November 3, 2010 by Irish Peloton
World Number 1 ≠ Best in the World
Joaquim Rodriguez has finished the year as the leader of the UCI World Rankings. Naturally, one would assume that a world ranking is an indication of who the best rider in the world is. As an article in this month’s Cycle Sport magazine declares, “it doesn’t take a genius to work out that, no matter what the rankings say, Joaquim Rodriguez is not the best rider in the world“. The article goes on to state ‘the UCI World Ranking is fine if you want to find out who the most consistent rider in the world is. It’s not so good if you want to find the best“.
In my opinion, no matter how a season long competition is designed, what races are included or how the points are allocated, there will never be an objective indication of who the ‘best’ rider in the world is, this will always be a subjective opinion. If you appreciate the subtle intricacies and sheer power required to dominate time trials, then you would probably think Fabian Cancellara is the best rider in the world. If you enjoy watching bunch sprints, then Mark Cavendish is undoubtedly the best there is. If it’s nerveless exploits in descending mountains that whets your whistle, then perhaps you would consider Samuel Sanchez or Vincenzo Nibali the best of the best. Or what about a spectator who appreciates nothing more than watching a rider push himself to his physical limits in an enactment of pure sacrifice for the good of their team mates? Then perhaps Sylvester Szmyd or Chris Anker Sorensen should be considered the best in the world.
Joaquim Rodriguez - The world's best?
The winner of a season long competition will only ever indicate one thing: the winner of a season long competition. If the competition rules indicate that two second place finishes trumps a first place and consistency is king, then that’s what needs to be done to win that competition. The UCI World Rankings is essentially a points classification. Just as the points classification in the Tour de France does not necessarily reward the rider who wins the most stages, the title of World Number One does not necessarily reward the rider who won the most races throughout the season (that would be Andre Greipel). Both competitions reward consistency. Isn’t the Tour de France itself an exercise in consistency? A rider can dominate the Tour and win 20 stages out of 21 and still not walk away with the Yellow Jersey.
Riders have won the Tour de France in the past without winning stages (Alberto Contador, Greg LeMond, Gastone Nencini), riders have won the Green jersey at the Tour before without winning stages (Thor Hushovd, Erik Zabel, Sean Kelly) and riders have won season long competitions before without winning races (Maurizio Fondriest 1991 World Cup, Paolo Bettini 2004 World Cup). The difference between the UCI World Ranking and the aforementioned prizes is prestige. But what is prestige?
Prestige comes from a combination of history, attitude and money. Obviously any financial incentive for riders to win races cannot be ignored. Sean Kelly was famously nicknamed ‘sprint prime’ upon his arrival on the European cycling scene due to his focus on winning a race’s hot spot sprints and taking the wads of cash that came with them. Although money may be a motivation for a rider, the financial incentives for cycling as a sport are laughable in comparison to that of a sport like golf.
When the two sports’ top tier events are considered, admittedly, the difference isn’t massive. For instance the winner of the 2010 Tour de France (whoever it was) will receive €450,000. Whereas, the winner of the British Open golf tournament will walk away with €976,000. So the Golf prize money is more than double that of cycling, but still comparable. The real differences lie in the events that are not considered to be part of the top tier. Consider cycling’s Tour of Qatar and golf’s Qatar masters. Two events which have been around for about the same amount of time, host about the same amount of participants and take place over about the same number of days. The winning cyclist will get €9,000, whereas the winning golfer can pocket almost €300,000.
What is the point in a season long classification which compares Cavendish, Schleck and Cancellara?
As a sport which pushes the athletes to their physical limits, there is more than money to motivate professional cyclists. Consider two of cycling’s one day races; the Pro Tour level Grand Prix of Montreal and the not-even-considered-a-proper-classic Het Volk. If given a choice I know which race I would rather have on my palmarés. This is due to the history of the race, the list of past winners creates the prestige. Riders like Roger De Vlaeminck, Eddy Merckx, Jan Raas, Franco Ballerini and Phillipe Gilbert have all won Het Volk. To win this race is to elevate yourself into the same echelon as these riders. Winning the GP Montreal holds none of this prestige and importance, for the moment anyway. (Also, it must be said, that winning these historic races adds credence to your abilities as a rider, which in turn may mean a bigger pay packet when negotiating a new contract).
The prestige of a race also depends on the attitude of riders (and indeed media) toward a race. If Fabian Cancellara, Phillipe Gilbert, Cadel Evans and Mark Cavendish announced tomorrow that the Gorey 3 Day will be a major season goal for 2011, then suddenly the profile of the race is raised, the race would be covered by mainstream media and the race would become a sought after addition to a rider’s palmarés.
For the moment there is no prestige associated with topping the UCI World Rankings, it is seen as incidental to the racing season, not an integral part of it. But for a competition which compares apples with oranges it will always be incidental. I completely understand why Andy Schleck could never muster the motivation to want to best Mark Cavendish. It’s like asking who was the greater footballer, Roy Keane, Eric Cantona or Peter Schmeichel? Which brings me around to an old Irish Peloton post which suggested that the current season long rankings be divided into two. One for stage races and one for single day races. Perhaps then, riders may see the competitions as goals for the season rather than a by-product. Competitions, which of course would reward consistency, leaving the matter of who the best rider in the world is, up to debate, which is as it should be.
Leave a Reply