Who is your Men's Rider of the Decade?

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Who is the Men's Rider of the Decade

  • Fabian Cancellara

    Votes: 2 1.4%
  • Mark Cavendish

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Alberto Contador

    Votes: 9 6.1%
  • Chris Froome

    Votes: 50 33.8%
  • Philippe Gilbert

    Votes: 8 5.4%
  • Marcel Kittel

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Vincenzo Nibali

    Votes: 16 10.8%
  • Peter Sagan

    Votes: 48 32.4%
  • Greg Van Avermaet

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Alejandro Valverde

    Votes: 12 8.1%

  • Total voters
    148
  • Poll closed .
Winning a Monument is big, or WC, I won't deny that. It makes a career for some riders, and many good riders never achieve that. But I was trying to make another point. Results throughout the whole season matters too. You can have a good season even if you didn't had that big win (although I notice little obsession with those around here, as if that is the only thing that matters in cycling).

Gilbert 2019 - very good season
Riders who had a better year - Roglic, Alaphilippe, Bernal, Fuglsang, Valverde, Pogacar, Van Der Poel.

Nibali 2018 - Also a very good season
Riders who had a better year - Valverde, Sagan, Simon Yates, Viviani, Alaphilippe, Geraint Thomas, Dumoulin, Pinot, Froome.
Yes, this was pretty much what I was trying to say.

What is a bad/average/good/great season for someone is a case by case sort of thing. In Gilbert and Nibali cases, that seems to be the examples here, just factoring in their age and that they can still win these sort of races speaks volume. So still achieving these sort of wins is incredible and makes for great seasons for them. Even though they have had higher peaks in their careers.

Comparing to what peers won or didnt win, is also a false narrative if judging if it was good or not. Someone or a few others just might have been better or worse that season. You can still have made enough results to call it good etc. Just didnt get a major win. Thats the sport.

You will have to factor in different things when you evaluate someones season. If it was bad/average/good/great etc. What type of rider they are. Fans and riders/teams own expectations. Results. Injuries. Personal matters. Everything that goes with it really.
 
Did Bettiol have a better season than Valverde?
Bettiol won one of the biggest races you can win. Valverde came 2nd in two (Vuelta & Lombardia) of them. Won the Spanish Championship and some minor races. Which is very good! If we wanna count points, according to PCS and CQ ranking, he has the "better season".

But I would say Bettiol. A win like that, is just worth much more. Especially in this sport.
 
In one year, people will remember Valverde's 2019 more than Bettiol's 2019. In ten years, everyone will remember that Bettiol won the Ronde and nobody will remember what Valverde did in 2019 (other than that he wore the rainbow jersey).

Likewise with Nibali in 2018 compared to, say, Sagan, Viviani or Pinot, who Blanco claims had better seasons. I don't disagree, but if you want a place in history, do it the Nibali way.
 
Reactions: Breezy1985
In one year, people will remember Valverde's 2019 more than Bettiol's 2019. In ten years, everyone will remember that Bettiol won the Ronde and nobody will remember what Valverde did in 2019 (other than that he wore the rainbow jersey).

Likewise with Nibali in 2018 compared to, say, Sagan, Viviani or Pinot, who Blanco claims had better seasons. I don't disagree, but if you want a place in history, do it the Nibali way.
2018 Sagan won G-W and P-R. Pinot won Lombardia. Nibali M-S. I would say it is a tie between those three.

But I agree with what your broader point was, with Valverde and Bettiol. A major win means that much more than good results over a whole year but nothing major, in the grand scheme of things.
 
Oh, I got my years mixed up a bit. I had Pinot's 2017 in mind, which was good but not historic, and for some reason I thought Sagan's PR was 2017, too. But I guess that just underscores that Nibali's MSR will have an even bigger place in history than a couple of more 'ordinary' monument wins. ;)
 
Reactions: Salvarani
Wins in the major races matter more, than just good results over a season in races that most riders just ride to gear up and get in shape for said major races. There is prestige in the minor races too and showing consistency over a season racking up good results is a feat in itself. But at the end of the day, what races do people care about. What races cements a place in history.
 
Last edited:
Well Valverde's Tour top 10 and Vuelta podium this season gave his Grand Tour GC top 10's numbers 18 and 19, which is a record. The Vuelta podium also gave him la Vuelta's podium record. Plus he got la Vuelta podium in the rainbow jersey. Does any of that mean he had a great season, no. However it means that there are fans who will remember his Vuelta podium as a record setting podium plus he had the rainbow jersey for it. He has had some truly great seasons and like Sagan his seasons are measured against what he is capable of doing and what for him is an average or poor season can still be a great season for another rider.
 
I know what happened, I was purposefully exaggerating my point...

Which remains that I agree with Blanco that one big win does not a season make. Unless it's in a Grand Tour where you need to be good throughout a long race.
Gilbert didn't "only" win the biggest one day race of the year (probably the only race rated higher than the WCC in terms of palmares), he also won two GT stages. That's a very good season by anyone's standard, and in my book better than winning one stage in a GT, one in UAE tour and Route Occitanie. Valverde didn't have a bad season, but he's simply missing a big win. Gilbert got the biggest win in 1 day cycling and not only that.
 
2018 Sagan won G-W and P-R. Pinot won Lombardia. Nibali M-S. I would say it is a tie between those three.

But I agree with what your broader point was, with Valverde and Bettiol. A major win means that much more than good results over a whole year but nothing major, in the grand scheme of things.
I might take Gent Wevelgem and Roubaix over Lombardia and MSR, let alone either individually. But that's just me. Either way, those two races are worth way more to me than either Lombardia or MSR individually.
 
100% Yes. Bettiol won a Monument and earned himself at least a footnote in the history of the sport. Valverde won a stage of the Vuelta and a few minor things nobody will ever mention again when discussing his stellar career,
1000% No.
Vuelta and Lombardia podiums at least equals that Ronde win, not to mention other results of Valverde.
Or do you think Matthew Hayman, Oliver Zaugg, Johan Vansummeren, Nick Nuyens, Steffen Wesemann have a place beside Alaphilippe, Pinot, Chaves, Pozzato and Rebellin?
Or do you think that Dan Martin, Niki Terpstra, John Degenkolb and Stijn Devolder have a right to stand beside Purito Rodriguez, Raymond Poulidor, Franco Bitossi, Herman Van Springel, Miguel Poblet?!
Ones have a footnote, but the others have an actual place in cycling history, yet imagine, they have a same number of so called big wins.
 
Gilbert didn't "only" win the biggest one day race of the year (probably the only race rated higher than the WCC in terms of palmares), he also won two GT stages. That's a very good season by anyone's standard, and in my book better than winning one stage in a GT, one in UAE tour and Route Occitanie. Valverde didn't have a bad season, but he's simply missing a big win. Gilbert got the biggest win in 1 day cycling and not only that.
Are you deliberately omitting the fact that Valverde came 2nd in the Vuelta and Lombardia, or that results doesn't mean anything to you? Or the fact that he won Spanish Nationals, and the Occitanie overall and have a podium in *** load of races (which of course Gilbert doesn't have). Or why the *** we watch cycling throughout the year when in fact only 7-8 races count?!!!
 
Are you deliberately omitting the fact that Valverde came 2nd in the Vuelta and Lombardia, or that results doesn't mean anything to you? Or the fact that he won Spanish Nationals, and the Occitanie overall and have a podium in * load of races (which of course Gilbert doesn't have). Or why the * we watch cycling throughout the year when in fact only 7-8 races count?!!!
He won Occitanie overall? Now, THAT changes things!
Ok seriously, no, a bunch of top 10 places do not compare to even one high profile win. Valverde's biggest win was a stage in the Vuelta. Gilbert has two of those.
The only argument you could possibly bring up, is indeed his second place in the Vuelta. But to me it doesn't hold a candle to winning Paris Roubaix. I also find it funny that you claim to be "objective" while your arguments are about as subjective as they get. We have a different opinion, that's perfectly fine. We are both allowed to.

And i'm not saying only 7 races count. But when it comes to winning 1 major and 2 big wins, i think they count for more than 1 big win and a few of smaller wins and a few top 10s. Even including a podium in the Vuelta.
 
Reactions: spalco
1000% No.
Vuelta and Lombardia podiums at least equals that Ronde win, not to mention other results of Valverde.
Or do you think Matthew Hayman, Oliver Zaugg, Johan Vansummeren, Nick Nuyens, Steffen Wesemann have a place beside Alaphilippe, Pinot, Chaves, Pozzato and Rebellin?
Or do you think that Dan Martin, Niki Terpstra, John Degenkolb and Stijn Devolder have a right to stand beside Purito Rodriguez, Raymond Poulidor, Franco Bitossi, Herman Van Springel, Miguel Poblet?!
Ones have a footnote, but the others have an actual place in cycling history, yet imagine, they have a same number of so called big wins.
Failing to win the Vuelta and Lombardia does not at least equal winning the Ronde. This is road cycling not track and field or skiing or other sports that are about medals. It’s a sport about winning. Getting a nice placing is an excellent result in a big race but it doesn’t compare to winning one.

Your examples of riders to compare are mostly absurd. Of course a rider who has won two Monuments and a few minor things doesn’t have a similar palmares to a guy with two Monuments and 26 GT stages. Of course a guy whose only pro win was Lombardia doesn’t have a similar palmares to a guy with MSR, FW, San Sebastián, multiple GT stages.

Treating tier one (3 GTs, 5 Monuments, WCRR) wins as the most important, each one season defining in its own right, doesn’t mean treating everything else as trivial. There’s a broad second tier of big wins below them that are also very significant. You could reasonably argue about the details of what to include but for me at least, the other big wins are major non Monument classics, the biggest one week races, WCITT and GT stages. That’s another 75 to 80 big wins each year. When we start talking about weighing other wins on a riders palmares, we really do have to remember that there were probably a hundred or two hundred or five hundred more important wins taken in that year alone.
 
Last edited:
Failing to win the Vuelta and Lombardia does not at least equal winning the Ronde. This is road cycling not track and field or skiing or other sports that are about medals. It’s a sport about winning. Getting a nice placing is an excellent result in a big race but it doesn’t compare to winning one.

Your examples of riders to compare are mostly absurd. Of course a rider who has won two Monuments and a few minor things doesn’t have a similar palmares to a guy with two Monuments and 26 GT stages. Of course a guy whose only pro win was Lombardia doesn’t have a similar palmares to a guy with MSR, FW, San Sebastián, multiple GT stages.

Treating tier one (3 GTs, 5 Monuments, WCRR) wins as the most important, each one season defining in its own right, doesn’t mean treating everything else as trivial. There’s a broad second tier of big wins below them that are also very significant. You could reasonably argue about the details of what to include but for me at least, the other big wins are major non Monument classics, the biggest one week races, WCITT and GT stages. That’s another 75 to 80 big wins each year. When we start talking about weighing other wins on a riders palmares, we really do have to remember that there were probably a hundred or two hundred or five hundred more important wins taken in that year alone.
Pretty much this. Everything else is just stat padding but nothing really significant in the grand scheme of things. Especially when you're talking about an entire decade.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY