Shonak wrote:
He doesn't need to win - winning a monument is an immense task. If he's doing well and riding with panache, is in contention for the win for a while and grabs a solid Top 10 I'd already feel confirmed in my estimation of his abilities. De Ronde isn't so selective with its cobblez, it's not Roubaix. Also, it's Valv after all: as great as he may be, guy has a problem of sealing the deal.
I do agree with the team aspect, it's probably the problem for Valverde, maybe guys like Rojas can stay up long enough though to support him with some protection. Movistar won't have any chasing duties but having a guy up there in the last 60k is of course a helpful thing for all sorts of things.
We'll see how Valverde does in the opening flanders classics to begin with. He was pretty good two years ago in Omloop but not really commited to racing the classics for the win presumably then.
If we're not talking about winning yes then I'd agree that a top 10 is possible for Valverde, I know he's riding E3 so that will be a good indicator for him and Movstar for Flanders.
Riis123 wrote:
So Valverdes chances of winning Flanders just rose to 2% from 1%? Ill take it.
Next to Contador's final year, seeing Valverde ride Ronde is probably the thing I look most forward to this cycling season.
Something tells me Contador wont retire this season. Wanna bet?
Valverde in Ronde is definitely special and all, but since I am the pussy GT-guy who values that over one day races, Im immensely excited to see what he can do in Italy. The Giro, after all, is the best race on the planet, aight?
On Movistar's team, I think that Amador could do very well on the cobbles. He has the stature and stamina to pull it off and probably is the best rider on their squad for these races I would say. He seems to shadow Valv this season
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
I am 100% with Tafiolmo here, Valverde has like 0 chance to ever win RvV, i would be schocked to see him near top10 actually.
Some riders are just naturally good. Im pretty sure when Sagan first came around people didn't think he would do well on cobbles, he had only really proven himself in small sprints and lumpy stages. He pretty much didn't do well in cobble classics until his 4th season.
Personally I think there are riders that can win just about any race if they focus on it, and Valverde and Sagan are in that class for me. And by win, I dont necessarily mean win but with preparation and form they would have to be considered atleast an outside favourite.
Riis123 wrote:
So Valverdes chances of winning Flanders just rose to 2% from 1%? Ill take it.
Next to Contador's final year, seeing Valverde ride Ronde is probably the thing I look most forward to this cycling season.
Something tells me Contador wont retire this season. Wanna bet?
Unless Contador takes the Tour which I don't see happening i'm with you that he goes around again next year, even if he wins the Tour he'll say that he will retire but will change his mind.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
I am 100% with Tafiolmo here, Valverde has like 0 chance to ever win RvV, i would be schocked to see him near top10 actually.
Some riders are just naturally good. Im pretty sure when Sagan first came around people didn't think he would do well on cobbles, he had only really proven himself in small sprints and lumpy stages. He pretty much didn't do well in cobble classics until his 4th season.
Personally I think there are riders that can win just about any race if they focus on it, and Valverde and Sagan are in that class for me. And by win, I dont necessarily mean win but with preparation and form they would have to be considered atleast an outside favourite.
While i agree that both Sagan and Valverde are natural talents, that can with proper training tackle almost any terrain, in case of Sagan we had much more indicators that he can do well on cobbles than you probably think.
He is former great rider in both MTB and cyclocross, which gave him a superb handling of the bike in rougher terrain. Crossers are well suited for northern classics, if there body build is also right, which is the case of Sagan. Punchy sprinters of his build does well on cobbles, it is same with Degenkolb, Kristoff and many others...it was just question of time when Sagan will start tackling biggest cobbled races, while Valverde is much better suited for one day hilly races and GTs.
If Valverde concentrated everything on De Ronde, i would agree with him having a good chance for top10, but he is usually chasing so many rabbits, that majority escapes (see big wins outside of ardennes classics). But i admire his consistency and all around skills, something that i admire the most also on Sagan.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
While i agree that both Sagan and Valverde are natural talents, that can with proper training tackle almost any terrain, in case of Sagan we had much more indicators that he can do well on cobbles than you probably think.
He is former great rider in both MTB and cyclocross, which gave him a superb handling of the bike in rougher terrain. Crossers are well suited for northern classics, if there body build is also right, which is the case of Sagan. Punchy sprinters of his build does well on cobbles, it is same with Degenkolb, Kristoff and many others...it was just question of time when Sagan will start tackling biggest cobbled races, while Valverde is much better suited for one day hilly races and GTs.
If Valverde concentrated everything on De Ronde, i would agree with him having a good chance for top10, but he is usually chasing so many rabbits, that majority escapes (see big wins outside of ardennes classics). But i admire his consistency and all around skills, something that i admire the most also on Sagan.
Just wanted to point out that that is not even remotely true. Valverde is one of those guys whose wins come either at the start, middle or end of the season and is frequently one of the major players in almost every race he enters. In fact he is the exact opposite of what you're refering. Just look at his palmares:
That said, I believe he has what it takes to get De Ronde under his belt, but he has the tremendous handicap of never having ridden it, which may prove crucial, given how unique the race is!
I was talking about big wins, who cares about Vuelta Andalucia??
Apart from his doped times (at least 2008-2009),which i dont include into discussion, he has only won ardennes classics from big races+San Sebastian. And as you said, he is major player in almost every race he enters and that is what i was talking about. Major player, but not always major winner. You see him everywhere, grabbing top5s, yeah...and you see him failing in the closing kilometres of tzons of races, because he chases too many rabbits.
3 stages in Catalunya, almost the Ardennes-triple, TdF-podium and a Vuelta stage is quite good. And while it is true to some extent he could win more, its not like you automatically win cause you are the favorite - just look at Sagan. Winning is not easy in professional cycling
Riis123 wrote:
3 stages in Catalunya, almost the Ardennes-triple, TdF-podium and a Vuelta stage is quite good. And while it is true to some extent he could win more, its not like you automatically win cause you are the favorite - just look at Sagan. Winning is not easy in professional cycling
You are twisting my point, i never said he does not have enough of nice results or great career. I am quite a fan of him. But this Valverde can win De ronde is pure madness.
Riis123 wrote:
3 stages in Catalunya, almost the Ardennes-triple, TdF-podium and a Vuelta stage is quite good. And while it is true to some extent he could win more, its not like you automatically win cause you are the favorite - just look at Sagan. Winning is not easy in professional cycling
You are twisting my point, i never said he does not have enough of nice results or great career. I am quite a fan of him. But this Valverde can win De ronde is pure madness.
Nah, you said he was chasing rabbits and to that I responded that Valv won many races in 2015, including some major wins, like L-B-L, where the whole peloton tried to make sure he couldnt win. Sure, he could win more, but that can be said about basically everyone. When you start winning, people take notice and mark you closer. Sagan is the perfect example of that, hence why I mentioned him earlier.
And I could be mistaken, I havent read all the posts, but who says Valv will win de Ronde? There is a possibility, yes, but its rather slim.
Riis123 wrote:
3 stages in Catalunya, almost the Ardennes-triple, TdF-podium and a Vuelta stage is quite good. And while it is true to some extent he could win more, its not like you automatically win cause you are the favorite - just look at Sagan. Winning is not easy in professional cycling
You are twisting my point, i never said he does not have enough of nice results or great career. I am quite a fan of him. But this Valverde can win De ronde is pure madness.
Nah, you said he was chasing rabbits and to that I responded that Valv won many races in 2015, including some major wins, like L-B-L, where the whole peloton tried to make sure he couldnt win. Sure, he could win more, but that can be said about basically everyone. When you start winning, people take notice and mark you closer. Sagan is the perfect example of that, hence why I mentioned him earlier.
And I could be mistaken, I havent read all the posts, but who says Valv will win de Ronde? There is a possibility, yes, but its rather slim.
Yeah, but my point was that if he was not chasing so many rabbits, he could have more wins in most important races, same goes for Sagan. Not that i would exactly like it more, as all-arounders are my favourite group of riders, i am just stating the obvious.
At least Shonak and Gustavovskiy wrote in lines of decent possibility of very good result or even win for him there, while he finished like two cobbled races in his pro career?
Boogerd (a rider of similar skill to Valverde) finished 9th in his first Ronde. He was in the main favourites group of about 15 when they entered de Muur but Boogerd had a mechanical and thus couldn't follow the decisive move. Still he came back to the group that sprinted for 3rd place. Iirc Celestino was also in that group and I think it was his first try at the Ronde aswel.
Boogerd since then has been very vocal that the top class punchers would easily contend with the flandriens in de Ronde.
Apart from his doped times (at least 2008-2009),which i dont include into discussion, he has only won ardennes classics from big races+San Sebastian. And as you said, he is major player in almost every race he enters and that is what i was talking about. Major player, but not always major winner. You see him everywhere, grabbing top5s, yeah...and you see him failing in the closing kilometres of tzons of races, because he chases too many rabbits.
Valverde had arguably more big wins than Sagan last year. Sagan did win the WC, but even in the past few years Valverde had the bigger wins I would say, although not as many.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
His results on cobbled terrain are 63rd at E3, 36th at Dwars door Vlaanderen. Perfect palmares to judge his ability to win De Ronde abilities.
That is true, however Sagans first few cobbled races provide similar results. Also, if you look at his results from the cobble stage at last years Tour, a time when he was actually in form when riding cobbles, he finished 11th, in the same group as Sagan, Stybar, EBH, Van Avermaet, and the other GC favourites for the most part. It atleast shows that he can get over cobbles and be near or at the front, as obviously the stage wasn't super selective.
---
Ultimately I think if this was the Valverde from before his ban (but lets not get into that too much), if he focused on this race, he could definitely be in contention for the win. Now he is pretty old and while obviously still strong, he is out of his prime and probably wont win, but a rider of his ilk can never be fully counted out.
But Valverde just had one of his best, if not his best season last year which suggest he necessarily isnt out of his prime. He was far and away the best in the Ardennes and climbing better than he ever had, at least in the Tour (not that it says super much if you dont count the win against Armstrong..) I think he will cool down a little this year tho and begin to show that he is on his way of of his prime.
Hoping for a top-3 and a competitive Valverde in the Giro and a big win in the spring.
Riis123 wrote:
But Valverde just had one of his best, if not his best season last year which suggest he necessarily isnt out of his prime. He was far and away the best in the Ardennes and climbing better than he ever had, at least in the Tour (not that it says super much if you dont count the win against Armstrong..) I think he will cool down a little this year tho and begin to show that he is on his way of of his prime.
Hoping for a top-3 and a competitive Valverde in the Giro and a big win in the spring.
He's probably a smarter rider now, but in terms of his actual ability, he isn't as strong as before imo. He's not massively worse or anything, but you can tell he is on the decline.
He's lost some explosiveness and I think his results last year have more to do with his competition weakening. Last year he faced a slightly past his prime Purito, Albasini, an up and coming Alaphillipe and then Nibali, Kwiat, Kreuziger and a couple others. Back in 2009-2006 he faced a higher quantity of quality competitors, like Andy Schleck coming into his prime, Gilbert coming into his prime, Rebellin, Evans, Cunego, Gesink pre leg injury, Di Luca, Ivanov, Ricco, Frank Schleck, Bettini and many others. I mean all those riders were near or even above Valverdes punching ability imo.
Also, 2006 probably would have been his best year had he not crashed out of the Tour, or perhaps 2009.
Sagan did win the WC, but even in the past few years Valverde had the bigger wins I would say, although not as many. 
