Who is your Men's Rider of the Decade?

[Zinoviev Letter]

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.

I think a lot of people are missing how precise you are being in your phrasing and think that you are making objective claims about prestige and importance within the sport.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

Disagree. I agree we’re fairly snobbish about the sport, but the question is “Who is YOUR Men’s Rider of the Decade”...

So the answers will be ours, and subjective to how we view the sport. One is free to disagree with any take, but it’s a fun discussion and that’s all the point there needs to be. It’s not like anyone is getting an award for it and it still wouldn’t matter. See every MVP vote ever.

IMO the general public overvalues The Tour, and so do many in this board. It’s an opinion.

 

[tobydawq]

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

The Tour Down Under is of course in desperate need of a serious nerfing, but otherwise yes, such rankings are quite fine.

 

[boneshaker]

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

Can you provde more details and/or a link, please?

 

[cantpedal]

I've really enjoyed reading this thread and I am torn between Froome and Sagan. Of course we are looking at two very different riders and different races that each can win, but they are both incredibly impressive. Ultimately, for me, when comparing the achievements in respective races, I think that Froome's victories have more influence from his team than Sagan's victories. Would Froome have won as much if he had not been on Sky/Ineos? Most likely not. Would Sagan have won as much if not on his current/previous teams? I would argue he has been held back some by his team and lack of support at times. I therefore lean to Sagan as being the rider of the decade for winning as much as he has, with overall less help from his team when compared to Froome.

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

Its as if a tennis player were to win Wimbledon, the US, French and Australian opens, and is ranked 10th on a list of players who won a bunch of bank or super market promoted events.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Its as if a tennis player were to win Wimbledon, the US, French and Australian opens, and is ranked 10th on a list of players who won a bunch of bank or super market promoted events.

It's like... nothing at all like that.

Ignoring the fact that tennis isn't a team sport, where the richest team can buy you the best helpers and fundamentally increase your chances of winning. Ignoring the fact that tennis is a succession of 1 v 1 games where two opponents face each other under exactly the same circumstances. And ignoring the fact that a grand slam differs in virtually nothing from any other tournament, other than the number of sets for men (not women) and the amount of rounds that are played (due to more contenders).

In tennis, every player will try to participate in every grand slam, unless he is injured. Never have i heard a player say, that he would skip Paris and London, in order to focus on the US open. In tennis, there is not one player who will play only one grand slam, and a few prep tournaments. If physically possible (getting older plays a part as well), they all play all the big tournaments, and a bunch of smaller ones in between, depending on which suit their schedule best.

And the biggest issue with your comparison, is that any tennis player that can win all 4 grand slams (where the usual problem is that most don't play equally well on each surface, clay, hardcourt, grass... bringing your comparison closer to cyclocross vs road vs MTB), any player that can win all the slams, can win ANY other tournament. Which is exactly the problem of the entire discussion here. Froome can't win Flanders, Froome can't win Paris Roubaix, Froome can't win E3, Froome can't win Strade Bianche or San Remo, nor anything ending in a sprint. Him winning TDF, doesn't change that. That's just the entire issue with the debate, that a guy like Sagan wins stuff Froome can't win, and the other way around. And which to value more.

 

[Leinster]

For all Sagans hype. He only won 2 monuments, and that's after Cancellara and Boonen fell off the wagon in those races.

He's one of the greats in cycling this decade, but I think he often gets way more credit than he should get for the results he gets. Yes, he's basically the only rider that combines ability to win flat bunch sprints, cobbled classics and even being a top puncheur, but he has not converted that in winning Sanremo, nor has he ever done anything in the Ardennes.

2 monuments, but 3 Worlds, which is surely at least equal. And a couple of gc wins ahead of good climbers. And GT stage wins by the dozen. The TdF changed the green jersey scoring system because of him. And he just kept winning it.

So he might not be the best classics rider of the decade, but he won more stage races and GT stages than the best classics riders. And he can't win as many stage races as Froome or Contador, but those guys never did it in the classics.

 

[Alexandre B.]

Can you provde more details and/or a link, please?

Qui est le meilleur coureur des années 2010 ? - Archives - Le Gruppetto - Forum de Cyclisme

Qui est le meilleur coureur des années 2010 ? -

legruppetto.fr

Wins were very much valued (2nd in a WT race has 50% of a race winner’s points, only stage winners win points, only HC stage race winners win points, etc.).

 

[spalco]

The Tour Down Under is of course in desperate need of a serious nerfing, but otherwise yes, such rankings are quite fine.

No, the point stands. Consistency isn't everything. A bunch of runner up placings don't equal a win. In the end the race is about who crosses the line first.

I wonder what that list would look like if you only counted points for races the rider won.

 

[Salvarani]

Sagan. WCs, Classics, GTs. Countless victories in other races. How many 2nd and 3rd places does he also have in races? He also been having to get these results by himself, when having no teammates around him. And some people have the audacity to say "one-trick pony". Valverde and Nibali any day over the guy below. Even Gilbert.

Froome? Won all three GTs. With the best possible support from other riders in the team with the most money. Often just riding on wheels. Except for one time. Controversy over if his results and if he has been clean, and Sky/INEOS dominance.

Well, you know who I picked already.

 

[Red Rick]

2 monuments, but 3 Worlds, which is surely at least equal. And a couple of gc wins ahead of good climbers. And GT stage wins by the dozen. The TdF changed the green jersey scoring system because of him. And he just kept winning it.

So he might not be the best classics rider of the decade, but he won more stage races and GT stages than the best classics riders. And he can't win as many stage races as Froome or Contador, but those guys never did it in the classics.

Sprinters winning more stages than GC riders doesn't say much. And he barely has more than Nibali and Froome anyway.

Sagan winning stage races that are tailor made for classics riders barely says anything. I'm not arguing Contador had 1 day racing chops cause he won Milano-Torino.

 

[Red Rick]

Sagan. WCs, Classics, GTs. Countless victories in other races. How many 2nd and 3rd places does he also have in races? He also been having to get these results by himself, when having no teammates around him. And some people have the audacity to say "one-trick pony". Valverde and Nibali any day over the guy below. Even Gilbert.

Froome? Won all three GTs. With the best possible support from other riders in the team with the most money. Often just riding on wheels. Except for one time. Controversy over if his results and if he has been clean, and Sky/INEOS dominance.

Well, you know who I picked already.

I think by this argument Cavendish is a clear 2nd.

 

[Salvarani]

I think by this argument Cavendish is a clear 2nd.

I didnt make an argument... but okay. I just listed what he has won and asked a question. But sure Cavendish has won a lot of races, but that wasnt my point when it came to Sagan or that was at least not what I meant to say. Cavendish has won a WC, MSR (not this decade), lot of stages in TdF. He only won the Green Jersey one time in the Tour though, despite his dominance. 15 stages in the Giro not too bad either btw. But he also had the best sprint train for years and was pretty much unchallenged in the bunch sprints, for a few years. Since 2016 he hasnt done much though. That also works against him if we talking about the whole decade vs the other riders.

I think Sagan is the better rider, if it comes to that. More versatile. Better bike-handeler. And more memorable wins. Different type of stages and races. That was what I meant with the "victory argument", if we gonna hold on to that. It is not just sprints. It is solos and breaks. Just being the strongest rider and smartest, even if he gets a bad rep for his tactics. Without out much help from anyone, in a time where he has been the most watched rider. He has had to gamble sometimes. Even if form not been there and some decisions has been poor. But that is racing. And who has raced at a high level more than he?

I would hold Valverde and Nibali higher than Cavendish. Maybe even Gilbert.
If not Sagan it should be Valverde.

That is MY opinion.

 

[rick james]

all this petty arguing when really the answer is Froome or Sagan....Fanboys ruining things

 

[Red Rick]

Think there's a lot of focus on outliers in terms of how races were won to call it exciting, etc.

 

[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?

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.

Rodriguez probably? Other 2 are harder. Maybe Degenkolb?

Rodriguez was in the top ten, and Cavendish in the poll, so it is neither of them. But two of the three have been named, and the one which surprised me most has not been. Any more guesses?

 

[Salvarani]

Rodriguez was in the top ten, and Cavendish in the poll, so it is neither of them. But two of the three have been named, and the one which surprised me most has not been. Any more guesses?

Quintana.

 

[tobydawq]

Rui Costa?

 

[tobydawq]

If you only look at the wins of the riders and the points these wins yield, then the top 10 of current riders (during all their career, not just this decade) looks something like this:

1: Peter Sagan	11700
2: Philippe Gilbert	8300
3: Alejandro Valverde	8200
4: Mark Cavendish	7800
5: André Greipel	7100
6: Chris Froome	7000
7: Vincenzo Nibali	6500
8: Tony Martin	5200
9: Alexander Kristoff	4900
10: Edvald Boasson Hagen	4800

And no, points competitions are not included.

So, given that this is the current decade only that we're discussing, Valverde, Greipel, Gilbert and Cavendish (and to a lesser extent Boasson Hagen, Martin and Nibali) will have a lower score for this decade. But Sagan won't.

 

[Joomla10]

Valverde, no doubt.

 

[Red Rick]

Rodriguez was in the top ten, and Cavendish in the poll, so it is neither of them. But two of the three have been named, and the one which surprised me most has not been. Any more guesses?

Rodriguez could have easily been up there but he had so frigging many near misses it's a little sad really.

It's easy to forget about him for this poll cause he retired a while ago now.

 

[tobydawq]

Lol, I mixed up Sagan and Valverde in the above top 10. I was a bit surprised that Sagan was leading by so big an amount....

 

[Parker]

Rodriguez was in the top ten, and Cavendish in the poll, so it is neither of them. But two of the three have been named, and the one which surprised me most has not been. Any more guesses?

Richie Porte?

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Rui Costa?

Correct: After Contador, but still averaging more than 1000 CQ points a year throughout the 2010s are Mollema, Boasson Hagen and Rui Costa.

(I did notice that Degenkolb beat Costa on First Cyclings calculation: no idea who is just outside the top ten on PCS's method of scoring.)

 

[Brullnux]

Think it has to be Froome for me. Sagan has also been a defining figure, but Froome has won more 'big' races, and won everything he could've reasonably won. Sagan is missing San Remo, Froome is missing nothing.