STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!
All this nonsensical comparison must stop now. People cannot keep saying that Federer is the greatest that lived, etc... From Bjorn Borg to Pete Sampras to Roger Federer there are huge time gaps. So the techniques and technologies have changed a lot and one cannot say that one is greater than the other purely based on direct comparison of results!!! Results are but a statistic. People need to dig deeper and even then they will find (or should find...) it difficult to compare.
I cannot claim to know much about Borg so I will skip him, but Pete Sampras I know and followed avidly. I was not his biggest fan in the beginning but was forced to respect him and his tenacity and power and technique early on. I grew into a fan. While I also like Federer as a player and enjoy watching him play, I can honestly say that I don't think there is a clear cut winner here.
When assessing someone's results in a competetive environment, one must take into consideration the opposition. Federer has been on top of the tennis world for the better part of the past 7 years with 3 of those being without much competition (Nadal only came to prominence in 2005 and even then, only on Clay). Of the names playing in the tennis world today many fail to resonate with the exception of maybe Nadal and Djokovic coming alongside Federer. Occasional honorable mentions from Marat Safin and Andy Roddick and the likes have been few and far between. Now let's take a look at Sampras's career. He won his first grand slam in 1990 and retired on top of his game in 2002 (that's 13 years competing in the big time! (while he pro career started in 1988)). In those years he battled with names like: Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Michael Stich, Serguei Brugera, Thomas Muster, Llayton Hewitt, and we cannot forget his epic battles with Jim Courrier and Andre Agassi. It was a time when the top 10 were really the top 10 and any of them could win a grand slam.
One cannot ignore that and jump to the simple conclusion that Federer is better than Sampras. They're both great players in their own right, but Federer, even if he wins his 15th Grand Slam, must realize that he might have the greatest results in the history of tennis, but that doesn't make him the greatest that ever lived. Certainly one of the greatest, without a doubt, but he does NOT reign supreme.
All this nonsensical comparison must stop now. People cannot keep saying that Federer is the greatest that lived, etc... From Bjorn Borg to Pete Sampras to Roger Federer there are huge time gaps. So the techniques and technologies have changed a lot and one cannot say that one is greater than the other purely based on direct comparison of results!!! Results are but a statistic. People need to dig deeper and even then they will find (or should find...) it difficult to compare.
I cannot claim to know much about Borg so I will skip him, but Pete Sampras I know and followed avidly. I was not his biggest fan in the beginning but was forced to respect him and his tenacity and power and technique early on. I grew into a fan. While I also like Federer as a player and enjoy watching him play, I can honestly say that I don't think there is a clear cut winner here.
When assessing someone's results in a competetive environment, one must take into consideration the opposition. Federer has been on top of the tennis world for the better part of the past 7 years with 3 of those being without much competition (Nadal only came to prominence in 2005 and even then, only on Clay). Of the names playing in the tennis world today many fail to resonate with the exception of maybe Nadal and Djokovic coming alongside Federer. Occasional honorable mentions from Marat Safin and Andy Roddick and the likes have been few and far between. Now let's take a look at Sampras's career. He won his first grand slam in 1990 and retired on top of his game in 2002 (that's 13 years competing in the big time! (while he pro career started in 1988)). In those years he battled with names like: Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Michael Stich, Serguei Brugera, Thomas Muster, Llayton Hewitt, and we cannot forget his epic battles with Jim Courrier and Andre Agassi. It was a time when the top 10 were really the top 10 and any of them could win a grand slam.
One cannot ignore that and jump to the simple conclusion that Federer is better than Sampras. They're both great players in their own right, but Federer, even if he wins his 15th Grand Slam, must realize that he might have the greatest results in the history of tennis, but that doesn't make him the greatest that ever lived. Certainly one of the greatest, without a doubt, but he does NOT reign supreme.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment