Who is your Men's Rider of the Decade?

[red_flanders]

All this "rider of the decade" is a bit confusing.
In cycling we have multiple types of races and riders.
GC, TT, Classics, Sprints.
And somehowe of all of these I need to pick one.
Like in athletics. Who is better runner. Bolt or Farah.
It comes down to personal preferences and symphaties then.

Absolutely–purely subjective. That seems OK.

 

[Red Rick]

Actually, saying it's uncomparable like Bolt vs Farah, I think you can actually make fairly direct comparisons there, and you'd get to Bolt quite clearly.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

If you think that whatever formula PCS applies to race results to allocate points, the answer is Sagan, but the order of the rest of the top ten might surprise you:

1	Sagan Peter	20940
2	Valverde Alejandro	19602
3	Van Avermaet Greg	14964
4	Nibali Vincenzo	14830
5	Kristoff Alexander	14707
6	Froome Chris	13884
7	Gilbert Philippe	13701
8	Rodríguez Joaquim	13099
9	Greipel André	12069
10	Quintana Nairo	11600

Cycling statistics on age, injuries, speed

On what age does a rider score the most points? What was the average speed in the WorldTour in 2025? How globalised is the sport of cycling?

www.procyclingstats.com

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

If you prefer the CQ rankings, you get the same top ten, but it is rather less favourable to the one day racers:

1​	Sagan Peter	20460​
2​	Valverde Alejandro	19701​
3​	Nibali Vincenzo	16282​
4​	Froome Chris	15279​
5​	Van Avermaet Greg	14967​
6​	Kristoff Alexander	14478​
7​	Gilbert Philippe	14116​
8​	Rodríguez Joaquim	13327​
9​	Quintana Nairo	12101​
10​	Greipel André	11799​

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

On those CQ rankings for the decade, Contador is 11th with 11313, and behind him three others get more than 10,000 points, none of them listed in the poll. Who do you think they might be?

 

[Squire]

Without looking at any numbers, I'd guess Samu Sanchez is pretty certain to be one of them and Mollema maybe another. The last one could be anyone between Pinot, Demare, Cavendish, Boasson Hagen and maybe even Matthews or Dumoulin. They've all had at least a couple of low-scoring seasons to make 1k average per year a bit difficult. I'm probably forgetting some obvious ones, too.

 

[Bonimenier]

On those CQ rankings for the decade, Contador is 11th with 11313, and behind him three others get more than 10,000 points, none of them listed in the poll. Who do you think they might be?

Rodriguez probably? Other 2 are harder. Maybe Degenkolb?

 

[Alexandre B.]

Since we're posting classifications, here's the one from the website I work for

1. Peter Sagan, 100
2. Chris Froome, 86
3. Alejandro Valverde, 77
4. Vincenzo Nibali, 74
5. Joaquim Rodriguez, 66
6. Philippe Gilbert, 62
7. Greg Van Avermaet, 55
8. Nairo Quintana, 53
9. Mark Cavendish, 51
10. Fabian Cancellara, 50

 

[Valv.Piti]

I saw this on another forum. Who is your men's rider of the decade 2010-2019?

I think I've fairly picked the top ten. Sorry Quintana fans.

I dont really like or dislike Quintana, but holy *** man. This is some next level ***. And Kittel?!? Get that hot trash outta there.

 

[Gigs_98]

Well you either get it or you think TdF wins are worth more. Some people value the top one-day races as much as a Tour win.

But that's just not how it works. Whether you Like it or not, the Champions League is worth more than the club world cup, Wimbledon is worth more than Indian Wells and the tour de france is worth more than a monument.

Almost everyone would agree on this and just because some cycling snobs on a forum (and let's be real, that's what we are) dislike the tour that doesn't change. If you try to completely ignore public opinions, fine you are allowed to do so, but there is no point in trying to publicly discuss greatness when you're meassuring it in a completely subjektive way.

 

[christopherrowe]

But that's just not how it works. Whether you Like it or not, the Champions League is worth more than the club world cup, Wimbledon is worth more than Indian Wells and the tour de france is worth more than a monument.

Almost everyone would agree on this and just because some cycling snobs on a forum (and let's be real, that's what we are) dislike the tour that doesn't change. If you try to completely ignore public opinions, fine you are allowed to do so, but there is no point in trying to publicly discuss greatness when you're meassuring it in a completely subjektive way.

What is the objective way of measuring "greatness?"

What does public opinion have to do with it? Does majority rule--here expressed, I suppose, by things like television viewership and endorsement deals--always trump expertise, intimate knowledge, and educated observations?

Is applying a wider historical context somehow less "objective" than not doing so?

Finally, why can't people of good will have differing opinions about the relative "greatness" of different bicycle races without name calling, accusations of trolling, and other expressions of heightened emotion?

 

[Koronin]

I don;t know. It wasn't intentional.

I'm sure it wasn't intentional. Just a bit strange.

 

[Gigs_98]

What is the objective way of measuring "greatness?"

What does public opinion have to do with it? Does majority rule--here expressed, I suppose, by things like television viewership and endorsement deals--always trump expertise, intimate knowledge, and educated observations?

Is applying a wider historical context somehow less "objective" than not doing so?

Finally, why can't people of good will have differing opinions about the relative "greatness" of different bicycle races without name calling, accusations of trolling, and other expressions of heightened emotion?

You want to argue whether Paris Roubaix or the Worlds is the bigger race? Fair, people can have different opinions on that question and both would be valid. But the gap between tour and really any other cycling race is just too big to seriously discuss it imo.
To get back to my previous post, do you think it's reasonable to argue that the FIFA club world cup has a higher prestige than the champions league. I could give you arguments why it should, but really it wouldn't matter becuase it's simply doesn't.

 

[christopherrowe]

You want to argue whether Paris Roubaix or the Worlds is the bigger race? Fair, people can have different opinions on that question and both would be valid. But the gap between tour and really any other cycling race is just too big to seriously discuss it imo.
To get back to my previous post, do you think it's reasonable to argue that the FIFA club world cup has a higher prestige than the champions league. I could give you arguments why it should, but really it wouldn't matter becuase it's simply doesn't.

I don't believe anyone has said anything about one race being "bigger" than another. That's a completely different question. If we're talking about a simple popularity contest--well, I don't find that particularly interesting or productive.

I don't know anything about football, so I can't speak to your analogy.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Oops, already posted. Nevermind.

Total PCS points between 2010-2019.

#	Rider	Points
1	Sagan Peter	20940
2	Valverde Alejandro	19602
3	Van Avermaet Greg	14964
4	Nibali Vincenzo	14830
5	Kristoff Alexander	14707
6	Froome Chris	13884
7	Gilbert Philippe	13701
8	Rodríguez Joaquim	13099
9	Greipel André	12069
10	Quintana Nairo	11600

Cycling statistics on age, injuries, speed

On what age does a rider score the most points? What was the average speed in the WorldTour in 2025? How globalised is the sport of cycling?

www.procyclingstats.com

 

[Gigs_98]

I don't believe anyone has said anything about one race being "bigger" than another. That's a completely different question. If we're talking about a simple popularity contest--well, I don't find that particularly interesting or productive.

I don't know anything about football, so I can't speak to your analogy.

But do you really think it's reasonable to value wins in smaller races higher than wins in the biggest one?

 

[christopherrowe]

But do you really think it's reasonable to value wins in smaller races higher than wins in the biggest one?

Yes.

 

[Gigs_98]

Yes.

But then if not size what makes a race prestigious in the first place?

 

[Gigs_98]

Total PCS points between 2010-2019.

#	Rider	Points
1	Sagan Peter	20940
2	Valverde Alejandro	19602
3	Van Avermaet Greg	14964
4	Nibali Vincenzo	14830
5	Kristoff Alexander	14707
6	Froome Chris	13884
7	Gilbert Philippe	13701
8	Rodríguez Joaquim	13099
9	Greipel André	12069
10	Quintana Nairo	11600

Cycling statistics on age, injuries, speed

On what age does a rider score the most points? What was the average speed in the WorldTour in 2025? How globalised is the sport of cycling?

www.procyclingstats.com

I think this is a very good argument for why these sort of lists are completely meaningless

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I think this is a very good argument for why these sort of lists are completely meaningless

Because they don't fit your agenda, obviously.

 

[christopherrowe]

But then if not size what makes a race prestigious in the first place?

Setting aside the differences between "greatness," which I thought was the matter at hand, and "prestige," I'll try to answer as if you'd asked about both.

History, both recent and otherwise.
Drama.
Panache and flair.
Road and weather conditions.
Unpredictability (this, along with History, is probably the "biggest" reason).
Percentage of riders at the start who are racing for the win.
Generation of anecdotes, photographs, and other cultural artifacts that speak to all of the above.
Passion.

 

[Blanco]

I think this is a very good argument for why these sort of lists are completely meaningless

No they are not. The list is actually very accurate, it shows who the most consistent performers are, day-in and day-out, and they're usually also the best riders of them all (although I prefer CQ, their top 3 for this decade shows exactly the best three)

 

[Red Rick]

No they are not. The list is actually very accurate, it shows who the most consistent performers are, day-in and day-out, and they're usually also the best riders of them all (although I prefer CQ, their top 3 for this decade shows exactly the best three)

You mean rankings where getting 4 2nd places in Tour Down Under is better than winning the Tour de France?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

If point allocation algorithms are a legitimate way of discerning the rider of the decade, then First Cycling, with its reluctance to deduct points when a rider is retrospectively banned, gives a slightly different perspective, with Valverde and Contador benefitting.

1​	Valverde Alejandro	26332​
2​	Sagan Peter	23487​
3​	Nibali Vincenzo	20271​
4​	Froome Chris	18753​
5​	Contador	18114​
6​	Van Avermaet Greg	18094​
7​	Kristoff Alexander	17733​
8​	Gilbert Philippe	16091​
9​	Rodríguez Joaquim	15901​
10​	Quintana Nairo	15701​

Koronin might have a new favourite website.

 

[Red Rick]

I think this is a very good argument for why these sort of lists are completely meaningless

Best argument is simply look at what result gives what amount of points, etc.