Federer's records deserve an asterisk?
I read this article on ESPN.com today about Federer's records should maybe have an asterisk next to them. My thought is, no. If the main idea behind it is that he never beat Nadal at Roland Garros, then we'd also have to put an asterisk next to, say, Hewitt's Wimbledon win because SOMEbody had to win it since the competition that year was weak. What do you think?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jazz Burks on
-
The article that inspired the ESPN article is just more crap spewed by journalists to make a story. Asterisk by RG? Why not put an asterisk by all his titles because he didn't face Sampras in any of his major wins? Come to think of it Laver, Pancho Gonzalez, Rosewall, and Big Bill Tilden were not there either! Nadal had a great run from spring 2k8 to spring 2k9 but to say that Fed was scared or had a mental block when facing Nadal is crazy! Maybe Nadal is just a great tennis player who is specifically designed to beat Fed. To change the sport Joe Frazier gave Muhamad Ali all kinds of trouble, but nobody ever held that as a reason that Ali shouldn't have been brought up in the discussion of greatest heavyweight boxers of all time! The last point is that Nadal entered the 2k9 French Open but he lost just like he has lost before the final in every hardcourt major except the 2k9 Aussie. Fed held up his end of the bargain Rafa did not.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark / The Mayor on
-
I agree with this arguement:
"Federer's case is different for obvious reasons, but putting the "distinctive mark" next to his name would send us all down a ridiculous slippery slope. Do we slap Steffi Graf's record with an asterisk since she won all those titles when Monica Seles was off the tour, recuperating from being stabbed? Is McEnroe less of a champion because Bjorn Borg burned out and failed to give him a sustained fight? Was Roy Emerson's Grand Slam record bogus because he didn't have to face Rod Laver for much of the 1960s because the Rocket turned pro and Emerson "padded" his résumé by defeating the likes of Fred Stolle and Arthur Ashe?
It's nonsense. If you accept any of these arguments, if you accept that we should parse each player's record to decide the quality of their opponents -- and the quality of their Grand Slam titles, Masters Series titles and so on -- then you accept that no statistic, no record, means much at all. Everything could be twisted and turned to support virtually any point of view."
-
-
Hey, and furthermore, Nadal played in that French and lost. Fed was the best in the French that year, period (not asterisk).
-
Permalink Reply by Kelvinator on
-
Jazz Burks said:
Couldn't agree more...writers (esp sports) are always looking to stir up some controversy...but guess what? We're talking about it now! But yea..they are just MAKING news.The article that inspired the ESPN article is just more crap spewed by journalists to make a story. Asterisk by RG? Why not put an asterisk by all his titles because he didn't face Sampras in any of his major wins? Come to think of it Laver, Pancho Gonzalez, Rosewall, and Big Bill Tilden were not there either! Nadal had a great run from spring 2k8 to spring 2k9 but to say that Fed was scared or had a mental block when facing Nadal is crazy! Maybe Nadal is just a great tennis player who is specifically designed to beat Fed. To change the sport Joe Frazier gave Muhamad Ali all kinds of trouble, but nobody ever held that as a reason that Ali shouldn't have been brought up in the discussion of greatest heavyweight boxers of all time! The last point is that Nadal entered the 2k9 French Open but he lost just like he has lost before the final in every hardcourt major except the 2k9 Aussie. Fed held up his end of the bargain Rafa did not.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony Daysog on
-
I'd have to read the article to get a clearer understanding of what is really meant by this "*" thing on Federer. On the surface, it doesn't seem to make sense: while I haven't a clue as to really how difficult men's pro tennis is, it seems to me that it must be excruciatingly difficult to climb through the rounds especially of the slow-playing court of the French Open. So just to get to the final is a test of endurance and gamemanship -- that alone merits recognition and our applause. The fact that Nadal couldn't make it last year well, that's part of the game. In 2009, RF succeeded in struggling through the French and (deserveadly) won; that year, Nadal fell by the way-side. The subtle notion of the " * " argument is that Nadal deserves an automatic pass to the finals -- well, that's not the way it works -- at least, what, not since the 1900? Well, the simple way to settle this is by just asking Nadal: I bet he'd honestly say RF is the French champion. Period.
-
-
Kelvinator said:Jazz Burks said:
Couldn't agree more...writers (esp sports) are always looking to stir up some controversy...but guess what? We're talking about it now! But yea..they are just MAKING news.The article that inspired the ESPN article is just more crap spewed by journalists to make a story. Asterisk by RG? Why not put an asterisk by all his titles because he didn't face Sampras in any of his major wins? Come to think of it Laver, Pancho Gonzalez, Rosewall, and Big Bill Tilden were not there either! Nadal had a great run from spring 2k8 to spring 2k9 but to say that Fed was scared or had a mental block when facing Nadal is crazy! Maybe Nadal is just a great tennis player who is specifically designed to beat Fed. To change the sport Joe Frazier gave Muhamad Ali all kinds of trouble, but nobody ever held that as a reason that Ali shouldn't have been brought up in the discussion of greatest heavyweight boxers of all time! The last point is that Nadal entered the 2k9 French Open but he lost just like he has lost before the final in every hardcourt major except the 2k9 Aussie. Fed held up his end of the bargain Rafa did not.
Very good points!
© 2024 Created by Mark / The Mayor.
Powered by
