Tadej Pogacar was phenomenal at the Giro d'Italia, winning the race by little less than 10 minutes is unprecedented in modern cycling history. But with that questions arise whether the Slovenian wouldn't have been better off riding more conservatively with views to Tour de France just a month later.
In NBC's 'Beyond the Podium' podcast former pro and current EF Education-EasyPost sports director Tejay Van Garderen analyzes Pogacar's energy spending at Giro: "There were multiple times where the stage was just there for him to take. And if it's there for him to take, go ahead and take it," he draws an example on the shortened stage 16 to Santa Cristina Valgardena, where Movistar basically controlled the stage for the Slovenian, who didn't have to spend any extra energy bar the last five kilometers of the stage.
However there were times when UAE Team Emirates could've sat up and let the breakaway do their thing, but they paced for Pogacar instead. "Stage 8 was where he put his team on the front, nobody's up there for GC. You're wasting a lot of energy, your team is wasting a lot of energy. Tadej doesn't need to think only about himself, he also needs to think the effort his team making, because if he says 'I want to win today' and puts his team on the front, they're gonna pay for that."
"Regardless it was a very dominant display, super impressive. I loved watching it," Van Garderen makes clear from the fan perspective. "But I do think he still needs to mature a little bit. And think about 'Am I spending energy in the right places? For the right reasons?'" is his advice to the 25-year-old phenomenon on the brink of reaching the 'legend of the sport' status.
He won 6 stages, he won the GC by 10 mins and he and his team are saying that he saved energy for the TDF. Based on this, this was his conservative mode. If the others were not able to match this, that is their problem.
I'm pretty sure Pogacar doesn't need advice from Van Garderen. May as well ask Talansky for his thoughts as well. Risible.
This carries a lot of weight coming from a guy who had trouble making it past the second rest day of a grand tour.
To be fairer to Tejay, he had the best initial results right after fellow American Lance Armstrong. Hopes were high in America that Tejay's future results would help us forget Lance. Now if Tejay can help me forget Bob Roll as a commentator, I'd be grateful. As a paid commentator, you have to say something. I don't disagree with his comments in this case. We wondered about UAE tactics. Riders in the Giro wondered about them too.
No doubt - get rid of Bob Roll and his cohort CVV The two worst cycling commentators out there.
I have no idea of the Bob Roll guy but in the UK there used to be an awful commentator for F1, Murray Walker, he was so bad that people actually started accepting him for the entertainment value and in the end he became a beloved and respected F1 figure (and, over the years he did get a little better). You can imagine the effect he must have had, it was long before the internet (early 80s) but he got a Wiki entry for Murrayisms that some people must have remembered or fished up, have a laugh : Until his retirement, motor racing commentator Murray Walker frequently featured in the column. His excitable delivery led to so many mistakes that they began to be labelled "Murrayisms".[1] Examples include "We've had cars going off left, right and centre", "do my eyes deceive me, or is Senna's Lotus sounding rough?", "with half of the race gone, there is half of the race still to go", "There is nothing wrong with the car, apart from that it is on fire", "That car is totally unique, apart from the car behind it, which is identical", and "The gap between them is now nine-tenths of a second; that's less than a second!".
I remember Murray he had quite a high pitched voice that went right through you. Was it him who nicknamed James Hunt 'Hunt the Shunt'? A few years ago there was a programme on TV called Outnumbered and the dad character did a great Murray Walker impression.
That’s an emotional analysis, there is no logic to it at all. A cinema ( or art or music or football) critic can be great at analysing, describing, promoting or comparing a film and incapable of making a good one, a film maker can make fantastic movies but be lousy at talking about them. Why is not being great at something yourself a reason for not understanding it completely? And imagine how lousy, boring and restricted cycling coverage would be if only the greatest cyclists were given those jobs. Some are as thick as two planks, others so doped no-one wants to give them the time of day, some are terrible speakers, we’d be left with 5 sources and a very limited number of languages to listen to.