Here's the usual thread to suggest for new riders to be added; or riders' stats to be modified, as the 2021 ManGame DB is created.
Young Riders
1999 is likely to the main year of interest, with some of the top talents from this year yet to be added to the game.
Riders from 2000 can be added too in some individual cases. So feel free to suggest them, but it may be that they are held off for another season. They will however be limited to progressing only to Level 2 in the 2021 season. No riders will be added from 2001 or later years.
Older Riders
Riders who are free agents, or part of disbanding teams, can have their stats adjusted - even if sometimes it is just in a minor way.
Examples in the 1996-1998 range are of particular interest, as they can become 'talents' that are not Level 1, which allows more unique stat combinations. Riders of 4.100 can be added or adjusted too.
1988 or older are generally off limits, since these riders have already started decreasing now anyway. However, in special cases an exception may be made - for example, for riders without a Man-Game "history".
Stat Limits
We don't anticipate adding riders who will be dominant as soon as they are maxed, so additions are likely to be limited to 80/81 in their main stats in order to maintain balance in the DB. However, we will take the focuses of teams and future evolution of the DB into account when making additions, so all reasonable suggestions are welcome.
Realism
MG doesn't need to be 100% realistic on stats of riders. Real life results are a useful indicator, and many riders will tend to be aligned to that, but they are not a constraint.
Format
As usual, please post suggestions in the Table Format, using the template file to help: https://www.dropbox.com/s/twh1qwmhhqh...s.xls?dl=0
(Fill in the file, then copy it to the post, and put within the table tags)
Versions of the rider at 4.100 and 1.0 are preferred too.
i.e.
Spoiler
ID
Surname
First name
Fl
Mo
Hl
TT
St
Rs
Rc
Cb
Sp
Ac
Ft
Dh
Pl
Nat.
Cont.
XP Level
XP Points
D
M
Year
Pot
5382
Areruya
Joseph
71
70
71
64
75
73
72
53
70
73
66
57
64
RWA
AF
1
0
15
3
1996
6
5382
Areruya
Joseph
72
79
79
65
78
78
79
53
70
80
75
60
65
RWA
AF
4
100
15
3
1996
6
(4.100 via the Climber v1 training)
Links to CQ and PCS are helpful. I've been finding https://firstcycling.com/ quite useful too. Not so-easily searchable, but a greater depth in races included.
This year I have taken a slightly different approach when setting up the thread, by creating baseline stats for around 300 potential additions based on the Daily DB. The idea is to have a reference point for starting discussions, although these stats are far from set in stone and are purely to generate ideas and discussion. I will also generate the equivalent for any suggestions made if I can, although of course for talents for regional focuses the baseline stats are less important and mainly just for rider type.
Riders already in the DB have been upgraded by adding onto their original stats, rather than being completely reset. New riders have their stats copied entirely over from the Daily DB, with some tweaking to fit the Man-Game stat gains.
An approximation has been made for XP levels based upon the careers of riders IRL. Each season has counted for:
20xp if not on a PT/PCT/CT team
100xp if: PT/PCT/CT for “Levels 1 and 2”, PT/PCT for “Level 3” and PT for “Level 4”
50xp if CT for “Level 3” and if PCT for “Level 4”
This is based on the Man-Game stat gains, but obviously does not translate perfectly. It is purely to set baseline stats and will of course throw up some curveballs (as we will see), but it does help identify those talents who turned pro at 18/19 and therefore are likely to have less growth potential.
Riders maxing at 75+ in a main stat have been set to max with 65+ FL/REC and 67+ STA/RES so that they are not completely useless. There has also been an effort to boost support stats (STA/RES/REC) when they are more than 5 stat points lower than the main stat when maxed.
There are several weaker riders included here, due to the suggestion to remove/decline existing FAs to combat inflation. They are intended to replace those riders, so while they are unlikely to be riders anyone particularly wants to sign, they are there for a reason. There are some riders here who have been edited by adding XP to weaken them, but not all of them have been re-statted yet.
In each post there are two spoilers, the first of which is “rider type – add” with the stats suggested to add them in at, and the second of which is “rider type – maxed” which is the suggested maxed stats. I’ve separated the tables based on XP level, so apologies if it looks a little bit odd - I just hope it’s readable!
Edited by jph27 on 25-05-2021 12:50
A few points I would welcome feedback on, although of course any comments and suggestions are welcome – it is the point of the thread after all!
1. Does the overall balance of the additions look ok? At Level 3 and above it seems quite restrained to me, with only Muhlberger and Paret-Peintre potentially CT leaders, but obviously as we get into Levels 1 and 2 there are many more 78+ climbers.
2. How should we stat riders like Vine, Zwiehoff and Palzer, who have come to road racing late and therefore based on the rudimentary approach taken to setting XP are set to max as stars? Do we take the approach that they could be Roglic types and accept that while they will max as quite strong riders, they will decline only a few seasons later and won’t be trained, or do we start them off at higher XP levels?
3. Is the balance right between stage racers and climbers? Looking at this year’s additions there seems to be a lack of rounded stage racers at the top level, with only Arensman a true well rounded stage racer of the top talents. Do we need to raise the TT stats of some of the others?
A few points I would welcome feedback on, although of course any comments and suggestions are welcome – it is the point of the thread after all!
1. Schachmann is obviously the big question here – how strong should he be edited to be, if he is to be edited at all? His Daily DB stats are basically the ones suggested here, which would make him a unique rider but also one who is probably too strong with the potential for multiple seasons of training.
2. Beyond Schachmann, does the balance across the levels look ok? For me Levels 2, 3 and 4 seem ok with only Hermans the big potential question mark, and his MO deficiency should hold him back to never being a superstar even if trained.
3. Level 1 is the big question mark, with 4 very strong talents, amongst them Pidcock and Vansevenant who you could also make a case for being better off as climbers, as well as them having ridiculous ACC. I think they need to be slightly weaker (particularly their ACC), but do we have the rider types right to begin with?
A few points I would welcome feedback on, although of course any comments and suggestions are welcome – it is the point of the thread after all!
1. Are we happy with the overall balance? Imhof as an upgraded maxed rider and Sobrero as a Level 3 rider are the only ones who stand out to me as even being likely contested FAs of those at Level 2 and above, while the Level 1 riders aren’t the strongest group bar Leknessund and Osborne, so I’m happy with it, but would welcome thoughts.
2. Osborne is another where we have the question mark raised with the climbers – do we stat him based on him becoming a Roglic type, or should we aim lower considering his age and lack of experience?
3. There seems to be a lack of quality TTers this year, and some of the bigger names seem a little underrated compared to their reputations. Do we need to focus our attentions on more talents here, and are the stats of those talents suggested above representative of their true potential?
A few points I would welcome feedback on, although of course any comments and suggestions are welcome – it is the point of the thread after all!
1. First and foremost, do we have enough cobblers here? They are already the rarest rider type we have, and each year it seems to get harder to find good candidates to add.
2. Secondly, are those that have been suggested to add underrated here? Hvideberg seems like the biggest talent but maxing at 76 COB seems too low, while all the other cobbled talents I found (like Vermeersch) would probably end up as sprinters due to the Man-Game stat gains.
3. What should we do for geographic diversity? Almost all the suggestions are Belgian, which is unsurprising but also does not fit well with the Man-Game considering that we do not have that many Belgian teams. Do we look for cyclo-crossers from more obscure nations to fill the void for example?
A few points I would welcome feedback on, although of course any comments and suggestions are welcome – it is the point of the thread after all!
1. The main thing that jumps out is how weak the top talents are in terms of SP (76/77) when maxed – should we be raising them a little, or is it a worthwhile counter to inflation? Mozzato, Vermeersch and Stewart particularly stand out to me, but in the 75-77 range there are several riders who would have been 78-80 in the past.
2. Do we need to add all the 70-72 SP riders suggested? The idea is that they will replace the FAs we decline/remove but are they likely to ever be signed even then, considering that until declines really kick in over the next few seasons 77 SP is likely the minimum for competitiveness anyway?
3. Are there enough sprinters here with high HIL, COB or PRL to make them a bit different? While at Level 1 there seems to be a good bit of variety, at the other levels the sprinters suggested seem to be relatively one-dimensional bar a few notable exceptions (Capiot, Manzin etc).
A few points I would welcome feedback on, although of course any comments and suggestions are welcome – it is the point of the thread after all!
1. Overall, this is the group I am happiest with as it’s the simplest to stat. The question is whether any of these riders are being miscast as rouleurs when in fact they have a specialist terrain they should be focused on? Swift, Cima, Taminiaux and Paaschens are the ones I have questions about, plus Stojnic and Kuhfahl to an extent.
2. Do we need to make some of the Level 1 and 2 riders stronger all-rounders, rather than just pure rouleurs? With their poor support stats they are likely to be of limited use in their current form, so will only be signed if they align with regional focuses.
3. For those riders who have high FL but low FTR, should we boost their FTR to make them more realistic once maxed? Part of the issue is with riders like Bugter and all the Level 1 riders bar Stojnic, who are effectively high FL sprinters, but with too low a SP stat to be considered worth training as anything other than rouleurs.
So a bit later than promised, but we have a thread. Apologies for the walls of text followed by the walls of stats, but thought it was worth trying a new approach and seeing how it goes
To kind of "stop" a potential discussion on some points.
- I won`t really plan to update that many existing riders. e.g. Schachmann won`t get an update and neither will many/all of the other existing riders.
- I hugely check over the top new additions. There will be less 80+ riders or even 78/79+ than in those max lists. That`s not their final stats for the MG DB. Edited by roturn on 25-05-2021 13:48
I would love Hoelgaard's new stats, so you could consider doing just him, roturn
Some great suggestions jph, thanks for all that work! Some great Norwegian and Danish riders also, that's great to see, so that I don't have to hype them That being said, I would consider switching the Johannessens brothers. As I've seen it, Tobias was the better of them a couple of years ago. He had knee surgery and mono last year, so he's not raced much, but I do think that he's still just a tiny bit better. A good look will probably come in the Baby Giro already, so I guess that could be a decider for who's best.
To kind of "stop" a potential discussion on some points.
- I won`t really plan to update that many existing riders. e.g. Schachmann won`t get an update and neither will many/all of the other existing riders.
- I hugely check over the top new additions. There will be less 80+ riders or even 78/79+ than in those max lists. That`s not their final stats for the MG DB.
I'd just like to endorse all of roturn's statements here
The point of the stats suggested above is not that they'll be the stats riders are added with, or even that they'll be added/edited at all. It's purely an exercise to help with producing good quality suggestions and preventing inflation, by giving a rough idea of who the top talents are and how many of them there are.
All the stats you see there are in effect automated, and haven't been manually adjusted after looking at results. So there are likely a reasonable number of 78/79s who ought to be 76/77s or lower, plus a rare few who are underrated. I was just wary of how in previous seasons we've ended up with slightly extreme suggestions - I take some responsibility - and wanted to avoid that.
The other thing I wanted to do here was to change the approach to make it easier for more managers to engage. I know some managers don't find it easy to come up with stats, but want to make suggestions, so by doing this it changes the format to be more like the DB stat discussion if they so wish. Obviously full suggestions are welcomed, but if you just want to make comments then hopefully this will enable it
If daily DB matrix is meant to work better with the game than base games', then I don't think it's a bad idea to use it as basis. some adjustments will be needed as those talents are obviously ridiculous.
I don't think riders should be readjusted except in specific cases. With me switching to Austrian secondary nationality, I do approve of Muhlberger change selfishly, but it's probably not good for the game. I think a better idea is to simply adjust talents to end up like Muhlberger.
Here are a couple of dudes I had done earlier. Januskevicius is signed to CT team, so he's a given, and he's sort of create your own adventure dude, but mainly to replace Krizalid.
Tediashvili is just a guy leading the Qartvelian cobble golden generation
Some thoughts before I actually suggest anyone, just from reading the thread. (I know Roturn said not to discuss some of these, but I just wanna make my positions clear). Thank you to jph for doing all this work!
1.) I don't see any reason to be adding maxed riders who are 26-30 and immediately become solid domestiques at any level. If we're choosing to decline unsigned riders currently in the DB, then there's no reason to replace them. That defeats the whole purpose, and you'd effectively just be replacing MG history with real history without addressing inflation. We want to get to a point where a 73 talent might get a stagiare contract. We can't do that if we are adding maxed guys already at that level, let alone above that level.
2.) Similarly, I don't think any riders should be improved based on real life results anymore unless they are completely and utterly useless and have zero MG history, and are still only going to be domestique level. Any more than that not only worsens inflation, but cheapens the effort people put into raising weaker talents, since doing so would make the race days spent on similar guys at Lvl. 1 feel wasted. Meanwhile, we want to promote developing weaker talents. it's counter productive.
3.) I'll extend it to younger guys too. Anyone added 24 or younger, especially leaders, can start at Lvl. 1. They're still maxed at 27 and there's a small sacrifice for their late start.
4.) I pretty much reject any proposal that puts any priority on adjusting to fit real riders and real history in the DB. The MG DB is a fantasy DB where riders develop as snapshots of what people saw their potential as in their early twenties, and I think that's why it's so interesting to me. There's no imperative to add guys in who emerged later.
5.) And I do think we should do the mass FA decline jph mentioned as a starting point.
Now, specifics. I'll put original thoughts with a dash and answer questions based on the numbers jph gives.
Climbers
1.) As much as I hate to say it, this still just looks too top loaded (75+) for my liking. We already have enough 75+ guys for every team in the DB right now. Adding anyone 75+ already at maxed basically takes new -75 unmaxed guys out of the equation. What we see at Lvl's 1 and 2 is a noticeable but in my opinion insufficient reduction from what talents are usually added at. If we eventually want low 70's main stat guys to be viable, there have to be enough of them, and few enough of better talents, for them to get stagiare contracts. Right now, I just don't see it. It's a little better than usual. But in this discipline, you still have too many available 75+ mtn guys, now with better backups. I think we need to spread out the range even more, unfortunately knowing that in the short term the lesser types of guys probably won't actually be signed because so many higher maxed guys exist. But this is a long process and we need to start it immediately from the ground up imo. Declines will help us only if we really push our restrictions of talent strength now.
2.) For reasons stated above, I'm against inserting a 26 year old at maxed or close to it if they have any possible chance of being a leader. Doing so negates the development process their peers have gone through and the sacrifices those managers have made, while adding to inflation. That's not to say every guy has to be level 1. If someone is in their mid to late 20's and absolutely must be added - which I'm really not convinced of to be honest - they can definitely be lvl 2 or maybe lvl 3. But there still should be some sacrifice. They should probably need a loan or division change. The fact that they were added later should make them less valuable, it's only fair imo.
3.) I don't think it's a problem that most of the guys added are pure climbers at all. There have been a lot of stage racers added in recent years, and Stage Race remains by far the most OP XP path in my opinion. Using it, most of these guys could still be in the high 60's in TT and be serviceable as GC guys, probably with a little more neglect for hill. There should be a sacrifice there imo. As is, I think there are enough younger well rounded stage racers around from the last few years that we don't need to worry too much about that.
Puncheurs
1.) If Schachmann is added, he should be weaker and start still at lvl. 3 - see my comments above. Of course, that is coming from someone without Germany as a focus area or the resources to grab him. But I think adding another maxed 81 puncheur with great backups at 27 just isn't something we need right now in the DB, and we shouldn't be bending over for the sake of real life results. If we must, add him at Lvl 3. and the manager can have multiple directions to take him dev wise as a puncheur/ time trial guy. But I agree with Roturn's assessment that an update is unnecessary.
2.) The balance definitely looks a little better than climbers. I still think there should be more guys spread lower out of the 75-78 range (maybe with higher mtn to compensate), and I vehemently disagree with adding so many guys at advanced levels, including Hermans. Adding mid 20's Lvl. 4 guys hurts this game imo. But if you reduced most of those guys to Lvl. 1 or 2 and force them to develop, I don't see the balance as being too high generally.
3.) I don't necessarily see adding a few real generational talents as the worst thing for DB health, so all those guys can be strong leaders. But yeah, I'd hesitate to give them that great backups even if they deserve them based on performance. When Pidcock and Vansevenant are inevitably trained to 84 or 85, they basically become gods. I think we should look hard at any sign of potential weakness in them and accentuate those a little more than they probably are in real life. And also, we should keep acceleration and such to 80-81 for riders who are already so well rounded and strong. Throwing in a top ACC guy who's weaker overall is fine.
- I'd like to see a few more of those 75 hill guys get better stamina/resistance in exchange for 73 or 74 hill. I think having that diversity would be an interesting factor for managers to parse out in signing guys, and it would help the inflation little. Two riders might be similarly strong, but act in different domestique/breakaway roles in PCM, which is also helpful.
Time Trialists
1.) Looks good to me. I think because time trials are such a specialty, it may be best to see if the weaker guys can be slightly more versatile. A weaker climber will have plenty of race days to be useful if we control inflation, but a weaker TT guy without domestique capabilities elsewhere is still only TTT filler and unlikely to get a ride somewhere. But I would definitely not do those improvements if it could make them truly multidimensional or change their desired dev pathway.
2.) If he's gonna be that great, I'm fine with keeping him at a low level with the knowledge he'll only have like 3 maxed years. That's fine with me. Adding him maxed or close would not be.
3.) Honestly, I like the balance and think this is more similar to what we want on other terrains too, though a little exaggerated. We shouldn't push riders to be better than they are for lack of talents, only maybe for very specific regional guys. Fewer top guys means there will be fewer top guys in this cohort, which upsets the immediate balance. But at some point, we just have to take step like this for the DB to be healthier in 5 years. If anything, we could just add a few more options in the 73-75 range with different domestique tendencies.
- Gotta say Jph, I really like that you've taken steps to make most of these guys have slightly different TT/PRL stats! I think that adds a level of dynamism for planning that will be great long term. It means every flat TT guy isn't exactly the same and won't compete in exactly the same races. Honestly, I wouldn't even be opposed to adding a couple of really extreme guys, like 78 TT/69 PRL, or vice versa, just as very risky guys who might deliver a couple of days a year. Variability is good for our needs, I think.
Cobbles
1.) For cobblers specifically, I think we can add more guys than this. Obviously, it's hard to find young guys with enough cobbled race experience to definitively put them into this category. With that said, I think we should maybe take some liberties with guys who could possibly fit here for that reason. If a guy from a niche nation has few official results, but likely has ridden cobblestones or bad roads a lot in training, why not give him a cobbles specialty? I'm not saying to make him the next Boonen, but I think we can still justify some more 72-75 guys here in that frame. Plus, cobbles now has 3 possible dev plans, so versatility is somewhat built in, which increases carrying capacity. So in short, I do think we should add a few more yes, but we don't need to go crazy or try to match other disciplines.
2.) You could maybe bump him to 77 if you want, but I wouldn't go crazy worrying about the strength of cobbles guys. We have less work to do with cobbles inflation, but that doesn't mean we should try to even things out and cause more inflation for the sake of it. If it's a weak year, it's a weak year. No problem imo.
3.) See my comment in number 1. If guys don't have a clear specialty but grew up on rough conditioned roads, sort them here a bit. I think looking at Cyclocross is a good idea as well. Still, if the majority of new talents end up being Belgian, it's not a bad thing necessarily. But we should just remember that just because Belgium has the most cobblestone races for youth racing and those people have the most official experience, doesn't mean we can't infer that others might benefit from cobbles too.
Sprinters
- No need for adding more maxed sprinters, please. As is, they will be the discipline most impacted if we reduce long term FA's, and that's fine. Sprinter inflation is absolutely completely whack more the any other discipline, and PCM has trouble handling it more than any other discipline. Fewer 4th tier sprinters around is good. We don't need to replace them immediately.
1.) I do think this is a bit extreme at the top end. Having too many top end sprinters is an issue, but having too many sprinters at the same level has basically broken the CT division. I don't think that letting a couple of the Lvl. 1 guys max at 78 or 79 wouldn't itself be a problem. Key word being a couple, and not any more than that. Increasing spread is a good thing, and if those guys become super valuable and soak up some money in the market, that's fine. Also, you can always distinguish more with ACC, similar to TT/PRL.
2.) We don't need to, but I don't think it hurts. Long term, our goal is for some of those guys to be getting contracts, at least with regional CT teams. It may take 4 or 5 years to get to that place, and these exact guys may not get too many contracts because of it. But having them around can still be good I think. Now instead of teams signing all 77+ guys and still having a ton of guys left over, teams looking for a future leadout man to develop will see towards the end of transfers that these guys are the best left. Eventually, as declines take hold, they will start dipping into these guys. Adding them this year isn't necessary per say, but it might be a small step in normalizing those stat profiles over time, which is good imo. Seeing as you've already statted them, I think including them is more worth it than saving the .1 seconds of DB load time they might cause. I even think adding Lvl. 1 guys in those areas is important long term.
3.) A little more could probably be done here. As I stated before, I'm against adding older guys maxed or close. But if we're going to be adding guys at Lvl. 3 and above anyway, I think we should try to come up with unique stat combos, even if they look a little gnarly. And that shouldn't just apply to Hill/Cob/TT. I think exacerbating the mountain difference of guys could be equally interesting. Having a couple of 70ish mtn weaker sprinters would be an interesting foil value wise, but it would be hard to incentivize from Lvl. 1. If we're gonna have older guys, might as well lean into those differences.
Rouleurs
- Can't help but notice that Herregodts is Lvl. 2 here. This is what I referred to at the beginning. A strong 23 year old should be added at Lvl. 1.
1.) I mean, yes. Most of these guys would never actually be trained with Fighter because our Fighter category is absolutely useless. It just makes more sense to prioritize literally anything besides flat. In most cases, TT/Spr/Cob trainings will only dock you a couple of flat stats anyway. You make fighter more of an all around, versatile pathway, and I think most of these guys fit here, are trained this way, and our more useful for our purposes.
2.) I think stronger backups would help. 75 flat with mid 60's resistance is not worth it for most people even in a balanced DB, if that's the extent of the rider's abilities. But as far as making them more all-rounders, you just can't with the current system. If you boost other stats at Lvl. 1, 99% of managers with just choose to accentuate those stats because they're main stats in a way that flat just isn't. So they don't end up as all rounders, they end up as weaker other guys. I had this problem a lot when training Krigbaum. I wanted him to be a flat beast above all else. But in the end, sticking with fighter just didn't make him as useful of a domestique for me, which really sucked! I ended up accentuating other main stats instead. Most managers will in the current system.
3.) Yes, boost their fighter a bit if possible. Not sure fighter does a ton anyway though still. It will at least sure up their profile and dev path a bit though. Without a better fighter development, I really do think some of these guys would just go unsigned or end up as weak sprinters anyway. Flat is a stat you just can't count on being used effectively by the AI, so you need insurance on those guys.
Oh - and, in case I forgot, we need to add the more versatile fighter training right now.
Alright, that's all I got. I will continue to contribute to discussion and maybe suggest a couple of guys too in the coming days. Thanks again Jph!
That's an interesting opener, I like the concept of giving everyone a baseline to refine!
I think this might be our best (and only ever) opportunity to add what's basically a "create your own rider" to the game in Pidcock.
He's been the best U23 climber last season, is undoubtedly a world class puncheur already, was very close to Bissegger and van Wilder in the U23 EC TT (we've already discovered his TT stat in the DailyDB has been an oversight), has shown significant proficiency on cobbles and outsprinted WvA twice so far this year (one didn't count but let's not get into that).
If we put him into the game at potential 4 and comparably high base stats, there's literally not a single training option that seems unreasonable for him, depending on what needs the teams that pursue him have. He could be everything Malecki wishes he was.
Considering he'd be an early bloomer with this lvl1 start, having his eventual decline be faster due to pot4 would be backed by logic as well.
There's an obvious level of versatility to those builds that could potentially be abused with years of training if we're not careful (my suggestion would certainly only be a first draft), but then again we've hardly ever seen a neo-pro season like Pidcock's 2021 before.
I think pigeonholing him into one direction right from the start wouldn't do him justice and make him lose his magic.
Although potentially, if talents aren't added to the game until after the Vuelta anyway, we might know more about his climbing and TTing by the time we need to decide on those aspects.
Pidcock
Tom
71
71
72
69
71
73
68
71
71
76
67
80
69
GBR
EU
1
0
21
7
1999
4
Pidcock
Tom
72
78
77
76
77
77
75
71
71
77
68
80
76
GBR
EU
4
100
21
7
1999
4
Pidcock
Tom
78
71
73
69
76
74
80
76
78
83
67
81
69
GBR
EU
4
100
21
7
1999
4
Pidcock
Tom
73
73
80
70
78
77
71
71
72
81
72
81
70
GBR
EU
4
100
21
7
1999
4
Pidcock
Tom
78
71
73
76
76
78
80
71
76
78
67
80
76
GBR
EU
4
100
21
7
1999
4
Pidcock
Tom
76
71
73
69
78
78
78
78
76
77
68
80
69
GBR
EU
4
100
21
7
1999
4
Pidcock
Tom
78
71
77
69
76
76
71
78
71
76
72
81
69
GBR
EU
4
100
21
7
1999
4
stage race, sprinter, hills, track-tt, cobbles and classics respectively
I'll compile my thoughts on some other riders and the Germans at a later point, and I agree to wait with Remco.
