Bradman like brilliance in the 21st Century - Federer

[Rachael]

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?

[Chuck Palumbo]

Would you think Federer needs to win the French Open before he is considered as the greatest ever?

Thats the one thing that remains missing IMO.

[Maranello]

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?

[Rachael]

Federer's record on clay stands up to scrutiny... but even Bradman fell to bowlers once in a while! In terms of record he's just beginning.. and has a way to catch up with, say, Sampras... but what marks out Federer is the sense that there's just nothing he can't do... there's no way you could try and force him to play that he would find uncomfortable.

You might hope to beat him by catching him on a day when he's playing less than his best... and getting a bit of luck... but that's not quite the same thing.

My first thought is that Tendulkar, Lara and Viv Richards have all, at least on occasion, appeared impossible to bowl to... or at least... too complete as players to be troubled by the actual attack they faced at that moment on that particular pitch. I think what Agassi was sayng of Federer is that he couldn't see how any player on any surface would get at him... and I wonder if that's the way we should think of Bradman.

[Zainub]

For various reasons, I've never quite liked Federer. I know he's talented, successful and plays with effortless grace and all that, all credit to him for that, but still, I'm president of the virtual "condemn people with bad hair" society, and I suppose to be a Hewitt fan, so you'd probably expect me not to like him.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Any takers for Federer as the greatest sportsman alive today?

Not at all.I don't think he'd make it my top five even! Seriously, all the hair comments aside. I think Pele is the greatest sportsmen alive. He’s no longer playing, but he’s alive. So it makes him perfectly eligible. And with the likes of Maradonna, also alive too, Federer will probably have to not only beat all of Sampras' records, but also still out live the following other candidates to ever make it to the top of that list:


Michael Schumacher, despite what people might say about Formula 1 being circus, winning 7 world championship titles and truly and utterly dominating a sport for so long can’t be a fluke (and I refuse to take the argument that F 1 isn’t a real sport).



Lance Armstrong, he’d probably be a much stronger candidate too if you ignored all the controversy over alleged drug abuse off late, but again any person who can come back from a serious illness like cancer and win 7 Tour de France titles can’t be ignored.



Mohammad Ali (any boxing enthusiast here apart from me?).

Michael Jordon, anyone? Not much of a basket ball follower, but from the occasional ESPN documenatries I've seen, he'd probably have an outside chance too, wouldn't he?

[greg]

Federer is the best sportsman around at the moment.He is so much better than everyone else it's untrue.

Woods goes close in golf and is probably the greatest ever golfer.

Schumacher is great but he isn't as good as Senna was.Now he was awesome.

Phil "The Power" Taylor anyone?His record stands up even if darts is only a pub game.

As for American sports like basketball and baseball,i wouldn't know as i don't watch them.

[Rachael]

I admire Woods hugely... but it has to be said that a lot of his initial, towering domination came in part because of the length he could get with each club... allowing him to out hit courses... but also to use clubs that are more easy to control... and clubs that get greater height and therefore give him and advantage when trying to stop the ball dead on a fast green.

Federer doesn't hit the ball any harder than the rest... or scurry around the court any faster... or create angles that the best of the rest can't match (anyone ever watch Kuerten at his best?)... but he is exemplary on all fronts. SAme with Bradman I guess: didn't he famously say something to the effect that there were lots of better batsmen than him.. but they all had a nasty habit of getting theselves out?

[DaveGillespie]

By way of some trivia here, Federer is a big Cricket fan.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by DaveGillespie

By way of some trivia here, Federer is a big Cricket fan.

Yes he is, and his favorite team is Australia. I read he was quite disapointed when they lost the Ashes, and probably even said he learned a lot about getting on top and staying on top from the series.

[Paoli]

I think it was because his late coach was South African.

Originally Posted by Rachael

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?

Ok, to answer the question quickly, no.

But, to take it into more detail, to be the greatest ever sportsperson, for a tennis player anyway, I believe that you've got to win the Grand Slam. Federer may have won three in 2004; but it still aint the grand slam.

And for a tennis player to have claims to that sort of position you'd need to win the grand slam probably three times to be considered for that position. And he probably isn't the most talented player in world tennis; Marat Safin is, he has the potential to be the greatest ever sportsperson but even though he will win tournaments, he won't be as good as Federer. I think Federer can be known as the greatest ever tennis player though with the completion of a grand slam.

Greatest sportspeople alive include Pele and Muhammad Ali; hard to go past the first one as the greatest sportsperson still alive though.

As for Phil 'the Power'...Please greg, we are talking real sports, and to be the greatest ever sportsperson, I think a criteria should be "possesses a fair amount of fitness".

Originally Posted by greg

Schumacher is great but he isn't as good as Senna was.Now he was awesome. As for American sports like basketball and baseball,i wouldn't know as i don't watch them.

Schumacher not as great as Senna? I beg to differ, I think Michael has set the benchmark for F1 Drivers, even though he has had a poor season. What people don't remember is that Schumacher is by no means driving the fastest machine out on the racetrack; that mantle belongs to McLaren or Williams, so in this day and age of driving a computer, Schumacher must be commended as he uses a substantial degree of natural and acquired driving talent.

American sports? Who could go past Michael Jordan, ex-Chicago Bulls star? Greatest ever basketballer, and he is one who would challenge for the mantle of greatest sportsperson alive.

As for baseball, Joe Dimaggio was simply sublime, but doesn't stand up to be the greatest ever sportsperson.

Wayne Gretzky even though his Canadian is widely recognised as the greatest Ice Hockey player, and would be in with a show.

As for the NFL, "The Juice" OJ Simpson is in the hall of fame, Dan Marino was also pretty good, but not sure who is acclaimed to be the greatest player.

AFL, Australian Rules Football, although there is much debate still over this topic, recognises Gary Ablett as its most talented player. Ted Whitten, Leigh Mathews and Wayne Carey also challenge for that role. Ablett, although in the Hall Of Fame, was involved in a scandal surrounding the death of a young girl from a heroin overdose in his guidance. Despite this, Ablett was finally inducted in to the AFL Hall of Fame in 2005. He became eligible in 2001, but much public anger was probably the reason for his non selection until now.