admirschleck wrote:
Maybe, but i really, really doubt it.

Anyways, Leukemans on 80COB is just funny. I do understand that you guys are BeNeLux site (or whatever), but overpowering guy(s) from your region isn't really cool thing. Or am I wrong?

Matthijs_Valverde wrote:
Cause I've had to play with the daily database as well and there are lots and lots of faults in between the stats, especially concerning the smaller teams. But no one who gives stats does a perfect job, because people are subjective and love to see their favourite cyclists get the biggest stats.

Chavanel can't really be compared with Leukemans.

Chavanel needs a big hill stat (nearly the same as Leukemans).

Matthijs_Valverde wrote:
You've misunderstood me. I said nearly the same, by which I mean that Leukemans needs a big hill stat as well. Chavanel's hill stat is, of course, better than Leukemans' hill stat. But Chavanel and Leukemans both NEED that big hill stat, cause the part of the northern classics that they are good at, are the hilly classics. Leukemans once was fourth in Paris-Roubaix and in 2010 he came close to following Cancellara on the Mons-en-Pévèle cobblestone stroke, but his power lies in the cobbled hills. Chavanel's power also lies on the cobbled hills, cause in every Paris-Roubaix Chavanel is nowhere to be found, way too bad on the flat cobbled strokes (also had to deal with mechanical problems now and then) but Chavanel can ride a decent Flanders if he's in the right squad. I can assure you he won't be in the best five riders next Sunday, which he never was in Flanders. Perhaps in 2009.

ruben wrote:
What Shonak says. It's what i do most of the times. Wether it's FCD, FDB, Daily DB... just edit it for yourself..

For myself I make some corrections and then overrate T.Dekker just because I like him

Shonak wrote:
Jeez guys, it's not like you can edit Leukemans COB stat yourself if he turns out to be too strong for your own personal fun.

Besides, what was 4 years ago still counts.

Matthijs_Valverde wrote:
So, does he have a better hill stat than Chavanel? And still, you're not answering to the real deal, the related stats. That's the problem with many PCM players, they only take a look at the obvious thinks.

And Jesleyh already knows what I think of his stats. I'm not too much against them but a lot of them haven't had enough research, that's just notable. I'm not saying you hate me at all It's just my opinion that I'm putting out there. Try if you want to, but if you don't want to try the stats matrix, feel free to play with another database. I'm not complaining at all.

baseballlover312 wrote:


By that logic Schleck should have 84 mountain. So much happens in 4 years. it really counts for nothing when basing the stats of today. only results of last maybe 2 years can show anything regarding their current skills.

And Gesink has 79 mtn and 7 potential because you know he's an upcoming talent.

Shonak wrote:


Funny that you mentioned Schleck because I initially wanted to use him as an example as well. If only you take in the last year or the last two years, he wouldn't deserve more than 70 MT. You see? If you exclude a cyclist's career you get nowhere, however of course there needs to be an emphasis on the most recent ones but I never denied that.

Be it or not, I find it rather pretentious to complain about a rider's stat in a not-yet released DB. Like Ruben, I edit the DBs myself anyway at some point to better reflect my personal opinion on cyclists.
Besides that, if the stat matrix improves career, races or AI choices, than for all I care I might as well play with Vroome and Neilstrong.

Selwink wrote:
It looks excellent so far. One thing that worried me though, when seeing the stats of Bissell, was that almost everyone was a fighter. Aren't you afraid this is going to stop some riders from developing correctly?