Who has the best palmares: Valverde vs. Nibali

[RedheadDane]

If you combined the two Schlecks that rider definitely would have had a better career with Andy’s talent and Frank’s work ethic.

I might mostly be against cloning riders. But I'm also against combining riders into one being!

 

[Hugo Koblet]

The whole "Valverde rides for second place"-thing I don't really get. If he wasn't such a prolific winner, I could understand it but he's one of the most winning riders of this generation (if not the most winning rider, I'm not sure).

Just take a look:

Valverde:
135 wins and 100 second places in 1352 racedays

Nibali:
59 wins and 35 second places in 1324 racedays

Basically, compared to Valverde, Nibali has just swapped 76 wins and 65 second places for random 67th or 119th places. You can make all the fun of Valverde's 100 second places you want, but I'd much prefer 100 second places over 35 second places and 65 [insert random number] places.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I might mostly be against cloning riders. But I'm also against combining riders into one being!

Frandy would have been unstoppable though.

 

[gregrowlerson]

The whole "Valverde rides for second place"-thing I don't really get. If he wasn't such a prolific winner, I could understand it but he's one of the most winning riders of this generation (if not the most winning rider, I'm not sure).

Just take a look:

Valverde:
135 wins and 100 second places in 1352 racedays

Nibali:
59 wins and 35 second places in 1324 racedays

Basically, compared to Valverde, Nibali has just swapped 76 wins and 65 second places for random 67th or 119th places. You can make all the fun of Valverde's 100 second places you want, but I'd much prefer 100 second places over 35 second places and 65 [insert random number] places.

Nibali might have got Valverde beat for those 67th and 119th places, but I reckon Froome has them both beaten combined.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Frandy would have been unstoppable though.

Sounds like a drink of choice for an ill advised night out on the town.

 

[RedheadDane]

Frandy would have been unstoppable though.

Or Ank.
Or maybe that would have been the "bad version"...

 

[SHAD0W93]

Sounds like a drink of choice for an ill advised night out on the town.

To go along with their ill advised combining like this is Dragon Ball Z.

Or Ank.
Or maybe that would have been the "bad version"...

yeah we don’t talk about Ank. People joke about the red headed step child, till they meet Ank and realize there is worse.

 

[RedheadDane]

yeah we don’t talk about Ank. People joke about the red headed step child, till they meet Ank and realize there is worse.

Maybe Ank is the redheaded stepchild!

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Maybe Ank is the redheaded stepchild!

Ask @sir fly, he knows every member of the Schleck family.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Maybe Ank is the redheaded stepchild!

Ank is like Gollum.

 

[gunara]

If only one could see Valverde as the less trolling version of the Laporte joke, he's so generous he refused to be aggressive when needed.

Maybe Nibali's palmares objectively outweighs his, but when they both retire and I live long enough, when my grandkids ask me which one is better, I will think of them and from memory I'll get to that same conclusion with some of you here: not even close.

He's a freak of nature, those easy Ardennes wins, the 2017 sweeps, the whole year long consistency, the number of wins...

Side question: how much more/less would Valverde have won if he raced like Nibali with that talent?

 

[Red Rick]

The whole "Valverde rides for second place"-thing I don't really get. If he wasn't such a prolific winner, I could understand it but he's one of the most winning riders of this generation (if not the most winning rider, I'm not sure).

Just take a look:

Valverde:
135 wins and 100 second places in 1352 racedays

Nibali:
59 wins and 35 second places in 1324 racedays

Basically, compared to Valverde, Nibali has just swapped 76 wins and 65 second places for random 67th or 119th places. You can make all the fun of Valverde's 100 second places you want, but I'd much prefer 100 second places over 35 second places and 65 [insert random number] places.

Its because Valverde loves riding for 2nd place so much in big races. Winning smaller races doesnt change that.

Valverde isnt a more prolific winner at the monument and GT level. Even in GT stages, the smallest typebof races I would consider significant, Valverde only has one more, and he won 75% of his GT stages at the Vuelta.

If I put Cavendish in a top5 of the century so far, people will have a meltdown. Quantity isnt that important.

 

[SHAD0W93]

If I put Cavendish in a top5 of the century so far, people will have a meltdown. Quantity isnt that important.

I’d allow your bravery

 

[Red Rick]

I’d allow your bravery

Cav at least was a pony whos one trick was the best of all time. That alone makes him a bit hard to judge

But lets say we take a Cancellara vs Boonen topic I doubt many really care Boonen had 40 more wins

 

[SHAD0W93]

Cav at least was a pony whos one trick was the best of all time. That alone makes him a bit hard to judge

But lets say we take a Cancellara vs Boonen topic I doubt many really care Boonen had 40 more wins

40 more wins is 40 more wins though when they both have similar high end success with a big difference is Cancellara’s TT success at World and Olympics.

 

[Salvarani]

Valverde has always been the most naturally gifted out of the two, but has never been the rider that worked the hardest. Neither in races or even in training. It has obviously worked great for him and maybe he wouldnt be as good or had the long career he has had, if he had done it any other way.

He has won many races but maybe he could have won even more if he rode a little bit more aggressive and took some risks at key moments. Maybe he wouldnt have had as many podiums or great placings, but maybe a few more wins. Wins in the races that matters the most, counts more at the end of the day. Thats just how it is.

A majority of his wins has come in smaller races and during a part of his career when the best GC riders didnt target a lot of the one-week races and some lower level one-day races. He has always been good early in the season and won many of those races. Not to say anything is wrong with that, because it is an achievement to always be in good shape and being able to win races, but perhaps some of them were against pretty weak fields and against riders in not very good form. He just never needed much preparation, which goes back to his natural talent. He has always been at a very high level, but could he have reached even more success with actually targeting or preparing "properly" for certain races? Would he had more great wins? Monuments. GTs. Etc.

Maybe doing it differently, he wouldnt become the Valverde we know though. The way he has always ridden has been a part of his identity. His loyalty to the Movistar team staying with them for the whole of his career. Not many riders has stayed at one team for the whole time of their career. They were never really one of the strongest teams and that is something to also take not of. A lot of it has been centered around Valverde. Good and bad.

Then you have Nibali who maybe was never the best rider but more of a hard worker, that has gotten the most out of his ability. Not by just being lucky but perhaps being an overachiever. Taking risks, always fighting hard and never giving up. Even when he was far behind he came back from adversity to be the one standing on top at the end of races. Pulling of great achievements, when nobody thought he could win. Which says a lot about his character.

There are many things to admire about the both of them. I think Nibali has ended up with best palmares and some his biggest wins are more memorable to me, than those many of Valverde.

If the question is "who has the best palmares?". Then it is Nibali, with the GTs and the monuments.

If the conversation is "who was the most talented and the best rider?". Then it is Valverde.

 

[roundabout]

Valverde was at Kelme for the first 3 years of his career.

 

[Netserk]

I like the simplicity of this, but it's a bit more nuanced than that. I like only counting WT-races though. Nothing else really matters at this level.

Nibali:
1 Tour + 6 stages
2 Giro + 7 stages
1 Vuelta + 2 stages
2 Lombardia
1 Milan-Sanremo
2 Tirreno-Adriatico

Valverde:
1 Vuelta + 12 stages
1 Worlds
4 Liege-Bastogne-Liege
5 Fleche-Wallone
2 San Sebastian
3 Catalunya
2 Dauphine
1 Basque Country
4 Tour stages
1 Giro stage

But then there's just some other stuff that also has an impact, like Nibali being one of only 6 riders to win all three Grand Tours, the longevity, number of wins and not least ranking points of Valverde's career. I find it hard to choose, actually. In some weird way I think that Nibali has the best palmares, but Valverde is more legendary even though it doesn't make sense.

I don't think how they each have raced and won their races count or matter at all. They both rode to their strengths and I don't see why a race won on one fashion should be worth more than a race won in another fashion.

You're leaving out Nibali's first PT/WT win.

 

[Scarponi]

Nibali didn’t really win many lead up stage races, surprised tbh

 

[sir fly]

Ask @sir fly, he knows every member of the Schleck family.

Dunno about Ank, but RhD and me are relatives.

 

[RedheadDane]

Dunno about Ank, but RhD and me are relatives.

That's news to me.

 

[SHAD0W93]

That's news to me.

Maybe if you weren’t worried about the multi nationality of a rider you’d know your own cousin. :’(

 

[Red Rick]

Valverde has always been the most naturally gifted out of the two, but has never been the rider that worked the hardest. Neither in races or even in training. It has obviously worked great for him and maybe he wouldnt be as good or had the long career he has had, if he had done it any other way.

He has won many races but maybe he could have won even more if he rode a little bit more aggressive and took some risks at key moments. Maybe he wouldnt have had as many podiums or great placings, but maybe a few more wins. Wins in the races that matters the most, counts more at the end of the day. Thats just how it is.

A majority of his wins has come in smaller races and during a part of his career when the best GC riders didnt target a lot of the one-week races and some lower level one-day races. He has always been good early in the season and won many of those races. Not to say anything is wrong with that, because it is an achievement to always be in good shape and being able to win races, but perhaps some of them were against pretty weak fields and against riders in not very good form. He just never needed much preparation, which goes back to his natural talent. He has always been at a very high level, but could he have reached even more success with actually targeting or preparing "properly" for certain races? Would he had more great wins? Monuments. GTs. Etc.

Maybe doing it differently, he wouldnt become the Valverde we know though. The way he has always ridden has been a part of his identity. His loyalty to the Movistar team staying with them for the whole of his career. Not many riders has stayed at one team for the whole time of their career. They were never really one of the strongest teams and that is something to also take not of. A lot of it has been centered around Valverde. Good and bad.

Then you have Nibali who maybe was never the best rider but more of a hard worker, that has gotten the most out of his ability. Not by just being lucky but perhaps being an overachiever. Taking risks, always fighting hard and never giving up. Even when he was far behind he came back from adversity to be the one standing on top at the end of races. Pulling of great achievements, when nobody thought he could win. Which says a lot about his character.

There are many things to admire about the both of them. I think Nibali has ended up with best palmares and some his biggest wins are more memorable to me, than those many of Valverde.

If the question is "who has the best palmares?". Then it is Nibali, with the GTs and the monuments.

If the conversation is "who was the most talented and the best rider?". Then it is Valverde.

How do you define talent though. Id say thats mostly defined by peak performance rather tham consistency, and I would pick Nibalis peak any day

 

[sir fly]

That's news to me.

Only recently I've realized.

 

[Salvarani]

How do you define talent though. Id say thats mostly defined by peak performance rather tham consistency, and I would pick Nibalis peak any day

I think we are discussing different things.