Harking back to last year

Frank the tank

There was a debate about who's achievement was the best Wiggo's 4th place or Cavs' six stage wins. Well I believed Cavs' achievement was the better one when comparing the two riders head-to-head. The result and performance of the two riders in this years tour confirms IMHO Cav is the more consistent of the two riders. fifteen stage wins in three years is brilliant, even though his position on GC has been well down.

knedlicky

The main idea of the race is the GC, so in that sense, in 2009 Wiggins was far better than Cavendish. In many respects, the GC always indicates who is the better overall rider, even if it often contains slight discrepancies of a few places.

For his 2nd place in the points classification in 2009, Cavendish would have got about 16.000 Euro for his team. Adding income from his 6 stage wins, in total he might have earned 75,000 Euro.
For his 4th place alone, Wiggins probably earned for his team about 75,000 Euro. Adding on money earned for his placings on individual stages, different climbs, and KOM competition, Wiggins definitely did better moneywise than Cavendish in 2009.

Stage wins often bring the greater short-term publicity, but in the long run, with only a few exceptions, it's good GC placings which are recognised as the better achievements and thus enter the popular mythology.
I think Cavendish may be one of the exceptions, and that Wiggins might never again achieve such a good final GC placing, so in the long run, Cavendish will be the name remembered.
But in 2009, Cavendish's achievement wasn't the better one (financially, it was this year, but then again GC-wise, not really)).

moray_gub

knedlicky wrote:

The main idea of the race is the GC, so in that sense, in 2009 Wiggins was far better than Cavendish. In many respects, the GC always indicates who is the better overall rider, even if it often contains slight discrepancies of a few places.

For his 2nd place in the points classification in 2009, Cavendish would have got about 16.000 Euro for his team. Adding income from his 6 stage wins, in total he might have earned 75,000 Euro.
For his 4th place alone, Wiggins probably earned for his team about 75,000 Euro. Adding on money earned for his placings on individual stages, different climbs, and KOM competition, Wiggins definitely did better moneywise than Cavendish in 2009.

Stage wins often bring the greater short-term publicity, but in the long run, with only a few exceptions, it's good GC placings which are recognised as the better achievements and thus enter the popular mythology.
I think Cavendish may be one of the exceptions, and that Wiggins might never again achieve such a good final GC placing, so in the long run, Cavendish will be the name remembered.
But in 2009, Cavendish's achievement wasn't the better one (financially, it was this year, but then again GC-wise, not really)).

GC indicates who went round the course in shorter time thats all its not neccesarily an indication of who is a better rider given 95 % of the riders are not interested in what time they go round in so GC is not a target for them. Outside of the top ten stage wins are usually always the prefered option.

Frank the tank

Someone finishes fourth on GC every year, six stage wins is not achieved so very often.

An average of five stage wins per year shows a fair amount of consistancy.

oscarbudgie

I think from a sponsors point of view 6 headline grabbing stage wins (including the Champs Elysee) count for rather more than a soon forgotten 4th in the GC

takethehighroad

When was the time before that a British rider came 4th? That wasn't soon forgotten

dulldave

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

When was the time before that a British rider came 4th? That wasn't soon forgotten

That's because it's the best we'd ever done as a nation. Millar also won the polka dot jersey so it's not exactly the same. And he also won a stage in the process.

Ask someone from France, Spain, Italy etc to name all of the riders from their country who've finished 4th and I'd be surprised if they can remember that many.

Pross

^ +1. He'll always be a legend to us but I suspect most continental cycling fans would have to look up the record books to remember who came 4th in 84.

samiam

Cavendish is the fastest stage sprinter in the world and has been multiple consecutive seasons. He's won 15 stages in the Tour De France, where winning one might be a riders crowning achievement of his entire career, and looks likely to win more in the coming years. For better or worse he is portrayed a controversial figure in the media.

Wiggins came 4th in the Tour De France and failed to perform at that level in any other stage race before or since.

How you can compare the two is baffling to me. Cavendish will be a famous name in cycling for decades to come. Wiggins will likely be forgotten very quickly especially if he fails to perform next year.

deal

Moray Gub wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

The main idea of the race is the GC, so in that sense, in 2009 Wiggins was far better than Cavendish. In many respects, the GC always indicates who is the better overall rider, even if it often contains slight discrepancies of a few places.

For his 2nd place in the points classification in 2009, Cavendish would have got about 16.000 Euro for his team. Adding income from his 6 stage wins, in total he might have earned 75,000 Euro.
For his 4th place alone, Wiggins probably earned for his team about 75,000 Euro. Adding on money earned for his placings on individual stages, different climbs, and KOM competition, Wiggins definitely did better moneywise than Cavendish in 2009.

Stage wins often bring the greater short-term publicity, but in the long run, with only a few exceptions, it's good GC placings which are recognised as the better achievements and thus enter the popular mythology.
I think Cavendish may be one of the exceptions, and that Wiggins might never again achieve such a good final GC placing, so in the long run, Cavendish will be the name remembered.
But in 2009, Cavendish's achievement wasn't the better one (financially, it was this year, but then again GC-wise, not really)).

GC indicates who went round the course in shorter time thats all its not neccesarily an indication of who is a better rider given 95 % of the riders are not interested in what time they go round in so GC is not a target for them. Outside of the top ten stage wins are usually always the prefered option.

Only because they aren't capable of competing.

paulcuthbert

knedlicky wrote:

The main idea of the race is the GC, so in that sense, in 2009 Wiggins was far better than Cavendish. In many respects, the GC always indicates who is the better overall rider, even if it often contains slight discrepancies of a few places.

Nonsense. You make it sound like the race is 'all about' the yellow jersey. If that was the case, the sport would be an individual one like darts, and there wouldn't be OTHER JERSEYS for those not contesting the yellow jersey.

Plus, I seriously doubt that all of the 200 riders entering the race in July believe they have a chance of winning it. If they do, they're even more deluded than you and your idea that "the main idea of the race is the GC"!

finchy

samiam wrote:

Wiggins will likely be forgotten very quickly especially if he fails to perform next year.

He won't be forgotten that quickly in the UK, especially if he gets another couple of golds in 2012.

Garry H

paulcuthbert wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

The main idea of the race is the GC, so in that sense, in 2009 Wiggins was far better than Cavendish. In many respects, the GC always indicates who is the better overall rider, even if it often contains slight discrepancies of a few places.

Nonsense. You make it sound like the race is 'all about' the yellow jersey. If that was the case, the sport would be an individual one like darts, and there wouldn't be OTHER JERSEYS for those not contesting the yellow jersey.

Plus, I seriously doubt that all of the 200 riders entering the race in July believe they have a chance of winning it. If they do, they're even more deluded than you and your idea that "the main idea of the race is the GC"!

The main idea of the race is the GC (The winning of the yellow jersey that is), seeing as that's the one that's rewarded the highest. However, yes, Cav's 6 wins are more impressive than 4th place. As somebody said above, someone finishes 4th every year.

Cav is the best Tour sprinter in the world by a mile at the moment and will possibly go down as the greatest ever by the time his career winds to an end.

knedlicky

dulldave wrote:

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

When was the time before that a British rider came 4th? That wasn't soon forgotten

That's because it's the best we'd ever done as a nation. Millar also won the polka dot jersey so it's not exactly the same. And he also won a stage in the process.
Ask someone from France, Spain, Italy etc to name all of the riders from their country who've finished 4th and I'd be surprised if they can remember that many.

Probably none can say who finished 4th in any particular year, but if asked who's finished 4th in the last few decades, they can more or less say any top rider and be correct - Thevenet, Van Impe, Zoetemelk, Galdos, Kuiper, Kelly, Hampsten, Mottet, Bauer, Theunisse, Delgado, Kelly, Jalabert, Leblanc, Olano, Dufaux, Moreau, Basso, Evans, Menchov. Only about 1 in 5 of all the recent 4th's has been a flash-in-the-pan.

knedlicky

paulcuthbert wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

The main idea of the race is the GC, so in that sense, in 2009 Wiggins was far better than Cavendish. In many respects, the GC always indicates who is the better overall rider, even if it often contains slight discrepancies of a few places.

Nonsense. You make it sound like the race is 'all about' the yellow jersey. If that was the case, the sport would be an individual one like darts, and there wouldn't be OTHER JERSEYS for those not contesting the yellow jersey.
Plus, I seriously doubt that all of the 200 riders entering the race in July believe they have a chance of winning it. If they do, they're even more deluded than you and your idea that "the main idea of the race is the GC"!

The original concept of the Tour, and still the main concept, is a competition is to see who can ride round a route through France in the least time.
The other (relatively-new) jerseys are fine for extra competition and all credit to whoever wins them, but in terms of the tradition of the Tour they are minor in importance and, unlike the yellow jersey, infrequently produce legends.
Also, there wouldn’t be the great difference in prize money between the yellow and other jerseys if the race wasn’t primarily about the yellow jersey, the yellow jersey wins about 20 times more money than any of the other jerseys.

The original idea was for individuals, there were no teams, so once upon a time all participants must have entered with at least some hope of winning. Obviously this changed with the introduction of teams, but I never suggested all entrants nowadays fancied their GC chances.

moray_gub

deal wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

The main idea of the race is the GC, so in that sense, in 2009 Wiggins was far better than Cavendish. In many respects, the GC always indicates who is the better overall rider, even if it often contains slight discrepancies of a few places.

For his 2nd place in the points classification in 2009, Cavendish would have got about 16.000 Euro for his team. Adding income from his 6 stage wins, in total he might have earned 75,000 Euro.
For his 4th place alone, Wiggins probably earned for his team about 75,000 Euro. Adding on money earned for his placings on individual stages, different climbs, and KOM competition, Wiggins definitely did better moneywise than Cavendish in 2009.

Stage wins often bring the greater short-term publicity, but in the long run, with only a few exceptions, it's good GC placings which are recognised as the better achievements and thus enter the popular mythology.
I think Cavendish may be one of the exceptions, and that Wiggins might never again achieve such a good final GC placing, so in the long run, Cavendish will be the name remembered.
But in 2009, Cavendish's achievement wasn't the better one (financially, it was this year, but then again GC-wise, not really)).

GC indicates who went round the course in shorter time thats all its not neccesarily an indication of who is a better rider given 95 % of the riders are not interested in what time they go round in so GC is not a target for them. Outside of the top ten stage wins are usually always the prefered option.

Only because they aren't capable of competing.

Thats not always the case.

paulcuthbert

knedlicky wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

The main idea of the race is the GC, so in that sense, in 2009 Wiggins was far better than Cavendish. In many respects, the GC always indicates who is the better overall rider, even if it often contains slight discrepancies of a few places.

Nonsense. You make it sound like the race is 'all about' the yellow jersey. If that was the case, the sport would be an individual one like darts, and there wouldn't be OTHER JERSEYS for those not contesting the yellow jersey.
Plus, I seriously doubt that all of the 200 riders entering the race in July believe they have a chance of winning it. If they do, they're even more deluded than you and your idea that "the main idea of the race is the GC"!

The original concept of the Tour, and still the main concept, is a competition is to see who can ride round a route through France in the least time.

If that's the case, why are we discussing either?

No one remembers 4th place. Seldom to people remember 2nd place (unless it's a great duel - which most of the Tours I've seen it hasn't been) so why would they remember 4th?