| |
BGonline.org Forums
OT - Tennis - Why Federer is the best (long)
Posted By: Frank Frigo In Response To: OT - Tennis - Why Federer is the best (long) (Stick)
Date: Sunday, 12 June 2011, at 12:56 p.m.
I always find these types of arguments fascinating. What does it really mean to be the “best” or “greatest” of all time at anything? Without specifically defined criteria for these terms, the debate becomes a silly one. If the ultimate measure of greatness in tennis is the number of career Grand Slam titles, then, at the moment, Roger Federer is the greatest champion. Use of the words “greatest” and “best” without proper context seems to imply Federer is the most dominant and most skilled player not only of this era but also of all time. The question of “all time” is particularly difficult to answer because we must consider the competition, equipment and surfaces across a broad timescale. It is far easier to address whether Federer is even the most skilled and dominant player of his own era. The answer is simple. He is not. Rafael Nadal has dominated Federer by a count of 17 – 8 thus far. It is hard to imagine any more objective criteria than this for measuring which of the two is a better player. It is true that Nadal has been most successful against Federer on clay but they happen to play a good portion of their matches on clay. And, Nadal has certainly held his own on hard courts and grass – particularly with respect to his recent victories at the Australian and Wimbledon.
Federer is a great champion. By most objective standards, including my own, he may be the greatest champion. His records, as you have pointed out, speak for themselves. However, it is difficult to swallow the argument that he is the greatest player of all time when another great champion has dominated him during his prime. And that domination is occurring at the hands of someone, who at only 25 years old, may well eclipse Federer’s Grand Slam record.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.