Anyone remember the epic duel that Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador had up the Col du Tourmalet at the 2010 Tour de France?
Or Schleck’s incredible and daring solo win on Stage 18 at last year’s Tour de France?
Andy certainly has had some incredible highs at the Tour. Two second places and a win (thanks to Alberto Contador’s positive test at the 2010 race) is a hell of a resume.
However, success in one particular race isn’t the measure of a legend. You must be versatile, have the ability to win in any given situation.
I regard Eddy Merckx as the greatest cyclist of all time (much to the chagrin of all the Armstrong lovers out there). Notwithstanding the fact that Merckx has won the most Grand Tours in cycling history (11: five Tours, five Giri and one Vuelta), Merckx was also king of the one day classics for an extended period, occasionally won a bunch sprint and could time trial like the wind (held the hour record for a number of years).
I’m not, by any stretch of the imagination, comparing Andy Schleck to Eddy Merckx (that’s like trying to compare Tom Scully with Gary Ablett Jnr). But Schleck certainly has the potential and talent to be an extremely versatile rider.
Yet he isn’t and there are a few good reasons why:
1) His ability against the clock is appalling. Contador was similarly weak against the clock early in his career.
But whilst the Spaniard has worked hard on it and turned it into one of his main weapons, Schleck hasn’t. On a team which boasts the greatest time trial rider in history, Fabian Cancellara, there is no excuse for not seeking to improve this weakness.
2) He rides too much with his brother, Frank, in mind. Classic case in point? The 2011 Liege-Bastogne-Liege; both Schleck brothers were off the front with a rampaging Phillippe Gilbert.
Surely, having the numerical advantage would have cemented the win for at least one of them, right? Wrong. Neither wanted to attack the other, it ended up in a bunch sprint, Gilbert kicked both of them. Happens way too much when they race the Tour as well.
3) Most worryingly, neither seem particularly interested in any race apart from the Tour de France or the spring classics. Currently, Andy is more than five minutes behind Bradley Wiggins at the Criterium du Dauphine, the main warm-up event for the Tour de France.
If I was him and his team management, I’d be wanting to come into this race with a view to winning it and consolidating my form before a big race, not trying to find some form.
Back in the 1960s and ’70s, there was a French cyclist called Raymond Poulidor, who systematically suffered through the reigns of greats Jacques Anquetil and Eddy Merckx.
He was nicknamed ‘eternal second’ as he finished second at the Tour de France three times and third five times, whilst never winning.
He, like Schleck, was not a great time trialler but could climb like few others. And, critically, his form in most other races was fairly lacklustre, except for the extraordinary results he could pull out at the Tour.
Anyone else spot a trend here?
Steve
Guest
Poulidor was only a TDF rider? He won the Vuelta, Milan-San Remo, Fleche Wallonne, GP des Nations, Criterium international (FIVE times!), Dauphine twice, Paris Nice twice, and had 11 grand tour stage wins! TDF aside, that would easily cement one's career. And he has a host of other more minor wins. If you're going to compare riders (always an odious task), at least compare apples to apples.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
Let's not forget Sastre either. But would you back in either to do it again if they had it a second time? I wouldn't.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
100% true. Merckx was unstoppable in '69. He was so good that other riders began complaining that he wasn't giving anyone else a chance to win. I hope the guy who punched him in the kidneys in the '75 Tour was happy with himself as he ruined Merckx's career. Had that and the fact that he crashed later on and broke his cheekbone not happened, he may have won it 6 times.
liquorbox_
Guest
I think all arguments against Mercx can be trumped by pointing out he won the yellow, green and polka dot jersey in the same TDF in 1969, he is the only rider to complete the tour with all three categories. If they had the young rider jersey I think he would have got it by a few days too!
liquorbox_
Guest
Pantani also rode out of his skin in a time trial to keep hiy yellow jersey...just! He was decked out in all yellow and even dyed his goatee yellow from memory. He was the true personification of the yellow jersey making you a better rider. Despite his many issues, he is still my favourite cyclist of all time
hamleyn
Roar Guru
I hardly think winning a 20km TT at the Tour of Poland constitutes being a good time triallist seeing as its on during the Tour de France, where most of the great time triallists are battling for yellow. Also saying that Andy Schleck's body shape only lends itself to climbing is a bit miscalculating. The same could be said for Alberto Contador, Joaquim Rodriguez and Sammy Sanchez, yet all of those have had success outside of Grand Tours. Saying he's suited for Grand Tours is also a bit amiss as his time trialling is shocking. The only pure climbers to win Grand Tours in the past 15 years have been Damiano Cunego (who lucked out with the field he was racing against in the 2004 Giro d'Italia), Roberto Heras, Marco Pantani and Aitor Gonzalez, all of whom were unbelievable climbers in their own right and had the daring to try the big breakaways. Looking back at all the most successful grand tour riders in history, all have been incredible time triallists. As for saying Poulidor was a very good time triallist, I concur, to win the GP Nations, you do have to be strong, but he was not of the same calibre as Anquetil or Merckx, whom he frequently raced against. Nor could you call winning the Dauphine twice and the MSR and Fleche Wallonne once being better than Andy. Do remember that Andy is only 26, Poulidor raced until he was 40 so Andy has plenty of time to catch and surpass him. All I'm saying is that with his run of podiums but no wins, he's tracking similar to Poulidor.
Slapshotjc
Guest
But Pou Pou had something either member of Team Frandy never ever have, he had Panache
lllludo
Guest
Some bullshit in this article : - Contador has always been a decent time trialist even when very young: 1st pro victory at 20 was a 20k itt at Tour of Poland. - Andy has the morphology of a pure climber and is very resistant. He is very well suited for grand tours but not for other races. - Regarding Poulidor you've got all wrong ... he won 200 races in his pro career Dauphiné, Paris-Nice,MSR, Vuelta etc... but never the Tour and was a very good time trialist (won GP Nations). He was a great fighter from February to October but he was a poor tactician and a bit clumsy. So apart from the clumsiness I see very little in common with Andy
Roger
Guest
I feel that Andy had more than enough chances to get a lot of fans on his side, but he hasn't been able to gain the support that he could have. Maybe it's his work ethic you mentioned and the fans are turned off by that. Yes, it's hard to argue against Merckx being the greatest of all time.
hamleyn
Roar Guru
Couldn't agree with you more. How many athletes in any sport have we seen with incredible natural talent but have failed to capitalise because they weren't willing to put the work in? Usually get beaten by the guy or girl who just wants it more and is prepared to put in the hard yards in training.
DanMan
Guest
Talent cannot replace hard work ask any coach. Yes Andy is talented but the work ethic is not there - It is so obvious to the rest of the world what his weaknesses are yet has made no serious attempt to fix them. You need both; see Contador, Evans, Lance and of course the greatest of all by daylight Mr Merckx
hamleyn
Roar Guru
It's remarkable how similar Andy Schleck and Raymond Poulidor are. Obviously, Poulidor's results at the Tour de France speak for themselves, as do Andy's. I should point out that I don't really consider Andy Schleck to have won the 2010 Tour de France. He didn't, he got beaten, but he has to assume the title because the guy that beat him cheated. If you count that then, Andy has 3 consecutive runner-up finishes at the Tour and one at the Giro across his career. Poulidor has one up on him there as he actually did win a Grand Tour (1964 Vuelta). However, they both have similar records of success in the classics and in the one-week races. I really hope Andy can pull himself together and get a Tour de France win off his own back at some stage (next year is a possibility, rumours are the course will be as tough as the 150th Anniversary Giro last year) but I don't think he'll be able to do that until he fixes the three things I suggested above.
Darryl Kotyk
Roar Pro
Interesting comparison. You're definitely not alone in claiming Merckx to be the all time greatest....I've heard that said many, many times before. But I wasn't aware of Poulidor and the performances that he had back in the day. Looking back at Andy's career, I can totally see him fitting into the nickname "eternal second".