fickman wrote:
Wow Im not an Andy Schleck fan, but hey this guy "won the Tour in 2010 and was 2 times 2". I learned too deal with the overated Gesink over the Years but this is really to much. I cant see why Gesink who has been crap over the Years in Grank Tours with a 6 place 3 years ago in TDF keeps Grand Tour contender stats while a really Grand Tour contender get this massive drop in his stats. Gesink is never in top form, he gives a damn about every race but his main objectiv (where he manage to perform bad or crash) and as a reward he gets a 6 potencial???
You contradict yourself. Appearently, you didn't learn to deal with Gesink.
Gesink got 6th in the last GT from Cycling. He was not in a great form there, he had a little bit less preparation than the others(crash recovery) and Vuelta wasn't his peake(Conta and Moreno, and also guys like Rodriguez a bit f.e totally peaked here I think)
Yes, he crashes in his peak races, but since there is no 'crash' skill at the moment, that doesn't say anything about one of the PCM abilities. In that case, Andy should be lower than Gesink, because Gesink actually achieved something the last years. And Gesink got 4th times in the Top 7 of a GT, not just the TdF 2009
If Gesink doesn't crash in the Giro & TdF, I think Gesink can make Top 5 in one of them this year, which is good/okay for 79 MO, don't forget that!!!
And about the potential, don't forget that Gesink is about the youngest rider from the best, say, 10 Stage-racers. I think even Froome is a little bit older(they're about the same)
It would be only logical if Gesink develops, he's only 26(27 if he just had his birthday, idk )
Sorry but Gesink has finished on 6th position behind Dani Moreno and Froome (without form). Dani Moreno was a Purito team mate so he worked for Purito.. And Gesink has finished over 12 minutes of Contador..
He finished 3 times on the top ten of vuelta.. but a lot of riders can make this..
Andy has finished on the 2nd place in 2009, 2010 and 2011 in the tour, but I think that he was de best climber in 2010 and 2011 but he was really obsessed with Alberto and he forgot Cadel Evans I think his Mountain stat can't down more than 79-80. Remember that he got a big injury and he is recovering his level..
I try to speak honestly, seriously.
I'm not even really a Gesink fanboy, I dislike his personality.
And about the Schleck 'bad training so 81' thing, that's something completely else. He isn't able to finish races the last two seasons. Gesink dÃd do that, and even got decent results.
If Gesink ruins the Tour & Giro this year(preferable because of his abilities, not of a crash), you're totally right, and Gesink should be lowered. But for now, its okay.
And it's not like I want Schleck on 70 on something, his achievements a few ears ago aren't nothing, but stats have to reflect a bit what Cyclists can do at the moment, with past results weighing a lot. So Schleck about 77/78 sounds fine for me(I dunno what he got in the stats update, btw)
And I agree with you about Evans, tbh.
You talk like I made the .cdb file. Well, I didn't, I only optimised some stats for Dutch and Belgian CT teams, which isn't even in the stat update yet btw
And Alakagom is not a Gesink fanboy
Come on, just live with Gesink's stats for now, and start complaining about him again at the end of July
@Hijo Moreno is the only guy with a lower/equal MO than Gesink who finished higher than Gesink in the Vuelta GC.
Add the form Moreno had, and Gesink didn't, and I don't see why you are complaining
Helper role doesn't help, but isn't always a good excuse.
Moreno had top-form though.
Edited by Jesleyh on 24-04-2013 09:19
TTspecialist wrote:
Jesleyh,stop being fanboy and try to speak honestly. Okay, so no "crash at Dauphine" and "bad training" at PCM, so give Schleck 81! He was winner man! I just cant believe that someone puts Gesink , which whole team is working for him and he still cant get top10 in some nonGT races,what the fuck will he search for at GTs? We will see after Giro, i can say that Schleck is way too underrated,and why Evans is still 78-79 and Schleck not? What that good Evans did to get that stats? Seems like this .cdb was made by fanboys....
I must say we might be being to harsh on Andy. He did crash, and was out injured for the only race he cares about. He was 2nd in the Tour in 2011, where he was the best climber in the race. He did win in 2010 (or 2nd depending on how much you like him), was 2nd in 2009. He won several young rider jerseys as well in his early career. Clearly he was a very good rider, better than 98% of other pro tour cyclists. We also know he only really goes for the Tour now, so until that race this year, we shouldn't drop him. Or we are breaking our own stat rules.
Gesink is probably overrated. He has only ever Top10'd a GT, yet we give him better stats than those which has podiumed!! Gesink is talented, but not to the level he is at in the DB. A GT podium would earn his current stats, not a Top10. You can combat that drop with increased potential, but only a little. He is 27 and you can't expect him to improve that much in the future. You can always change it if he does improve.
Evans won the Tour in 2011 and was 2nd in Dauphine in 2012, i guess thats why he gets good stats. He was the only one to follow the Sky Train up the Planche last year. No idea why he cracked so bad after that. His stats are probably accurate to reflect that. Now he also has low potential so won't improve a lot.
hows that for a fair evaluation? I am not a fan of any of them, and use an objective view, relating to other riders and results. Nor am i swayed by nationality either (jesl )
He's only Top10'd 4 GT's and was 33rd in 2011 Tour. Yes he also has some results outside of the GT's, but not more than many other worse riders. Dude is overpowered!
Gesink Top5'd the Tour TMM. 2009.
And he Top 10'd a GT not once, but 4 times. Maybe he could've podiumed a GT without his bad luck. One does not now
I all ask is a little bit more patience on Gesink.
I won't complain if he gets lowered if he fails once again.
And no, 79 MO doesn't mean that he Top 3s every GT.
For example, Giro got Wiggo(80), Nibbles(80), Hesjedal(80), Sanchez(Had 80, now 79), and some other guys with 78/79 MO like Scarponi.
And don't forget the TT ability, it plays a role in GT's too!
A Top 5 in the Giro would justify his 79 MO for sure!
TheManxMissile wrote:
and more to dispell some Gesink fanboyism
He's only Top10'd 4 GT's and was 33rd in 2011 Tour. Yes he also has some results outside of the GT's, but not more than many other worse riders. Dude is overpowered!
That was my point,fickman said just like it is, pushing Gesink and his stats so high in this game was something that we had to live with "all of these years" (well,1-2 year xD). That guy is just not good enough to do something,i think he is very young but he reached his peak,he will maybe get some good result in years to come but not top3 definitely (my opinion!)
But again, like I just said, 79 MO doesn't always mean Top 3, it also means around 5th place multiple times(with some guys having 2 times 3rd for example, there's a bit of flexability in the stats)
Ok, I stop now, School is calling me Edited by Jesleyh on 24-04-2013 09:30
Jesleyh wrote:
Gesink Top5'd the Tour TMM. 2009.
And he Top 10'd a GT not once, but 4 times. Maybe he could've podiumed a GT without his bad luck. One does not now
I all ask is a little bit more patience on Gesink.
I won't complain if he gets lowered if he fails once again.
And no, 79 MO doesn't mean that he Top 3s every GT.
For example, Giro got Wiggo(80), Nibbles(80), Hesjedal(80), Sanchez(Had 80, now 79), and some other guys with 78/79 MO like Scarponi.
And don't forget the TT ability, it plays a role in GT's too!
A Top 5 in the Giro would justify his 79 MO for sure!
2009? You mean 2010 surely! and that is after Contadors exclusion, which we seem to ignore for Andy... He withdrew from the '09 Tour, then finished the Vuelta in 6th
We don't give Andy patience, when he's only missed 8 months (out of at least 2 years we use for stats, if not more in certain cases such as Gesink apparently), so why be patient with Gesink as well... that seems unfair to me.
A Top5 in the Giro would justify a 79MO, but guess what! he hasn't done that!
Oops, 2010 yeah.
But I can see Gesink riding Top 5 in the Giro 2013 (or at least close)
And if I remember correctly, Gesink was technically a Menchov helper in 2010, and still Top 5'd. That rules out the Moreno point above btw
And well, give Andy the same climbing stats as Robert then, if that helps you guys
Ollfardh wrote:
Well, there's always gonna be discussion cause everyone has different opinions about riders. If you disagree, just change it yourself.
Or we can have a poll or something to get a general consensus, good luck organising that
Just some consistency would be great... We vilify Andy and drop him cause he missed 8months, but we laud and love Gesink for no apparent reason...
Mikel Nieve has 4 GT top10's in the last 3 years
Samu Sanchez has 2 podiums and a Top5 and is worse! Come on, that is ridiculous!!
Edit: @Jesl
I believe Rolland can win the Tour this year, so lets give him 83MO 80HL 79TT just to make sure it happens!
Edited by TheManxMissile on 24-04-2013 09:37
No. I don't mean give Gesink 79 MO because I think that he can Top 5 the Giro.
I meant if that happens, he proved his 79 MO(again ) and you shouldn't complain after that.
Why so many of you wonder abou Gesink stats? He was always the most overrated cyclict in PCM Daily database, at least for last two or so years i downloaded that. (probably to please Ruben and stop hic complains, Jesleyh is nicely going in his footsteps).
And those on the Gesinks barricade, pointing on 3 top10s at Vuelta. Vuelta is always different and also lesser climbers or riders with great form can suceed there.
Look at Velits, he was third there in Spain recently, does he deserve 80 in mountain? No, just like Gesink, who should be like 77 now. How much is Pinot in the update? He should be at least 2 points better climber above Gesink
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 24-04-2013 09:54
TheManxMissile wrote:
Andy has finished something like 3 races since June 2012. He hasn't won a stage since July 2011. He hasn't won a stage race ever.
Give him Potential 6-7 and drop his stats to 71-71.
Currently we are saying he is comparable to Tommy Voeckler... hmmm
Pinot is 78MO i believe... and like Samu is worse than Gesink
How have i been dragged into a debate about Gesink? I am always complaining the people debate him and should focus on not known riders... Shows how mental his stats are
EDIT: @TT
That was before i actually looked in detail at the stats. Then i stopped, checked some facts, and had a rational thought Edited by TheManxMissile on 24-04-2013 10:17
TTspecialist wrote:
Thats not fair putting Andys stats down to 76mo and Ballan is still at 78cob. Not fair at all
Yes, i agree. Even his potential is only 5 now, so he has no chance to develop again.
Gesink has potential 6, while still rated very strong. I think that's also odd, because nobody being near as good as him has such a high potential. Rolland, Pinot, Froome, Contador, Nibali, Schleck, ... all have lower potential.
I think it's a good thing too lower some of the potentials, but if so Gesink is very overrated right now. But yeah i know, many Gesink fanboys here.
As I clearly said before, a sample of potentials changed, some didn't at all. It was stated clearly before. This is not official update, so I am trying to test it few stuff.
And about the climbing, as I say Giro will determine a lot. And Andy's stats changed to gue general consenus here. Most people wanted them to change and they did.
Manx: Edmonson finisehd 43rd in Fleche, above many much better names, cosnidering he was a domestique, for me he deserves those stats, he has other performances like Algarve to back that up.
Edited by Alakagom on 24-04-2013 11:00
TheManxMissile wrote:
We don't give Andy patience, when he's only missed 8 months (out of at least 2 years we use for stats, if not more in certain cases such as Gesink apparently), so why be patient with Gesink as well... that seems unfair to me.
A Top5 in the Giro would justify a 79MO, but guess what! he hasn't done that!
2011 was a great year (or should I say great Tour?) for Andy. The results from 2 years ago indicate how good he was and possibly still can be.... if everything is right for him. 2012 didn't have Andy in the Tour, because of injuries. No reason for a stats decrease yet. At the end of 2012, Andy was back on his bike. He performed like crap. While this doesn't relate to his season goal of the Tour, it does give out some bad future signals.
Early 2013 now. Andy is struggling with problems. Its all over the cycling websites. No motivation whatsoever. He admits that isn't training. He still isn't finishing any races. At the start of the season, he said he wasn't a favourite for the Tour. He aimed to be back and in good shape for the Ardennes classics. So how did he do? shite. It was already spotted by his team after Tirreno. He isn't building back up as succesfully as expected, which explains why he is still not performing at all.
So ask yourself, judging from all the news and the results we have on him, how good is Andy Schleck really at this moment? Maybe he will improve for the Tour, but how much, considering his preperation so far has not been going according to plan at all? After LBL, which was also a season goal of him, and where he finished 41st, do we really expect (expect, not hope) him to do better than 8th place in the Tour GC?
Gesink isn't much different. He has never reproduced his 2010 Tour result, but it shows how good he was and possibly still can be, just like Andy. However, unlike Andy, Gesink has been racing, finishing, and performing moderately decent for his level since 2010, placing 6th in Catalunya this year. So unlike Andy, we have proof for Robert that he can still perform, but just no proof to perform like 2010 again.
So can we expect a return to his 2010 level? No, because he hasn't been performing on that level ever since and he still isn't doing so. But can we still expect him to perform decent? Well yes, he is still training for the Tour and so far, he hasn't had any problems. So what place should we expect from Gesink, provided that he doesn't crash? 6th-8th place in the GC seems reasonable. So yes I am placing Gesink above Andy.
It's not a matter of different standards of patience for both riders, it's a matter of different expectations, based on what you've seen, heard and know 2 months before the start of the Tour.
Early 2013 now. Andy is struggling with problems. Its all over the cycling websites. No motivation whatsoever. He admits that isn't training. He still isn't finishing any races. At the start of the season, he said he wasn't a favourite for the Tour. He aimed to be back and in good shape for the Ardennes classics. So how did he do? shite. It was already spotted by his team after Tirreno. He isn't building back up as succesfully as expected, which explains why he is still not performing at all.
But he is now finishing races. He is back in training. Is he working as hard as he could be, probably not. But without all the data we can't say anything. All we know is that he fell off the wagon after injury, and is starting to pick himself back up. We can't say he will not be good, because we simply do not have that information. What we do have is a rather impressive palmares which supports him as one of the best climbers in the post-armstrong period.
So ask yourself, judging from all the news and the results we have on him, how good is Andy Schleck really at this moment? Maybe he will improve for the Tour, but how much, considering his preperation so far has not been going according to plan at all? After LBL, which was also a season goal of him, and where he finished 41st, do we really expect (expect, not hope) him to do better than 8th place in the Tour GC?
As of right now he is a total unknown. He has not been at a good level of fitness so we cannot extract any reasonable assumptions. To do so would be unfair against him. We always say here not to judge people before their goals. Andy's goal is the Tour, and to drop him before then is massively unfair. He did finish LBL which is such a major improvment over the last 6-7months it cannot be unreasonable to think that he could gather some decent fitness in the next 2 months and contest the Tour. Also we cannot base stats on expectations, otherwise the whole system descends into who we do and do not like, which we will all agree is wrong and does not work.
Gesink isn't much different. He has never reproduced his 2010 Tour result, but it shows how good he was and possibly still can be, just like Andy. However, unlike Andy, Gesink has been racing, finishing, and performing moderately decent for his level since 2010, placing 6th in Catalunya this year. So unlike Andy, we have proof for Robert that he can still perform, but just no proof to perform like 2010 again.
We know Robert can perform. The point is that his performances do not merit his current stats. As i pointed out earlier his stats are above many riders with better recent results, of which my prime example is Samu Sanchez. Please tell me how Gesink deserves better stats that Sancehz. I am also trying to separate the two arguements, as they are not related.
I argue that Andy should not be dropped, as he has a wide palmares of top results in the Tour, and missed only 1 race. Suddenly that makes him a shit rider? No it doesn't.
I argue that Robert should be dropped a bit. He has a good palmares, but not that much better than a lot of worse ranked riders. His stats seem to be based of what he could acheive, not what he has achieved.
They cross over because we base one riders stats on what he could achieve, and anothers on what he hasn't achieved due to injury and personal problems. That is hardly a fair way to do it, with neither being properly represented in the DB.
We cannot base stats off expectation. People from the Netherlands (like you, Jesl and Ruben) will expect more of Gesink than Andy, and thus believe that he deserves really good stats. Bushwakers expects more of Pate and wants him to have better stats. Us Brits expect more of the Brits and want more stats. Rapidly it becomes a popularity contest. Races are not won by popularity, but ability. And that is why stats are based of off results. Andy has really good results. Gesink has good results. Sanchez has really really good results. That is how they should be in the DB: Sanchez > Andy > Gesink (of course not for every stat. Gesink is clearly a better TT than Andy, but Andy has the better GT pedigre so better MO, HL and REC)
With Andy Schleck, things are fairly simple: it's impossible to predict his stats at the moment, so anything goes for the Daily DB and people can tweak them the way they see fit. It's nothing more than guess work at the moment.
Gesink should just have 78 on climbing and he'll be fine.
My personal top stats on MO:
82 Contador, Froome
81 Nibali, Rodriguez
80 Wiggins, Van den Broeck, Valverde
79 Hesjedal, Quintana, A. Schleck(?)
78 Gesink, Pinot, S. Sanchez, Porte, Henao etc...
Edited by Blueprint on 24-04-2013 11:44
)
I think his Mountain stat can't down more than 79-80. Remember that he got a big injury and he is recovering his level..
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
(or at least close)
