Another argument could be that he hasn't raced properly at the highest level for 3 years straight, but now, in 2011, for the first time uninjured, he climbs with the top 10 of the world. So he was forced to skip last years worlds in Sept 2010, since he was apparently somewhat affected by his knee, and 5-10 months later he has great form and is as good as, or better than, people whose development was not stalled for 3 years.
If the mantra is that racing makes one a better rider (based on the assumption that no one can train as hard as one can race), especially in arguably the formative years (early-mid twenties?) of ones career, than he has not been racing for 3 years, while he is now one of the best climbers in the race.
Is it possible to say that he is as good or better than a very talented Uran, who already has 3 full GTs under the belt? Uran's first time in a GT, the Tdf in 2009, he didn't come close to a good placing (1x15th in the stage to Bourg St Maurice) as a domestique nor as a talent. His second time in a GT (Giro 2010) neither (1x7th in the ITT Plan Corones). In this year's tour, he seems very capable when the gradients go up, but he is hardly out-climbing anyone.
In terms of physiology, Vanendert does look similar to someone like Andy Schleck, in terms of weight and height, and someone else said recently that his ITT is pretty bad too. Does anyone know why he wasn't picked up, being such a talent, by more elite/established team in 2007, when he went to topsport Vlaanderen?
Anyway, it's always difficult to compare riders or analyze career development; some are good early, others late in their careers; some riders look like they have similar qualities, but they don't. I hope he isn't as fragile as the last 3 years have shown to be, because when he is on steam there are few who can stop him.