“De Vlaeminck’s remarks are unacceptable – Merckx beat him many times”: Tadej Pogacar supported in viral “overrated” debate by experienced Italian expert

Roger De Vlaeminck’s attack on Tadej Pogacar continues to ripple through the cycling world — and now one of Italy’s most respected voices has weighed in.

Speaking to Bici.Pro, veteran journalist Claudio Gregori offered a firm rebuttal of the Belgian’s position, directly challenging the tone and substance of De Vlaeminck’s claims.

The controversy began when the 78-year-old, in a typically fiery interview with Het Laatste Nieuws, dismissed any comparison between Pogacar and Eddy Merckx. “Nonsense! Pogacar isn’t even fit to lace Merckx’s shoes,” he exclaimed. He doubled down with another sweeping assertion: “If I were 22 today and riding in the peloton with him, he wouldn’t be dropping me.”

The former Paris–Roubaix specialist also insisted that anyone questioning Merckx’s status “doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”

Gregori, who has covered twelve Olympic Games and decades of Grand Tours, did not hide his reaction. In conversation with Bici.Pro, he said: “De Vlaeminck’s remarks are unacceptable. Look at the riders he competed against, especially Merckx, who beat him many times.”

He argued that De Vlaeminck’s comments fail to consider the broader picture: “He is also a very different type of rider from Pogacar, but in the end he is not analysing the victories; the numbers also need to be weighed. Modern cycling is very different from theirs — everything is calculated down to the millimetre.”

Rather than choosing a side in the heat of the debate, Gregori stressed that context matters. He highlighted the difference between eras and pointed out how performance characteristics vary between riders who never competed under the same conditions.

Gregori insisted that comparisons between Pogacar and Merckx require nuance, not provocation. “Pogacar and Merckx are two different riders who competed in different eras,” he says.

Using a simple physical comparison, he noted: “Pogacar is definitely stronger than Merckx on the climbs… Merckx, however, certainly had a more powerful engine.”

The Italian journalist emphasised Pogacar’s versatility, citing examples from his racing style rather than relying on rhetoric. He pointed to the Slovenian’s aggressive long-range attacks and exceptional consistency in the Monuments as evidence that he is forging his own place in cycling history.

Gregori also addressed the numbers themselves — not to diminish Merckx, but to highlight what Pogacar has achieved in the modern era. “Pogacar is a champion of the highest order,” he said. “He has won 5 Il Lombardia out of 5 participations, an incredible statistic.”

He noted that even Merckx’s fabled record did not prevent the Slovenian from doing things few thought possible: “Pogacar finished second at his very first Roubaix — something unthinkable until just a few years ago.”

Gregori further argued that Pogacar’s style restores something cycling had lost: “In modern cycling it seemed impossible to excite with long-range solo attacks, yet he has rediscovered this way of racing… That’s what makes him so beloved.”

One common counter-argument in the De Vlaeminck debate is that Pogacar allegedly dominates without rivals. Gregori rejected that outright. “It’s not true that Pogacar has no rivals at his level,” he said, pointing to recent battles with Vingegaard and identifying Evenepoel as a major long-term threat: “He is two years younger… he has shown he can fight in Grand Tours.”

Gregori concluded by placing Pogacar’s place in history within a longer timeframe rather than in the heat of a single argument. “For now, the definition still holds: ‘Merckx the strongest, Coppi the greatest.’ But in three years, I believe that between those two we could no doubt include the Slovenian champion.”

By responding with analysis rather than provocation, Gregori’s comments provide one of the clearest counterpoints yet to De Vlaeminck’s blistering critique — and shift the conversation back toward performance, context and perspective, rather than nostalgia-driven declarations.