Tejay Van Garderen Discussion Thread

Page 50 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
It is indeed solid as an overall result, but rather unspectacular (5th in two of the weakest TdF in the decade), while expectations were way higher and his success in week-long races didn't really translate into GT. Van Garderen had a history of crashes, illnesses, fading... that is what makes his result dissapointing.
But those 2 5th places against weak fields (plus a couple of weeklong stage race wins in the western US) are precisely the results on which those expectations were based. It’s hard to justify “he should have done better than finishing 5th in the Tour, twice” when your whole argument is “because he finished 5th in the Tour twice.”
 
But those 2 5th places against weak fields (plus a couple of weeklong stage race wins in the western US) are precisely the results on which those expectations were based. It’s hard to justify “he should have done better than finishing 5th in the Tour, twice” when your whole argument is “because he finished 5th in the Tour twice.”
Because he finished 5th in the Tour twice at a young age. He still qualified as the best young rider the first time. It's not that hard to justify that people outside the fellowship of the weak-field theory expected some progression.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
What i meant to say is that he seemed to have potential for more. Finishing three times in the podium of Dauphine, twice in Catalunya while winning mountain stages "mano-a-mano" against top climbersb and being a good TT should have translated into far better results in GT.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Because he finished 5th in the Tour twice at a young age. He still qualified as the best young rider the first time. It's not that hard to justify that people outside the fellowship of the weak-field theory expected some progression.
He’s far from the first, and won’t be the last, to peak at a young age and never quite match those results again. There was clearly talent there, and he showed flashes in the years after (his Giro stage win, his Dauphiné podium) but only he knows why it didn’t work out better (and maybe not even he).

Like I said, if you reversed his career timeline, it almost looks like a normal progression.
 
Not a great career, but certainly in the conversation for best American rider of his time.
HIs early results had me thinking he was going to be serious threat to win stage races, and not just passively ride into relatively high GC places.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan

ASK THE COMMUNITY