Who has the best palmares: Valverde vs. Nibali

[SafeBet]

Im trying to figure out if theres other riders for who consistency alone is rated so highly or if its just something that only seems to apply to Valverde

Is there any other rider staying at the top of the sport for so long?

 

[Red Rick]

Is there any other rider staying at the top of the sport for so long?

Thats longevity, not consistency. For which the same thing applies.

 

[tobydawq]

Im trying to figure out if theres other riders for who consistency alone is rated so highly or if its just something that only seems to apply to Valverde

No surprise you again want to go out of your way to belittle him because somebody dare mention him in the same bracket as your precious Nibali.

Of course the longevity only applies to him, show me another rider to have been a top 10 rider for 17 different seasons.

Although, I will say that I think Rolf Sørensen's 25 monument top 10s is quite cool too, the first coming in 1986, the last in 2002.

 

[tobydawq]

Okay, I now see you make a distinction between longevity and consistency.

Then I would say yes.

 

[SafeBet]

Thats longevity, not consistency. For which the same thing applies.

But then there's probably no other rider in history who's been so consistent but has won so "few" big races.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Having no love for either, i can settle this argument and it's Valverde over Nibali and it's not even close. I will repeat:

Not.

Even.

Close.

Thread.

 

[Red Rick]

But then there's probably no other rider in history who's been so consistent but has won so "few" big races.

So how can he be better if he's worse at winning the big stuff.

Nobody cares thar Joop Zoetemelk won almost 100 races. What mattered is he won the Tour and the Worlds. And the Vuelta but it mattered less then.

Its like saying Greipel was a greater rider than Andy Schleck.

Consistency comes up when you first decide that Valverde is up there and then scramble for reasons why. Hes just on the screen every race, and winning the big stuff only when its tailor suited to his one trick where he actually was the best at and bottlong everything else while always beong talked about as a favorite.

Valverde is as much better as Gilberts 2011 was am all time great season. Really not but the propaganda is strong

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

So how can he be better if he's worse at winning the big stuff.

Nobody cares thar Joop Zoetemelk won almost 100 races. What mattered is he won the Tour and the Worlds. And the Vuelta but it mattered less then.

Its like saying Greipel was a greater rider than Andy Schleck.

Consistency comes up when you first decide that Valverde is up there and then scramble for reasons why. Hes just on the screen every race, and winning the big stuff only when its tailor suited to his one trick where he actually was the best at and bottlong everything else while always beong talked about as a favorite.

Valverde is as much better as Gilberts 2011 was am all time great season. Really not but the propaganda is strong

In 30 years nobody is going to be talking about Nibali, but they will still be talking about Valverde. If there ever was a ''punching above your weight'' achievement, then surely Nibali would win it. Nibali has always stood in the shadow of those who were clearly better than him and he had his greatest wins when those guys were absent. In the meanwhile, generally speaking, you only saw him at the races where he peaked.

Valverde on the other hand was actually one of the best during a long period, be it not so much for GT GC's. Not only was he better at more races, he was also better for a longer period and all year long. You may want to call Valverde a one trick pony, but it has to be one of the more elaborate tricks out there. Being able to climb well enough to follow the real climbers and stay withing striking distance or being able to climb much better than other fast guys. It is no more a one trick pony than GC winners who weren't the absolute best climbers but made up for that in TTs. If it were so trivial as you want to make it sound, then why has it taken so long for others to become better at it? Alaphilippe can't climb nearly as well, for instance. In fact, the first rider to come along that is superior in as well punching as climbing is probably Pogacar.

If you only want to look at their best 10 results i'm sure you could make a strong case for Nibali. However, if you actually watched cycling and not just the list of their best results at big races, and if you value smaller races and riders competing every race they start, then it's not even close. As such, Valverde has made his mark, left a stamp on his generation, while Nibali hasn't, because he will for ever be a guy who won GT's because Froome or Contador or whoever was better at the time, weren't there. Valverde was a generational talent, Nibali wasn't.

It's a bit like comparing Michael Jackson to Prince. If you only take their greatest hits, i'm sure people could be so delusional to think Michael Jackson was the better artist. He only made albums every 4 years, had his best tracks written by Quincy Jones and had the best sound engineers at his disposal. But taking his best 15 tracks, it'd be tough to beat. Meanwhile Prince spat out at least one album per year, has an entire vault of unreleased material, wrote hits (or covers by) for a slew of other artists (Sinead O'Connor, The Bangles, Tom Jones, Alicia Keys, Sheila E, Chaka Khan...) and actually recorded entire albums where he did lead vocal, backing vocals, drums, bass guitar, lead guitar, percussion and wrote and produced his tracks start to finish.

 

[Blanco]

So how can he be better if he's worse at winning the big stuff.

Nobody cares thar Joop Zoetemelk won almost 100 races. What mattered is he won the Tour and the Worlds. And the Vuelta but it mattered less then.

Nobody cares thar Joop Zoetemelk won almost 100 races. What mattered is he won the Tour and the Worlds. And the Vuelta but it mattered less then.

Its like saying Greipel was a greater rider than Andy Schleck.

Oh they care. That's why he is voted the best Dutch rider of all-time. And not only for that 100 wins, but more for his unbelievable 6 Tour podiums, apart from that win.
If they didn't care, I guess Jan Janssen could get the nod, he won exactly what Joop did plus Paris-Roubaix. Jan Raas also, he has 5 biggest wins vs Joop's 3. Hennie Kuiper too.

Same applies for this Valverde/Nibali situation...

Oh, and Andre Greipel was a greater rider than Andy Schleck!

 

[Blanco]

He does have far more smaller wins, and among the greater ones it's similar.

Top tier wins: 6 vs. 7
Sub-top tier wins: 13 vs. 3
GT stage wins: 17 vs. 15
Other WT wins: 24 vs. 1
NC wins: 4 vs. 2

Sum: 64 vs. 28

*Official results.

EDIT: I should have included secondary GT jerseys, but I won't bother.

Things look pretty clear to me.
Add total wins, GT, WC and Monument podiums and things are becoming much worse for Nibali.

 

[Netserk]

Things look pretty clear to me.
Add total wins, GT, WC and Monument podiums and things are becoming much worse for Nibali.

Nibali has two more GT podiums than Valverde. And more podiums where he was battling for the win.

 

[Blanco]

Nibali has two more GT podiums than Valverde. And more podiums where he was battling for the win.

No, he has 1 less (we're not counting wins, cause you already listed them),

 

[Netserk]

No, he has 1 less (we're not counting wins, cause you already listed them),

Then you shouldn't write podiums, but non-winning podiums.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

What's even the point of comparing riders for anything but to highlight their inferiority to Laporte? Useless thread.

 

[gregrowlerson]

I don't think that there is really a right answer and a wrong answer here. It can be a compelling ongoing debate.

Valverde suffers a little in terms of how cycling is viewed. Imagine if rankings were held in as high esteem as they were in tennis and golf? You tell a casual tennis/golf fan that such and such was ranked number one for the year a few times or more, and it really means something. To a casual cycling fan it means nothing. And that's still the case for fans who also take some interest outside of July.

There's a little bit of a Greg Norman vs. Nick Faldo thing with Valverde and Nibali, although Faldo was also probably a little more consistent than Nibali.

Valverde is perhaps as perplexing a case for any great recent rider. Despite all of his achievements, if he really had managed to squander the sprint in the WCRR that he eventually (and richly deserved) won, then he would probably forever be more meme than master (well, he is now over 40) around here. I also always think back to that first mountain top finish of the 2005 TDF. It would have seemed impossible that a young guy who could win a genuine mountain stage, climbing with Armstrong and Rasmussen, whilst even distancing peak Basso (and well before the final km), could go on to be one of the premier riders of the peloton for another seventeen years, and yet only manage one TDF podium (and just a 3rd place). Regardless of the effect of what happened 12 months later possibly had, we saw a rider who could win a proper high mountain stage against strong opposition. It's just hard to look at his palmares in the end and see 1 Vuelta, that's it? I mean, Chris Freakin Horner has 1 Vuelta.

Cobo had 1 Vuelta.

Nibali is kind of like those mafia movies that almost everyone loves. They love the rags to riches story where the boy who isn't the most talented, can make it to the top through persistence, rat cunning, and some good luck.

 

[Valv.Piti]

In 30 years nobody is going to be talking about Nibali, but they will still be talking about Valverde. If there ever was a ''punching above your weight'' achievement, then surely Nibali would win it. Nibali has always stood in the shadow of those who were clearly better than him and he had his greatest wins when those guys were absent. In the meanwhile, generally speaking, you only saw him at the races where he peaked.

Valverde on the other hand was actually one of the best during a long period, be it not so much for GT GC's. Not only was he better at more races, he was also better for a longer period and all year long. You may want to call Valverde a one trick pony, but it has to be one of the more elaborate tricks out there. Being able to climb well enough to follow the real climbers and stay withing striking distance or being able to climb much better than other fast guys. It is no more a one trick pony than GC winners who weren't the absolute best climbers but made up for that in TTs. If it were so trivial as you want to make it sound, then why has it taken so long for others to become better at it? Alaphilippe can't climb nearly as well, for instance. In fact, the first rider to come along that is superior in as well punching as climbing is probably Pogacar.

If you only want to look at their best 10 results i'm sure you could make a strong case for Nibali. However, if you actually watched cycling and not just the list of their best results at big races, and if you value smaller races and riders competing every race they start, then it's not even close. As such, Valverde has made his mark, left a stamp on his generation, while Nibali hasn't, because he will for ever be a guy who won GT's because Froome or Contador or whoever was better at the time, weren't there. Valverde was a generational talent, Nibali wasn't.

It's a bit like comparing Michael Jackson to Prince. If you only take their greatest hits, i'm sure people could be so delusional to think Michael Jackson was the better artist. He only made albums every 4 years, had his best tracks written by Quincy Jones and had the best sound engineers at his disposal. But taking his best 15 tracks, it'd be tough to beat. Meanwhile Prince spat out at least one album per year, has an entire vault of unreleased material, wrote hits (or covers by) for a slew of other artists (Sinead O'Connor, The Bangles, Tom Jones, Alicia Keys, Sheila E, Chaka Khan...) and actually recorded entire albums where he did lead vocal, backing vocals, drums, bass guitar, lead guitar, percussion and wrote and produced his tracks start to finish.

No, Valverde is an OTP who won big mountains stages, sprints in smaller groups (even sometimes what you'd consider bunch sprint), muritos, the hardest classics, and occasional TTs! Wait, thats not really a one trick pony, is it?

On top of the insane amount of results he's had, lets not forget that he got his by far best season cut short by the crash in Düsseldorf in July 2017 + 2 prime years in 2010-2011. What did he do the next year, 2018? He continued almost like nothing had happened, although he didnt proceed to win the Ardennes classics with his fingers in his nose and beating the climbing elite at their own turf in Catalunya like he did in 2017. Toying with Froome and Contador like he did that race is not something a sit-in-wheels-and-punch-OTP would do.

I'd agree calling Valverde a one-trick when it comes to consistency throughout a season - something Nibali maybe had, what, a few years in his peak? That all vanished after 2013 where he began targeting 1, maybe 2 races a year and was rather sad for the remainder of the season. Valverde had that, Contador had that, Roglic has that, Pogacar has that, Wout van Aert has that. When they are bad, they are still some of the best.

Completely and fully agree with your takes. Not. Even. Close.

 

[Sciatic]

It’s not Easter Sunday yet, but apparently it was as time for a resurrection.

 

[BigCoward]

If you were a 16 year old starting out on your cycling career and were offered
2 x giro, tour, vuelta, lambardia x2 and MSR
v
1 WC, 4 x liege and a vuelta
would anybody even think about taking the Valverde option?

 

[SHAD0W93]

Nibali

I thought you’d say “the older Masnada”

 

[Hugo Koblet]

If you were a 16 year old starting out on your cycling career and were offered
2 x giro, tour, vuelta, lambardia x2 and MSR
v
1 WC, 4 x liege and a vuelta
would anybody even think about taking the Valverde option?

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.

 

[SHAD0W93]

If Nibali had won 2012 LBL it’d be firmly on his side I think. Just like if Valverde had been able to win one of those GDL or another Worlds. Without his crash in 2012, maybe he is closer to Contador and wins another Vuelta.

Nibali had more impressive wins than Valverde because he did those solo in top tier races instead of relying on his sprint to win countless stages and Ardennes classics and as for luck, avoiding crashing is part of cycling but don't forget Nibali was also affected by crashes in the Rio Olympics and 2018 Tour were he could have won or come close to it.

I could also come up with the argument that Valverde also had his share of luck in the Vuelta he won and with LBL finishing on an uphill back then but I don't like alternative history much

But Nibali had to perform those attacks in order to win vs Valverde being able to use his sprint to his advantage

 

[Red Rick]

Will admit Nibali was under 90% chance to win 2018 Tour.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Its like saying Greipel was a greater rider than Andy Schleck.

From a talent perspective Andy should have had a way better career then Greipel but where it finished is highly lacking. He won 10 times (11 if you count the Tour, which I think a lot don’t that saw the race and the circumstances after) with the highlight being LBL/TdF. Otherwise he won 3 Tour stages, 3 National championships, and 3 pro stages. He has his 4/3 second places in GTs and 4, 4, 5, and 3 in GDL and LBL. If you combined the two Schlecks that rider definitely would have had a better career with Andy’s talent and Frank’s work ethic. Many what ifs with his career.

Against Greipel who won 158 times with 22 stages and a GT points classification. Who also rode to win and supported his teammates in more then two races the whole year. Greipel never would have gotten removed by his team like Andy did, especially if he was helping his brother. Not that I know if he has any siblings.

What's even the point of comparing riders for anything but to highlight their inferiority to Laporte? Useless thread.

To know who is third and fourth best behind Vino and Laporte.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Will admit Nibali was under 90% chance to win 2018 Tour.

Have to admit that I had to read this a second time.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Valverde: "Second place is good."

Nibali: "Secondary race is no good."