Who had the best season in the last 20 years?

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Who had the best season in the last 20 years?

  • Gilbert 2011

    Votes: 47 46.1%
  • Cipollini 2002

    Votes: 2 2.0%
  • Cavendish 2009

    Votes: 5 4.9%
  • Pantani 1998

    Votes: 26 25.5%
  • Cancellara 2008

    Votes: 3 2.9%
  • Boonen 2005

    Votes: 6 5.9%
  • Petacchi 2003 or 2004

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Contador 2008

    Votes: 8 7.8%
  • Zabel 2001

    Votes: 4 3.9%

  • Total voters
    102
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
2
0
Re:

IndianCyclist said:
Petacchi 2003 is probably the best sprinter season- 6 Giro, 4 TDF, 5 Vuelta out of his 48 total GT stages.
Pantani double is the best but there are too many asterisks in that era.
Nowadays the focus is on reduced weight which also hampers recovery and retraining after a GT. So it is difficult to be competitive and probably the double is not feasible
Froome seems to have no problems with the Tour-Vuelta double and he's an anorexic skeleton. Same goes for Quintana and Valverde.
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
del1962 said:
I have no idea why Froome's 2013 is not in Poll

Wins Oman with stage win and destroying closest rivals Contador and Nibali on Green Mountain
T-A 2nd, takes a stage win deroyin rivals on stage
Criterium Intl win plus stage win destroying everyone
Romandie win including great uphill prologue win
Dauphine - win plus stage win plus attempt to get teamate a stage win

Then the tour, two dominant stage MTF stage wins
2md on flat ITT just behind then worlds premium ITT man and winning hilly ITT
When isolated by team stays with primary rivals

Basically totally dominant in every stage race from February to July (with excption of T-A where arguably only second best)
Because we have 2 seasons in the poll where riders achieved the GT double, both arguably better seasons then Froome's. If we include Froome, then we should also include Contador's 2009 and Wiggins 2012, and maybe even Contador 2011 and 2014. Froome's 2013 was a great season, but I don't think it can challenge Pantani's 1998 and 2008 from Contador.
I don't rate Giro + Vuelta as high as the Tour, and Froome was pretty much dominant in all races he did until the tour
 
Re: Re:

del1962 said:
Blanco said:
del1962 said:
I have no idea why Froome's 2013 is not in Poll

Wins Oman with stage win and destroying closest rivals Contador and Nibali on Green Mountain
T-A 2nd, takes a stage win deroyin rivals on stage
Criterium Intl win plus stage win destroying everyone
Romandie win including great uphill prologue win
Dauphine - win plus stage win plus attempt to get teamate a stage win

Then the tour, two dominant stage MTF stage wins
2md on flat ITT just behind then worlds premium ITT man and winning hilly ITT
When isolated by team stays with primary rivals

Basically totally dominant in every stage race from February to July (with excption of T-A where arguably only second best)
Because we have 2 seasons in the poll where riders achieved the GT double, both arguably better seasons then Froome's. If we include Froome, then we should also include Contador's 2009 and Wiggins 2012, and maybe even Contador 2011 and 2014. Froome's 2013 was a great season, but I don't think it can challenge Pantani's 1998 and 2008 from Contador.
I don't rate Giro + Vuelta as high as the Tour, and Froome was pretty much dominant in all races he did until the tour
Armstrong 2004 is up there with Froome 2013 as well imo. He didn't do too much in big races outside of the Tour, but at the Tour he won pretty much every mountain stage, two time trials, the TTT and the GC by over six minutes.

It was an incredible (literally!) level of dominance in by far the biggest race in the sport.
 
Re: Re:

del1962 said:
I don't rate Giro + Vuelta as high as the Tour, and Froome was pretty much dominant in all races he did until the tour
You're entitled to your opinion and your own personal rating, but most people disagree, so it's not really much of a mystery why Froome's 2013 season wasn't included.
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
del1962 said:
I don't rate Giro + Vuelta as high as the Tour, and Froome was pretty much dominant in all races he did until the tour
You're entitled to your opinion and your own personal rating, but most people disagree, so it's not really much of a mystery why Froome's 2013 season wasn't included.
No, in actuality some random picked the list and now that are all the options we have. I mean fricking Cavendish 2009 is on there, he didn't even finish the Giro.
 
Re: Re:

del1962 said:
Blanco said:
del1962 said:
I have no idea why Froome's 2013 is not in Poll

Wins Oman with stage win and destroying closest rivals Contador and Nibali on Green Mountain
T-A 2nd, takes a stage win deroyin rivals on stage
Criterium Intl win plus stage win destroying everyone
Romandie win including great uphill prologue win
Dauphine - win plus stage win plus attempt to get teamate a stage win

Then the tour, two dominant stage MTF stage wins
2md on flat ITT just behind then worlds premium ITT man and winning hilly ITT
When isolated by team stays with primary rivals

Basically totally dominant in every stage race from February to July (with excption of T-A where arguably only second best)
Because we have 2 seasons in the poll where riders achieved the GT double, both arguably better seasons then Froome's. If we include Froome, then we should also include Contador's 2009 and Wiggins 2012, and maybe even Contador 2011 and 2014. Froome's 2013 was a great season, but I don't think it can challenge Pantani's 1998 and 2008 from Contador.
I don't rate Giro + Vuelta as high as the Tour, and Froome was pretty much dominant in all races he did until the tour
Then we'll stop our conversation about this topic, cause I rate it quite higher
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
del1962 said:
Blanco said:
del1962 said:
I have no idea why Froome's 2013 is not in Poll

Wins Oman with stage win and destroying closest rivals Contador and Nibali on Green Mountain
T-A 2nd, takes a stage win deroyin rivals on stage
Criterium Intl win plus stage win destroying everyone
Romandie win including great uphill prologue win
Dauphine - win plus stage win plus attempt to get teamate a stage win

Then the tour, two dominant stage MTF stage wins
2md on flat ITT just behind then worlds premium ITT man and winning hilly ITT
When isolated by team stays with primary rivals

Basically totally dominant in every stage race from February to July (with excption of T-A where arguably only second best)
Because we have 2 seasons in the poll where riders achieved the GT double, both arguably better seasons then Froome's. If we include Froome, then we should also include Contador's 2009 and Wiggins 2012, and maybe even Contador 2011 and 2014. Froome's 2013 was a great season, but I don't think it can challenge Pantani's 1998 and 2008 from Contador.
I don't rate Giro + Vuelta as high as the Tour, and Froome was pretty much dominant in all races he did until the tour
Then we'll stop our conversation about this topic, cause I rate it quite higher
It's a cultural thing. I'm sure he must be british or american, since he rates the Tour disproportionately highly.
He's entitled to his opinion, however much the rest of the world might disagree.
 
Re: Re:

GuyIncognito said:
Blanco said:
del1962 said:
Blanco said:
del1962 said:
I have no idea why Froome's 2013 is not in Poll

Wins Oman with stage win and destroying closest rivals Contador and Nibali on Green Mountain
T-A 2nd, takes a stage win deroyin rivals on stage
Criterium Intl win plus stage win destroying everyone
Romandie win including great uphill prologue win
Dauphine - win plus stage win plus attempt to get teamate a stage win

Then the tour, two dominant stage MTF stage wins
2md on flat ITT just behind then worlds premium ITT man and winning hilly ITT
When isolated by team stays with primary rivals

Basically totally dominant in every stage race from February to July (with excption of T-A where arguably only second best)
Because we have 2 seasons in the poll where riders achieved the GT double, both arguably better seasons then Froome's. If we include Froome, then we should also include Contador's 2009 and Wiggins 2012, and maybe even Contador 2011 and 2014. Froome's 2013 was a great season, but I don't think it can challenge Pantani's 1998 and 2008 from Contador.
I don't rate Giro + Vuelta as high as the Tour, and Froome was pretty much dominant in all races he did until the tour
Then we'll stop our conversation about this topic, cause I rate it quite higher
It's a cultural thing. I'm sure he must be british or american, since he rates the Tour disproportionately highly.
He's entitled to his opinion, however much the rest of the world might disagree.
Del1962 makes good points, even if the Giro and Vuelta combined is logically higher than the Tour on it's lonesome. But as has been pointed out, Froome also achieved much else in 2013. Clearly Froome in 2013 was much more impressive than Contador in 2008. Contador wasn't even dominant, and his achievement was very nearly matched by Nibali in 2013. So okay, some say that dominance doesn't matter, and it's all about results, but then ignore the fact that Gilbert won only one out of the six biggest one day races on the calendar in 2011, saying that he rode in a dominant fashion and won a bunch of other races.

For some reason Gilbert's lesser classic wins seem to count for plenty, yet in stage racing only grand tours count and one week races count for nought.

Now I'm really starting to understand the dislike for Richie Porte on here :rolleyes:
 
You want make me believe that single-day races matter more on these boards than GT's or even one-week stage races. Here you cannot even talk about the Tour of Lombardy the day after it because of the new Tour of Italy route, which matters more than a historical classic. Damn, if the classics mattered so much, why am I so impopular? How many posts on this thread are about GT's and how many about classics?

Gilbert did not win lesser classics in 2011, he won the two greatest Ardennes spring classics plus lesser races, such as the Gullegem Koerse :)geek:) and impressed by a month-long winning streak in single-day races.
 
Re: Re:

gregrowlerson said:
For some reason Gilbert's lesser classic wins seem to count for plenty, yet in stage racing only grand tours count and one week races count for nought.

Now I'm really starting to understand the dislike for Richie Porte on here :rolleyes:
I think that's because it's much harder for one of the top riders to win a one day classic - even a 'lesser classic', than it is for one of the top riders to win a stage race. You just have to look at the respective odds to see that - stage race favourites are often odds-on. One of two or three pre-race favourites nearly always win stage races - they don't in one day races, especially not hilly one day races.

In a stage race you can make significant tactical errors, have a bad moment or even a bad day, forget to eat, go for a s**t in the mountains, and still win, because there is enough time to make up for an error or issue.

In a one day race (even 'lesser classics') you have to get everything spot on, even if you are the strongest rider. To do that consistently and win nearly ever race you enter for several months is incredible, and far more impressive than a stage racer grinding out a few week long races
 
Gilbert's season is unlikely. It is also a 1 monument, no GT, no WC season. The Ardennes double has been done a huge amount of time, Rebellin already did the triple, and no I don't think winning teeny tiny one day races makes such streaks that much greater.
 
Nearly matched by Nibali? I think it is a quite a difference between winning a GT and coming 2nd, and it's not nearly!. Contador won 4/5 stage races he started that year, that's pretty dominant if you ask me. You have 2009 season of Contador, if you want to compare it to Froome. Dominance is important of course, but the results are even more important. That's why I give the edge to Contador's 2008 season compared to 2009, although I think he was stronger in latter.
 
Sep 6, 2016
584
0
0
I find it hard to understand how the Ardennes triple could be rated more highly than Roubaix-Flanders+ WC

Roubaix> Liege
Worlds> Amstel
Flanders> Fleche

I get that doing those 3 in a row is impressive, but there's just one week between Roubaix and Flanders. I know that Gilbert had other wins, but so did Boonen (E3). I think if Boonen's season was more recent it'd be much more highly regarded.
 
Re:

Durden93 said:
I find it hard to understand how the Ardennes triple could be rated more highly than Roubaix-Flanders+ WC

Roubaix> Liege
Worlds> Amstel
Flanders> Fleche

I get that doing those 3 in a row is impressive, but there's just one week between Roubaix and Flanders. I know that Gilbert had other wins, but so did Boonen (E3). I think if Boonen's season was more recent it'd be much more highly regarded.
I think this is not even a contest. I would rate Roubaix, Flanders and Liege even, but are far more prestigious than Fleche at the moment and to even try compare WC and Amstel is lunatic. On top of that Boonen won 2 tour stages. Every rider will choose Boonen's 2005 above Gilbert 2011 immediately.
 
Re: Re:

Ikbengodniet said:
Durden93 said:
I find it hard to understand how the Ardennes triple could be rated more highly than Roubaix-Flanders+ WC

Roubaix> Liege
Worlds> Amstel
Flanders> Fleche

I get that doing those 3 in a row is impressive, but there's just one week between Roubaix and Flanders. I know that Gilbert had other wins, but so did Boonen (E3). I think if Boonen's season was more recent it'd be much more highly regarded.
I think this is not even a contest. I would rate Roubaix, Flanders and Liege even, but are far more prestigious than Fleche at the moment and to even try compare WC and Amstel is lunatic. On top of that Boonen won 2 tour stages. Every rider will choose Boonen's 2005 above Gilbert 2011 immediately.
And you know that how? Name one!
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
Ikbengodniet said:
Durden93 said:
I find it hard to understand how the Ardennes triple could be rated more highly than Roubaix-Flanders+ WC

Roubaix> Liege
Worlds> Amstel
Flanders> Fleche

I get that doing those 3 in a row is impressive, but there's just one week between Roubaix and Flanders. I know that Gilbert had other wins, but so did Boonen (E3). I think if Boonen's season was more recent it'd be much more highly regarded.
I think this is not even a contest. I would rate Roubaix, Flanders and Liege even, but are far more prestigious than Fleche at the moment and to even try compare WC and Amstel is lunatic. On top of that Boonen won 2 tour stages. Every rider will choose Boonen's 2005 above Gilbert 2011 immediately.
And you know that how? Name one!
Common Sense.
 
Contador winning 2 GTs wasn't matched by Nibali. And quite frankly Nibali would've blown Froome out of the water had he won the Vuelta too in 2013. He also won Tirreno, beating Froome, and Contador won Pais Vasco in 2008.
 
Re: Re:

Ikbengodniet said:
Durden93 said:
I find it hard to understand how the Ardennes triple could be rated more highly than Roubaix-Flanders+ WC

Roubaix> Liege
Worlds> Amstel
Flanders> Fleche

I get that doing those 3 in a row is impressive, but there's just one week between Roubaix and Flanders. I know that Gilbert had other wins, but so did Boonen (E3). I think if Boonen's season was more recent it'd be much more highly regarded.
I think this is not even a contest. I would rate Roubaix, Flanders and Liege even, but are far more prestigious than Fleche at the moment and to even try compare WC and Amstel is lunatic. On top of that Boonen won 2 tour stages. Every rider will choose Boonen's 2005 above Gilbert 2011 immediately.
as a non sprinter Gilbert won 19 races that year. You are forgetting he won stages in the tirreno, tdf, eneco tour, tour of belgium, that he won Strade Bianche, San Sebastian, Brabantse Pijl, Belgian RR & TT and GP Quebec as well. I have not seen dominance like Gilbert 2011 in this century. Gilbert won them all by being the strongest. Gilbert was a force to be reckoned with in every race he entered. Boonen not so much, despite that triple being impressive.
 
Re: Re:

Bardamu said:
Ikbengodniet said:
Durden93 said:
I find it hard to understand how the Ardennes triple could be rated more highly than Roubaix-Flanders+ WC

Roubaix> Liege
Worlds> Amstel
Flanders> Fleche

I get that doing those 3 in a row is impressive, but there's just one week between Roubaix and Flanders. I know that Gilbert had other wins, but so did Boonen (E3). I think if Boonen's season was more recent it'd be much more highly regarded.
I think this is not even a contest. I would rate Roubaix, Flanders and Liege even, but are far more prestigious than Fleche at the moment and to even try compare WC and Amstel is lunatic. On top of that Boonen won 2 tour stages. Every rider will choose Boonen's 2005 above Gilbert 2011 immediately.
as a non sprinter Gilbert won 19 races that year. You are forgetting he won stages in the tirreno, tdf, eneco tour, tour of belgium, that he won Strade Bianche, San Sebastian, Brabantse Pijl, Belgian RR & TT and GP Quebec as well. I have not seen dominance like Gilbert 2011 in this century. Gilbert won them all by being the strongest. Gilbert was a force to be reckoned with in every race he entered. Boonen not so much, despite that triple being impressive.
In my opinion it shouldn't make a difference if the rider is a sprinter or not. I know Gilbert won al those 2nd tier classics and some stages but so did Boonen in 2005. Still his results in the biggest races of the season are better.

Reminds me of Mollema this tour who immediately chose his tour stage above his CSS win last year.
Strade Bianche that year was a 1.1 race and can't be compared to the prestige it now has.
 
Re: Re:

Bardamu said:
Ikbengodniet said:
Durden93 said:
I find it hard to understand how the Ardennes triple could be rated more highly than Roubaix-Flanders+ WC

Roubaix> Liege
Worlds> Amstel
Flanders> Fleche

I get that doing those 3 in a row is impressive, but there's just one week between Roubaix and Flanders. I know that Gilbert had other wins, but so did Boonen (E3). I think if Boonen's season was more recent it'd be much more highly regarded.
I think this is not even a contest. I would rate Roubaix, Flanders and Liege even, but are far more prestigious than Fleche at the moment and to even try compare WC and Amstel is lunatic. On top of that Boonen won 2 tour stages. Every rider will choose Boonen's 2005 above Gilbert 2011 immediately.
as a non sprinter Gilbert won 19 races that year. You are forgetting he won stages in the tirreno, tdf, eneco tour, tour of belgium, that he won Strade Bianche, San Sebastian, Brabantse Pijl, Belgian RR & TT and GP Quebec as well. I have not seen dominance like Gilbert 2011 in this century. Gilbert won them all by being the strongest. Gilbert was a force to be reckoned with in every race he entered. Boonen not so much, despite that triple being impressive.
Gilbert was quite weak in Lombardia. The race where he could have made his season the best.
 
Re: Re:

Ikbengodniet said:
Bardamu said:
Ikbengodniet said:
Durden93 said:
I find it hard to understand how the Ardennes triple could be rated more highly than Roubaix-Flanders+ WC

Roubaix> Liege
Worlds> Amstel
Flanders> Fleche

I get that doing those 3 in a row is impressive, but there's just one week between Roubaix and Flanders. I know that Gilbert had other wins, but so did Boonen (E3). I think if Boonen's season was more recent it'd be much more highly regarded.
I think this is not even a contest. I would rate Roubaix, Flanders and Liege even, but are far more prestigious than Fleche at the moment and to even try compare WC and Amstel is lunatic. On top of that Boonen won 2 tour stages. Every rider will choose Boonen's 2005 above Gilbert 2011 immediately.
as a non sprinter Gilbert won 19 races that year. You are forgetting he won stages in the tirreno, tdf, eneco tour, tour of belgium, that he won Strade Bianche, San Sebastian, Brabantse Pijl, Belgian RR & TT and GP Quebec as well. I have not seen dominance like Gilbert 2011 in this century. Gilbert won them all by being the strongest. Gilbert was a force to be reckoned with in every race he entered. Boonen not so much, despite that triple being impressive.
In my opinion it shouldn't make a difference if the rider is a sprinter or not. I know Gilbert won al those 2nd tier classics and some stages but so did Boonen in 2005. Still his results in the biggest races of the season are better.

Reminds me of Mollema this tour who immediately chose his tour stage above his CSS win last year.
Strade Bianche that year was a 1.1 race and can't be compared to the prestige it now has.
Common sense as well? :confused: I don't think so.

If a sprinter wins 10-15 races, that's not something extraordinary. But if a classic specialist, puncheur, wins it, that's huge. Take this year's Tour as an example. Kittel won 5 stages, and had an opportunity in at least 3-4 more. And how many opportunities had classic specialists, or climbers? 2-3 at most. That's a huge disadvantage already. It's the same in other stage races. Sprinters always have advantage when it comes to number of stages suited for them. It's not coincidence then that sprinters have highest number of wins in current peloton, Cavendish and Greipel have 140-150 wins on their palmares. Gilbert has around 70, Van Avermaet only 30, Kwiatkowski even less. Freaking Cancellara had around 90, including many TT's. Only freaks of nature like Sagan or Valverde can come close to sprinters, cause they win everywhere. Even Boonen himself said about Valverde how unbelievable thing is that he can win 15 races a year, while not being a sprinter!
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
Ikbengodniet said:
Bardamu said:
Ikbengodniet said:
Durden93 said:
I find it hard to understand how the Ardennes triple could be rated more highly than Roubaix-Flanders+ WC

Roubaix> Liege
Worlds> Amstel
Flanders> Fleche

I get that doing those 3 in a row is impressive, but there's just one week between Roubaix and Flanders. I know that Gilbert had other wins, but so did Boonen (E3). I think if Boonen's season was more recent it'd be much more highly regarded.
I think this is not even a contest. I would rate Roubaix, Flanders and Liege even, but are far more prestigious than Fleche at the moment and to even try compare WC and Amstel is lunatic. On top of that Boonen won 2 tour stages. Every rider will choose Boonen's 2005 above Gilbert 2011 immediately.
as a non sprinter Gilbert won 19 races that year. You are forgetting he won stages in the tirreno, tdf, eneco tour, tour of belgium, that he won Strade Bianche, San Sebastian, Brabantse Pijl, Belgian RR & TT and GP Quebec as well. I have not seen dominance like Gilbert 2011 in this century. Gilbert won them all by being the strongest. Gilbert was a force to be reckoned with in every race he entered. Boonen not so much, despite that triple being impressive.
In my opinion it shouldn't make a difference if the rider is a sprinter or not. I know Gilbert won al those 2nd tier classics and some stages but so did Boonen in 2005. Still his results in the biggest races of the season are better.

Reminds me of Mollema this tour who immediately chose his tour stage above his CSS win last year.
Strade Bianche that year was a 1.1 race and can't be compared to the prestige it now has.
Common sense as well? :confused: I don't think so.

If a sprinter wins 10-15 races, that's not something extraordinary. But if a classic specialist, puncheur, wins it, that's huge. Take this year's Tour as an example. Kittel won 5 stages, and had an opportunity in at least 3-4 more. And how many opportunities had classic specialists, or climbers? 2-3 at most. That's a huge disadvantage already. It's the same in other stage races. Sprinters always have advantage when it comes to number of stages suited for them. It's not coincidence then that sprinters have highest number of wins in current peloton, Cavendish and Greipel have 140-150 wins on their palmares. Gilbert has around 70, Van Avermaet only 30, Kwiatkowski even less. Freaking Cancellara had around 90, including many TT's. Only freaks of nature like Sagan or Valverde can come close to sprinters, cause they win everywhere. Even Boonen himself said about Valverde how unbelievable thing is that he can win 15 races a year, while not being a sprinter!
Yeah sure, but in the end the palmares stays the same. I think a puncheur like Gilbert 2011 has more opportunities in the biggest one day classics than a sprinter. I mean a season of a puncheur/classics specialist with the same victories as a sprinter isn't better just because he is a different type of rider.
 
Re:

Durden93 said:
I find it hard to understand how the Ardennes triple could be rated more highly than Roubaix-Flanders+ WC

Roubaix> Liege
Worlds> Amstel
Flanders> Fleche

I get that doing those 3 in a row is impressive, but there's just one week between Roubaix and Flanders. I know that Gilbert had other wins, but so did Boonen (E3). I think if Boonen's season was more recent it'd be much more highly regarded.
It's only top of the ice berg. You should list all wins and significant results if you want to compare seasons. Boonen's 3 biggest wins certainly worth more than Gilbert's, but it's not complete story, far from it.

Gilbert - 18 wins:
Liege
Amstel
Fleche
TDF stage
San Sebastian
Quebec
Tirreno stage
Eneco stage
Strade Bianche
Brabantse Pijl
GP de Wallonie
Nationals RR
Nationals ITT
Ronde van Belgie GC + stage
Ster ZLM Tour + stage
Algarve stage
3rd Milan-San Remo
8th Lombardia
9th Ronde
2nd Eneco Tour GC
9th Tirreno GC
3rd Montreal


Boonen - 14 wins:
Worlds RR
Ronde
Roubaix
2 TDF stages
2 Paris-Nice stages
E3 Harelbeke
Ronde van Belgie GC + 2 stages
2 Tour of Qatar stages
Tour of Picardie stage
8th Milan-San Remo
2nd Het Volk

I would take Gilbert's season any day!
 
One thing that's being overlooked in Wiggins' 2012 season is that he won every single ITT>10 kms he rode the whole season. Every single one. There were plenty of guys who focused solely on ITT and Wiggins, who trained with intention of being good enough in the mountains to win TdF, beat all of those guys on every single occasion. And that was only in process of winning things much bigger than those ITTs. That's more impressive than one might have initially thought.
 
Re:

Anderis said:
One thing that's being overlooked in Wiggins' 2012 season is that he won every single ITT>10 kms he rode the whole season. Every single one. There were plenty of guys who focused solely on ITT and Wiggins, who trained with intention of being good enough in the mountains to win TdF, beat all of those guys on every single occasion. And that was only in process of winning things much bigger than those ITTs. That's more impressive than one might have initially thought.
He did nothing but sit on his train for the rest of the year (except winning a reduced sprint in Romandie, how'd that happen again?). His climbing was vulnerable except he had an insanely strong team, very weak opposition, very weak and TT favoured parcourses and very weak opposition.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS