Who is your Men's Rider of the Decade?

[christopherrowe]

Here’s what it comes down to for me. The only reason to believe that Chris Froome has been the more impressive cyclist (vs Sagan) in the last ten years is if one believes that stage races are the be all and end all, the ultimate test of a cyclist’s acumen.

You either believe that’s true (as many of you obviously do), or you don’t (I’m in the latter camp).

I looked at each man’s career from 2010 to 2019 using a number of metrics.

In those ten seasons, Chris Froome won 46 races over 631 days of racing, or about 4.6 wins each year over an average of 63 days of racing per year.

In those same ten seasons, Peter Sagan won 113 races over 750 days of racing, or about 11.3 wins each year over an average of 75 days per year.

Sagan races more and wins more than Froome.

In those ten years, Chris Froome won zero, that’s ZERO, one day races.

In those ten years, Peter Sagan won dozens of one day races AND dozens of stages within stage races (including 12 in the Tour to Froome’s 7 and 7 Green Jerseys in the Tour).

In the same period, Peter Sagan won two Monuments and was the World Champion three times in a row.

To my mind, Peter Sagan’s accomplishments stand with those of the great one day racers in the history of the sport. Whereas Chris Froome’s pale before the accomplishments of the great stage racers in the history of the sport (who, until I guess Indurain, did not confine themselves to stage races).

Looked at this way, maybe BOTH men are one-trick ponies. But to me, Sagan’s trick is the vastly more impressive, especially as his success has depended so much on panache and nous, two qualities sorely lacking in Froome.

 

[rick james]

Here’s what it comes down to for me. The only reason to believe that Chris Froome has been the more impressive cyclist (vs Sagan) in the last ten years is if one believes that stage races are the be all and end all, the ultimate test of a cyclist’s acumen.

You either believe that’s true (as many of you obviously do), or you don’t (I’m in the latter camp).

I looked at each man’s career from 2010 to 2019 using a number of metrics.

In those ten seasons, Chris Froome won 46 races over 631 days of racing, or about 4.6 wins each year over an average of 63 days of racing per year.

In those same ten seasons, Peter Sagan won 113 races over 750 days of racing, or about 11.3 wins each year over an average of 75 days per year.

Sagan races more and wins more than Froome.

In those ten years, Chris Froome won zero, that’s ZERO, one day races.

In those ten years, Peter Sagan won dozens of one day races AND dozens of stages within stage races (including 12 in the Tour to Froome’s 7 and 7 Green Jerseys in the Tour).

In the same period, Peter Sagan won two Monuments and was the World Champion three times in a row.

To my mind, Peter Sagan’s accomplishments stand with those of the great one day racers in the history of the sport. Whereas Chris Froome’s pale before the accomplishments of the great stage racers in the history of the sport (who, until I guess Indurain, did not confine themselves to stage races).

Looked at this way, maybe BOTH men are one-trick ponies. But to me, Sagan’s trick is the vastly more impressive, especially as his success has depended so much on panache and nous, two qualities sorely lacking in Froome.

you can easily flip that and say how grand tours has Sagan won in that 10 year period...if you want to criticise Froome for no winning any one day races you have to criticise Sagan for not wining any grand tours

I can see arguments for both riders

 

[topcat]

Here’s what it comes down to for me. The only reason to believe that Chris Froome has been the more impressive cyclist (vs Sagan) in the last ten years is if one believes that stage races are the be all and end all, the ultimate test of a cyclist’s acumen.

You either believe that’s true (as many of you obviously do), or you don’t (I’m in the latter camp).

I looked at each man’s career from 2010 to 2019 using a number of metrics.

In those ten seasons, Chris Froome won 46 races over 631 days of racing, or about 4.6 wins each year over an average of 63 days of racing per year.

In those same ten seasons, Peter Sagan won 113 races over 750 days of racing, or about 11.3 wins each year over an average of 75 days per year.

Sagan races more and wins more than Froome.

In those ten years, Chris Froome won zero, that’s ZERO, one day races.

In those ten years, Peter Sagan won dozens of one day races AND dozens of stages within stage races (including 12 in the Tour to Froome’s 7 and 7 Green Jerseys in the Tour).

In the same period, Peter Sagan won two Monuments and was the World Champion three times in a row.

To my mind, Peter Sagan’s accomplishments stand with those of the great one day racers in the history of the sport. Whereas Chris Froome’s pale before the accomplishments of the great stage racers in the history of the sport (who, until I guess Indurain, did not confine themselves to stage races).

Looked at this way, maybe BOTH men are one-trick ponies. But to me, Sagan’s trick is the vastly more impressive, especially as his success has depended so much on panache and nous, two qualities sorely lacking in Froome.

Although Indurain mainly concentrated on gts, he won CSS and has 2 silvers and a bronze in the WC road race. He was an excellent one day racer.

 

[christopherrowe]

you can easily flip that and say how grand tours has Sagan won in that 10 year period...if you want to criticise Froome for no winning any one day races you have to criticise Sagan for not wining any grand tours

I can see arguments for both riders

Well sure. But as I said, I don't think stage racing is as impressive as one-day racing (for a whole raft of reasons). Beyond that, Sagan has performed very well in stage races (7 Green Jerseys, stage wins in the Vuelta I believe), whereas Froome's performances in one days, where it even exists, hasn't been impressive.

One trick ponies. I think Sagan's is more impressive, others don't. That's it.

 

[Koronin]

Here’s what it comes down to for me. The only reason to believe that Chris Froome has been the more impressive cyclist (vs Sagan) in the last ten years is if one believes that stage races are the be all and end all, the ultimate test of a cyclist’s acumen.

You either believe that’s true (as many of you obviously do), or you don’t (I’m in the latter camp).

I looked at each man’s career from 2010 to 2019 using a number of metrics.

In those ten seasons, Chris Froome won 46 races over 631 days of racing, or about 4.6 wins each year over an average of 63 days of racing per year.

In those same ten seasons, Peter Sagan won 113 races over 750 days of racing, or about 11.3 wins each year over an average of 75 days per year.

Sagan races more and wins more than Froome.

In those ten years, Chris Froome won zero, that’s ZERO, one day races.

In those ten years, Peter Sagan won dozens of one day races AND dozens of stages within stage races (including 12 in the Tour to Froome’s 7 and 7 Green Jerseys in the Tour).

In the same period, Peter Sagan won two Monuments and was the World Champion three times in a row.

To my mind, Peter Sagan’s accomplishments stand with those of the great one day racers in the history of the sport. Whereas Chris Froome’s pale before the accomplishments of the great stage racers in the history of the sport (who, until I guess Indurain, did not confine themselves to stage races).

Looked at this way, maybe BOTH men are one-trick ponies. But to me, Sagan’s trick is the vastly more impressive, especially as his success has depended so much on panache and nous, two qualities sorely lacking in Froome.

I'm with christopherrowe in that I believe a one day race is as important if not more important than a stage race and a monument is worth as much as a grand tour. I also do not put anymore weight on the Tour than any other top level race. This is why I'm adding Valverde's stats for only 2012 through 2019 to this list as he is still close to Sagan and shows why I still put Valverde and Sagan at the top of this list.


Here are Valverde's numbers with 2 less seasons.

68 total wins (and that does not count any of the points or mountains classifications he's won in any race and he's won a bunch of both of those).

In the 8 seasons he's raced those 68 wins came over 548 race days to average 9.2 wins. If not for the one season where he missed half the season due to an injury his average race days would be over 80 per season.

Valverde has won 2 monuments (even if it's the same one twice) and the Ardennes double twice, which only one other rider in the history of the sport has managed to win twice. (We aren't counting his first Ardennes double).

He has overall podiums in all 3 Grand Tours including 4 at la Vuelta. He also has multiple points jerseys at la Vuelta over this time. 9 Vuelta stage wins.

He won the Worlds plus 3 other podiums.

Plus tons of other one day races, stages in smaller stage races along with overall wins in smaller stage races.

 

[rick james]

my god, everything back to Valverde

when Froome and Sagan are getting talked about, Valverde takes a seat at the back

 

[Koronin]

my god, everything back to Valverde

when Froome and Sagan are getting talked about, Valverde takes a seat at the back

Froome doesn't make my top 5 list for this discussion. Based strictly on numbers, Valverde has better numbers in this decade than Froome. As I said I can see an argument for Sagan. I still don't see an argument for Froome because I do not consider a GT and esp the Tour to mean anything more than any other race means. I place a higher value and multiple other races over the Tour. I could see an argument for Nibali or Gilbert BEFORE I see any argument for Froome.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

The difficulty lies within balancing the importance/value of one day races with that of stage races.

The tricky part for me, is that i believe as a whole it is more difficult to win a GT, as a physical achievement than it is to win a classic or a monument. On the other hand, if you are the strongest GC racer in any given GT, chances are much higher you'll end up victorious at the end of 3 weeks of racing, than it is to win a monument when you are the strongest in the race. There are also more classics/monuments than there are GT's. But there are also a lot more possible candicates to win a classic (Hayman, Vansummeren, Zaugg... show that even outside the broad list of favorites there is a possibility for a lot of other riders to win), while in a GT, there are only a handful of possible winners to begin with. Winning a GT is much harder, but on the other hand there are only a few realistic contenders to beat.

And where do one week stage races fit in? Personally, for me those are worth less than a monument or classic, because they are only rarely seen as a goal in itself by the best GC riders, and most of the time used as prep race, unlike classics which are a goal in itself for about half the riders at the start.

UCI hands roughly half the points for a monument (500), compared to the TDF (1000). But a 1 week stage race like Paris-Nice is also 500 points. Even worse, Romandie is also 500 points, the same as Paris-Roubaix, RVV or Lombardia.

PCS uses a different point system. But as far as i can see, in both UCI as PCS rankings, Sagan has more points than Froome. Maybe it's the most neutral way to look at things. Valverde has even more points, but he was already performing in the past decade.

 

[Koronin]

The difficulty lies within balancing the importance/value of one day races with that of stage races.

The tricky part for me, is that i believe as a whole it is more difficult to win a GT, as a physical achievement than it is to win a classic or a monument. On the other hand, if you are the strongest GC racer in any given GT, chances are much higher you'll end up victorious at the end of 3 weeks of racing, than it is to win a monument when you are the strongest in the race. There are also more classics/monuments than there are GT's. But there are also a lot more possible candicates to win a classic (Hayman, Vansummeren, Zaugg... show that even outside the broad list of favorites there is a possibility for a lot of other riders to win), while in a GT, there are only a handful of possible winners to begin with. Winning a GT is much harder, but on the other hand there are only a few realistic contenders to beat.

And where do one week stage races fit in? Personally, for me those are worth less than a monument or classic, because they are only rarely seen as a goal in itself by the best GC riders, and most of the time used as prep race, unlike classics which are a goal in itself for about half the riders at the start.

UCI hands roughly half the points for a monument (500), compared to the TDF (1000). But a 1 week stage race like Paris-Nice is also 500 points. Even worse, Romandie is also 500 points, the same as Paris-Roubaix, RVV or Lombardia.

PCS uses a different point system. But as far as i can see, in both UCI as PCS rankings, Sagan has more points than Froome. Maybe it's the most neutral way to look at things. Valverde has even more points, but he was already performing in the past decade.

If you want to add the points results then you have to remember that Sagan, Gilbert and Van Avermaet won one each, Valverde 2 (plus an extra of the new World rankings while S Yates won the old WT rankings).

I'll add aside from Gilbert having 4 of the 5 monuments he's also won the Ardennes triple, which is even more difficult than the double. The double has only a very select few who have won it.

 

[Red Rick]

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.

In range, yes.

But I don't think the range is wider than winning Grand Tours and winning Milano-Sanremo.

 

[Blanco]

my god, everything back to Valverde

when Froome and Sagan are getting talked about, Valverde takes a seat at the back

In what world?! Valverde is a legend, he's second to none! Remember who handed him a gold medal in Innsbruck!

 

[Blanco]

PCS uses a different point system. But as far as i can see, in both UCI as PCS rankings, Sagan has more points than Froome. Maybe it's the most neutral way to look at things. Valverde has even more points, but he was already performing in the past decade.

At PCS Sagan has 20833 pts from 2010 to 2019, while Valverde has 19246 in the same period, but as we all know, Bala rode two seasons less. So based on the average, Valverde is the most successful performer in the last decade.

At CQ ranking difference is even smaller, Sagan - 20460, Valverde - 19611.

 

[Breezy1985]

At PCS Sagan has 20833 pts from 2010 to 2019, while Valverde has 19246 in the same period, but as we all know, Bala rode two seasons less. So based on the average, Valverde is the most successful performer in the last decade.

At CQ ranking difference is even smaller,
Sagan - 20460, Valverde - 19611.

We also all know why he missed 2 years racing which is why some people may not see him as the poster boy for the decade

 

[Cookster15]

Voted in a rush for Froome. With more consideration I should have voted for Sagan. Alberto's career overlaps the previous decade so I couldn't vote for him.

 

[rick james]

Voted in a rush for Froome. With more consideration I should have voted for Sagan. Alberto's career overlaps the previous decade so I couldn't vote for him.

no, your rushed choice was the correct choice, don't feel bad

 

[Red Rick]

In what world?! Valverde is a legend, he's second to none! Remember who handed him a gold medal in Innsbruck!

Don't worry.

Valverde values the 2nd places.

 

[Blanco]

Don't worry.

Valverde values the 2nd places.

Of course, he knows how hard is to be 1st, he done that only about 130 times

 

[rick james]

Don't worry.

Valverde values the 2nd places.

 

[Parker]

Froome doesn't make my top 5 list for this discussion. Based strictly on numbers,

Here's some numbers. Decade victories in the "Big Nine" races (3 Grand Tours, 5 Monuments, World/Olympic RR)

7 Froome & Nibali
5 Sagan, Cancellara, Gilbert
3 Valverde, Contador

 

[christopherrowe]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but without even the exception of the sidelight conversation on Valverde, this just isn't going to resolve one way or another.

You either believe, as I think Logic does, that the GTs in general (and the TdF in particular, Logic?) are the most difficult athletic, tactical, and strategic challenges in the sport or you believe otherwise. Personally, I don't think that's been true, with very rare but admittedly exceptional examples, since, oh, the 1914 Giro.

That opinion (and yes, the opinions in these precincts are mostly very well informed--that just makes this even less likely to resolve) is, largely, what dictates the choice of men's rider of the decade. (As it happens, I don't even think Froome is the men's GT rider of the decade, owing, as I've said, to his lack of panache and nous--I really do believe he's a guy with a big engine who gets driven around by his DS and his power meter, his one Giro exploit notwithstanding.)

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

You either believe, as I think Logic does, that the GTs in general (and the TdF in particular, Logic?) are the most difficult athletic, tactical, and strategic challenges in the sport or you believe otherwise.

I was very specific in NOT mentioning strategic or tactical difficulties for winning a GT, since i think it is far more likely the better man will win at the end of 3 weeks in a race only 5 or so can win to begin with, than it is likely that the better man in a one day race will win, where there are about a 100 guys eligible. I spoke solely of the physical achievement. Because the physical achievement is much greater in a GT, you automatically get a natural selection not unlike survival of the fittest. Basically, of the 200 guys starting a GT, only 5-10 are physically capable of winning it. It's much less of a lottery than winning a classic or a monument. Tactics in a one one day race have to be on point, there is no "tomorrow" to make up time

 

[spalco]

I'm with christopherrowe in that I believe a one day race is as important if not more important than a stage race and a monument is worth as much as a grand tour. I also do not put anymore weight on the Tour than any other top level race. This is why I'm adding Valverde's stats for only 2012 through 2019 to this list as he is still close to Sagan and shows why I still put Valverde and Sagan at the top of this list.

Well, there are 5 (6 if you count the World Championships) monuments a year, but only 3 GTs. Also it's more unlikely, although not impossible, to win a GT on a fluke, especially the Tour.

In a certain way (not literally) I would compare it to winning the Premier League vs the FA Cup, or the Champions League. Certainly it's an amazing achievement to win the CL two or three times in a row, but the fans of most teams would rather win their domestic championship once if they had to choose.

Also, Sagan has won a lot of races, but he just hasn't won enough monuments yet to be really considered dominating.

 

[christopherrowe]

I was very specific in NOT mentioning strategic or tactical difficulties for winning a GT, since i think it is far more likely the better man will win at the end of 3 weeks in a race only 5 or so can win to begin with, than it is likely that the better man in a one day race will win, where there are about a 100 guys eligible. I spoke solely of the physical achievement. Because the physical achievement is much greater in a GT, you automatically get a natural selection not unlike survival of the fittest. Basically, of the 200 guys starting a GT, only 5-10 are physically capable of winning it. It's much less of a lottery than winning a classic or a monument. Tactics in a one one day race have to be on point, there is no "tomorrow" to make up time

Right on. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth--should have gone back and reread the post I was thinking of more carefully.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Right on. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth--should have gone back and reread the post I was thinking of more carefully.

Which brings us back to sticking a price tag on winning a GT vs winning a monument, or winning a 1 week stagerace vs winning a classic, etc.
For me personally it goes like this: Grand Tour >> Monument/WCC > Classic > GT stage > 1 week stage race >> other one day race / stage from 1 week stage race.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Since the decade is from 2010 to 2019, I had to vote for Fabian, because the 2010 season is then included. Had the decade been from 2011 to 2020, I am not sure I would have cast my vote on Fabian - maybe Sagan then.