The winning was never the boring part – When Tadej Pogačar does it like he did at Milan-San Remo, I could watch him win every week

66km in Rwanda. 75km at the Euros. 33km in Lombardia, and then 81km at Strade Bianche. Before Saturday, Tadej Pogačar had won on his last five days, largely with long-range, solo moves that took the jeopardy out of each race a considerable distance before the finish.

It was really no surprise that conversations around boredom and the toll of domination were starting to crop up.

It's boring to watch Pogačar win, many viewers said. And they were right, watching him just ride alone for several hours with a gap that never comes down is not particularly thrilling. There's not a lot of excitement, not a lot of 'will he, won't he', not a lot of actual racing, all told.

Latest Videos From

But was it the winning that was boring, or the way he did it? The consensus seemed to be to roll those two into one, to amalgamate a Pogačar win with a dull, long-range attack. But Milan-San Remo came as a timely reminder that those two things are not interchangeable. In fact, I don't think the winning is the problem at all.

I'll preface this by saying I am certainly not a long-range Pogačar attack apologist. Two weeks ago, I sat glued to the women's Strade Bianche, stood up from my seat in the finale, was genuinely thrilled. When I read that Pogačar had attacked solo in the men's race before I'd even turned the TV on, I then just didn't bother. I went about my Saturday instead, uninterested in watching even a minute of that solo ride we've seen time and time again. I'm as bored of that as anyone is, and have never thought to defend it.

But, through all of that, dating back to Euros and Lombardia, I had the feeling that it wasn't necessarily the winning itself, or even the dominance, that was the problem. Long solo moves are impressive the first few times, and then get a bit tired, everyone can agree on that.

But is winning itself inherently boring? I'd challenge anyone to watch Milan-San Remo and answer yes to that question.

Matilda Price

I've watched Pogačar win A LOT of times, and I certainly have sighed in frustration at yet another mammoth solo ride (the impressive factor wears off). But Saturday was the complete opposite – I couldn't have been more entertained, even watching on replay when I knew the result.

Pogačar finally claimed his first victory, ticking off a fourth different Monument and a very important and long-desired addition to his palmarès. And he didn't do it with a long solo, he didn't do it with any solo at all. He didn't win by minutes, or seconds, or even a wheel – just about the length of a spoke separated him and runner-up Tom Pidcock (Pinarello-Q36.5).

On Saturday, unlike two weeks previously, we didn't know who was going to win until the finish line. In fact we didn't quite know then, with both riders throwing to the line and Pogačar's celebration the first indication that it was his wheel that had crossed the line first.

And you know what? It was thrilling. Probably the best men's race of the year so far, and one of the best editions of San Remo for the last decade, if not the best.

The race had everything: a crash at the wrong moment, all-out attacks on the Cipressa, demon-descending, more jabs and digs on the Poggio, a sprint on the Via Roma. You really couldn't have asked for more excitement, and none of this was dampened or cancelled out by the fact that it was Pogačar who won.

It was never the winning that was the problem. In fact, I'd argue that, when he has to fight for it, Pogačar is perhaps the most exciting rider to watch in the current peloton. On days like Saturday, we see him race with rage spurred on by the crash, with grit in his torn-up skinsuit, with boldness and confidence on the climbs. On his day, he's never conservative, rarely hesitant, he has this ability to go beast mode when he wants to. And I will never not find that compelling.

Some of you may be reading this and still thinking 'Yeah, but he still won, and I just want to see someone else win' and I understand that. Looking at the bigger picture, I can see why the same person winning might feel repetitive or boring.

The reason we don't like Pogačar winning is because it feels predictable, foretold even. He starts as the favourite and nothing changes over the course of 200 kilometres, and if he goes solo, he rips the excitement out of the most interesting parts of races. When he wins the Tour without hardly being challenged, or wins Worlds by minutes, the racing does lose some intrigue, some tension.

But that really can't be said about Milan-San Remo, where he had to battle all the way to the line. And yes, it was another 1 in the win column for Pogačar, but excitement isn't about what someone's page on ProCyclingStats looks like. It's hard to judge 'dominance' itself as boring or not boring, because what we actually should be judging is races themselves.

It's about the race that's right in front of you, the battle on the day. Forget the other wins for a moment, and just think about Milan-San Remo. Dramatic, aggressive, unpredictable right until the bike throw. That's excitement at its core.

When it's like that, I could watch Pogačar race and win week in, week out. In fact, that's exactly what I'd like him to do. No one's wishing for a solo raid at the Tour of Flanders or Paris-Roubaix, but Pogačar doing battle with Mads Pedersen (Lidl-Trek) or Mathieu van der Poel (Alpecin-Premier Tech) right to the last second, grabbing the win on that long drag into Oudenaarde, or sprinting on the velodrome? I can't think of much better.

And yes, it would be another Pogačar win in a sea of Pogačar wins, but that wouldn't matter. Because the winning was never the problem.

Get unlimited access to our unrivalled 2026 Spring Classics coverage with a Cyclingnews subscription. We'll bring you breaking news, reports, and analysis from some of the biggest races on the calendar, including Milan-San Remo, Paris-Roubaix and the Tour of Flanders. Find out more.