Who is your Men's Rider of the Decade?

[tobydawq]

Here's something similar, although a little longer :

2005: 2nd Worlds
2006: 1st Liege, 2nd Vuelta, 3rd Worlds
2007: 2nd Liege
2008: 1st Liege
2009: 1st Vuelta
2010: 3rd Liege
2011: did not ride due to suspension
2012: 2nd Vuelta, 3rd Worlds
2013: 3rd Liege, 3rd Vuelta, 3rd Worlds, 2nd Lombardia
2014: 2nd Liege, 3rd Vuelta, 3rd Worlds, 2nd Lombardia
2015: 1st Liege, 3rd Tour
2016: 3rd Giro
2017: 1st Liege
2018: 1st Worlds
2019: 2nd Vuelta, 2nd Lombardia

2003: 3rd Vuelta, 2nd Worlds

 

[rick james]

My god a Anglo Saxon is winning a poll on here

 

[Red Rick]

My god a Anglo Saxon is winning a poll on here

 

[Singularitarian]

Too early fo Sagan, so Piti over Vroom for versatility and consistency (unfortunately, could not operate over 2000m, otherwise the GT palmares would be much better).

 

[Blanco]

But it would only be from 2010 to present for the purpose of this thread.

I know, but since he said it was amazing i wanted to point to a similar feat...

 

[Red Rick]

Honestly think the Valverde altitude thing is a myth and that longer climbs and harder mountain stages suit him less, which is why he excels more at the Vuelta than at the Tour or Giro. If there's a high climb where everyone starts super fresh and the pace is only really high for 15 minutes Valverde doesn't have issues with the altitude.

 

[jaylew]

I know, but since he said it was amazing i wanted to point to a similar feat...

No need. Huge Bala fan here and I'll pointing out lots of stuff like that when he finally retires. And to be fair, we also have to mention that his 2010 results were scrubbed.

 

[jaylew]

My god a Anglo Saxon is winning a poll on here

Oh the poor persecuted Anglo-Saxons! Ugh. Give me a break. This kind of bs is so distasteful.

 

[Nirvana]

A decade is simply a period of 10 years. Name of the thread is: Who is your Men's Rider of the Decade and OP is specifically asking: Who is your men's rider of the decade 2010-2019? No one mentioned a 10s decade.
And although you're probably right that 10s decade is 2011-2020 general consent and common use is that despite the non-existent year 0 a decade is 0-9. What do you understand under let's say 'nineties'?

Froome for me.

General consent and common use doesn't turn something wrong in true, otherwise (just to make an example) we should rename the Netherlands in Holland because people wrongly refer to the whole country with the name of a single region.

 

[rick james]

Oh the poor persecuted Anglo-Saxons! Ugh. Give me a break. This kind of bs is so distasteful.

to who?

 

[Koronin]

Honestly think the Valverde altitude thing is a myth and that longer climbs and harder mountain stages suit him less, which is why he excels more at the Vuelta than at the Tour or Giro. If there's a high climb where everyone starts super fresh and the pace is only really high for 15 minutes Valverde doesn't have issues with the altitude.

Well he's specifically stated his has problems with altitude multiple times. He's said he struggles with it and that he's basically given up with even trying to do anything about it. His most recent comment was, "I was born, raised and still live at sea level. I have problems with altitude and that's not going to change." 2015 Tour Christian VandeVelde said something along the lines of he's always struggled with altitude. High altitude has cost him more Tour podiums that he would care to remember and than I ever had a chance at. Also remember the Giro he did race had a stage that was completely at high altitude. It's the stage he lost around 4 minutes and ended up with altitude sickness that was bad enough he said he almost climbed off the bike several times due to how dizzy he was and was having a very hard time staying upright.

 

[cantpedal]

Another reason why i picked Sagan and not Froome, is because i think it is hard to define a decade, when you are only defining one or two weeks per year.

Which 2 weeks? 2 of the three for his four TDF titles, or 2 Vuelta Titles or the Giro. Could it have been for a few days of the three Grand Tour titles he held at the same time? maybe just 2 of the 3 Critérium du Dauphiné or the 2 Romandie titles? or maybe Vuelta a Andalucía , and Oman

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Which 2 weeks? 2 of the three for his four TDF titles, or 2 Vuelta Titles or the Giro. Could it have been for a few days of the three Grand Tour titles he held at the same time? maybe just 2 of the 3 Critérium du Dauphiné or the 2 Romandie titles? or maybe Vuelta a Andalucía , and Oman

You seriously want to argue that winning Romandie, Andalucia, Oman etc are what puts you on top of a "best rider of the decade" competition? Seriously. I didn't say he didn't win anything else or didn't race anything. I spoke about what is defining. If you then compare that to a guy like Sagan, then it's not even a competition imho. You are free to think (and vote) differently. And i spoke of 2 weeks per year, not per decade.

 

[cantpedal]

You seriously want to argue that winning Romandie, Andalucia, Oman etc are what puts you on top of a "best rider of the decade" competition? Seriously. I didn't say he didn't win anything else or didn't race anything. I spoke about what is defining. If you then compare that to a guy like Sagan, then it's not even a competition imho. You are free to think (and vote) differently. And i spoke of 2 weeks per year, not per decade.

again what 2 weeks per year? the point was he was winning all over the calendar Those races are important to GC contenders and pretenders. I dont disagree with someone choosing Sagan but to dismiss Froome's achievements to "2 weeks" per year is laughable

 

[gerundium]

Phil Gil is my personal favorite, but from an objective viewpoint i went with Peter Sagan. I remember first time noticing him in his liquigas days ripping up Tirreno Adriatico with Nibali. He dominated the scene ever since that first Tour, and still is.

 

[Gigs_98]

Man, I completely missed this discussion, would have been a good one.

That said, it's really pretty simple. I don't particularly like the guy but it's Froome and it really isn't even close. Only counting the number of big wins is one thing, but aside from having less big wins than Froome anyway, I see a shocking lack of people mentioning in terms of prestige those gt victories also rank way higher. Honestly, I think the only interesting question here is whether Nibali or Sagan is 2nd.
Also, lol @ people bringing up Valverde. I can see the argument over his whole career, but this decade? That's just ridiculous.

 

[christopherrowe]

Man, I completely missed this discussion, would have been a good one.

That said, it's really pretty simple. I don't particularly like the guy but it's Froome and it really isn't even close. Only counting the number of big wins is one thing, but aside from having less big wins than Froome anyway, I see a shocking lack of people mentioning in terms of prestige those gt victories also rank way higher. Honestly, I think the only interesting question here is whether Nibali or Sagan is 2nd.
Also, lol @ people bringing up Valverde. I can see the argument over his whole career, but this decade? That's just ridiculous.

All fair. But for what it's worth, many people find accomplishments in one-day races more impressive than accomplishments in three-week stage races.

 

[RedheadDane]

Man, I completely missed this discussion, would have been a good one.

That said, it's really pretty simple. I don't particularly like the guy but it's Froome and it really isn't even close. Only counting the number of big wins is one thing, but aside from having less big wins than Froome anyway, I see a shocking lack of people mentioning in terms of prestige those gt victories also rank way higher. Honestly, I think the only interesting question here is whether Nibali or Sagan is 2nd.
Also, lol @ people bringing up Valverde. I can see the argument over his whole career, but this decade? That's just ridiculous.

That's how it is, isn't it? Anything you miss, is gonna be good.

 

[Gigs_98]

All fair. But for what it's worth, many people find accomplishments in one-day races more impressive than accomplishments in three-week stage races.

Yeah, I get that, but even if you prefer one day races over grand tours you just have to admit that a tour de france win is worth way more than a monument win.

Of course if we start to all just use our own feelings towards races to value them, the results might get very different and for example if you say a podium is almost worth as much as a win I could even see why Valverde would be the rider of the decade. It's just that these sort of questions don't make sense if you don't try to answer them at least somewhat objectively.

 

[Red Rick]

Man, I completely missed this discussion, would have been a good one.

That said, it's really pretty simple. I don't particularly like the guy but it's Froome and it really isn't even close. Only counting the number of big wins is one thing, but aside from having less big wins than Froome anyway, I see a shocking lack of people mentioning in terms of prestige those gt victories also rank way higher. Honestly, I think the only interesting question here is whether Nibali or Sagan is 2nd.
Also, lol @ people bringing up Valverde. I can see the argument over his whole career, but this decade? That's just ridiculous.

GTs also have way less variability and GT riders also tend to have much less variety in palmares. Then also how strongly do you rank GTs compared to each other and how strongly do you rank monuments compared to each other, etc. If you just go by GTs>everything your best rider of any year/decade will just be your best GT rider.

Also, going by this argument, Sagan actually isn't close to Nibali in my opinion.

For Froome and Sagan you don't have to go that far back to have a rider get a rider who achieved similar in a similar time frame. Freire won 3 WCs and 2 monuments in an 8 year period, Contador 7-9 GTs depending on your definition in an 8 year period, and it's just a matter of cutoff.

Now who's the last guy before Nibali to win all GTs and 3 monuments?

 

[christopherrowe]

GTs also have way less variability and GT riders also tend to have much less variety in palmares. Then also how strongly do you rank GTs compared to each other and how strongly do you rank monuments compared to each other, etc. If you just go by GTs>everything your best rider of any year/decade will just be your best GT rider.

Also, going by this argument, Sagan actually isn't close to Nibali in my opinion.

For Froome and Sagan you don't have to go that far back to have a rider get a rider who achieved similar in a similar time frame. Freire won 3 WCs and 2 monuments in an 8 year period, Contador 7-9 GTs depending on your definition in an 8 year period, and it's just a matter of cutoff.

Now who's the last guy before Nibali to win all GTs and 3 monuments?

Eddy Merckx I guess, depending on what you man by "3 monuments" (whether you mean 3 separate monuments or won monuments 3 times, in which case Hinault I believe.)

 

[Red Rick]

Eddy Merckx I guess, depending on what you man by "3 monuments" (whether you mean 3 separate monuments or won monuments 3 times, in which case Hinault I believe.)

The latter. Nibali doesn't have 3 seperate monuments. But I was wondering if there had been anyone after Hinault.

 

[christopherrowe]

Yeah, I get that, but even if you prefer one day races over grand tours you just have to admit that a tour de france win is worth way more than a monument win.

Of course if we start to all just use our own feelings towards races to value them, the results might get very different and for example if you say a podium is almost worth as much as a win I could even see why Valverde would be the rider of the decade. It's just that these sort of questions don't make sense if you don't try to answer them at least somewhat objectively.

I don't know. It depends on what your definitions of "worth" and "objectively" are (I would argue the latter is impossible in this discussion). Fame and money? Of course the Tour is "worth" more than a Monument in those terms. As a sporting or athletic achievement? That's hazier. I, for one, certainly don't believe the winners (or "winners") of any of the 21st century GTs are better athletes or sportsmen than most of the winners of the 21st century Monuments. The specialization, limited racing, and dependence on teams for race control and directors sportif for tactical thinking preclude that in my opinion.

 

[oldcrank]

GTs also have way less variability and GT riders also tend to have much less variety in palmares. Then also how strongly do you rank GTs compared to each other and how strongly do you rank monuments compared to each other, etc. If you just go by GTs>everything your best rider of any year/decade will just be your best GT rider.

Also, going by this argument, Sagan actually isn't close to Nibali in my opinion.

For Froome and Sagan you don't have to go that far back to have a rider get a rider who achieved similar in a similar time frame. Freire won 3 WCs and 2 monuments in an 8 year period, Contador 7-9 GTs depending on your definition in an 8 year period, and it's just a matter of cutoff.

Now who's the last guy before Nibali to win all GTs and 3 monuments?

Or who is the last guy to win all three GT's on the trot (and then podium in his fourth)? And who is the last rider to do the Tour-Vuelta double since the calendar change? Oh ya, and guys who have no significant wins, or Olympic medals, against the clock this decade are just one trick ponies.

 

[Mayomaniac]

The latter. Nibali doesn't have 3 seperate monuments. But I was wondering if there had been anyone after Hinault.

I still think that Gilbert deserves to be on that list, 4 different Monuments and a podium in the one he didn't win, WC, 4 AGR and many other one day races.
Winning 4 different monuments > winning all 3 of the gts.