Who had the best season in the last 20 years?

[DFA123]

Re:

In the last 15 or so years I've watched it has to be Gilbert 2011.

Yep, I think you've hit the nail on the head there as well with the word 'watch'. You probably had to actually watch Gilbert's season to appreciate the dominance and just how impressive he was for most of the year. Browsing through the results on Wikipedia doesn't do it justice. In much the same way the palmares alone massively over-rates how impressive Wiggins was in 2012.

 

[Leinster]

I know it's hard to compare classics specialists with GT riders and all that, but if we have 2 Grand Rour doubles in the last 20 years, then surely any classics riders must have at least 2 monument wins in a season to compete. At a stretch, 1 Monument plus Worlds. Including 2nd tier classics means we would have to consider Froome's wins in Romandie and Dauphine to go with his Tour wins, when you would look at those seasons honestly and say what he really did was warm up for the Tour, and then win the Tour.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

I know it's hard to compare classics specialists with GT riders and all that, but if we have 2 Grand Rour doubles in the last 20 years, then surely any classics riders must have at least 2 monument wins in a season to compete. At a stretch, 1 Monument plus Worlds. Including 2nd tier classics means we would have to consider Froome's wins in Romandie and Dauphine to go with his Tour wins, when you would look at those seasons honestly and say what he really did was warm up for the Tour, and then win the Tour.

Seems a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. Surely an Ardennes triple is a bigger achievement than, for example, a pure sprinter winning MSR and a flat worlds? It's no easier to win Fleche or Amstel than it is LBL. The top riders are all there on top form.

 

[Leinster]

Re: Re:

I know it's hard to compare classics specialists with GT riders and all that, but if we have 2 Grand Rour doubles in the last 20 years, then surely any classics riders must have at least 2 monument wins in a season to compete. At a stretch, 1 Monument plus Worlds. Including 2nd tier classics means we would have to consider Froome's wins in Romandie and Dauphine to go with his Tour wins, when you would look at those seasons honestly and say what he really did was warm up for the Tour, and then win the Tour.

Seems a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. Surely an Ardennes triple is a bigger achievement than, for example, a pure sprinter winning MSR and a flat worlds? It's no easier to win Fleche or Amstel than it is LBL. The top riders are all there on top form.

Yes and no? As hard as the others are to win, Liege is still the big one. Fleche and to a lesser extent Amstel is the Dauphine by comparison; also hard to win, but 90% of those on the start line have eyes looking up the road.

MSR and a flat Worlds is no harder/easier than LBL or Lombardia and a hilly Worlds.

If we had any Monument/GT doubles in recent memory, that would be well up there. Fignon (MSR/Giro) and Lemond (Tour/Worlds) in 89 are the 2 most recent on that iirc? Nibali (Lombardia in 15, Giro in 16) nearly counts.

 

[Netserk]

Cunego '04, Di Luca '07^^

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Cunego '04, Di Luca '07^^

Piepoli '07 was the man...

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

I know it's hard to compare classics specialists with GT riders and all that, but if we have 2 Grand Rour doubles in the last 20 years, then surely any classics riders must have at least 2 monument wins in a season to compete. At a stretch, 1 Monument plus Worlds. Including 2nd tier classics means we would have to consider Froome's wins in Romandie and Dauphine to go with his Tour wins, when you would look at those seasons honestly and say what he really did was warm up for the Tour, and then win the Tour.

Seems a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. Surely an Ardennes triple is a bigger achievement than, for example, a pure sprinter winning MSR and a flat worlds? It's no easier to win Fleche or Amstel than it is LBL. The top riders are all there on top form.

Yes and no? As hard as the others are to win, Liege is still the big one. Fleche and to a lesser extent Amstel is the Dauphine by comparison; also hard to win, but 90% of those on the start line have eyes looking up the road.

MSR and a flat Worlds is no harder/easier than LBL or Lombardia and a hilly Worlds.

If we had any Monument/GT doubles in recent memory, that would be well up there. Fignon (MSR/Giro) and Lemond (Tour/Worlds) in 89 are the 2 most recent on that iirc? Nibali (Lombardia in 15, Giro in 16) nearly counts.

The hilly classics riders who have one eye up the road at LBL when they are riding Flèche are the ones who aren't the very strongest. LBL is won by one of the ten strongest. Flèche is won by one of the three strongest. You can win LBL by being very strong and very clever. You win Flèche by being a beast and it doesn't matter if you are dumb as a brick.

The podium at Flèche that year is usually the quickest way to see who the best climber-puncheurs were.

 

[staubsauger]

1.Pantani 98
2. Gilbert 11
3. Cunego 04
IMHO!

 

[chiocciolis_calves]

Jaja's 1995 season deserves mention on here, unless we're being sticklers about precisely 20 years.

 

[Leinster]

Re: Re:

l

The hilly classics riders who have one eye up the road at LBL when they are riding Flèche are the ones who aren't the very strongest. LBL is won by one of the ten strongest. Flèche is won by one of the three strongest. You can win LBL by being very strong and very clever. You win Flèche by being a beast and it doesn't matter if you are dumb as a brick.

The podium at Flèche that year is usually the quickest way to see who the best climber-puncheurs were.

The winner of Flèche is the guy who is best positioned and rested for the last 400m of the Muur. You can be the strongest for 199.5km in Flèche and still finish 28th.

LBL at least demands some slightly more sophisticated tactics. But if you're in the strongest 10 on the day, you'll usually finish in or near the top 10.

 

[Alexandre B.]

Re: Re:

I know it's hard to compare classics specialists with GT riders and all that, but if we have 2 Grand Rour doubles in the last 20 years, then surely any classics riders must have at least 2 monument wins in a season to compete. At a stretch, 1 Monument plus Worlds. Including 2nd tier classics means we would have to consider Froome's wins in Romandie and Dauphine to go with his Tour wins, when you would look at those seasons honestly and say what he really did was warm up for the Tour, and then win the Tour.

Seems a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. Surely an Ardennes triple is a bigger achievement than, for example, a pure sprinter winning MSR and a flat worlds? It's no easier to win Fleche or Amstel than it is LBL. The top riders are all there on top form.

Yes and no? As hard as the others are to win, Liege is still the big one. Fleche and to a lesser extent Amstel is the Dauphine by comparison; also hard to win, but 90% of those on the start line have eyes looking up the road.

MSR and a flat Worlds is no harder/easier than LBL or Lombardia and a hilly Worlds.

If we had any Monument/GT doubles in recent memory, that would be well up there. Fignon (MSR/Giro) and Lemond (Tour/Worlds) in 89 are the 2 most recent on that iirc? Nibali (Lombardia in 15, Giro in 16) nearly counts.

The hilly classics riders who have one eye up the road at LBL when they are riding Flèche are the ones who aren't the very strongest. LBL is won by one of the ten strongest. Flèche is won by one of the three strongest. You can win LBL by being very strong and very clever. You win Flèche by being a beast and it doesn't matter if you are dumb as a brick.

Carlos Betancur wants a word with you.

 

[rghysens]

Re: Re:

If we had any Monument/GT doubles in recent memory, that would be well up there. Fignon (MSR/Giro) and Lemond (Tour/Worlds) in 89 are the 2 most recent on that iirc? Nibali (Lombardia in 15, Giro in 16) nearly counts.

Well, Cunego won the Giro + Lombardia in 2004 and Jalabert Vuelta (including points, mountains and 5 stages) + MSR in1995 (+ paris-Nice, Fleche Wallone, points classification and the legendary Mende stage in the tour)

 

[AnatoleNovak]

Re:

Jaja's 1995 season deserves mention on here, unless we're being sticklers about precisely 20 years.

If we include 1995, the thread is closed (but we don't )

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

I know it's hard to compare classics specialists with GT riders and all that, but if we have 2 Grand Rour doubles in the last 20 years, then surely any classics riders must have at least 2 monument wins in a season to compete. At a stretch, 1 Monument plus Worlds. Including 2nd tier classics means we would have to consider Froome's wins in Romandie and Dauphine to go with his Tour wins, when you would look at those seasons honestly and say what he really did was warm up for the Tour, and then win the Tour.

Seems a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. Surely an Ardennes triple is a bigger achievement than, for example, a pure sprinter winning MSR and a flat worlds? It's no easier to win Fleche or Amstel than it is LBL. The top riders are all there on top form.

Yes and no? As hard as the others are to win, Liege is still the big one. Fleche and to a lesser extent Amstel is the Dauphine by comparison; also hard to win, but 90% of those on the start line have eyes looking up the road.

MSR and a flat Worlds is no harder/easier than LBL or Lombardia and a hilly Worlds.

If we had any Monument/GT doubles in recent memory, that would be well up there. Fignon (MSR/Giro) and Lemond (Tour/Worlds) in 89 are the 2 most recent on that iirc? Nibali (Lombardia in 15, Giro in 16) nearly counts.

I think that's right about Lombardia + Hilly Worlds combination, largely because riders can do both races in he same peak and Lombardia is a relatively low quality field compared with the other monuments anyway.

Not LBL and worlds though - that's one of the toughest doubles in the sport. When was the last time someone did it in the same season? (Maybe Argentin some time in the 80s?). Both a hilly worlds and LBL are so hard to control most of the time, that a rider needs to be incredibly dominant, or extremely lucky to win both. Flat worlds are much easier for a sprinter to win.

 

[Echoes]

A flat Worlds would usually mean a bunch sprint Worlds these days. That means Worlds in which the eventual winner had sucked wheels for at least the last 100km. Such were 2002, 2005, 2012, 2016. Not talking about editions in which the eventual winner only made a real effort with 3k to go such as 2015.

When you compare that to the ITT Worlds in which every contender have to make a 50+ km solo effort, it pales in comparison. You cannot draft wheels in ITT. You cannot cheat.

That's why Fabian Cancellara is the greatest rider of the century and his 2010 season is the greatest of all.

 

[Netserk]

So Indurain is the greatest rider ever then?

 

[Gigs_98]

A flat Worlds would usually mean a bunch sprint Worlds these days. That means Worlds in which the eventual winner had sucked wheels for at least the last 100km. Such were 2002, 2005, 2012, 2016. Not talking about editions in which the eventual winner only made a real effort with 3k to go such as 2015.

When you compare that to the ITT Worlds in which every contender have to make a 50+ km solo effort, it pales in comparison. You cannot draft wheels in ITT. You cannot cheat.

That's why Fabian Cancellara is the greatest rider of the century and his 2010 season is the greatest of all.

I don't think a WC title in which you attack shortly before the finish like 2012 or 2015 is worth less than a WC title like in 2014 but I accept the opinion. But do you seriously consider drafting cheating?

 

[Netserk]

Rui Costa also only attacked near the very end...

 

[tobydawq]

A flat Worlds would usually mean a bunch sprint Worlds these days. That means Worlds in which the eventual winner had sucked wheels for at least the last 100km. Such were 2002, 2005, 2012, 2016. Not talking about editions in which the eventual winner only made a real effort with 3k to go such as 2015.

When you compare that to the ITT Worlds in which every contender have to make a 50+ km solo effort, it pales in comparison. You cannot draft wheels in ITT. You cannot cheat.

That's why Fabian Cancellara is the greatest rider of the century and his 2010 season is the greatest of all.

Oh, dear. Maybe you would be better off following running, rowing or swimming then.

Drafting is what makes bike racing worth watching and unique amongst endurance sports.

And how very convenient that Sagan's two titles could be thwarted in the process - even if his last came in a season that garnered the highest ever sum of CQ-points (since 1999 when they have existed) and in which he was flying throughout and riding very little like what you criticise above.

But of course, when he rides non-draftingly and aggressively, he is just showing off... Good god.

 

[Blanco]

Re: Re:

l

The hilly classics riders who have one eye up the road at LBL when they are riding Flèche are the ones who aren't the very strongest. LBL is won by one of the ten strongest. Flèche is won by one of the three strongest. You can win LBL by being very strong and very clever. You win Flèche by being a beast and it doesn't matter if you are dumb as a brick.

The podium at Flèche that year is usually the quickest way to see who the best climber-puncheurs were.

The winner of Flèche is the guy who is best positioned and rested for the last 400m of the Muur. You can be the strongest for 199.5km in Flèche and still finish 28th.

LBL at least demands some slightly more sophisticated tactics. But if you're in the strongest 10 on the day, you'll usually finish in or near the top 10.

To win Fleche, you need to be strongest rider in a 3min uphill effort, and that's it. It helps if you save strength for the last effort, of course. So the strongest riders for that kind of finish always prevail in that race, and most often the strongest one wins indeed. Of the last couple of editions I remember only Betancur who looked mighty strong that mistimed his effort and maybe he could've won otherwise. So to conclude, you can't be the strongest guy in Fleche and finish 28th! You'll end up in top 3 very likely...

 

[Blanco]

Re:

So Indurain is the greatest rider ever then?

And Mick Rogers and Bert Grabsch are great riders

 

[Blanco]

Re:

Jaja's 1995 season deserves mention on here, unless we're being sticklers about precisely 20 years.

That season tops all mentioned in this thread easily. That's why I think we have this 20 years mark.

 

[Arredondo]

Why not putting Valverde 2009 in it? The strange thing about his season back then, was the fact he was totally off during the classics (where he normally nets his most impressive results)

But Catalunya + Dauphine + Vuelta is pretty impressive too.

But also Purito 2012 season should be up there.

And why the heck is Zabel 2001 in that list? I mean, winning the green jersey + MSR is good, but not that impressive. All those stage wins doesn't mean anything when you're a good sprinter. The following season's i find more impressive really:

- VDB 1999 season
- Botero 2002 season
- Van Petegem 2003 season
- Rebellin 2004 season
- Cunego 2004 season
- Di Luca 2005 season
- Cancellara 2010 season
- Evans 2010 and 2011 season

 

[GuyIncognito]

Re:

Why not putting Valverde 2009 in it? The strange thing about his season back then, was the fact he was totally off during the classics (where he normally nets his most impressive results)

It was deliberate. Unzue wanted to see if Valverde's 2007 and 2008 Tours were caused by being too tired, so he was deliberately instructed to not have good form until June. Then he wasn't allowed at the Tour either.

One of the main reasons he won the Vuelta. He'd spent all season not peaking.

 

[Echoes]

I don't think a WC title in which you attack shortly before the finish like 2012 or 2015 is worth less than a WC title like in 2014 but I accept the opinion. But do you seriously consider drafting cheating?

Correction of my mistake I was a little mixed up. 2012 was Valkenburg, a hard route, though a late attack by Gilbert. I meant Copenhagen, so 2011.

As always I'm referring to an interview of Charly Mottet who was asked whether the 1988 Tour of Lombardy was the greatest moment of his career. God knows I love the classics and the Tour of Lombardy in particular but he answered:

Non, celle au Grand Prix des Nations. La Lombardie, c'était fort aussi, mais c'est différent. Les Nations, c'était 90 kilomètres. C'est la performance athlétique à l'état pur. On ne peut pas tricher, feinter, rester dans les roues. C'était le Championnat du monde des rouleurs.

http://www.eurosport.fr/cyclisme/tour-de-france/2013/charly-mottet-quatrieme-du-tour-les-gens-s-en-foutent_sto3839482/story.shtml

"No, it's the one at the GP des Nations. Lombardy was also something very strong but it's different. The Nations, it was 90km. It's athletic performance at its finest. You cannot cheat, fake or stay in the wheels. It was the World Championship for rouleurs. "

I'm wondering if those who throw sarcasm at me - as usual -, would dare to do the same with the great Charly Mottet!