Vuelta a España 2022: Pre-race discussion/hype tread

Page 25 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Exactly, but wasn't your point at the beggining that he had won a lot of stage races, so we should consider him a GT favourite??? Or that he had beaten GC level competition there. But now when we agree that one week races doesn't matter that much when it comes to GTs, there is no reason to consider him a GT favourite. Winning Liege, San Sebastian or being second on TT Worlds is irrelevant on the same level if not even more than winning one week races.
I think you are missing a lot of context and nuance.

He was called a classic specialist with a sidenote that there is no reason to expect anything from him until he delivers in a GT. Have you ever seen Gilbert or Cancellara win climbing stage races like Burgos? Have you ever seen Boonen win TT's against the best in the world? Have you known any classic specialist who was not a GT contender to rack up wins in 1 week GC's at his pace? Guys who can win Liège, win 1-week GC's... who are those riders generally? If you add his TT to the mix, does the profile fit that of merely a classics specialist, or with a potential GT contender? Even if we only look at the last 10 winners of Liège, and ignore his climbing and TT abilities and successes in 1 week races, of the past 10 Liège winners, even Fuglsang managed a top 10 GT, even Jungels, even Poels. And then there are Dan Martin, Valverde, Roglic, Pogacar. In the past decade, the only winner who did not finish a GT in the top 10 was Gerrans.

Now add to that his TT and 1 week pedigree.

But Gerrans is proof that winning Liège isn't enough to make you a potential GT rider! And Spilak is proof that winning 1 week stage races doesn't make you a good GT rider! Someone mentioned Rogers, but even he finished two top 10's in a GT. And Hart is proof that you don't need to win 1 week stage races in order to be successful as a GT rider! And i'm sure there are some other exceptions that you can find. But generally speaking, there seems to be a clear correlation. Yet all the doubters keep focusing on that one-off possibility, that one exception, so that he might not be a top 10 contender. Because there once was this guy who also won stuff but never got a good result in a GT. At some point you have to start seeing it comes very close to grasping at straws. We all know it is not a certainty, that it is not set in stone, that there is no 100% guarantee. But considering what he has achieved and shown so far, what is the likelihood that he will? Doesn't that strike you as many times greater that he will at one point be at least a top 10 rider in a GT? When you cross-reference achievements, what are the odds he will fail?

So is winning 1 week GC's by itself a guarantee? No, but it is a clear indicator. Is winning a hilly monument/classic a guarantee? No, but an indicator. Add those together with a stellar TT?

Sometimes it looks like people try to argue that not winning 1 week GC's is a better indicator than winning plenty. Maybe because they are running out of actual arguments and indeed grasping at straws. Needing proof after proof, test after test. Maybe if he wins the TDF 5 times against the best opposition in their prime with the best prep with the least amount of TT and the most amount of MTF people will start to acknowledge that maybe he has the potential to do well in a GT. Maybe.
 
Oct 14, 2021
86
111
380
I wondered about that as well, but... "you can't write off the ambitions of someone Remco's age". You can't write off the ambitions of someone who's 22? Not sure how that makes any sense.

All that it would be telling of is that people bang on about his ego constantly. And that would be a weird thing to say about someone's age.
I just meant that young people who are successful often dream of bigger things. He's definitely been successful at a young age so he can be forgiven for dreaming of bigger and better things like GC championships. I wasn't critiquing him at all.

With that said, I am very neutral on Remco and I know most people aren't so I probably shouldn't have weighed in on him. My typo didn't help!
 
Oct 14, 2021
86
111
380
This is another reason I kinda like Vingegaard not going to Worlds. I like the fact that he prioritizes his team, because he could easily have went all-in on another peak for the Worlds and then just call it quits (a worlds that he have no chance of winning).
I understand the first time Tour champion skipping the Worlds. However to be honest unless he has another giant improvement in him, this isn't the course for him anyway. He doesn't have the acceleration on short, steep punchy climbs needed to win this. He'd have to go long and hope for disorganization behind. So it's a smart move on his part, skipping the Worlds. Put the team first and don't risk losing to your rivals.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Jul 27, 2019
9
11
2,560
I think you are missing a lot of context and nuance.

He was called a classic specialist with a sidenote that there is no reason to expect anything from him until he delivers in a GT. Have you ever seen Gilbert or Cancellara win climbing stage races like Burgos? Have you ever seen Boonen win TT's against the best in the world? Have you known any classic specialist who was not a GT contender to rack up wins in 1 week GC's at his pace? Guys who can win Liège, win 1-week GC's... who are those riders generally? If you add his TT to the mix, does the profile fit that of merely a classics specialist, or with a potential GT contender? Even if we only look at the last 10 winners of Liège, and ignore his climbing and TT abilities and successes in 1 week races, of the past 10 Liège winners, even Fuglsang managed a top 10 GT, even Jungels, even Poels. And then there are Dan Martin, Valverde, Roglic, Pogacar. In the past decade, the only winner who did not finish a GT in the top 10 was Gerrans.

Now add to that his TT and 1 week pedigree.

But Gerrans is proof that winning Liège isn't enough to make you a potential GT rider! And Spilak is proof that winning 1 week stage races doesn't make you a good GT rider! Someone mentioned Rogers, but even he finished two top 10's in a GT. And Hart is proof that you don't need to win 1 week stage races in order to be successful as a GT rider! And i'm sure there are some other exceptions that you can find. But generally speaking, there seems to be a clear correlation. Yet all the doubters keep focusing on that one-off possibility, that one exception, so that he might not be a top 10 contender. Because there once was this guy who also won stuff but never got a good result in a GT. At some point you have to start seeing it comes very close to grasping at straws. We all know it is not a certainty, that it is not set in stone, that there is no 100% guarantee. But considering what he has achieved and shown so far, what is the likelihood that he will? Doesn't that strike you as many times greater that he will at one point be at least a top 10 rider in a GT? When you cross-reference achievements, what are the odds he will fail?

So is winning 1 week GC's by itself a guarantee? No, but it is a clear indicator. Is winning a hilly monument/classic a guarantee? No, but an indicator. Add those together with a stellar TT?

Sometimes it looks like people try to argue that not winning 1 week GC's is a better indicator than winning plenty. Maybe because they are running out of actual arguments and indeed grasping at straws. Needing proof after proof, test after test. Maybe if he wins the TDF 5 times against the best opposition in their prime with the best prep with the least amount of TT and the most amount of MTF people will start acknowledge that maybe he has the potential to do well in a GT. Maybe.
If I had to pick 10 riders (or even 8) that might win this Vuelta he would be among them. However my only problem is with putting his chances above or to the same level as some riders (for example Carapaz, Hindley, Almeida or Roglic). They all already PROVED that they are able to deliver at GT, where as in Remco's case you can just guess based on correlations.

To the excessive proofs that you are talking about. This guy hasn't even finished a GT. He didn't even showed that he is somehow better than the competition in bigger mountains. And you are comparing his current situation to some future made up scenario where he has won 5 TdFs.
 
Reactions: cen
If I had to pick 10 riders (or even 8) that might win this Vuelta he would be among them. However my only problem is with putting his chances above or to the same level as some riders (for example Carapaz, Hindley, Almeida or Roglic). They all already PROVED that they are able to deliver at GT, where as in Remco's case you can just guess based on correlations.

To the excessive proofs that you are talking about. This guy hasn't even finished a GT. He didn't even showed that he is somehow better than the competition in bigger mountains. And you are comparing his current situation to some future made up scenario where he has won 5 TdFs.
Nowhere did i say he was above Carapaz, Hindley, Roglic... I said that IF he could overcome a weakness that he has shown, that ONLY in that case, i think he has as big if not bigger a chance to win, but i think that the chance that he does not overcome his weakness, is substantially greater. Not sure what is so outrageous with that statement considering that important condition.

The discussion was about him not having the potential to be good, until he shows that he is. Until then, according to this poster, he is just a classics specialist. Basically this means we can not discuss the potential of a rider, we are not allowed to hypothesise until the instance has occurred, meaning at that point it will no longer be potential and it will no longer be hypothesising. In that case we can only discuss what already happened. Then close this thread.
 
Jul 27, 2019
9
11
2,560
Nowhere did i say he was above Carapaz, Hindley, Roglic... I said that IF he could overcome a weakness that he has shown, that ONLY in that case, i think he has as big if not bigger a chance to win, but i think that the chance that he does not overcome his weakness, is substantially greater. Not sure what is so outrageous with that statement considering that important condition.

The discussion was about him not having the potential to be good, until he shows that he is. Until then, according to this poster, he is just a classics specialist. Basically this means we can not discuss the potential of a rider, we are not allowed to hypothesise until the instance has occurred, meaning at that point it will no longer be potential and it will no longer be hypothesising. In that case we can only discuss what already happened. Then close this thread.
Ok then. I was just annoyed of people treating Evenepoel as real top 3 favourite for this Vuelta. I agree that he has the potential.
 
Do we assume/hope everyone hammers it on the early uphill finishes, hoping to put time into Roglic before he rides into form?
Also, I know he has done nothing much, but he is a recent grand tour winner, nobody expect anything out of TGH? Not even a 1* chance?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
All this talk about perceived norms and rules have slowly been blown out of the water since a pursuit rider won the tour .... \i remember all the kerfuffle then ... "this just doesn't happen/impossible etc". That process has accelerated recently with Pogacar's peer group tearing up the rule book. With |Evenepoel, I can't see him winning a 3 week GT but nothing at all would surprise me about the guy. I don't think we can judge this generation by past expectations. It's great fun, it must be said.
 
@Logic-is-your-friend

But wasn't Remco beaten by Rogla at Itzulia in ITT? At the same time Remco beaten both Pogi and Jonas at TA in ITT. Don't know about mixing in Nibali. But i agree that considering this is Nibali last GT in his career. We can keep an eye on if he can beat Rogla or Remco or both. It's appropriate.
Remco and Roglic have never beaten Nibali in a grand tour and I don't expect that to change.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY