could have done a better job naming 10.