| |
BGonline.org Forums
Is your money also always on Tiger like it used to be?
Posted By: Joe Russell In Response To: Is your money also always on Tiger like it used to be? (Bob Glass)
Date: Sunday, 5 June 2011, at 11:59 a.m.
Let me preface this argument by stating that, while a fan, I do not pretend to be a tennis expert and most people posting here have much greater knowledge, skill, and understanding than I. If push came to shove, most of them could probably convince me I was wrong. But, I still think it fun to play the devil's advocate, so here goes:
The best way to compare players from different eras is by the way they dominated their sport during their career. There are improvements in equipment, training, coaching, and nutrition which benefit each successive era. It is hard to say that players from an earlier era would have not benefited greatly had they been exposed to the same opportunities, just as it is hard to say that today's players could have dominated in earlier eras without having these benefits. Many think that Babe Ruth is the greatest home run hitter of all time in baseball, but put Bobby Bonds and his steroids in Ruth's day and it would be no competition. Why did I use a steroid example? The racquets of today are on steroids compared to earlier eras. Here are the career winning percentages for some of the greatest players in history:
BORG 0.826 CONNERS 0.818 LENDL 0.818 MCENROE 0.817 FEDERER 0.803 *LAVER 0.798 NADAL 0.793 SAMPRAS 0.774 BECKER 0.769 VILAS 0.765 RODDICK 0.763 AGASSI 0.761
It is sad for Federer's legacy, but great for tennis and it's fans that Nadal career has overlapped Federer's. Nadal is one of the greatest competitors ever and could be in consideration for the best of all time. But, he is injury prone, probably because he plays each point like it is match point, and may not have the longevity needed to achieve that pinnacle. Nadal has the edge over Federer heads up. How can Federer be the best ever if he is and has been an underdog to another player so many times? He is more than a 2-1 dog in the current French final. Granted, the French is Nadal's best surface, and he may be the best ever on it, but Nadal can play other surfaces and have an excellent chance of beating Federer on those as well. Federer being an underdog to another player in his career many times takes something away from his consideration for the best player ever. Federer has the most slams and that is his greatest claim to being the best. Technically, he may be the best. All-around, he may be the best. But, then again, he may not be as good as Nadal has been for the last few years, when Nadal was not injured, and he does not have as high a career winning percentage as a few others. To be somewhat dominated by another player in his own era makes one question if he should be considered the best of all time.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.