Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[poondu]

BASEL: Roger Federer on Tuesday became the first living Swiss to have his picture enshrined on a postage stamp.

"It's a great moment. I'm proud to be a symbol like the army knife or the mountains," Federer said at an unveiling ceremony for the Swiss postal service in the 25-year-old's home region of Basel.

The new 1.00 Swiss franc (0.61 euros, 0.82 dollars) stamp depicts a smiling Federer holding his trophy at Wimbledon after one of four victories there.

Swiss Post had announced plans for the stamp on Feb. 26, the same day Federer reached his 161st successive week at No. 1 to break Jimmy Connors' 30-year-old mark, but the design was kept a secret.

The stamp went on sale on Tuesday at all post offices in Switzerland and can also be bought online.

Federer, who has won ten Grand Slams among his 47 singles titles since turning pro in 1998, has suffered premature exits from two events since the postage stamp was announced late February, ending a 41-match winning streak. — Agencies

http://www.hindu.com/2007/04/11/stories/2007041108481800.htm

[vincent]

I am sure now we will have plenty of Indian politicians wanting to have SRT on our Stamps - or may be SG? Perhaps GC?

[amit_c]

Vincent,

Let's hope not ...these guys are not fit to tie Federer's shoelaces.

[indian]

Vincent,

Let's hope not ...these guys are not fit to tie Federer's shoelaces.

Really amit_c?
Playing for your country and playing as part of a team is far far different from playing for yourself and playing as an individual. Federer is great and all, no question about that, but I think it is unfair to compare athletes from different sports this way.

[abhinav]

I want Sania Mirza on a stamp

 

[dhruvdeepak]

I want Sania Mirza on a stamp

 

i want Sania Mirza in my bed

[gouravk]

I want Sania Mirza playing a Wimbledon final.

[abhinav]

I want Sania Mirza playing a Wimbledon final.

You ask for too much..it was reasonable as long as she was wanted by you on the stamp or on your bed.

 

[amit_c]

Indian,

I stand by my assertion. Sachin or Sourav do not belong to the same galaxy as Federer as a sportsman -
in terms of skill, grace, dominance and sheer will to win. Roger Federer has quite simply elevated the
level of men's tennis, which was being played at a very high level anyway. I doubt any such statement
can be made about any of these guys - in terms of impact in cricket, perhaps Bradman was comparable.

The only athlete I have personally seen perform at Roger's level is Michael Jordan, and for a short
while in his career, Maradona. I don't know anything about golf, but Tiger Woods could be there as
well. It has little to do with cricket being individual or team sport and more to do with far outshining
your very talented contemporaries and advancing the game in general.

[TheWall]

I want Sania Mirza playing a Wimbledon final.

You ask for too much..it was reasonable as long as she was wanted by you on the stamp or on your bed.

 

Good one, both gaurav and abhinav... comibed applause... .5 for each. actually the tip will take you to 1 each

[fineleg]

Indian,

I stand by my assertion. Sachin or Sourav do not belong to the same galaxy as Federer as a sportsman -
in terms of skill, grace, dominance and sheer will to win. Roger Federer has quite simply elevated the
level of men's tennis, which was being played at a very high level anyway. I doubt any such statement
can be made about any of these guys - in terms of impact in cricket, perhaps Bradman was comparable.

The only athlete I have personally seen perform at Roger's level is Michael Jordan, and for a short
while in his career, Maradona. I don't know anything about golf, but Tiger Woods could be there as
well. It has little to do with cricket being individual or team sport and more to do with far outshining
your very talented contemporaries and advancing the game in general.

Amit,
You are right on the money! Well said.

[pieterSAN]

Indian,

I stand by my assertion. Sachin or Sourav do not belong to the same galaxy as Federer as a sportsman -
in terms of skill, grace, dominance and sheer will to win. Roger Federer has quite simply elevated the
level of men's tennis, which was being played at a very high level anyway. I doubt any such statement
can be made about any of these guys - in terms of impact in cricket, perhaps Bradman was comparable.

The only athlete I have personally seen perform at Roger's level is Michael Jordan, and for a short
while in his career, Maradona. I don't know anything about golf, but Tiger Woods could be there as
well. It has little to do with cricket being individual or team sport and more to do with far outshining
your very talented contemporaries and advancing the game in general.

I would agree with Indian here...if you notice the people who get voted for in sportsmen of the yearm, they tend to be those who are playing  individual sports. Team games require a slightly more sophisticated athlete.

The one debate that I have gotten into very often is who is the best goalkeeper in the World. This is a very difficult question to answer. I can list some of my favorties and currently I think Petr Cech is the best. But my roommate swears by Gianluca Buffon. We both admit that they are close. Kevin Nolan, a midfielder for Bolton Wanderers, said in a column recently that he thought their keeper Jaaskelainen is the best in the World. But this is a very difficult thing to compare because it often depends on several other factors including the quality of the defense, the playing style of the team and so on.

People on this DG talk about Michael Jordan... I am not big on basketball fan but I have heard people swear by Wilt Chamberlin and from what I have seen I would have Kobe Bryant at the same level as Michael Jordan. Some of my friends say Kobe is better but I am not sure.

As a batsman I have yet to see someone bat with the authority and invincibility that Tendulkar showcased in his prime. I am a huge Federer fan and most of DGians are aware of this....that does not change the fact this sort of comparison with Tendulkar is a little unfair.

[amit_c]

PieterSAN,

Voted by whom for sportman of the year ? I thought each game pretty much has its own award.

I agree with your basic premise that it is difficult to make comparisons between relative equals
(within and across sports). However, for me, there are clear indicators in the case of Federer,
Jordan etc that put them squarely above and beyond their contemporaries. They also essentially
changed the paradigm of the game - the way it is played. There are fundamental differences between
a Wilt Chamberlain and Jordan. Wilt was a big guy, a prototypical center.These were the sort of
men who were "supposed" to dominate the game. Even the Magic Johnson-led Lakers had a Kareem
up front. Jordan totally changed that particular paradigm of basketball, and won everything in sight
while giving us the most beautiful basketball anyone has ever witnessed. Kobe has been an extension
of that style of play. Similarly, there will be players in the future who emulate Roger's style of play.

Also, if team games require more sophistication, wouldn't tennis players playing doubles be more
sophisticated ? 

I am extremely fond of Tendulkar's game, and have no doubt that he and Lara are among the all-time
greats. CLR had once mentioned that he considers these 2 guys better than Viv, and I concur. But in
my mind, I would put the Sachins and the Laras in the Sampras category - they are basically one of
us.

I feel that Federer is not.

[vincent]

Indian,

I stand by my assertion. Sachin or Sourav do not belong to the same galaxy as Federer as a sportsman -
in terms of skill, grace, dominance and sheer will to win. Roger Federer has quite simply elevated the
level of men's tennis, which was being played at a very high level anyway. I doubt any such statement
can be made about any of these guys - in terms of impact in cricket, perhaps Bradman was comparable.

The only athlete I have personally seen perform at Roger's level is Michael Jordan, and for a short
while in his career, Maradona. I don't know anything about golf, but Tiger Woods could be there as
well. It has little to do with cricket being individual or team sport and more to do with far outshining
your very talented contemporaries and advancing the game in general.

I agree with Amit. Being a fan of Tennis, living in the country of his and having watched Federer since he was 18 or so and followed his progress, I consider him as the greatest Tennis player of all time, playing in another plane like Bradman. The only point I disagree is about Maradona. I would put Pele (or less known Johann Kruyff) in that role.

I do not think that neither SRT nor SMG have played  "at another plane" and changed the pace and style of the game. Nor have they won any great honours for their country - notwithstanding personal records. Even in a game of individuals, there are honours for the country - like number of grand-slams won. People like Vishwanath Anand or Jeev Milkha Singh (or Prakash Padukone in the past) can bring honours to the country if they are best in the world and if they win a tournament where their name and country appears. But in order to be really great, they need to be like Kasparov or Tiger Woods.

[pieterSAN]

PieterSAN,

Voted by whom for sportman of the year ? I thought each game pretty much has its own award.

I agree with your basic premise that it is difficult to make comparisons between relative equals
(within and across sports). However, for me, there are clear indicators in the case of Federer,
Jordan etc that put them squarely above and beyond their contemporaries. They also essentially
changed the paradigm of the game - the way it is played. There are fundamental differences between
a Wilt Chamberlain and Jordan. Wilt was a big guy, a prototypical center.These were the sort of
men who were "supposed" to dominate the game. Even the Magic Johnson-led Lakers had a Kareem
up front. Jordan totally changed that particular paradigm of basketball, and won everything in sight
while giving us the most beautiful basketball anyone has ever witnessed. Kobe has been an extension
of that style of play. Similarly, there will be players in the future who emulate Roger's style of play.

I accept all of what you say. I still feel that the like Jordan and Federer are fantastic but they are not miles ahead of other greats in the respective sports. Similarly I feel comparing him with SRT is fine, but saying that Federer is levels ahead of SRT as an athlete is hyperbole.

Also, if team games require more sophistication, wouldn't tennis players playing doubles be more
sophisticated ? 

Indeed and doubles is a lot more sophisticated...unfortunately I find that the game is not appreciated by fans and therefore does not get enough coverage. The fans are the ones who are not sophisticated enough. No market....

I am extremely fond of Tendulkar's game, and have no doubt that he and Lara are among the all-time
greats. CLR had once mentioned that he considers these 2 guys better than Viv, and I concur. But in
my mind, I would put the Sachins and the Laras in the Sampras category - they are basically one of
us.

I feel that Federer is not.

I agree with you here. Placing Federer a level above Lara, Tendulkar and Sampras is probably appropriate.

[pieterSAN]

Indian,

I stand by my assertion. Sachin or Sourav do not belong to the same galaxy as Federer as a sportsman -
in terms of skill, grace, dominance and sheer will to win. Roger Federer has quite simply elevated the
level of men's tennis, which was being played at a very high level anyway. I doubt any such statement
can be made about any of these guys - in terms of impact in cricket, perhaps Bradman was comparable.

The only athlete I have personally seen perform at Roger's level is Michael Jordan, and for a short
while in his career, Maradona. I don't know anything about golf, but Tiger Woods could be there as
well. It has little to do with cricket being individual or team sport and more to do with far outshining
your very talented contemporaries and advancing the game in general.

I agree with Amit. Being a fan of Tennis, living in the country of his and having watched Federer since he was 18 or so and followed his progress, I consider him as the greatest Tennis player of all time, playing in another plane like Bradman. The only point I disagree is about Maradona. I would put Pele (or less known Johann Kruyff) in that role.

I do not think that neither SRT nor SMG have played  "at another plane" and changed the pace and style of the game. Nor have they won any great honours for their country - notwithstanding personal records. Even in a game of individuals, there are honours for the country - like number of grand-slams won. People like Vishwanath Anand or Jeev Milkha Singh (or Prakash Padukone in the past) can bring honours to the country if they are best in the world and if they win a tournament where their name and country appears. But in order to be really great, they need to be like Kasparov or Tiger Woods.

Again SRT and SMG played teams sprots and SMG has won the WC. To compare their achievements to Woods or Kasparov and Woods/Federer is unfair. I agree that the like of Federer are greater athletes but there is no need to belittle Sachin or Lara for that matter with the shoelaces comment.

[natty]

I do not think that neither SRT nor SMG have played  "at another plane" and changed the pace and style of the game. Nor have they won any great honours for their country - notwithstanding personal records. Even in a game of individuals, there are honours for the country - like number of grand-slams won. People like Vishwanath Anand or Jeev Milkha Singh (or Prakash Padukone in the past) can bring honours to the country if they are best in the world and if they win a tournament where their name and country appears. But in order to be really great, they need to be like Kasparov or Tiger Woods.

Disagree.   Anand is the best ever Indian sportsman (if you consider Chess a sport). And he is clearly the Bradman of rapid chess (best ever rapid chess player in chess history) Padukone etc. dont compare. 

[vincent]

Nobody is belittling Sachin or Lara for their contributions to the game. But the discussion was about individual game versus team game. Even a Pele or a Maradona or a Beckenbauer, through their individual brilliance in a team game have helped their country achieve glory in terms of World Cups. The same way, people like Borg, Connors, McKenroe, Sampras and before them people like Laver, Hoad, Rosewall, Newcombe etc have not only achieved glory in their personal performances, but also for their resepctive country in terms of number of grand slams won or Davis Cups won.

And if you want, here is what I believe what "changing the plane or the playing field for that matter" means in just couple of examples:

- Rod Laver won tournaments on any kind of surface many times and twice great Grand Slam champion (all 4 in the same year) and that too only because he was not allowed to play (as a professional) international tournaments for 6 years. Otherwise it would have been 8 times.

- Johann Kruyff changed the way football was played - from slow moving dribbling movements to lightning fast runs and laser-precision passes.

Yes, SRT did bring some new light early in his career. Yes, SMG was a great player for our country. But can they be compared to Roger Federer or
Micahel Jordan? No way.

[TheWall]

PieterSAN,

Voted by whom for sportman of the year ? I thought each game pretty much has its own award.

I agree with your basic premise that it is difficult to make comparisons between relative equals
(within and across sports). However, for me, there are clear indicators in the case of Federer,
Jordan etc that put them squarely above and beyond their contemporaries. They also essentially
changed the paradigm of the game - the way it is played. There are fundamental differences between
a Wilt Chamberlain and Jordan. Wilt was a big guy, a prototypical center.These were the sort of
men who were "supposed" to dominate the game. Even the Magic Johnson-led Lakers had a Kareem
up front. Jordan totally changed that particular paradigm of basketball, and won everything in sight
while giving us the most beautiful basketball anyone has ever witnessed. Kobe has been an extension
of that style of play. Similarly, there will be players in the future who emulate Roger's style of play.

Also, if team games require more sophistication, wouldn't tennis players playing doubles be more
sophisticated ? 

I am extremely fond of Tendulkar's game, and have no doubt that he and Lara are among the all-time
greats. CLR had once mentioned that he considers these 2 guys better than Viv, and I concur. But in
my mind, I would put the Sachins and the Laras in the Sampras category - they are basically one of
us.

I feel that Federer is not.

Superbly said. I am a big big fan of Jordan,Tendulkar,Zidane,Sampras and Federer. Federer stands out for the reason Amit expressed. He changed the game. And yes, Jordan too did that...in making guard centric teams a winning proposition. Kobe is building on what Jordan started, which shouldn't take any credit away from Kobe.

Those highlighted words get you an applause 

[ramshorns]

Good debate going on.  Any person as amit or Wall eluding to on Federer to be considered as beyond compare in his sport has to win everything. 

Federer to date has not won the French and has a blamish record against Nadal losing 6 of 7 at one time head to head.  Having said that he has an incredible run in the last couple of years and been a freak. 

Having watched Tiger as closely as Roger at this stage there is no way I am putting Federer ahead of Tiger in way of accomplishments.  Remember the 'Tiger Slam', he had at one point on his coffee table trophies of all 4 majors in GOLF. 

Roger still has time to win French and some important clay court events, and once he does it and get to 16 or 17 grandslams he will be at that level. 

Now among all the greats I have seen in team sports I would rank Jordan ahead of anyone.  I had the previlege of watching all his championships live and the will he has to win and come up with big shots in big games is unparalleled.  I think his playoff average is higher than his regular season average. 

In that aspect Sachin is not even in the same level of discussion.  To have talent is one thing and to put that to best use in most critical situations when the team needs it is a whole another thing.  Time and again Sachin faltered in that and in the recent 2 years it only went bad to worse.

[Aloo Kashmiri Ul Haq]

I do not think that neither SRT nor SMG have played  "at another plane" and changed the pace and style of the game. Nor have they won any great honours for their country - notwithstanding personal records. Even in a game of individuals, there are honours for the country - like number of grand-slams won. People like Vishwanath Anand or Jeev Milkha Singh (or Prakash Padukone in the past) can bring honours to the country if they are best in the world and if they win a tournament where their name and country appears. But in order to be really great, they need to be like Kasparov or Tiger Woods.

Disagree.   Anand is the best ever Indian sportsman (if you consider Chess a sport). And he is clearly the Bradman of rapid chess (best ever rapid chess player in chess history) Padukone etc. dont compare. 

then Dhoni should also be the best sportsman (if you consider amalagamation of cricket with mopping as a sport), i compare dhonigiri to Rapid chess from the 4-5 years I played chess at a professional level.

[amit_c]

Thanks everyone for a good discussion.

PieterSAN,

The shoelaces comment was sort of tongue in cheek and not meant as disparaging to Tendulkar or Lara.
These guys are perhaps the reason I followed cricket through the 90's.

Rams,

Tiger also gets to play all his slams on grass, unlike Federer Why does Federer have to win 16-17 grand
slams to be comparable to Tiger ? Greatness is not just a matter of trophy count.

[ramshorns]

Thanks everyone for a good discussion.

PieterSAN,

The shoelaces comment was sort of tongue in cheek and not meant as disparaging to Tendulkar or Lara.
These guys are perhaps the reason I followed cricket through the 90's.

Rams,

Tiger also gets to play all his slams on grass, unlike Federer Why does Federer have to win 16-17 grand
slams to be comparable to Tiger ? Greatness is not just a matter of trophy count.

Without getting into the nuances in Golf, do you know there is more to Golf than just being played on Grass.  The contours on the greens, the length's of the course, the bunker locations etc etc.  Also just if you take British open it is played on varying courses from St.Andrew's to other courses which are all distinct.  The U.S open is played on various courses including public courses and so is the PGA.  So there is more to it than just being on grass.

Now compare that to Federer who hardly on clay impressed anyone.  Sure he is the best ever among all things considered perhaps in his sport but if you are going across sports there are players like Tiger who won it all in their sport and equally freakish.  It has never been done before in Golf where a player could put all trophies in their living room on display at the sametime.  Like I said Federer still has time and I am counting on him winning the French and then that moves him definitely undisputable in Tennis and could be considered above compare.  I still think there is time for that.

I just threw the 16 or 17 as a count and in no way implied that is what has to be the reason to call one a great or not, though that is definitely one of the parameters since winning afterall is one of the aspects.

[amit_c]

Rams,

No, I do not follow golf at all. The grass comment I made was actually a comment Federer made in
jest. However, from what little I have seen, Tiger Woods is obviously an amazing player. But I am not
in a position to bring him into this discussion.

Federer has reached the semis and the final of the French Open in the last 2 years (he should've
won last year). By what measure does that "hardly impress anyone" ? He is not a natural claycourt
player at all, apparently doesn't think tennis is meant to be played on clay, yet plays it better than
everyone except 1 person in the world ! That is almost surreal by any standards.

I am putting a higher price on greatness than winning Grand Slams (which is one of the metrics), as I
indicated in my previous posts here. Jordan winning 5 or 7 NBA titles instead of 6 wouldn't make him
a lesser or greater player, right ?

[fineleg]

Great debate folks.

Rams: M.Jordan 

[TheWall]

Rams,

No, I do not follow golf at all. The grass comment I made was actually a comment Federer made in
jest. However, from what little I have seen, Tiger Woods is obviously an amazing player. But I am not
in a position to bring him into this discussion.

Federer has reached the semis and the final of the French Open in the last 2 years (he should've
won last year). By what measure does that "hardly impress anyone" ? He is not a natural claycourt
player at all, apparently doesn't think tennis is meant to be played on clay, yet plays it better than
everyone except 1 person in the world ! That is almost surreal by any standards.

I am putting a higher price on greatness than winning Grand Slams (which is one of the metrics), as I
indicated in my previous posts here. Jordan winning 5 or 7 NBA titles instead of 6 wouldn't make him
a lesser or greater player, right ?

Rams, I think Tiger is in a different league too. Unfortunately, beyond some cursory knowledge, I too, like Amit, am clueless about the sport. But given the achievements it seems he's God and has set the bar of that game really high.
As for Federer,  my assessment of him is not based on how many trophies he's won. Okay, that helps create the aura and 'prove' that he's actually good. But sincerely, his game is what gets to you - tennis, unlike golf, many of us must have watched for a good many years. I used to think Sampras and Agassi were real good. But this dude is in a different plane - GAME WISE - just plays it differently and so smoothly. Of course, I did not watch a MacEnroe or Laver so I can't compare. But in my lifetime of viewing, Federer has pushed the visual appeal of that game so very much high. So to me, his winning French or not does not matter.

[vincent]

Here is what I mean by a different league of his own. Watch this tribute to Johann Cruyff. Now, we should understand that he retired at the young age of 26 (much like Borg) and therfore did not play that much and "accumulate records". But even if you do not like football (soccer for some of you), I am sure you will enjoy this...

              <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/yr1VWSntqRg&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/yr1VWSntqRg&rel=0</a>

[pieterSAN]

Here is what I mean by a different league of his own. Watch this tribute to Johann Cruyff. Now, we should understand that he retired at the young age of 26 (much like Borg) and therfore did not play that much and "accumulate records". But even if you do not like football (soccer for some of you), I am sure you will enjoy this...

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr1VWSntqRg

Cruyff was quite amazing. I like George Best as well...probably like him a little more than Cruyff but they were both brilliant.

[CLR James]

I never watch or understand anything about basketball and golf, so I will keep my comments restricted to soccer, cricket, and tennis.

1. Roger Federer is simply the greatest tennis player I have ever seen. I think, overall, he has an advantage over Laver in the sense unlike the Australian Champion, Federer has had to compete in the 'open era'. Laver usually had to beat three professionals and three amateurs in order to win a tournament. Federer does not have that luxury. Secondly, with the eclipse of the wooden rackets and the coming in of the graphite ones made the game bigger, faster and much more powerful. This is not to say that men like Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Pancho Gonsalves, or Laver would not have been greats, but it would have been much more difficult. From that perspective, the sheer difference in standard that Federer has instituted between himself and the next person in the food chain is quite unprecedented. So interms of an all court game, Federer is indeed a paradigm shift. There will be more players like him in future. With the slowing down of the grass at Wimbledon, there will be less of the great serve and volley players like Becker, Edberg or even Sampras.  Today, if one wants to win the most coveted title in Wimbledon, one has to beat Federer at his own game, that is acquire the almost inhuman ability to keep the percentages up, and play winners from any part of the court. Vijay Amritraj once put it very nicely when he was asked what strategy one should adopt against Federer. "Keep changing strategy" he replied "And pray that by the time he adjusts to your shift, you win a set somehow. Because no matter what 'one trick' you try, playing from the baseline, rushing to the net, top spins, volleys...might be your greatest strength, but he does that better than you..."

2. Pele and Maradona were paradigms onto themselves. It was impossible to emulate their games, because they rose above it. If they were themselves on a given day, it was impossible to plan against them, just as it was impossible to draw up a playing philosophy expecting that someone in your team would approach that style of play. Both had supernatural ball control, speed, peripheral vision, and precision. I keep Pele slightly ahead because he could play with both feet and could also head without using his hand.  . He could also do what say a Ronaldo cannot. That is be a striker, score at the rate of nearly a goal a game, and be a schemer and game maker at the same time. In many ways Garincha and Puskas were in the vicinity of these two, as was George Best for a brief period, although not in the highest level of football.

However, the two players who actually instrumented paradigm shifts in the game were Cryff and Beckenbauer. The former invented total football (with coach Hiddink) and revolutionized the sport. The latter discovered and perfected the libero, setting the cornerstone of the modern defensive tactics and the basic dynamism of the game. Even if you could not play with the dazzling brilliance of Cryff or the falir of a Backenbauer, you had to adopt their core philosophies in your system.

3. Lara and Tendulkar have been isolated greats. Despite their achievements, they could not change the game because either they were playing with weaker teams (true of Lara for the most part), or be a dominant enough personality to build a team attitude from ground up. This is what Imran Khan did as captain. He brought about that paradigm shift called reverse swing and systematized it by bringing in and training talent who could be exponents of it. Another paradigm shift of course was Jayasurya and Kalu's ODI batting. So was Rhodes' fielding. It was impossible to play the game in the same way after these guys were done with their acts. The most recent paradigm shift in test cricket has been by a team that could afford it, in terms of richness of talent. It was the Australians who invented fast batting. That is, score at more than 350 a day and create pressure on the opposition by giving your bowlers at least two full days to bowl them out. Draws just disappeared.

[feverpitch]

Very well written CLR. Just a few comments :

I never watch or understand anything about basketball and golf, so I will keep my comments restricted to soccer, cricket, and tennis.

1. Roger Federer is simply the greatest tennis player I have ever seen. I think, overall, he has an advantage over Laver in the sense unlike the Australian Champion, Federer has had to compete in the 'open era'. Laver usually had to beat three professionals and three amateurs in order to win a tournament. Federer does not have that luxury. Secondly, with the eclipse of the wooden rackets and the coming in of the graphite ones made the game bigger, faster and much more powerful. This is not to say that men like Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Pancho Gonsalves, or Laver would not have been greats, but it would have been much more difficult. From that perspective, the sheer difference in standard that Federer has instituted between himself and the next person in the food chain is quite unprecedented. So interms of an all court game, Federer is indeed a paradigm shift. There will be more players like him in future. With the slowing down of the grass at Wimbledon, there will be less of the great serve and volley players like Becker, Edberg or even Sampras.  Today, if one wants to win the most coveted title in Wimbledon, one has to beat Federer at his own game, that is acquire the almost inhuman ability to keep the percentages up, and play winners from any part of the court. Vijay Amritraj once put it very nicely when he was asked what strategy one should adopt against Federer. "Keep changing strategy" he replied "And pray that by the time he adjusts to your shift, you win a set somehow. Because no matter what 'one trick' you try, playing from the baseline, rushing to the net, top spins, volleys...might be your greatest strength, but he does that better than you..."

I doubt whether Federer has to face anyone even close to say Emerson, Becker, Edberg, Agassi. While it could be argued that in his presence, every other player is made to look pedestrian, but it is possible to form a rough estimate about the capabilities of the other players like Nadal, Safin et al... and none, to me, have the longevity, determination and skills to give Federer a real test, unlike Laver, Lendl, Sampras, who at their top had to face the of the above mentioned players. Having said that, he sure can be sublime.

2. Pele and Maradona were paradigms onto themselves. It was impossible to emulate their games, because they rose above it. If they were themselves on a given day, it was impossible to plan against them, just as it was impossible to draw up a playing philosophy expecting that someone in your team would approach that style of play. Both had supernatural ball control, speed, peripheral vision, and precision. I keep Pele slightly ahead because he could play with both feet and could also head without using his hand.  . He could also do what say a Ronaldo cannot. That is be a striker, score at the rate of nearly a goal a game, and be a schemer and game maker at the same time. In many ways Garincha and Puskas were in the vicinity of these two, as was George Best for a brief period, although not in the highest level of football.

However, the two players who actually instrumented paradigm shifts in the game were Cryff and Beckenbauer. The former invented total football (with coach Hiddink) and revolutionized the sport. The latter discovered and perfected the libero, setting the cornerstone of the modern defensive tactics and the basic dynamism of the game. Even if you could not play with the dazzling brilliance of Cryff or the falir of a Backenbauer, you had to adopt their core philosophies in your system.

That would be Rinus Michels, not Hiddink.

Anyway, the concept of Total Football is alternatively credited to Ernst Happel and Jack Reynolds. Happel was an Austrian national team player* who became a renowned coach after retirement and took a then unknown Feyenoord af Rotterdam to European Club Cup victory [I believe in 1970-71], and put Dutch football on the international map. He was also the coach of Holland in the 1978 WC. He also holds a unique record with Ottomar Hitzfield, the current coach of Bayern Munich, having taken two different teams to European Cup victory. But he did it in two different countries, which probably sets him apart. Incidentally, can you guys name the two teams for the two coaches?

Jack Reynolds was the coach of Ajax Amsterdam when Rinus Michels played as a striker. He was Reynolds' understudy for many years after he hung his boots, and picked many aspects of the Englishman's revolutionary strategies, married them with what he observed from Happel's Feyenoord, to create the three time Euro Cup winning Ajaz Amsterdam team of the seventies. Michels also guided the Dutch national team in the 1974 WC where the Dutch went to the finals in their first appearance, and to victory in the 1988 European Championships.



*during the days of the 'wunderteam' under Hugo Meisl, which some say was the first team that put to practice the use of multiple utility players who shifted position all the time, in other words, 'total football'

3. Lara and Tendulkar have been isolated greats. Despite their achievements, they could not change the game because either they were playing with weaker teams (true of Lara for the most part), or be a dominant enough personality to build a team attitude from ground up. This is what Imran Khan did as captain. He brought about that paradigm shift called reverse swing and systematized it by bringing in and training talent who could be exponents of it. Another paradigm shift of course was Jayasurya and Kalu's ODI batting. So was Rhodes' fielding. It was impossible to play the game in the same way after these guys were done with their acts. The most recent paradigm shift in test cricket has been by a team that could afford it, in terms of richness of talent. It was the Australians who invented fast batting. That is, score at more than 350 a day and create pressure on the opposition by giving your bowlers at least two full days to bowl them out. Draws just disappeared.

I'd say it was Greatbach, not Jaya-Kalu, who revolutionised the top order pinch-hitting. Martin Crowe's strategies, including that of Deepak Patel were probably the most impactful changes in a single cup, imho.

[vincent]

Good discussion and very good points made by everyone. In these days where we are starving for some good news and discussions this is a very welcome change.

[amit_c]

Fever,

It may be worthwhile taking a look at what Agassi, who has actually played Edberg, Becker, Sampras
has to say about Federer -

/begin quote

'Pete was great, no question,' said Agassi, who lost 14 of 34 matches against the Californian. '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.'

In Federer's case, Agassi said, opponents reach a point of no return. 'With other guys you play " and I've played a lot of them over so many years " there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do [Roger] potentially has an answer for, and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision. He plays the game in a very special way. I haven't seen it before.

'He's the only guy I've ever played against where you hold serve to go 1-0 and you're thinking, 'All right, good'. And I'm not just making fun of it, I'm literally telling you the way it is. He can hurt you at any point. You're serving 30-love. He wins the point. It's 30-15. The pressure you feel at 30-15 is different than [playing] anybody else. So there's a sense of urgency on every point, on every shot.

/end quote

[TheWall]

Fever,

It may be worthwhile taking a look at what Agassi, who has actually played Edberg, Becker, Sampras
has to say about Federer -

/begin quote

'Pete was great, no question,' said Agassi, who lost 14 of 34 matches against the Californian. '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.'

In Federer's case, Agassi said, opponents reach a point of no return. 'With other guys you play " and I've played a lot of them over so many years " there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do [Roger] potentially has an answer for, and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision. He plays the game in a very special way. I haven't seen it before.

'He's the only guy I've ever played against where you hold serve to go 1-0 and you're thinking, 'All right, good'. And I'm not just making fun of it, I'm literally telling you the way it is. He can hurt you at any point. You're serving 30-love. He wins the point. It's 30-15. The pressure you feel at 30-15 is different than [playing] anybody else. So there's a sense of urgency on every point, on every shot.

/end quote

Thanks for digging this up. I was myself going to cite stuff some of these older players themselves had to say about Federer. I remember thinking of Sampras, in his heyday, as a pain for others when his serve was on. You just could not dislodge him with that big serve of his. The shocking thing about Fed is that there is no great serve like Pete's but you can't even come close to making his look beatable. If I'm not wrong, i think even Sampras said something like he's just out there... Sampras though had that serve, so might have played Fed well, can't say.

FP, you look like you followed serious amounts of football in the hippie era. lucky you, if you got to see some of the greats of that time.

[ramshorns]

Rams,

No, I do not follow golf at all. The grass comment I made was actually a comment Federer made in
jest. However, from what little I have seen, Tiger Woods is obviously an amazing player. But I am not
in a position to bring him into this discussion.

Federer has reached the semis and the final of the French Open in the last 2 years (he should've
won last year). By what measure does that "hardly impress anyone" ? He is not a natural claycourt
player at all, apparently doesn't think tennis is meant to be played on clay, yet plays it better than
everyone except 1 person in the world ! That is almost surreal by any standards.

I am putting a higher price on greatness than winning Grand Slams (which is one of the metrics), as I
indicated in my previous posts here. Jordan winning 5 or 7 NBA titles instead of 6 wouldn't make him
a lesser or greater player, right ?

Rams, I think Tiger is in a different league too. Unfortunately, beyond some cursory knowledge, I too, like Amit, am clueless about the sport. But given the achievements it seems he's God and has set the bar of that game really high.
As for Federer,  my assessment of him is not based on how many trophies he's won. Okay, that helps create the aura and 'prove' that he's actually good. But sincerely, his game is what gets to you - tennis, unlike golf, many of us must have watched for a good many years. I used to think Sampras and Agassi were real good. But this dude is in a different plane - GAME WISE - just plays it differently and so smoothly. Of course, I did not watch a MacEnroe or Laver so I can't compare. But in my lifetime of viewing, Federer has pushed the visual appeal of that game so very much high. So to me, his winning French or not does not matter.

TheWall:Give me some time.  On my good day I will get to this.  Tiger/Roger/Johnny Mac.  etc etc.  I watched them all and followed all of their sports very closely.  On top of Cricket/Golf/Tennis/Soccer(Before moving to U.S used to watch a lot, but still watch it), I am huge on NFL/NBA/NCAA/MLB etc. as I attested to the group I met in NY.  So I have my thoughts on real greats in all these sports as I spent a good amount of time studying the history of these sports as well.   This debate must continue.

[TheWall]

Rams, you are only the second true sports addict i know. The other, in addition to all you mentioned watches formula1, bridge and poker 

Okay, whenever you post on this, I'll be listening.

[fineleg]

Rams, you are only the second true sports addict i know. The other, in addition to all you mentioned watches formula1, bridge and poker 

Okay, whenever you post on this, I'll be listening.

who is the other (meaning other dg personality?)

[ramshorns]

Rams, you are only the second true sports addict i know. The other, in addition to all you mentioned watches formula1, bridge and poker 

Okay, whenever you post on this, I'll be listening.

who is the other (meaning other dg personality?)

He was referring to himself from what i can gather.  Though I would like to add that instead of watching others I would venture into pool and poker myself and hence left them off the list. 

[pieterSAN]

Fever,

It may be worthwhile taking a look at what Agassi, who has actually played Edberg, Becker, Sampras
has to say about Federer -

/begin quote

'Pete was great, no question,' said Agassi, who lost 14 of 34 matches against the Californian. '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.'

In Federer's case, Agassi said, opponents reach a point of no return. 'With other guys you play " and I've played a lot of them over so many years " there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do [Roger] potentially has an answer for, and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision. He plays the game in a very special way. I haven't seen it before.

'He's the only guy I've ever played against where you hold serve to go 1-0 and you're thinking, 'All right, good'. And I'm not just making fun of it, I'm literally telling you the way it is. He can hurt you at any point. You're serving 30-love. He wins the point. It's 30-15. The pressure you feel at 30-15 is different than [playing] anybody else. So there's a sense of urgency on every point, on every shot.

/end quote

Thanks for digging this up. I was myself going to cite stuff some of these older players themselves had to say about Federer. I remember thinking of Sampras, in his heyday, as a pain for others when his serve was on. You just could not dislodge him with that big serve of his. The shocking thing about Fed is that there is no great serve like Pete's but you can't even come close to making his look beatable. If I'm not wrong, i think even Sampras said something like he's just out there... Sampras though had that serve, so might have played Fed well, can't say.

FP, you look like you followed serious amounts of football in the hippie era. lucky you, if you got to see some of the greats of that time.

I am not so sure that Pete would have come all that close to Roger. Roger returns serve brilliantly perhaps better than Andre and he would have been too much for Pete on any surface except grass...they would probably be even on grass.

[fineleg]

On Grass:
Pete Sampras vs Roger Federer => depends on who has a better day in the office.

It will be a great game though!

[amit_c]

Wall/PieterSAN/Fineleg,

I agree with you guys. Sampras/Federer on grass would be a sight to behold. They went head to head
at Wimbledon 2001, but it was a waning Sampras and Fed wasn't quite Fed yet. But you could see all
the signs of a fantastic contest. If possible, check it out on youtube. As Pieter mentioned, some of
the returns Roger comes up with are beyond magical.

On any other surface (clay/hardcourt/sand/ice...) Federer would completely dominate.

Here's an article by David Foster Wallace for anyone interested: "Federer as religious experience"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?ei=5090&en=716968175e36505e&ex=1313726400&pagewanted=all