The Best Rider in the World for 2009

blazing_saddles

No FF. I'm just not big on singling out individual riders for the title of the best, for the reasons, I, disgruntledgoat and several others have pointed out. Too reliant upon too many variables.

I try to avoid having a specific favourite, within the peloton, as it does smack of fanboyism, be it allbeit a "watered down" version of the real thing.


However, in the case of Contador and your argument, I afraid that to acknowledge this "tag", using your criteria, would necessitate acknowleding Armstrong as the best rider of the decade and I'm not prepared to do that, without a fight!

I cannot accept that a rider that gets off his bike in April, climbs on again in June and off again in July, can be the season's best.

Valverde, I failed to mention.
OK: So far he has won the Dauphine, Catalunya and Burgos.
Were he to win this Vuelta AND the World title, I would have to say his season's palmares better those of Berto's.
Hence, I think this thread a little premature.
Had he turned in the usual Spring campaign, there would be little question
Well, he didn't and that's that.

Meanwhile, Cav, keeps on racking up the victories, having been "at it" since March, with only a real break, after the tour.

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Meanwhile, Cav, keeps on racking up the victories, having been "at it" since March, with only a real break, after the tour.

He won four races in February too.

For me it's Cav as well.

Six stages of the Tour de France - the most for 30 years
23 wins (maybe more) - the most since Jalabert's 25 in 1995
A win in his first monument
More or less unbeatable in bunch sprints (only two defeats I think, maybe three)

Someone wins the Tour every year - Valverde will probably pip Contador for second if he wins the Vuelta, and may Cav if he wins the Worlds too. (he'll probably pass Contador on the CQ ranking too).

moray_gub

deejay wrote:

Put the Texan in the Bottom Drawer and forget him. (on this thread he don't count at all)
He rode this year as a "Poser" and don't give me the TDF as there was no Competitive TDF in 2009 and can they serve up such rubbish for him in 2010.??

So on the basis that the TDF was non compettitive we can discount all the TDF results this year Contatdors win Wiggos 4th and i suppose if what you say is true Cavs 6 wins as well.

Gazzaputt

Contador is he the best rider of the year? No.

Cav by a long way for me based on results and for getting around the TDF.

JackCB

If you're really think there are any objective criteria based on which you can determine who 'the best rider in the world' is, then you are sorely deluded.

Yes, you can come up with criteria according to which a rider's ability is judged and using these criteria claim that Contador is 'the best rider in the world'. But your claim can only ever be subjective because although the criteria you use may be factual, your choice of those criteria as determining who is 'best' is entirely subjective.


As it happens I would agree with your choice of Contador as the best in the world this year. But this is not a matter of personal opinion, not fact.

frenchfighter

In case you missed it in the OP. Am I still sorely deluded?

frenchfighter wrote:

Let me say first off that this is a subjective question. There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested in people's opinion and the process they used to come to it.

I would be interested to know why you think Contador is the best?

deejay

Moray Gub wrote:

deejay wrote:

Put the Texan in the Bottom Drawer and forget him. (on this thread he don't count at all)
He rode this year as a "Poser" and don't give me the TDF as there was no Competitive TDF in 2009 and can they serve up such rubbish for him in 2010.??

So on the basis that the TDF was non compettitive we can discount all the TDF results this year Contatdors win Wiggos 4th and i suppose if what you say is true Cavs 6 wins as well.

Contador would have won no matter what and he seemed the only contender who wanted to race. (very naughty that he should have such thoughts it seems)
Cavendish would have done the same.
You think that Wiggins or the old man would have that position if there had been 3 consecutive days in the mountains with no rest day. You must be Joking.
You mean you enjoyed the Tour of the Mediterranean/Swiss as a substitute TDF.

I remember an article on Tony Rominger living in Monaco and his training ride with a team mate was due North and straight up the "Mountain" and back.
The 2009 TDF did nothing but ride right along the coast and then give themselves plenty of time to go shopping for "Duty Free's" in Andorra and then carry on "Touring" through Suisse and all the way back to the Mediterranean area for one mountain.

The young Cavendish can be rated in the best rider category and like other past sprinters he can become an allround Rouler.

Pokerface

deejay wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

You could actually make an argument that Armstrong was a better rider in 2009 than Contador solely based on the fact he accomplished more for his age than Contador. To finish 12th in the Giro and 3rd in the Tour at the age of 38 (or 37 or however old he is) and to do both those things after 3 years away from the sport and after breaking a collarbone is more impressive to me than a fit 20-something twig of a rr"ider that can climb mountains with ease.

And based on wins - Cav gets my vote (he won again today). MRS proves he can do more than JUST win sprints when he has a strong lead-out train.

Put the Texan in the Bottom Drawer and forget him. (on this thread he don't count at all)
He rode this year as a "Poser" and don't give me the TDF as there was no Competitive TDF in 2009 and can they serve up such rubbish for him in 2010.?? probably.

Contador, nice ride son but if you keep that up you will be just another 7 time "Programmer" and not worthy of your talents. (I know about Paris/Nice etc)

I had Cavendish because of his many wins and the one that tips my vote for him was the TDF Stage 19 win in Aubenas with that Parcour that nobody tipped him.
I also note that San Remo is mentioned and that is of course a "Monument Race" and that Texan "NEVER" won any of those. Zilch.

To clarify - I'm not saying that Armstrong was the best rider of 2009. Just saying you could make an argument for it if you wanted to.

And by your logic "the TDF as there was no Competitive TDF in 2009" - that may well be true, but armstrong STILL managed third and only 2 others riders out of 189 could beat him. If it was "so uncompetitive", surely many other riders would have surpassed him? This is what I do not understand....


(Cav STILL gets my vote - and Blazing - it's not a question of FAVOURITE rider - it's who was the BEST rider. Similar, but different).

moray_gub

deejay wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

deejay wrote:

Put the Texan in the Bottom Drawer and forget him. (on this thread he don't count at all)
He rode this year as a "Poser" and don't give me the TDF as there was no Competitive TDF in 2009 and can they serve up such rubbish for him in 2010.??

So on the basis that the TDF was non compettitive we can discount all the TDF results this year Contatdors win Wiggos 4th and i suppose if what you say is true Cavs 6 wins as well.

Contador would have won no matter what and he seemed the only contender who wanted to race. (very naughty that he should have such thoughts it seems)
Cavendish would have done the same.
You think that Wiggins or the old man would have that position if there had been 3 consecutive days in the mountains with no rest day. You must be Joking.
You mean you enjoyed the Tour of the Mediterranean/Swiss as a substitute TDF.

I remember an article on Tony Rominger living in Monaco and his training ride with a team mate was due North and straight up the "Mountain" and back.
The 2009 TDF did nothing but ride right along the coast and then give themselves plenty of time to go shopping for "Duty Free's" in Andorra and then carry on "Touring" through Suisse and all the way back to the Mediterranean area for one mountain.

The young Cavendish can be rated in the best rider category and like other past sprinters he can become an allround Rouler.

I am intrigued here as to who you think would have beaten Lance if the route had been harder ?

Manaru

Has to be LANCE, for how tactically he rode and how strong he was aswell eccspecially after 4 years out and a broken collarbone

dennisn

Manaru wrote:

Has to be LANCE, for how tactically he rode and how strong he was aswell eccspecially after 4 years out and a broken collarbone

Damn, I'm at work and didn't bring any popcorn. I wonder if your post will get any responses????

Woodchip

dennisn wrote:

Manaru wrote:

Has to be LANCE, for how tactically he rode and how strong he was aswell eccspecially after 4 years out and a broken collarbone

Damn, I'm at work and didn't bring any popcorn. I wonder if your post will get any responses????

Surely no-one in their right mind could question the fact that LANCE is a very strong rider and will beat any 38yr old out there (and about 98% of competitors that are younger than him).

Echo et les Boniments

Pernod, anyone? As Lou Reed once asked Doug Yule to go and get him a double Peeernod at the legendary NY club Max's Kansas City, I urge you to try a sip of this alcoholic beverage if you're looking for the best rider in the world so far in 2009.

You guys must remember that little thing called ze Super Prestige Pernod. OK so I know that this 'unofficial points world championship' was flawed and terribly Franco-centric (how come Roubaix got more points????) but still I took the 1987 grading scale and tried to make up some kind of classification for the 2009 season until, well, now. (Yeah I know, today I've got waaay too much time on my hands...) So here goes:

1-A. Schleck 335 points
2- A. Contador 315
3-A. Valverde 285
4- R. Kreuziger 270
5-A. Kloden 230
6-T. Hushovd 225
7- D. Cunego 215
H. Haussler 215
9- (coughs) D.Rebellin 210
V. Nibali 210
11 L. Armstrong 205
12- F. Schleck 185
13- C.Evans 180
P. Gilbert 180
15-M. Breschel 160
T. Lokvist 160
17 P. Pozzato 155
L. Leipheimer 155
19- C. Le Mevel 145
V. Karpets 145
21 - D. Menchov 140
S. Garzelli 140
23 S. Gerrans 130
Etc.

So, for obvious reasons I used the Hamburg Cyclassics instead of the Henninger Turm and I picked the Tour of California to replace the Coors Classic (Remember that stage race? Epic! So there were actually great cycling events in the US way before St. Lance's 2nd coming...)

And yes, Cav' is way back. But please believe me people, this is not another petty anti-anglo French plot, quite simply the Pernod people never cared for stage wins, not even GT stage wins.

frenchfighter

Echo, merci beaucoup pour l'analyse. Andy a bien corru cette annee, surtout a Liege et Fleche. De plus peut-etre l'on peut ajouter le titre a Mendrisio...

Pokerface

It's interesting that most people have overlooked Andy Schlek. He came second in the Tour, won a classic (Liege-Bastogne-Liege) or two (if you count his second place in Flèche Wallonne as a first as Rebellin got busted for doping), 10th Amstel Gold, Natinal Champion and a few other things.

He showed he can climb with the best in the Tour and although his TT skills are lacking, he's still the strongest threat to Contador to win the Tour - probably for a few years to come.

frenchfighter

disgruntledgoat wrote:

How do his racing days compare to Cavendish etc, as that will have a bearing on efficiency.

Ok so if we consider efficiency as points per km (1st value) and points per race days (2nd value). We have the following comparisons.

Contador 23 / 42
Cavendish 13 / 19
Valverde 19 / 32
Schleck A 12 / 19
Armstrong 7 / 10

So I guess if one of your factors for determining the best rider was efficiency then Contador is by far and away the best.

Pokerface

frenchfighter wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

How do his racing days compare to Cavendish etc, as that will have a bearing on efficiency.

Ok so if we consider efficiency as points per km (1st value) and points per race days (2nd value). We have the following comparisons.

Contador 23 / 42
Cavendish 13 / 19
Valverde 19 / 32
Schleck A 12 / 19
Armstrong 7 / 10

So I guess if one of your factors for determining the best rider was efficiency then Contador is by far and away the best.

Not POINTS. Do it based on WINS. The points system is meaningless.

frenchfighter

PF. I did it because he asked. It is interesteing to see these statistics. Well at least I think so. I also do not think the points system is meaningless at all.

You could do it by wins if you think that is good. For me, a win in a 200km summit finish in the Tour does not equal a win in a 125km race in a early season 1 week stage race, so I am not keen on this statistic.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing how you would decide who was best if you think we cannot put any store in the points?

RichN95.

For number of days raced so far:

Cavendish 82 (5th most)
A Schleck 65 (156th)
Contador 54 (373rd)
Valverde 47 (524th)

Cav has won on 24 of those days (incl. one TTT) - a phenomenal 30% win rate (actually 29.2%)

frenchfighter

RichN95 wrote:

For number of days raced so far:

Cavendish 82 (5th most)
A Schleck 65 (156th)
Contador 54 (373rd)
Valverde 47 (524th)

Cav has won on 24 of those days (incl. one TTT) - a phenomenal 30% win rate (actually 29.2%)

Just for the sake of comparison, the win % for the rest are:
Contador: 20%
Valverde: 15%
Schleck: 5%
Armstrong: 2%

Pokerface

frenchfighter wrote:

PF. I did it because he asked. It is interesteing to see these statistics. Well at least I think so. I also do not think the points system is meaningless at all.

You could do it by wins if you think that is good. For me, a win in a 200km summit finish in the Tour does not equal a win in a 125km race in a early season 1 week stage race, so I am not keen on this statistic.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing how you would decide who was best if you think we cannot put any store in the points?

You like the points system because it backs up your supposition that Contador is the best rider. I like looking at wins as it backs up my supposition that Cav is the best rider.

The points system doesn't include non UCI events - does it? Or does the CQ ranking system include those?

A win is a win. You still have to beat all the other riders on the road, on the day. Some wins are harder to come by - yes. I disagree with the points system because I think it skews the rankings and favours a certain type of rider.

all show no go

This is a genuinely interesting thread which shows that there can be a myriad of ways to dissect individual performances over a season, all of which have merit to some degree. But for me, breaking things down into percentages and other such numbers leaves me a little numb and can render those performances as little more than mathematical equations rather than amazing feats of physical endeavour, which is surely the reason why I/we have a passion for this sport.

takethehighroad

This question can't be answered until October 17th at the very earliest.

We've not even had the third GT of the season, as well as the World Champs.

And Rigoberto Uran and Jani Brajkovic proved last year that surprising performances can come at any time of the year.

frenchfighter

all show and no go, I agree about the passion element and to be honest, those type of qualities are the ones I really like Contador for. I haven't mentioned too much about them as people tend to fry me for them. I did however mention his capabilities in the first post as I see them. I am not a numbers person, so don't have a HRM or Powermeter and many of the riders I admire don't train with a power meter at least. Contador and Martins are two that ride on feel and that makes for one reason why I like them.

I do think though that breaking down a riders performance like this can be revealing and the different interpretations are interesting.

Take the High Road, I agree. here too, and when this thread fades away we should bring it back up then. Andy could well jump up the rankings with a potential win in the Worlds and the same can be said of Valverde with the Vuelta, even if he doesn't win the overall.

all show no go

frenchfighter wrote:

all show and no go, I agree about the passion element and to be honest, those type of qualities are the ones I really like Contador for. I haven't mentioned too much about them as people tend to fry me for them. I did however mention his capabilities in the first post as I see them. I am not a numbers person, so don't have a HRM or Powermeter and many of the riders I admire don't train with a power meter at least. Contador and Martins are two that ride on feel and that makes for one reason why I like them.

I do think though that breaking down a riders performance like this can be revealing and the different interpretations are interesting.

Take the High Road, I agree. here too, and when this thread fades away we should bring it back up then. Andy could well jump up the rankings with a potential win in the Worlds and the same can be said of Valverde with the Vuelta, even if he doesn't win the overall.

I agree with what you say. I also agree that when Contador is in full flight he is simply untouchable. Breaking down performances into various numerical tables is completely valid and does raise interesting comparisons which are open to wide discussion which is why I like this thread you started. But for me it's the visual impact of a riders performance and how they won rather than what they won that does it for me (Bertie included). I thank you for introducing me to the joys of CQ rankings etc Frenchie. Something I wasn't aware of before.

frenchfighter

Pokerface wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

PF. I did it because he asked. It is interesteing to see these statistics. Well at least I think so. I also do not think the points system is meaningless at all.

You could do it by wins if you think that is good. For me, a win in a 200km summit finish in the Tour does not equal a win in a 125km race in a early season 1 week stage race, so I am not keen on this statistic.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing how you would decide who was best if you think we cannot put any store in the points?

You like the points system because it backs up your supposition that Contador is the best rider. I like looking at wins as it backs up my supposition that Cav is the best rider.

The points system doesn't include non UCI events - does it? Or does the CQ ranking system include those?

A win is a win. You still have to beat all the other riders on the road, on the day. Some wins are harder to come by - yes. I disagree with the points system because I think it skews the rankings and favours a certain type of rider.

Why are you putting words in my mouth. I said the points were one factor I would look at. They are also the best record of the wins and all the stats of the riders.

If another rider was top of those lists then maybe I would consider him the best. For instance if Valverde wins the Vuelta inclding a couple of stages then there is a realistic possibility that I would consider him the best this year.

As for one aspect of the reports I don't like, it is the amount of points given to a Worlds win. This is pretty high and although I think this a great achievement i don't think it deserves as much credit.

Do you consider the two wins I used to make my point equal?

Also, if you say you don't like the rankings due to the way it favours a certain rider (I assume you mean stage race winner), shouldn't Cavendish be a lot further down rather than he currently is? Griepel is 24th but he has 17 wins.

Pokerface

Cav is where he is on the list because of his MSR win - which gave him 100 points. That's half the points that Bertie got for the Tour - all in one go. If not for that win - he would be much further down the list, which I think is wrong.

rockmount

http://www.phased.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11&Itemid=7

...oh, I thought you said 1939 :?

Although I'm not sure how cool he looked, or how nice his shoes were

frenchfighter

Pokerface wrote:

Cav is where he is on the list because of his MSR win - which gave him 100 points. That's half the points that Bertie got for the Tour - all in one go. If not for that win - he would be much further down the list, which I think is wrong.

I have Cav's points at 275 for MSR and Contador's at 600 (excluding all points but the overall).

Take out Cav's win and whe ranks 8th which is still a long way above Greipel.

Do you consider the two wins I used to make my point equal?

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

Cav is where he is on the list because of his MSR win - which gave him 100 points. That's half the points that Bertie got for the Tour - all in one go. If not for that win - he would be much further down the list, which I think is wrong.

I have Cav's points at 275 for MSR and Contador's at 600 (excluding all points but the overall).

Take out Cav's win and whe ranks 8th which is still a long way above Greipel.

Do you consider the two wins I used to make my point equal?

I don't think you can rank wins in order of importance... Especially not when they're both in huge events that top level pros target. I think this is always going to be the difficulty in objectively ranking riders acheivements.

If you like this stuff by the way FF, i commend the work of the Baseball Prospectus and Football Outsiders to you.