- Aug 6, 2010
- 6,884
- 6,216
- 23,180
Re: Re:
[/quote]You do realize that the winner of a race is not a good indicator of the quality of the field, right? A small shitty race can have nothing but big winners, but that doesn't make the field as good as the Tour. There are more riders in a GT than only the winner.
If you win the Tour you'll be remembered for years to come and you'll make serious bank... If you win the Vuelta, and just the Vuelta, not so much... The Vuelta is the least prestigious Grand Tour and it will remain that way.[/quote]
Some very interesting and amusing off-topic conversation on this thread.
BTW, I voted for Nibali, though I would say that Valverde has been the better rider....so far. Nibali might have a few extra years in him.
The point about Valverde having a better palmares - or not - then Boonen and Cancellara. Hard to compare, but I'd put him ahead of Boonen and behind Cancellara. I think that these two pretty much even themselves out in one day races, but Fabian's record as a regular world champion in the ITT (plus regular ITT victories in stage races) puts him well ahead of Boonen, and a little ahead of Valverde.
Froome has podiumed in 4 GT's, not 3, as has been stated. Pretty sure he was 3rd (and may have finished higher if not held back by his team) in the 2011 Vuelta. So two victories in the TDF plus a 2nd place, and a 3rd at the Vuelta. Yep, that ranks a fair bit higher than Valverde's GT GC record.
I think there is too much emphasis being placed on GT stage victories too. They can be special for a sprinter or stage hunter, but for GC riders they almost come about sometimes by accident; by virtue of trying to better their standing in the GC. Of course some stages have been gifted also.
As much as has been discussed about Nibali's luck in winning GT's, the truth is that you can never be all that lucky to win a GT; at least not as lucky as you can be a one day race. You would have had one day races where the winner was not even amongst the ten strongest riders, yet won due to a combination of good tactics and being let off the leash by the peloton. Cobo and Horner's Vuelta victories came as big surprises, but over those three weeks those guys were unarguably strong. Even Oscar was amongst the top ten strongest riders in the alps in '06.
Hence I feel that too much credence is given to a one day victory, particularly at the world championships. If you can win despite being clearly not the best (or strongest), then how can a single world championship road race gold medal be valued higher than six minor medals. In this instance Valverde is incredible. He is great for having been on the podium so many times, rather than a disappointment for not having ever won it (even if for sure he would personally be disappointed that he hasn't taken gold).
Personally I don't rate the WC road race (not the ITT, strongest generally wins, and this discipline doesn't get as many opportunities to shine as brightly during the season) as highly as most. We already have 5 monuments, plus numerous other 'classics', EVERY year. Isn't also having a WCRR over doing it? To me it is a little bit like having tennis in the olympics. Players already have 4 grand slams a year to prove their greatness. They don't need the olympics.
As far as an extra special one day race goes, cycling already has the ORR every four years. As well as all of that, how many riders specifically target their season around the WCRR? Some set themselves for it, but most attend it already tired after a long season where their main objective has already been achieved (or not). Sure, when they're on the startline, and considering that there is a gold medal (and others) on the line, they really want to do well, but I'm not sure that this differs too much to the Vuelta, which of course also comes as an afterthought in a way to some riders; a bonus on top of what they have achieved at the Giro or Tour.
Because of that it has always puzzled me as to why lesser GT GC riders don't specifically target the Vuelta? It's still a GT and still prestigious. Some riders who have never won a GT could have won two or three Vuelta's if they had targeted it. Don't target it every season (as no rider wants to never give the Tour, and in some cases the Giro a good shot), but if you had a ten year career at the top, you could target the Vuelta for half of those seasons. Think of the season the 6-10th best GC stage racer in the world could have? They could hit a mini peak in March and podium either P-N or T-A. They could appease the team and the sponsors by riding the Giro, where they target a stage win, and act as a domestique, finishing an hour plus behind in the standings. This would actually leave them in decent form for a shot at victory in the Tour De Suisse. After which they rest up in July, and enter the Vuelta fresher than anyone else. Add in a good result or two in the Ardennes pre Giro, and you have a potentially very successful season.
Getting back to Valverde in GT's versus other riders. Evans has to be ahead of him. In the TDF he had a 1st, 2nd (twice), 4th (or 5th) and an 8th. Plus a 3rd and a 5th at the Giro, and a 3rd (I think) at the Vuelta. That's well ahead of Valverde.
Sastre is ahead of him too. Plenty of podiums plus the Tour victory. Didn't he also have a record number of GT top ten finishers?
Schleck is closer. Three 2nd's at the Tour and a 2nd at the Giro. His ceiling is higher than Valverde's. But did he have enough decent finishers? I'm going to give the edge to Valverde here.
Good point - whoever it was - about Valverde mainly winning his only GT (the '09 Vuelta) due to being well rested throughout that season due to his ban.
[/quote]You do realize that the winner of a race is not a good indicator of the quality of the field, right? A small shitty race can have nothing but big winners, but that doesn't make the field as good as the Tour. There are more riders in a GT than only the winner.
If you win the Tour you'll be remembered for years to come and you'll make serious bank... If you win the Vuelta, and just the Vuelta, not so much... The Vuelta is the least prestigious Grand Tour and it will remain that way.[/quote]
Some very interesting and amusing off-topic conversation on this thread.
BTW, I voted for Nibali, though I would say that Valverde has been the better rider....so far. Nibali might have a few extra years in him.
The point about Valverde having a better palmares - or not - then Boonen and Cancellara. Hard to compare, but I'd put him ahead of Boonen and behind Cancellara. I think that these two pretty much even themselves out in one day races, but Fabian's record as a regular world champion in the ITT (plus regular ITT victories in stage races) puts him well ahead of Boonen, and a little ahead of Valverde.
Froome has podiumed in 4 GT's, not 3, as has been stated. Pretty sure he was 3rd (and may have finished higher if not held back by his team) in the 2011 Vuelta. So two victories in the TDF plus a 2nd place, and a 3rd at the Vuelta. Yep, that ranks a fair bit higher than Valverde's GT GC record.
I think there is too much emphasis being placed on GT stage victories too. They can be special for a sprinter or stage hunter, but for GC riders they almost come about sometimes by accident; by virtue of trying to better their standing in the GC. Of course some stages have been gifted also.
As much as has been discussed about Nibali's luck in winning GT's, the truth is that you can never be all that lucky to win a GT; at least not as lucky as you can be a one day race. You would have had one day races where the winner was not even amongst the ten strongest riders, yet won due to a combination of good tactics and being let off the leash by the peloton. Cobo and Horner's Vuelta victories came as big surprises, but over those three weeks those guys were unarguably strong. Even Oscar was amongst the top ten strongest riders in the alps in '06.
Hence I feel that too much credence is given to a one day victory, particularly at the world championships. If you can win despite being clearly not the best (or strongest), then how can a single world championship road race gold medal be valued higher than six minor medals. In this instance Valverde is incredible. He is great for having been on the podium so many times, rather than a disappointment for not having ever won it (even if for sure he would personally be disappointed that he hasn't taken gold).
Personally I don't rate the WC road race (not the ITT, strongest generally wins, and this discipline doesn't get as many opportunities to shine as brightly during the season) as highly as most. We already have 5 monuments, plus numerous other 'classics', EVERY year. Isn't also having a WCRR over doing it? To me it is a little bit like having tennis in the olympics. Players already have 4 grand slams a year to prove their greatness. They don't need the olympics.
As far as an extra special one day race goes, cycling already has the ORR every four years. As well as all of that, how many riders specifically target their season around the WCRR? Some set themselves for it, but most attend it already tired after a long season where their main objective has already been achieved (or not). Sure, when they're on the startline, and considering that there is a gold medal (and others) on the line, they really want to do well, but I'm not sure that this differs too much to the Vuelta, which of course also comes as an afterthought in a way to some riders; a bonus on top of what they have achieved at the Giro or Tour.
Because of that it has always puzzled me as to why lesser GT GC riders don't specifically target the Vuelta? It's still a GT and still prestigious. Some riders who have never won a GT could have won two or three Vuelta's if they had targeted it. Don't target it every season (as no rider wants to never give the Tour, and in some cases the Giro a good shot), but if you had a ten year career at the top, you could target the Vuelta for half of those seasons. Think of the season the 6-10th best GC stage racer in the world could have? They could hit a mini peak in March and podium either P-N or T-A. They could appease the team and the sponsors by riding the Giro, where they target a stage win, and act as a domestique, finishing an hour plus behind in the standings. This would actually leave them in decent form for a shot at victory in the Tour De Suisse. After which they rest up in July, and enter the Vuelta fresher than anyone else. Add in a good result or two in the Ardennes pre Giro, and you have a potentially very successful season.
Getting back to Valverde in GT's versus other riders. Evans has to be ahead of him. In the TDF he had a 1st, 2nd (twice), 4th (or 5th) and an 8th. Plus a 3rd and a 5th at the Giro, and a 3rd (I think) at the Vuelta. That's well ahead of Valverde.
Sastre is ahead of him too. Plenty of podiums plus the Tour victory. Didn't he also have a record number of GT top ten finishers?
Schleck is closer. Three 2nd's at the Tour and a 2nd at the Giro. His ceiling is higher than Valverde's. But did he have enough decent finishers? I'm going to give the edge to Valverde here.
Good point - whoever it was - about Valverde mainly winning his only GT (the '09 Vuelta) due to being well rested throughout that season due to his ban.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram