Can Sagan Win Le Tour?

From MTB World Champion to Green Jersey winner in his first Tour de France.

Cavendish quoted yesterday as saying: "He's making the rest of us look like juniors".

Will he evolve into a full blown Tour winner?

Discuss.

(You can currently get over 200/1 on him winning the Tour 2013 title by the way)

As long as they don't come up with a test to detect whatever gear he's on.

Ha!

Gear is about 55 / 10 I reckon ;)

He's making a mockery of WADA. Maybe next, Forstermann will start winning mountain stages.

You think this is another 'if it is too good to be true, then it probably isn't true'?

That'd suck.

He says he was always better at climbing as a junior, but now has put on more (muscle) weight with his sprinting.

You think this is another 'if it is too good to be true, then it probably isn't true'?

^ my sentiment too.

Along with Chris Froome? Sagan has always been a phenomenon, unlike the donkey -> racehorses on Sky.

Interesting take on SKY's tactics...
Sagan can't win Le Tour - he hasn't got enough finish-line celebrations.

He also isn't good enough at time trialling.

hope he brings his bell again, that was very popular in the peloton last year

ha

why?

Isn't it enough for him to win stages, and the green jersey, and possibly classics in the future. We want him to be a GT contender/winner as well?

That sort of talent doesn't come along very often and now with the way race programs are structured, there's even less chance of someone doing an Eddie and winning everything, everywhere.

And it also seems to denigrate the races and achievements that those that don't win the tour do achieve. If Sagan doesn't win the tour does that make him a failure? If he wins as many classics as Boonen and wins the green jersey multiple times, does that make him rubbish, because he didn't win a grand tour?

Seems in the current climate we yearn for superhuman achievement, then instantly disown the achievement because what they did "isn't" possible without drugs. Got to have one or the other folks.

^ repped

If Sagan doesn't win the tour does that make him a failure? If he wins as many classics as Boonen and wins the green jersey multiple times, does that make him rubbish, because he didn't win a grand tour?

Don't think anyone is suggesting this. Just pondering his chances of winning the TdF.

Sorethroat, but thinking aloud, that he might have a chance when he's shown he's a sprinter, a puncheur, but hasn't shown any signs of being able to hack it in the high mountains with the skinny climbing goats, or that he can put down a lethal TT time seems to be setting him up for failure, doesn't it.

He's so early into his career and already the question is being asked, before he's even shown that he could challenge in a grand tour, let alone win one, seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse and subjecting him - at least on this forum - to undue pressure and expectation, that he may never actually live up to..

just my tuppence..

why?

Isn't it enough for him to win stages, and the green jersey, and possibly classics in the future. We want him to be a GT contender/winner as well?

That sort of talent doesn't come along very often and now with the way race programs are structured, there's even less chance of someone doing an Eddie and winning everything, everywhere.

And it also seems to denigrate the races and achievements that those that don't win the tour do achieve. If Sagan doesn't win the tour does that make him a failure? If he wins as many classics as Boonen and wins the green jersey multiple times, does that make him rubbish, because he didn't win a grand tour?

Seems in the current climate we yearn for superhuman achievement, then instantly disown the achievement because what they did "isn't" possible without drugs. Got to have one or the other folks.

Why?

Because he seems super-talented, so I offered the question 'do people think he can win the Tour'.

There was no suggestion of deeming him a failure if he doesn't.

Indeed, I think most people on a cycling forum would be savvy enough to realise that anyone even close to being a bloody domestique at pro-level means you're ridiculously good on anything with two wheels.

So no. No disowning or discrediting of his achievements to date.

Bugger me. It comes to something when you can't talk about a talented rider and wonder what he can achieve in the future.

Bugger me....

Move on.

why?

Isn't it enough for him to win stages, and the green jersey, and possibly classics in the future. We want him to be a GT contender/winner as well?

That sort of talent doesn't come along very often and now with the way race programs are structured, there's even less chance of someone doing an Eddie and winning everything, everywhere.

And it also seems to denigrate the races and achievements that those that don't win the tour do achieve. If Sagan doesn't win the tour does that make him a failure? If he wins as many classics as Boonen and wins the green jersey multiple times, does that make him rubbish, because he didn't win a grand tour?

Seems in the current climate we yearn for superhuman achievement, then instantly disown the achievement because what they did "isn't" possible without drugs. Got to have one or the other folks.

tl;dr

Noobs think everything revolves around the TdF.

he's a sprinter, a puncheur, but hasn't shown any signs of being able to hack it in the high mountains with the skinny climbing goats,

He schooled Contador recently in a climb and dragged Rodriguez up to the top.

keep your hairington on! (did you see what I did there)

This thread feels premature, and not in a good way. Why not discuss the possibilities of him winning a classic, Tour of Flanders, Paris Roubaix, as he was damn close in Milan San Remo, or him having a fight on his hands to hold onto the green jersey in the tour, with Cav on a team which is dedicated to providing a lead out train for him.

But thinking about winning the tour already? Do you not think its premature speculation, when he hasn't even finished top ten yet?

To be honest I've got more of an issue with too much pressure and expectation being placed on precocious athletes who achieve a lot at an early age and then maybe don't achieve what "we" believe they should, when in fact, as you say to be as good as he is already is an achievement in and of itself.

And as Senor Bear pointed out, it looks like he has the climbing chops to possibly put himself into contention for a grand tour, personally I'd wait until he top tens or podiums before wondering if he can or can't.

That wasn't a Tour climb and beating Contador once doesn't make a GT contender.

This is the same crap the commentators were discussing last year before he'd won jack shit.

Seems in the current climate we yearn for superhuman achievement, then instantly disown the achievement because what they did "isn't" possible without drugs.

Perfect

He'll remain an incomplete athlete until he progresses to the heights of triathlon.