Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agassi Pete was great; I mean no question[.] But there was a place to get to with Pete. You knew what you had to do. If you do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger. |
Many have questioned how it could be possible that Bradman was supposedly just SO much better than ANY player who has EVER played cricket. It's easy enough, the reasoning goes, to see him as having been the best ever... but SO much better... so great that he totally eclipses even the very best of the rest? A batsman so complete that not even bowlers of the callibre of McGrath and Warne would feel they knew how they should go about bowling to him.
Now, in Roger Federer, I wonder if we're seeing exactly what that means: a player so good that opponents just can even envisage where they would need to get to with their own game to truly compete. A guy so versatile that he can't really be said to have weaknesses... such a complete player that even Agassi at the top of his game (as he was) could not see a way past.
ps. Any takers for Federer as the greatest sportsman alive today?