Who is your Men's Rider of the Decade?

[Blanco]

Failing to win the Vuelta and Lombardia does not at least equal winning the Ronde.

For me it comes pretty close.

 

[Blanco]

Valverde's biggest win was a stage in the Vuelta. Gilbert has two of those.

Valverde's biggest feat last year was not a win, but It certainly worth more than those two stages of Gilbert, but I guess we won't agree on this matter.

 

[tobydawq]

Valverde's biggest feat last year was not a win, but It certainly worth more than those two stages of Gilbert, but I guess we won't agree on this matter.

Ahh, Gilbert's second stage win was pretty significant as well, what with it being the fastest ever 200+ km race and a whole day of pure insanity.

 

[Blanco]

Ahh, Gilbert's second stage win was pretty significant as well, what with it being the fastest ever 200+ km race and a whole day of pure insanity.

Yes it was, I won't deny that.

 

[Red Rick]

Honestly Valverde's season was very lacklustre before the Vuelta. Apart from the Vuelta and Il Lombardia, he didn't do that much in high quality races either.

 

[rick james]

Bloody Valverde talk stilly muddying the waters it’s seems....let it go fanboys/girls

 

[Red Rick]

Bloody Valverde talk stilly muddying the waters it’s seems....let it go fanboys/girls

Think he's pretty close to Sagan tbh.

By that I mean that all arguments to put Sagan ahead of Nibali put Valverde ahead of Sagan, unless you specifically rate WC higher than winning the Tour or Giro, which is pretty lolworthy. Sagan really only leads Froome and Nibbles in stage wins (barely) and in tier 2 wins i.e. races like GW and E3, but Valverde destroys him there.

Generally think Sagan gets more credit than his results show cause people are always talking about him, which is aided by the fact that he gets lots of attention for doing wheelies while vulturing lesser jerseys when GC riders are duking it out for the biggest races in the world.

Meanwhile Nibali continuously gets underrated cause he doesn't dominate small races but consistently gets great results in the biggest races without dominating them.

The more I think about it, the more I think Nibali and Froome are the clear top 2, between whom both our choices will be extremely obvious.

 

[Salvarani]

Rider of the decade doesnt have to be only based on results, just saying. Commercial succes. Impact on the sport. Being known all over the world. No one has been a bigger star than Sagan this decade. Who also have results to back it up. Others has had really great results, but they havent shined brighter than Sagan this decade. Certainly not Froome with his clinic issues. It is controversial, whether you like or don’t like him.

For me it has to be Sagan. Accounting for every aspect.

 

[Summoned]

Bloody Valverde talk stilly muddying the waters it’s seems....let it go fanboys/girls

Again, nothing that is going on in this discussion is in any way failing to be constructive or legitimately advancing a supportable point of view. I fail to see the benefit of telling people to cease the conversation.

 

[Red Rick]

Rider of the decade doesnt have to be only based on results, just saying. Commercial succes. Impact on the sport. Being known all over the world. No one has been a bigger star than Sagan this decade. Who also have results to back it up. Others has had really great results, but they havent shined brighter than Sagan this decade. Certainly not Froome with his clinic issues. It is controversial, whether you like or don’t like him.

For me it has to be Sagan. Accounting for every aspect.

And by that metric Armstrong is no doubt much greater than Merckx. It's the worst metric I've heard yet.

 

[RedheadDane]

And by that metric Armstrong is no doubt much greater than Merckx. It's the worst metric I've heard yet.

Otoh, Merckx is still a popular figure. Armstrong... not so much.

 

[Põhja Konn]

And by that metric Armstrong is no doubt much greater than Merckx. It's the worst metric I've heard yet.

I think you're missing his point. Things Salvarani mentioned were never meant to be the main factors, just something that also influence the result together with the achievements on the road. Topics like this one are never just a matter of comparing the palmares of different riders.

 

[christopherrowe]

I’ve been playing around with a spreadsheet of all the Monument podium finishers throughout the history of the sport. I should note here that, like some of you and unlike some others, in my opinion Monuments are more impressive than Grand Tours, and also like some of you and unlike some others, I am personally interested in the so-called “minor placings.” If you finish seventh in Paris-Roubaix, well, I think that’s pretty impressive.

Anyway, among active riders, Phillipe Gilbert and Alejandro Valverde are by far the most prolific podium finishers in the Monuments.

Gilbert has eleven podiums (5 firsts and 6 thirds). Valverde has 10 podiums (4 firsts, 5 seconds, and 1 third). After that you drop down to Niki Terpstra’s 6 podiums (2 firsts, 1 second, and 3 thirds).

I’m ranking all Monument podium finishers with a ridiculously simple arithmetical formula. Riders get three points for a first place, two points for a second, and one point for a third.

By that metric, Valverde edges out Gilbert, 23 points to 21 points.

Oh, in case you’re curious, I’m sure nobody will be surprised that the all time leader is Eddy Merckx with 30 podiums yielding 73 points (19 firsts, 5 seconds, and 6 thirds). Next down from him is Roger De Vlaeminck with 21 podiums yielding 51 points (11 firsts, 8 seconds, and 2 thirds).

I’m still working on the overall rankings (and data entry for Grand Tour podiums—at some point I’ll fold the two categories in together).

PS I'm aware that there are websites that do this kind of thing for you, or at least come close, I just enjoy doing stuff like this.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Valverde's biggest feat last year was not a win, but It certainly worth more than those two stages of Gilbert, but I guess we won't agree on this matter.

It's clear we won't agree. And like you said, it was not a win. You can call it a "feat", but at the end of the day he came second in a sparsely populated Vuelta. It may be worth more to you than two stagewins, but it certainly isn't worth more than a monument. I think you'll find that most pro cyclist would very much agree with that.

And my point is only for 2019, not for the entire decade, to be clear. It was just a response to your supposed objective view that there was not one year where Gilbert edges out Valverde. That's all i have to say about the matter.

 

[Salvarani]

And by that metric Armstrong is no doubt much greater than Merckx. It's the worst metric I've heard yet.

That wasnt what I said at all but okay. Nor do I agree with that.

Also, Armstrong was caught. Like someone else has been. But not convicted. Which I mentioned in my post as a reason, he shouldnt be considered over someone like Sagan as rider of the decade. Accounting for the aspects I mentioned with results to back it up.

 

[Salvarani]

I think you're missing his point. Things Salvarani mentioned were never meant to be the main factors, just something that also influence the result together with the achievements on the road. Topics like this one are never just a matter of comparing the palmares of different riders.

RT

 

[Red Rick]

Topics like this one are never just a matter of comparing the palmares of different riders.

If I considered anything besides palmares I'd be talking about Contador and Cancellara rather than Froome

 

[christopherrowe]

If I considered anything besides palmares I'd be talking about Contador and Cancellara rather than Froome

This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable stance (as is, more or less, taking--what should we call them?--"extracurriculars" into account, it's all good.)

But it raises a question in my mind when it comes to discussing "great riders" as opposed to "prolific winners" (the two categories usually overlap to a great degree, of course). So many riders of the Heroic Era died young in the Great War. And--a favorite hypothetical question--what might we have seen from Bartoli and Coppi if their careers hadn't been interrupted by World War II?

You can apply similar questions--on a much smaller scale and with a lot less tragedy, of course--to our discussion here. Injuries, serving out bans, weather, equipment failures, what if, what if , what if? Then again, that's racing (for the smaller questions, I mean).

 

[Blanco]

I’ve been playing around with a spreadsheet of all the Monument podium finishers throughout the history of the sport. I should note here that, like some of you and unlike some others, in my opinion Monuments are more impressive than Grand Tours, and also like some of you and unlike some others, I am personally interested in the so-called “minor placings.” If you finish seventh in Paris-Roubaix, well, I think that’s pretty impressive.

Anyway, among active riders, Phillipe Gilbert and Alejandro Valverde are by far the most prolific podium finishers in the Monuments.

Gilbert has eleven podiums (5 firsts and 6 thirds). Valverde has 10 podiums (4 firsts, 5 seconds, and 1 third). After that you drop down to Niki Terpstra’s 6 podiums (2 firsts, 1 second, and 3 thirds).

I’m ranking all Monument podium finishers with a ridiculously simple arithmetical formula. Riders get three points for a first place, two points for a second, and one point for a third.

By that metric, Valverde edges out Gilbert, 23 points to 21 points.

Oh, in case you’re curious, I’m sure nobody will be surprised that the all time leader is Eddy Merckx with 30 podiums yielding 73 points (19 firsts, 5 seconds, and 6 thirds). Next down from him is Roger De Vlaeminck with 21 podiums yielding 51 points (11 firsts, 8 seconds, and 2 thirds).

I’m still working on the overall rankings (and data entry for Grand Tour podiums—at some point I’ll fold the two categories in together).

PS I'm aware that there are websites that do this kind of thing for you, or at least come close, I just enjoy doing stuff like this.

I have one suggestion for you, why don't add WC RR and OG (from 1996) results to your list. That way you'll have all the biggest one-day races covered.

Oh, and be careful with that scoring system, around here win is all that matters, 2nd and 3rd are first two losers (so I heard many times...), so maybe you reconsider distribution of points, winner should get not 3, but 30 points, and second and third should stay at 2 and 1. Cause who the hell remembers second and third place, or God forbid 7th place!? Only winners goes straight down in history.

I'm joking, of course

 

[Gigs_98]

I have one suggestion for you, why don't add WC RR and OG (from 1996) results to your list. That way you'll have all the biggest one-day races covered.

Oh, and be careful with that scoring system, around here win is all that matters, 2nd and 3rd are first two losers (so I heard many times...), so maybe you reconsider distribution of points, winner should get not 3, but 30 points, and second and third should stay at 2 and 1. Cause who the hell remembers second and third place, or God forbid 7th place!? Only winners goes straight down in history.

I'm joking, of course

You say that jokingly but I honestly find this scoring metric really bad for the exact reason you mentioned. Not saying the ratio from first to 2nd should be 30 points to two points, but definitely not 3:2 either. I mean by that metric three Lombardia runner up spots are as good as two Paris Roubaix victories? Do you really think that? In my opinion a monument win is clearly worth more than two 2nd places.

Anyway this whole debate was only about this decade not their whole careers so Valverde has only two monument wins. Still if we apply the metric it gets valverde to 15, which means he is actually only one point in front. Not of Gilbert btw, one point in front of Nibali. Now the big question is are two giros, a tour and a vuelta worth as much as a third place in a monument so he can tie with Valverde. I'd argue they are

And btw, I know I just completely ignored WC results, because...well, they didn't fit my narrative. But still, you can see the point. This decade Valverde isn't even that far in front of Nibali when it comes to one day racing, so I just don't think you can argue he is in front overall?

 

[Gigs_98]

Rider of the decade doesnt have to be only based on results, just saying. Commercial succes. Impact on the sport. Being known all over the world. No one has been a bigger star than Sagan this decade. Who also have results to back it up. Others has had really great results, but they havent shined brighter than Sagan this decade. Certainly not Froome with his clinic issues. It is controversial, whether you like or don’t like him.

For me it has to be Sagan. Accounting for every aspect.

Fair, I still think Froome is the rider of the decade, but that's an argument I can get behind.

 

[Koronin]

You say that jokingly but I honestly find this scoring metric really bad for the exact reason you mentioned. Not saying the ratio from first to 2nd should be 30 points to two points, but definitely not 3:2 either. I mean by that metric three Lombardia runner up spots are as good as two Paris Roubaix victories? Do you really think that? In my opinion a monument win is clearly worth more than two 2nd places.

Anyway this whole debate was only about this decade not their whole careers so Valverde has only two monument wins. Still if we apply the metric it gets valverde to 15, which means he is actually only one point in front. Not of Gilbert btw, one point in front of Nibali. Now the big question is are two giros, a tour and a vuelta worth as much as a third place in a monument so he can tie with Valverde. I'd argue they are

And btw, I know I just completely ignored WC results, because...well, they didn't fit my narrative. But still, you can see the point. This decade Valverde isn't even that far in front of Nibali when it comes to one day racing, so I just don't think you can argue he is in front overall?

When you start counting GT's, yes you count Nibali's GTs, but you also then count Valverde's multiple podiums. 1 Giro, 1 Tour, and 4 Vuelta's. Yes you would also count Nibali's podiums as well. Yes you should count the WC as well in which Valverde has 1 win and 3 other 3rds.

 

[roundabout]

I suppose when Valverde has thrown away a Worlds and a Lombardia in the most Valverde manner possible in a space of a little over a year all is left is indeed to count the podiums.

 

[fauniera]

But the decade is from 2011 to 2020 so we still don't know.

This.

 

[Red Rick]

Fair, I still think Froome is the rider of the decade, but that's an argument I can get behind.

More inclined to rate 2nd and 3rd as 30% ans 15% of a win or something

Hoy you rate the Pais Vascos and FWs vs the monuments and GTs is another matter