The comparison offers itself;
Tadej Pogacar is dominant in a fashion unseen since the times of the original 'Cannibal'
Eddy Merckx. Half a century ago, there was no other rider in the peloton that would be so feared and hated, yet at the same time as respected as the Belgian all-rounder who had won 11 Grand Tours, 19 Monuments and three world titles.
And he achieved all that by the age of 32 (technically his last Monument victory - Milano-Sanremo 1976 was when he was still just 30 years old). "Pogacar still has a long way to go to match Merckx's palmares," says
Johan Museeuw in his analysis for
Wieler Revue.
However we should remember that the cycling has changed and evolved over the fifty years. Where Merckx could afford to ride Giro-Tour double and pick up a handful big Classics along the way year in, year out. The competition nowadays is much fiercer and that's why Pogacar's approach needs to more thought through.
"But I don't think it's necessary to make comparisons between generations. Pogacar is an extraordinary rider who will continue to dominate in the future. In a cycling sport where the level is currently extremely high. You can certainly speak of a similarity with Merckx. He also stood out in his time."
There's only one man able to hold back the avalanche of Pogacar's victories these days - perhaps the best one-day racer of our generation: Mathieu van der Poel. "Only in certain specific races he has to acknowledge Mathieu van der Poel as his superior, but that is the only one."
Museeuw grew up in the era of Merckx, which explains his attachment to the Cannibal. "I was still a child but of course I was a fan of Eddy Merckx then. I would sit in front of the television with my parents and watch Merckx riding solo in front."
The key similarty for the analyst is that they're both likable figures. Each in their own regard, at least as long as you aren't a supporter of their rivals.
"You can't dislike either Merckx or Pogacar. Pogacar is a rider who always smiles and is positive in front of the camera. He sometimes makes a joke and I like to see that in a rider. He is certainly not arrogant. But again: the comparison with Merckx is nonsense. That was a different time, different material, different preparation, different nutrition. Merckx knew nothing about good nutrition."
I don't know where you are referring to "points," given that I was looking at wins in different categories (overall, monuments, world tour) and trying to make different comparisons to illustrate my point. Could you clarify?