Quote:
|
Any takers for Federer as the greatest sportsman alive today?
|
No. The most talented? Yes. The most naturally gifted, the one most adept at moments of sheer magical brilliance? Yes. But he needs to sustain this excellence for a long period before he is the greatest sportsman around - Bradman is Bradman because he had 7,000 runs in 52 Tests; his legacy might have been somewhat different if he only had 1,750 runs in 13 Tests at an average of 100! Federer needs to sustain his brilliance for over a decade like Sampras did, to turn back the clock like Agassi and even Sampras managed, to win back to back at Rolland Gross and Wimbledon as Borg did for five successive years before he will be the
greatest sportsman around; perhaps he also needs to triumph against adversity, to succeed when his natural genius is not quite doing his bidding. At his best, he wins effortlessly and that is a sight to behold.
I did watch the Federer-Agassi final, and it was breathtaking. I had tuned in just to catch the initial service games before turning in for the night, and ended up watching for over two hours. Agassi played some of the best tennis I have ever seen him play, almost as good as those epic encounters with Sampras at Flushing Meadows during the 1990s and after. However, just like his very best was no match for Sampras on those rare occasions, it often seemed it was no contest here too; Federer was
effortlessly majestic - brilliant, without ever really trying hard, merely playing the game as it comes to him, naturally, the way walking comes naturally to the rest of us.
Easily one of the top three tennis matches I have ever seen live, and the other two involved Sampras and Agassi; what is it with that man, the best loser in tennis?