Who won the UCI World Tour and does anyone care?

Yeah, trimming down the calendar is not really an option. I think the central point of the article sums it up - who really cares which individual wins it, apart from the one who does, of course, and maybe their team. I disagree with your assessment of Valverde, Sam. Here is a samploe of his Palmares (admittedly from Wikipedia): Valverde's biggest wins have been the 2009 Vuelta a España, Liège–Bastogne–Liège in 2006, 2008 and 2015, La Flèche Wallonne (2006, 2014 and 2015). So he has been capable of winning Grand Tours (although the one he won was achieved in dodgy circumstances - ask Cadel Evans), as well as one-day classics. Sure, he hasn't won the Paris-Roubaix, but Liege - Baston - Liege is a pretty big deal too. Back on point, the teams should be the ones winning the World Tour, not an individual. I don't think tinkering with the calendar is really likely, but as I said in my previous post, define the season a bit more clearly - "Spring Classics Season", "Grand Tour and National Tour season", etc. Maybe you could have individual "winners" for each part of the season (kind of like some South American Football leagues, where they have the "Apertura" and "Clausura" competitions), but no real winner overall, because for some riders, it's all about the classics, while for others, they only focus on the Grand Tours. However, a team that does well across all three "seasons" should be rewarded at the end of the season. Tom, it's hard not to give plenty of points for a Grand Tour, but again, each of the Grand Tours have a team classification and an individual classification, as well as the individual stages. Points for Team Classification would be high, as would the points for the individual winner's team, but there are also all those sweet, sweet points for stage wins. Anyway, I haven't really fleshed out this stuff in any real way. Just thinking out loud, if typing is out loud. Good discussion.

Yeah, it would be a brave man to try and trim down the calendar.

I like the idea of making the yearly thing more about the teams, the best riders are so specialised that the World Championships almost caters to someone who is a jack of all trades, master of none. I guess that is why Valverde has done so well it in, he can climb a bit, sprint a bit, he isn't going to win Roubaix or the Tour de France but he will pick up some 'in-between' races and will always be there or there abouts which is hardly a compelling story to tell or competition to create. Focusing on the teams instead allows them to have a number of specialists who all contribute to that one big goal and will mean riders don't have to do things they aren't suited to just so they can take out a title. Could also create compelling ups and downs as a team like Ettixx takes the lead early in the classics but has to consolidate and defend as Astana and Sky rack in the mid-year GC points.

Yeah, I actually did know that Valverde won it this year and last, but it never really registered as something important. I would have to agree with Sam - the calendar needs to be unified, and all of the races sanctioned by the UCI as World Tour events should be shaped a little better. I don't think it would take anything too radical; all it would take is actually recognising in a more formal manner the fact that we have the spring classics as the defining characteristics of the early season, the "grand tours middle" and the Grand Prix / World Champs finale. I think if the UCI focussed on the TEAMS, rather than the individual ratings leader, that might generate some interest. Which is the best team in the world of cycling would be interesting, based on races won, podiums, etc, across the season. I think the mere fact that the Grand Tours exists will always undermine the concept of an individual "winner" of the World Tour, but the team thing might generate more interest in the teams rather than just the individual riders like Froome, Contador, Porte, Valverde, Nibali, etc. It might encourage more investment in a well-rounded team, rather than just a team based around a couple of Grand Tours, or based around the Spring Classics and the odd stage of the Grand Tours, etc., provided the prizemoney for the winning team is appropriately weighted. Anyway, grist for the mill. There were a couple of interesting articles in September (?) i think that discussed possible reforms to the system for the World Tour. I like this discussion. :)

I'd say this issue goes hand in hand with the problems the UCI have with the race calendar. The reason no one cares about who is doing best across the whole season is because it is contested across a whole heap of races that no one watches much less care about, sometimes there are even multiple events on the same day, splitting the best riders and the viewing audience. There is no articulated shape to the season: it kind of starts with some warmups then classics, then Grand Tours, then not much, then the world champs, then another bundle of random races as the season slowly peters out, as a result people just tune in for events they like and not because they want to see an ongoing race program. If the season was more focused with a real defined shape: a start, a middle and then building to a season ending climax I think people would pay more attention to the racing and therefore the battle to be the best rider across the whole season.

I find that Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen often point out who is leading the UCI World Tour during the TDF. I recall when both Gilbert and Rodriguez were leading the World Tour, Liggett made a point of acknowledging them.

Why does it have to matter? The sport has long lived on celebrating performances in individual races that count and will continue to do so. A UCI annual season champ would only benefit ridiculous races like the Tour of Oman and the Tour of Hainan. Do away with these terrible races and let the fans and riders celebrate the performances they feel is worth celebrating.