Which rider is underrated/overrated?

[PremierAndrew]

I don't get how people can possibly rate Nibali as highly as Contador and Froome as far as GTs are concerned. Yes he's the most versatile of the 3, and given his showing on the cobbles in the Tour last year, I can see him giving a couple of cracks at Flanders later in his career. However, realistically, all 3 of his GT wins were against weak opposition, as pointed out by a few already. There's no way Nibali would have stayed ahead of Froome and Contador in last year's Tour, even with a 2 or 3 minute lead due to the cobbles. Contador's palmares far exceed Nibali's and although Froome's palmares are relatively modest with just 1 GT, it's fair to say that someone who can go mano a mano with Contador at his peak is undoubtedly an incredible cyclist. Simply, Nibali could never gain time on Froome or Contador unless there's a wet descent, which is why I would rate him below Quintana too personally

 

[DFA123]

Re:

I don't get how people can possibly rate Nibali as highly as Contador and Froome as far as GTs are concerned. Yes he's the most versatile of the 3, and given his showing on the cobbles in the Tour last year, I can see him giving a couple of cracks at Flanders later in his career. However, realistically, all 3 of his GT wins were against weak opposition, as pointed out by a few already. There's no way Nibali would have stayed ahead of Froome and Contador in last year's Tour, even with a 2 or 3 minute lead due to the cobbles. Contador's palmares far exceed Nibali's and although Froome's palmares are relatively modest with just 1 GT, it's fair to say that someone who can go mano a mano with Contador at his peak is undoubtedly an incredible cyclist. Simply, Nibali could never gain time on Froome or Contador unless there's a wet descent, which is why I would rate him below Quintana too personally

I don't necessarily disagree that Froome is a better rider right now, but I think there are still quite a lot of reasons to rate Nibali higher than Froome as a GT rider:

- He's won more GT's.
- He's won every GT compared with just one for Froome
- He's won more stages in GT's
- He's finished on the podium in two different GT's in one year
- Plus less quantifiable factors, like that he's a better bike handler

What you say about the level of competition in Nibali's victories is certainly true, but the competition in Froome's win wasn't great either: a young Quintana who wasn't even the team leader for most of the race, the weakest Contador we have ever seen, and Rodriguez - who never wins GT's.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

I don't get how people can possibly rate Nibali as highly as Contador and Froome as far as GTs are concerned. Yes he's the most versatile of the 3, and given his showing on the cobbles in the Tour last year, I can see him giving a couple of cracks at Flanders later in his career. However, realistically, all 3 of his GT wins were against weak opposition, as pointed out by a few already. There's no way Nibali would have stayed ahead of Froome and Contador in last year's Tour, even with a 2 or 3 minute lead due to the cobbles. Contador's palmares far exceed Nibali's and although Froome's palmares are relatively modest with just 1 GT, it's fair to say that someone who can go mano a mano with Contador at his peak is undoubtedly an incredible cyclist. Simply, Nibali could never gain time on Froome or Contador unless there's a wet descent, which is why I would rate him below Quintana too personally

I don't necessarily disagree that Froome is a better rider right now, but I think there are still quite a lot of reasons to rate Nibali higher than Froome as a GT rider:

- He's won more GT's.
- He's won every GT compared with just one for Froome
- He's won more stages in GT's
- He's finished on the podium in two different GT's in one year
- Plus less quantifiable factors, like that he's a better bike handler

What you say about the level of competition in Nibali's victories is certainly true, but the competition in Froome's win wasn't great either: a young Quintana who wasn't even the team leader for most of the race, the weakest Contador we have ever seen, and Rodriguez - who never wins GT's.

Like I said, no denying that Nibali is a more versatilve rider - better bike handling, amazing descending, descent on cobbles etc, making him better for every single monument than AC and CF. However, in terms of GTs, no contest. The first four points you made are all in one bracket, while I already mentioned the 5th. As for the 2013 Tour, well ok, maybe the competition wasn't great but it was still far far greater than anything Nibali has ever succeeded over and considering Froome has beaten top quality competition in week long stage races (which admittedly are pretty dissimilar to GTs), I struggle to see how some people can actually justify the idea that Nibali is a better GT racer. (That said I love Nibble's style, and he probably gets too much hate on these forums just because of a few whose claims are ridiculous)

 

[bala v]

Re: Re:

PremierAndrew[/url]"]



Like I said, no denying that Nibali is a more versatilve rider - better bike handling, amazing descending, descent on cobbles etc, making him better for every single monument than AC and CF. However, in terms of GTs, no contest. The first four points you made are all in one bracket, while I already mentioned the 5th. As for the 2013 Tour, well ok, maybe the competition wasn't great but it was still far far greater than anything Nibali has ever succeeded over and considering Froome has beaten top quality competition in week long stage races (which admittedly are pretty dissimilar to GTs), I struggle to see how some people can actually justify the idea that Nibali is a better GT racer. (That said I love Nibble's style, and he probably gets too much hate on these forums just because of a few whose claims are ridiculous)[/quote]

Well frankly, it isnt even a contest. Nibali won 3GTs, Froome 1, Nibali podiumed 7 times, Froome 4, Nibali won more GT stages also, I think it is pretty clear who has the advantage. All your blah, blah about weak field is unimportant, results are what matters. Nibali is one of ONLY SIX RIDERS IN HISTORY OF CYCLING who won all three GTs. And what is Froome, one of 70-80 riders who won TDF, which also Nibali did, its not even comparable. And you say he wouldnt won the Tour if Froome didnt crashed, well I say he would!

 

[Jagartrott]

The question was not whether Nibali is better than Froome or Contador, the question was whether he's under- or overrated.

The fact that he wins GTs that people don't think he'll be winning, is an indication that many underestimate the results he's capable of getting. Staying on your bike is also a useful skill in winning GTs, by the way, so saying Nibali would never have won the Tour last year when those two didn't go crashing out is totally disregarding that skill. Also worth mentioning is that Nibali did beat Contador and Froome in Tirreno in 2013, for instance.

He has much more class and ability than many give him credit for, hence he is generally underrated rather than overrated.

Simply, Nibali could never gain time on Froome or Contador unless there's a wet descent, which is why I would rate him below Quintana too personally

That's like saying Contador would never be able to put time into Cancellara unless there are cols.
Descents are part of cycling. To ignore that, is to disrespect the skill and bravery needed to excel at that.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Staying on your bike is not a skill, it's luck. If you think Nibali's 3(!) GT wins and him being one of only 6 riders to have won all 3 GTs is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a rider, you are overrating him. Massively.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Staying on your bike is not a skill, it's luck. If you think Nibali's 3(!) GT wins and him being one of only 6 riders to have won all 3 GTs is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a rider, you are overrating him. Massively.

It's a bit of both surely. If someone crashes right in front of you then there is not a lot that you can do. But you can certainly minimise the risks by, for example, staying at the front of the race and anticipating dangerous sections - both key racing skills.

Then there are other crashes caused by poor bike handling; like clipping a pedal on the ground or misjudging a corner going downhill.

 

[DBotero]

Nibali worst position in final GC in a Grand Tour was 20.So far he 's got 3GT wins+4GT podiums and yet Contador fans keep trolling that he's overrated.And no,the fact that the competition was "weaker" doesn't make his wins less worthy.

 

[Jspear]

Nibali worst position in final GC in a Grand Tour was 20.So far he 's got 3GT wins+4GT podiums and yet Contador fans keep trolling that he's overrated.And no,the fact that the competition was "weaker" doesn't make his wins less worthy.

He is an excellent GT rider. IMO he is only overrated by those who try and put him on the same level as AC and Froome. I think most do not overrate him.

 

[Mr.White]

Re:

Staying on your bike is not a skill, it's luck. If you think Nibali's 3(!) GT wins and him being one of only 6 riders to have won all 3 GTs is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a rider, you are overrating him. Massively.

Rider's ability reflects through his results, and his results are showing that he is multiple GT winner, which Froome isn't, and one of only six to win all three, in company with all-time greats Anquetil, Gimondi, Merckx, Hinault and Contador. Therefore his ability as a rider is the one of the multiple GT winner, which he is, and he is way underrated, cause riders like Froome, who won only one GT in his career, and he is similar age with Nibali, are considered better riders than him.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Staying on your bike is not a skill, it's luck. If you think Nibali's 3(!) GT wins and him being one of only 6 riders to have won all 3 GTs is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a rider, you are overrating him. Massively.

It's a bit of both surely. If someone crashes right in front of you then there is not a lot that you can do. But you can certainly minimise the risks by, for example, staying at the front of the race and anticipating dangerous sections - both key racing skills.

Then there are other crashes caused by poor bike handling; like clipping a pedal on the ground or misjudging a corner going downhill.

Yes, I agree my point was rather that Contador and Froome crashing out and Nibali staying on his bike was mostly because they were unlucky (well Froome does crash a lot....) and Nibali lucky. Crashes happen to everyone. It's silly to make it seem like only incompetent losers crash.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Rider's ability reflects through his results, and his results are showing that he is multiple GT winner, which Froome isn't, and one of only six to win all three, in company with all-time greats Anquetil, Gimondi, Merckx, Hinault and Contador. Therefore his ability as a rider is the one of the multiple GT winner, which he is, and he is way underrated, cause riders like Froome, who won only one GT in his career, and he is similar age with Nibali, are considered better riders than him.

This is exactly what SeriousSam meant when he posted that Nibali's results lead to him being overrated. His palmares exceeds his abilities as a cyclist. Froome is a better stage racer. He's a stronger climber and a stronger TTer. Yet Froome won 1 GT and Nibali 3. This is due to the fact Nibali either picked GTs with a low quality field or was lucky to have everyone who could challenge him crash out. You cannot deny Nibali's opposition in the 2010 Vuelta, 2013 Giro and 2014 Tour was very weak.

It's very simple:
If you think Froome's palmares is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a cyclist, you are underrating him.
If you think Nibali's palmares is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a cyclist, you are overrating him.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

Rider's ability reflects through his results, and his results are showing that he is multiple GT winner, which Froome isn't, and one of only six to win all three, in company with all-time greats Anquetil, Gimondi, Merckx, Hinault and Contador. Therefore his ability as a rider is the one of the multiple GT winner, which he is, and he is way underrated, cause riders like Froome, who won only one GT in his career, and he is similar age with Nibali, are considered better riders than him.

This is exactly what SeriousSam meant when he posted that Nibali's results lead to him being overrated. His palmares exceeds his abilities as a cyclist. Froome is a better stage racer. He's a stronger climber and a stronger TTer. Yet Froome won 1 GT and Nibali 3. This is due to the fact Nibali either picked GTs with a low quality field or was lucky to have everyone who could challenge him crash out. You cannot deny Nibali's opposition in the 2010 Vuelta, 2013 Giro and 2014 Tour was very weak.

It's very simple:
If you think Froome's palmares is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a cyclist, you are underrating him.
If you think Nibali's palmares is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a cyclist, you are overrating him.

It is very simple. Rider's palmares is always accurate reflection of his abilities, it's not one race, or even one year, it's whole career. I would say you are overrating Froome, and underrating Nibali, we got different views on this matter. If they both retire tomorrow, in my book Nibali is a better rider

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

It is very simple. Rider's palmares is always accurate reflection of his abilities, it's not one race, or even one year, it's whole career. I would say you are overrating Froome, and underrating Nibali, we got different views on this matter. If they both retire tomorrow, in my book Nibali is a better rider

Doesn't that depend on if you are rating them at their current level - which is surely the point of the thread - or rating them across their career. For example, riders like Cunego or Basso have a great palmares - but neither have done anything for years and no one really rates them much any more.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

Rider's ability reflects through his results, and his results are showing that he is multiple GT winner, which Froome isn't, and one of only six to win all three, in company with all-time greats Anquetil, Gimondi, Merckx, Hinault and Contador. Therefore his ability as a rider is the one of the multiple GT winner, which he is, and he is way underrated, cause riders like Froome, who won only one GT in his career, and he is similar age with Nibali, are considered better riders than him.

This is exactly what SeriousSam meant when he posted that Nibali's results lead to him being overrated. His palmares exceeds his abilities as a cyclist. Froome is a better stage racer. He's a stronger climber and a stronger TTer. Yet Froome won 1 GT and Nibali 3. This is due to the fact Nibali either picked GTs with a low quality field or was lucky to have everyone who could challenge him crash out. You cannot deny Nibali's opposition in the 2010 Vuelta, 2013 Giro and 2014 Tour was very weak.

It's very simple:
If you think Froome's palmares is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a cyclist, you are underrating him.
If you think Nibali's palmares is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a cyclist, you are overrating him.

Care to explain which GT with low quality field did Nibali picked? 2010 he did the Giro for Basso obviously he goes to Vuelta not Tour, 2013 Giro he was against the reigning TdF winner and 2014 TdF against Bertie and Froome. The fact that some fall off their bikes is part of the job, some fall three times in two days, some once a year but that doesn't make the winner less worthy because fans of the guys who fell say so. About Froome, I'm not sure what are his abilities as a cyclist, the guy who's hanging onto motorbikes or that who destroys Bertie on the mountains, the one who looses in TT by 12 sec to Tony Martin over 33 km or the one who looses to Tony Martin by 2 minutes over 17 km.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

This is exactly what SeriousSam meant when he posted that Nibali's results lead to him being overrated. His palmares exceeds his abilities as a cyclist. Froome is a better stage racer. He's a stronger climber and a stronger TTer. Yet Froome won 1 GT and Nibali 3. This is due to the fact Nibali either picked GTs with a low quality field or was lucky to have everyone who could challenge him crash out. You cannot deny Nibali's opposition in the 2010 Vuelta, 2013 Giro and 2014 Tour was very weak.

It's very simple:
If you think Froome's palmares is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a cyclist, you are underrating him.
If you think Nibali's palmares is an accurate reflection of his abilities as a cyclist, you are overrating him.

Care to explain which GT with low quality field did Nibali picked? 2010 he did the Giro for Basso obviously he goes to Vuelta not Tour, 2013 Giro he was against the reigning TdF winner and 2014 TdF against Bertie and Froome. The fact that some fall off their bikes is part of the job, some fall three times in two days, some once a year but that doesn't make the winner less worthy because fans of the guys who fell say so. About Froome, I'm not sure what are his abilities as a cyclist, the guy who's hanging onto motorbikes or that who destroys Bertie on the mountains, the one who looses in TT by 12 sec to Tony Martin over 33 km or the one who looses to Tony Martin by 2 minutes over 17 km.[/quote]

Look, you can make as many excuses as you wish, the fact is that every GT he won had a weak field, you cannot argue about that.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Overrated: Henao and Duarte.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Like I said, no denying that Nibali is a more versatilve rider - better bike handling, amazing descending, descent on cobbles etc, making him better for every single monument than AC and CF. However, in terms of GTs, no contest. The first four points you made are all in one bracket, while I already mentioned the 5th. As for the 2013 Tour, well ok, maybe the competition wasn't great but it was still far far greater than anything Nibali has ever succeeded over and considering Froome has beaten top quality competition in week long stage races (which admittedly are pretty dissimilar to GTs), I struggle to see how some people can actually justify the idea that Nibali is a better GT racer. (That said I love Nibble's style, and he probably gets too much hate on these forums just because of a few whose claims are ridiculous)

Well frankly, it isnt even a contest. Nibali won 3GTs, Froome 1, Nibali podiumed 7 times, Froome 4, Nibali won more GT stages also, I think it is pretty clear who has the advantage. All your blah, blah about weak field is unimportant, results are what matters. Nibali is one of ONLY SIX RIDERS IN HISTORY OF CYCLING who won all three GTs. And what is Froome, one of 70-80 riders who won TDF, which also Nibali did, its not even comparable. And you say he wouldnt won the Tour if Froome didnt crashed, well I say he would!

Well if Froome had chosen to do the 2013 Giro, he would have won that. He would have won the 2011 Vuelta if Sky hadn't failed to recognise his abilities as well. Froome could have chosen to do the 2014 Giro as well in order to win a GT over a relatively weak field (the presence of Quintana would still make it a much much stronger field than anything Nibali has beaten). Would that suddenly transform Froome from one of 80 run of the mill riders who have won TdF into one of the best GT riders ever in your book? One of the top 7 ever GT racers for winning the 3 GTs?

For example, Froome and Contador would both easily have gained the 2 mins on Nibali in just a couple of mountain stages. Yes, Nibali won by 7 mins over Peraud over 6 mountainous stages in the TdF, but that said Froome and Contador both put over 3 mins into Peraud over 2 mountain stages in Ruta del Sol, neither of which was as hard as the hardest stages in TdF.

Not trying to say Nibali isn't a great rider, but those who believe he is a better GT rider given his palmares are completely deluded.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Overrated: Henao and Duarte.

Agree with Duarte.

Henao has not raced that much since his accident and his problems with his blood profile. But he was doing OK before except for his bad Vuelta a España. So need to wait longer.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

Look, you can make as many excuses as you wish, the fact is that every GT he won had a weak field, you cannot argue about that.

I'll write down "Contador and Froome can be considered part of a weak field"
Good to know.

Well if Froome had chosen to do the 2013 Giro, he would have won that.

I'll write down "Froome chose not to win Tirreno in 2013"
Good to know.

It's all becoming so much clearer to me now.
Nibali only wins because a) he's lucky not to fall off his bike, b) other riders do fall off their bikes, multiple times, which clearly is bad luck and c) other riders choose not to win

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

Like I said, no denying that Nibali is a more versatilve rider - better bike handling, amazing descending, descent on cobbles etc, making him better for every single monument than AC and CF. However, in terms of GTs, no contest. The first four points you made are all in one bracket, while I already mentioned the 5th. As for the 2013 Tour, well ok, maybe the competition wasn't great but it was still far far greater than anything Nibali has ever succeeded over and considering Froome has beaten top quality competition in week long stage races (which admittedly are pretty dissimilar to GTs), I struggle to see how some people can actually justify the idea that Nibali is a better GT racer. (That said I love Nibble's style, and he probably gets too much hate on these forums just because of a few whose claims are ridiculous)

Well frankly, it isnt even a contest. Nibali won 3GTs, Froome 1, Nibali podiumed 7 times, Froome 4, Nibali won more GT stages also, I think it is pretty clear who has the advantage. All your blah, blah about weak field is unimportant, results are what matters. Nibali is one of ONLY SIX RIDERS IN HISTORY OF CYCLING who won all three GTs. And what is Froome, one of 70-80 riders who won TDF, which also Nibali did, its not even comparable. And you say he wouldnt won the Tour if Froome didnt crashed, well I say he would!

Well if Froome had chosen to do the 2013 Giro, he would have won that. He would have won the 2011 Vuelta if Sky hadn't failed to recognise his abilities as well. Froome could have chosen to do the 2014 Giro as well in order to win a GT over a relatively weak field (the presence of Quintana would still make it a much much stronger field than anything Nibali has beaten). Would that suddenly transform Froome from one of 80 run of the mill riders who have won TdF into one of the best GT riders ever in your book? One of the top 7 ever GT racers for winning the 3 GTs?

For example, Froome and Contador would both easily have gained the 2 mins on Nibali in just a couple of mountain stages. Yes, Nibali won by 7 mins over Peraud over 6 mountainous stages in the TdF, but that said Froome and Contador both put over 3 mins into Peraud over 2 mountain stages in Ruta del Sol, neither of which was as hard as the hardest stages in TdF.

Not trying to say Nibali isn't a great rider, but those who believe he is a better GT rider given his palmares are completely deluded.

Well.., you basically don't know what you're saying. You can not know the result of the race before the race ends. You say Froome would win Giro 2013, well I say he wouldn't, I'd say Nibali would beat him, the truth is we don't know. But we do now who won it. He rode that Vuelta 2011 and we all know the result, there's no should, would, could... Froome made his choices and his results are what they are. It's not an easy task to win a GT, no matter how big favorite you are, and yet you are talking like Froome just need to appear on the start of Giro or Vuelta and he's already a winner. it's not going like that. And yes if he had won 3 GT's like Nibali I would rank him probably above that same Nibali, but he had not won them, it's a big difference. In this moment he has better form for sure, but overall, Nibali is better, Froome needs some big wins to catch him.

Again nonsense, beat Peraud in February, an off-form Peraud, that proves nothing. I have an opposite argument, Nibali beat Valverde by 8-9 minutes in that same TDF, yet Froome and Contador couldn't gain on that same fatigued Valverde more than 1.30 min. That means by your logic, Nibali would beat those two by 6-7 minutes. That makes no sense of course, just like Peraud's case.

 

[frankie24]

Re: Re:

For example, Froome and Contador would both easily have gained the 2 mins on Nibali in just a couple of mountain stages. Yes, Nibali won by 7 mins over Peraud over 6 mountainous stages in the TdF, but that said Froome and Contador both put over 3 mins into Peraud over 2 mountain stages in Ruta del Sol, neither of which was as hard as the hardest stages in TdF.

Not trying to say Nibali isn't a great rider, but those who believe he is a better GT rider given his palmares are completely deluded.

Using the same logic, Nibali gained 8 mins on Valverde during the Tour, Contador only 2 mins during La Vuelta, so Nibali is better than Contador, right?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Using the same logic, Nibali gained 8 mins on Valverde during the Tour, Contador only 2 mins during La Vuelta, so Nibali is better than Contador, right?

No, because:
Peraud and Contador/Froome were all three not on top form and the Ruta del Sol mountain stages were easier than the TDF mountain stages. IOW AC/CF would have put more time into Peraud at the Tour.
Valverde is always stronger in Spain, and Contador and Froome both came back from an injury, and the Vuelta mountain stages were way easier than the Tour mountain stages. IOW Contador and Froome would have put more time into Valverde at the Tour.

 

[frankie24]

Re: Re:

No, because:
Peraud and Contador/Froome were all three not on top form and the Ruta del Sol mountain stages were easier than the TDF mountain stages. IOW AC/CF would have put more time into Peraud at the Tour.
Valverde is always stronger in Spain, and Contador and Froome both came back from an injury, and the Vuelta mountain stages were way easier than the Tour mountain stages. IOW Contador and Froome would have put more time into Valverde at the Tour.

Maybe Peraud is stronger in France like Valverde is stronger in Spain, how can you tell?
This argument doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

Using the same logic, Nibali gained 8 mins on Valverde during the Tour, Contador only 2 mins during La Vuelta, so Nibali is better than Contador, right?

No, because:
Peraud and Contador/Froome were all three not on top form and the Ruta del Sol mountain stages were easier than the TDF mountain stages. IOW AC/CF would have put more time into Peraud at the Tour.
Valverde is always stronger in Spain, and Contador and Froome both came back from an injury, and the Vuelta mountain stages were way easier than the Tour mountain stages. IOW Contador and Froome would have put more time into Valverde at the Tour.

Well Froome put 15'26 to Valverde in Tour 2013, while Bala lost 10 min in stage 13, that would make 5'26 to top form Froome. It's not more than 8 minutes. And you say Contador and Froome came back from an injury, but Valverde came from a full gas Tour, that makes them pretty even