David EdwardsIs Federer Simply The Best?
January 25th 2007 12:10
As the semi finals wrap up in the Australian Open, Roger Federer has once more displayed his global dominance in the sport by booking a spot in the final by effectively and systematically dismantling the second favourite to take the title, Andy Roddick.
In what was hyped as one of the biggest matches within the entire tournament, the match itself turned out to be quite lacklustre, as Federer was able to notch the win in one hour and 23 minutes, winning in straight sets 6-4, 6-0, 6-2.
Whilst Roddick has made a name for himself in the Australian Open, seeming to improve with each passing match, he seemed to fall back on old techniques, and as each unforced error frustrated and unsettled him even further, Federer was able to stay calm, cool and collected as he dominated from the first game, breaking Roddick to take the first of many victories.
Roddick will have to look hard to take something good out of the match, and even though he entered the Australian Open off a victory of Federer at Kooyong, the world number one was simply too good, as he was able to place every shot he wanted all the court with ease.
With either Haas or Gonzalas stopping Federer from yet another Grand Slam victory, the talk has started up, and was around even before he started in Melbourne, that 2007 might be the year where he takes all Grand Slam tournaments with no competition in sight.
Whilst Federer has lost his fair share of important matches, the most recent being the French Open final against Raphael Nadal, the way he plays seems to be too perfect, to precise, and simply put, unstoppable for any of the current players. He is the best at the moment, and some people even talk about him being one the best players to ever play the game, but the real question is that is he so good that there is no one in history who is able to match him, or is he just playing a competition where he has no real contenders?
There seems to be a aura around Federer, and whenever a player has to face up against him on the court they must be thinking how quickly will he be dismantled, but is it more of a psychological effect that gives him the edge of being world number one?
There is no doubt that Federer is one of the best players to ever play, breaking records held for years with relative ease. But following his performance tonight against Roddick, who many claimed had closed the gap between himself and the Federer before winning only six games tonight and going through a set without a single win, it must be said that few can beat him.
However consider this. If all the best players of history such as Sampras, Agassi, Laver, and Rafter were at their peak, would they ever be able to match the ability, talent and precision that Federer wields? Is he simply the best of all time, or is it there is no one who is able to constantly give him a good competition?
Until next time, sports minds.
In what was hyped as one of the biggest matches within the entire tournament, the match itself turned out to be quite lacklustre, as Federer was able to notch the win in one hour and 23 minutes, winning in straight sets 6-4, 6-0, 6-2.
Whilst Roddick has made a name for himself in the Australian Open, seeming to improve with each passing match, he seemed to fall back on old techniques, and as each unforced error frustrated and unsettled him even further, Federer was able to stay calm, cool and collected as he dominated from the first game, breaking Roddick to take the first of many victories.
Roddick will have to look hard to take something good out of the match, and even though he entered the Australian Open off a victory of Federer at Kooyong, the world number one was simply too good, as he was able to place every shot he wanted all the court with ease.
With either Haas or Gonzalas stopping Federer from yet another Grand Slam victory, the talk has started up, and was around even before he started in Melbourne, that 2007 might be the year where he takes all Grand Slam tournaments with no competition in sight.
Whilst Federer has lost his fair share of important matches, the most recent being the French Open final against Raphael Nadal, the way he plays seems to be too perfect, to precise, and simply put, unstoppable for any of the current players. He is the best at the moment, and some people even talk about him being one the best players to ever play the game, but the real question is that is he so good that there is no one in history who is able to match him, or is he just playing a competition where he has no real contenders?
There seems to be a aura around Federer, and whenever a player has to face up against him on the court they must be thinking how quickly will he be dismantled, but is it more of a psychological effect that gives him the edge of being world number one?
There is no doubt that Federer is one of the best players to ever play, breaking records held for years with relative ease. But following his performance tonight against Roddick, who many claimed had closed the gap between himself and the Federer before winning only six games tonight and going through a set without a single win, it must be said that few can beat him.
However consider this. If all the best players of history such as Sampras, Agassi, Laver, and Rafter were at their peak, would they ever be able to match the ability, talent and precision that Federer wields? Is he simply the best of all time, or is it there is no one who is able to constantly give him a good competition?
Until next time, sports minds.
| 105 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
Comment by Jay
Comment by Sports Insider
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
How is it possible to determine the matter?
I mean, how does one go about making an argument instead of simply expressing an opinion?
One difficulty is that performance is inseparable from environment. What I'm thinking of is things like racquets and nutrition. Would Federer have been as good, compared to contemporaries, in the nineteenth century, in an era without coaches, with wooden racquets, without developed sport-training knowledge, without the opportunity of being a professional sportsman, and without ready access to training facilities? Would he still have shone under such conditions, or would other people have been favoured (for instance, if no one gets trained, then the environment favours people with greater natural talent)?
Comment by Always Eighteen
Always Eighteen: Japan Edition
Comment by Jay
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
Comment by Stanley
when he finally wins the french watch all the pundits foam at the mouth with all the plaudits of best ever.
Comment by TheCoach
Adrian i have to say you bring up a good point. Has it been the environment of training and conditioning that has lead him to be so strong. However, you have to ask, if he is so strong due to being in such an environment, why aren't there more players at his level of playing ability? They have worked through the same environment as well. That seems to prove that he has the natural ability to succeed, and therefore would determine that he could succeed in living off his natural ability.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
And if I were a betting man I'd say (sadly) that Gonzalez will beat Federer... *sigh*