|
Chandya
| |
| | Monday, September 11, 2006 - 8:57 pm: | 
| 
|
फेडरर सहिच खेळतो आणि त्याचा खेळ पाहणे ही खरच एक पर्वणी असते. तो सध्याच्या काळातला सर्वोत्तम खेळाडू आहे हे निर्विवाद (निदान माझ्या मते  ). तो आजतागायतच्या खेळाडूतील सर्वोत्तम आहे का? ह्याचे उत्तर व्यक्तिसापेक्षच येईल. कारण तसे गुणांकन निव्वळ आकडेवारी वर करणार कि त्यावेळचे प्रतिस्पर्धी, उपलब्ध सुविधा ह्यांचाही विचार करणार? आणि मग त्यांचे मुल्यमापन कसे करणार?
तेंव्हा, let's just enjoy the game and wish for better competitor to the champ .
|
Asami
| |
| | Monday, September 11, 2006 - 9:25 pm: |
|
|
जास्वंदा I guess we are debating for title of the Greatest and not great in given time period. For a person to be qualified for such awesome title, he has to be stretched. Unless there is enough worthy competition to evaluate, such title is mere useless and unjust to me.
It's certainly not lose-lose situation, as if a player emerges on top amongest worthy competition, as oppose to amongest feable one, then he is truely justified as THE Greatest, not otherwise !!!
|
Bsk
| |
| | Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 4:24 am: |
|
|
फेडरर सहीच खेळतो!! सद्ध्याचा माझा फ़ेव. प्लेयर आहे तो.. पण अगासी आणि सॅम्प्रासही चांगले खेळायचे..
|
Soultrip
| |
| | Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 6:06 am: |
|
|
In your words, He won 11 majors at the age of 25 while Federer has 9 at the same edge. But, after that Borg didn't win anything...that was biiig surprise.
Don't think so, Federer willl do that ever, he is heading for that
20 Majors figure !!! >>>>>
>>> Let him cross 20 titles & then he could be undisputed ALL-TIME-GREATEST! Till then, it is just wishful fan-thinking
Nobody remembers silken square-cuts of Vishawanaath but we all remember Gavaskar.
Nobody remembers the delicate shots of Chris Evert Lloyd, but everybody remembers Navaratilova. The point is, in the long run, records/number of titles count & nothing else! So, let him amass 20 titles (at least let him exceed 14) & then I will happily accept that he is the greatest!
Watch my words.. just after one or two years, Andy Roddick will be numero uno!!!
|
Satishm27
| |
| | Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 6:43 am: |
|
|
A great debate is going on here..........
let me put some here.........
How we rate any player?????????
As per me performance in all four grand slam.........(all type of court grass.hard...)
Who is Performed well in all four slam he should be "GREAT".
let me put some facts..........
Pete Sampras was master of Grass court( see Wimbledon titles in his kitty) but he ever got title on hard court. I mean French open???????
His performance was poor there same with Goran.
Now Rafter was poor on Grass court........
So what I want say that we should rank Rod Lever on top slot than Pete, as he won all four(may be same year)
Andre should be remembered in this sense.
Fedrere is NO DOUBT playing great this days…….n have great chance in “TOPMOST” slot..
Lets wait……….
|
Jaaaswand
| |
| | Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 7:22 am: |
|
|
असामी,
Yess, I shud've used ' greatest ' instead of great in my last post. Sorry for that
Lets come to the point. You said, person has to be stretched ( supposedly all the way ) to come anyway near to that GREATEST title. Can you elaborate on this ? Because I'm not getting, what do you mean by ' streching ' If you consider, person should be made try extremely hard for each title, which he may/may not win, will you consider then him as greatest ? Or as an example , will you consider Andre as greatest, as he tried, tried..tried. Played with the champs, struggled, came out with flying colors sometimes, but he is not greatest man !!! I think you agree.
As far as enough compitition goes, I'm afraid, if you do not agree about Sampras that Courier, Rafter, Becker, Agassi & others were not a formiddable force enough to be called as enough compitition. In case of Federer also, I don't think so
Roddick, Hewiit, Safin, Blake, Murray, Davydenko & Nadal will make his life any easy at5 any moment of time on the court.
One more point about enough competiton, borg-mcnroe, mcnroe-connors were the great competitors. Yeah., Borg can be debated as Greatest. Do you feel McNroe or Connors as greatest one ??
Soultrip, yess, you are right. My point about 20 Majors, was just a wishful thinking , I accept that. But well if you are talking about pure technical class & success achieved by any person.
Do you believe, is there any other person in the world, who can return the cross-court backhand as Federer does. How many from Open Tennis era, qualified as having deadliest Forehand on both sides of court. I am afraid, if you are saying Federer doesn't have that class & grace to play tennis at its best.
Well about Roddick, yess he is improving, but its long journey for him to get there. Head to Head against Federer 12-1 is not going to help either. Its more of psychologicall thing for him now than his ability.
|
Asami
| |
| | Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 5:18 pm: |
|
|
किती वाचतो रे भाऊ , मी न लिहिलेले पण
It's pretty simple. For time being forget about Federar and read my 2 posts again.
Win against good competitor is always worth a win against a weak competitor. One always needs to play better in the former case. One always have to stress his/her ability for it to happen. Guess you would agree to this.
Now, reason of argument is, Are "said" competitors worthy enough. I certainly do not think so as none of them have been consistent enough over the period of time. Take sampras and federar out of equation for sake of arguments and show me a player who dominated ATP rankings for 5 straight years. You will find ATP ranking has been extremely volatile for them. That is good indicator about consistency.
Am I saying,
Does it mean that these players are bad ? No
Does it mean that they are easy to beat ? Not when they have things get going their way.
Are they consistent ? No.
Fed or Sampras are not complete players ? No
Does it take away anything from their accoplishements ? No
Have they dominated their opponenets ? upto some extent on certain surfaces.
Do they feature in list of legends ? Most certainly they do.
Is one of them "The Greatest" ? Yes, I have my doubts.
Plus there is always question about mastering all surfaces which was problem for Sampras and Federar has yet to prove that test.
BTW do you know McEnroe and Connors have more singles and 'singles and doubles' titles than Sampras and Federar.
We can say beyond this point we agree to disagree
|
Jaaaswand
| |
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 8:18 am: |
|
|
काय राव... मी काय वाचले... तू न लिहिलेले
OK, Federer सोडून बोलतो ह्या पोस्ट वर
Yess, win against good competitor is always more satisfying than the otherwise. And, one has to be on his best to do that, I agree.
My point to your statement is that, in order to beat the good competitor, one has to play his BEST, & suppose his BEST play is far ahead interms of technical quality, mental toughness, stamina & all such things. Then why can't such player will be treated as normal, than saying, he haven't had got any good competition !!!
Consistency, is also a good indicator of Player's ability. Then we can also look at this in some other way, like some players have dominated ATP rankings ( suppose to be fair ) for years, is that not adding the value to their greatness ???
Well about mastering all surfaces, yes I agree, Sampras failed on clay court , though he has 3 clay court titles & other one has yet to win a French Open (has 5 clay titles), probably needs to beat Nadal on clay first
Lets not talk about the Doubles over here.
Yess, McEnroe & Connors won more titles than these two. But
I'm not sure, how many seeded players at that time, have played in Masters & other ATP tournaments against them. These tournamnets always have their element of doubt about the quality players participating. But, GrandSlam, you always have the Best Players available in the world to play, unless one has certain kind of emergency.
Plus, another point to make, Sampras-McEnroe played for 16 years, in that McEnroe leads. But Boss, Connors played for 21 Years !! You just can not compare him other 15 Years prof. people.
|
Mahaguru
| |
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
|
मित्रांनो , आपल्या दिवाळी अंकासाठी काहितरी क्रिडा विषयाला अनुसरुन लिहा की .. अगदी क्रिडा प्रकारातले मराठी माणसाचे स्थान ह्या वर लिहले तरी चालेल.
|
Asami
| |
| | Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - 8:06 pm: |
|
|
MG V&C हेच रे 
जास्वंदा, macneroe अनणी connors चे उदाहरण तु वर त्यांचा उल्लेख दिला होता त्याला धरुन केले होते. तुलनेसाठी नाही.
तुझा मुद्दा मला मान्य नाही ह्याची कारणे मी वर दिली अहेत बघ. I do not think inconsistent players can bring out excellence in opposition. Occasionally maybe, but not always, Hence the term feable and not worthy opposition. Their whole approach before and during match tells the complete story. You are basing arument on the fact that Fed is able to beat them conslusively. I'm basing my argument on fact that they are incosistent (refer to their ATP ranking). I guess we agree to disagree here.
About debating the term "the greatest", one simply can not ignore WTP titles and mastery on all surfaces. Former takes endurance and later takes talent. Federar has both in abundance but still way far away from mastery on clay court.
If you think WTP tours are meaningless, then federar has no clay court title.
If only grand slams should count, then he yet has to win french open.
Forget the titles, he yet, has to dominate Nadal.
Isn't it premature to just him as The Greatest merely based upon talent (which no one will argue against) ?
P.S. : And I do think that no of double titles and sheer amount of play does constitute the greateness on different directions. Isn't that the reason we "still" revere Martina ?
|
Jaaaswand
| |
| | Friday, September 15, 2006 - 12:56 pm: |
|
|
असामी
yes, I also agree that we disagree
I would request you to put your opinions, regarding who you think is greatest ever.
I will try to respond to it then. Lets change the roles. Might be, we will come to some conclusion
Only, 1 point regarding Martina, though its not according to subject. Martina played extensively, but she has to her credit enourmous GrandSlam trophies, not ONLY ATP & Masters.
|
Mukund
| |
| | Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 8:09 am: |
|
|
Jaaswand...you stay in Switzerland...hence you must be reading about Federer everyday..in their newspaper...no wonder you are biased about him...
Seriously but...I agree with you 100%. I think he is destined towards becoming greatest ever...when he is all said and done with his career.
If you ask me why I consider him as the best ever(at least best ever among all the players I have seen.. namely...Borg,Connors,McCanroe,Lendl,Willander,Becker,Edberg,Sampras and Agassi)I will give you only one reason....acording to me the hallmark of greatness of any sportsman is....when you see him/her play the particular game ...ordinary person get a (false!) feeling that ..hey this game is so simple and easy!...even I can play like this!....Tiger Woods is a fine example of this..if you seen Tiger play ..you will know exactly what I mean. At least there should be no two opinions about Tiger Woods greatnes..any way thats not the topic of this BB. He needs a whole separate BB!
Among all the players I mentioned.. all of them are great in the game of tennis... no doubt about it... But Federer is the only one who passes my above mentioned criteria...He makes look the game of tennis so easy to play... In any match you watch him...he hardly breaks a sweat ...and oh!next thing you know ... game ..set and match for him!...(in straight sets more often than not..mind you!)Where as his opponants are huffing and puffing and running in all corners of the court..chasing after the ball...its comical really sometimes to watch him toil with his opponants. I feel like I am watching a cat playing with her poor captured mouse!
The players I mentioned to compare with Federer..you can divide them into 3 catagories.
Catagory 1: Artistic and gracful players...Borg,McCanroe,Willander and Edberg fall into this catagory.
Catagory 2: Power players.....Becker and Sampras fall into this catagory
Catagory 3: Sweat and blood players.... Lendl(fittest player ever...he would work out 8 hours a day for his cardio and muscle fitness!),Agassi and Connors(ultimate warriors..never give up attitude!) fall into this catagory.
Now you must be wondering why I didnt put Federer in any of the above 3 catagories...but thats where the truth in his greatness lies...He is a fine amalgam of all those 3 catagories..he has a grace and style to go along with great fitness(he is mascular yet very supple and nimble on his feet)and power.And he has shown in French open finals..when made to sweat by Nadal...he can do that too.But because of his greatness he hardly has to sweat to win his matches. His service is very decieving...looking at him serve..you will think he may not be able to produce service like boom boom Becker..or pistool Samprass or Goran Ivanisevic or Andy Roddick ... but he consistently fires service which often ranks up there ..along with other great servers I mentioned..in speed...... Thats why his game does not look like one dimensional like Samprass(only service!) or other players I mentioned above. Thats where lies his success and thats why I think he is the greatest ..at least in last 30 so years.....
Its a pleasure really..to watch Federer play. I dont know about you guys..but I consider myself lucky to be able to watch him play and witness his great career unfolding in front of our eyes.....Just hop on and enjoy the ride!
|
Bsk
| |
| | Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 9:20 am: |
|
|
very well said mukund.. शब्द न शब्द पटला..
btw, तुम्ही खरच क्रीडा समिक्षक म्हणुन करीयर करू शकाल.. क्रिकेटच्या लेखाईतकाच छान लिहिलाय हा लेख!
>> but I consider myself lucky to be able to watch him play and witness his great career unfolding in front of our eyes.....>> Copletely agree wid u !!
|
Satishm27
| |
| | Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 1:10 pm: |
|
|
>>>>I think he is destined towards becoming greatest ever...>>>>
Mukund 100% agree with you!!!!!!
आजची semifinal match बघितली!!!!!!!!!!
Federer चा आजच खेळ पाहून मला तर Andy Roddick अगदी बिचारा वाटला... .
As once Rafael Nadal said, I think......
These guys are just unlucky they are playing in the ERA of Roger Federer!!!!!
|
Mukund
| |
| | Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 9:12 am: |
|
|
JUST ANOTHER DAY IN THE OFFICE FOR FEDERER...AND NO MERCY FOR OPPONENTS...
भाग्यश्री तुमच्या अभिप्रायाबद्दल धन्यवाद...
रविवार एकदम झकास गेला... का ते कळलेच असेल. माझ्या आधीच्या पोस्ट मधे मी ज्या गोष्टींचा उल्लेख केला त्याचे धडधडीत प्रात्यक्षीकच(परत एकदा!) फ़ेडररने आपल्याला उपांत्य आणी अंतिम फेरीत करुन दाखवले....फ़ायनलमधे पहील्या सेटमधे तो थोडा चाचपडत खेळला पण मिळालेल्या(एकाच!) संधीचा पुरेपुर फायदा उठवुन पहिला सेट घेतल्यावर त्याने परत मागे वळुन पाहीले नाही. आकडेवारी नेहमीच सगळे काही सांगुन जात नाही पण दुसर्‍या आणी तिसर्‍या सेट मधे मिळुन फ़ेडररने आपल्या सर्व्हीसवर केवळ दोन..मोजुन दोनच पॉइंट्स(गेम नाही....फक्त पॉइंट्स हे लक्षात घ्या..!) घालवले. आणी गोन्झालेस हा काही लेचापेचा खेळाडु नव्हता... तोही छानच खेळत होता.पण त्याच्याच कोचने म्हटल्याप्रमाणे Federer is in a class by himself...
Federer prooved that class..... in the semifinal against Roddick too....he just annhilated Roddick..there is no other word for that ....and Roddicks own words sums up the whole match......ANDY RODDICK: It was frustrating. You know, it was miserable. It sucked. It was terrible. Besides that, it was fine.
सतीश.. तु म्हटल्याप्रमाणे रॉडीकची खरच दया आली... Roddick has faced similar ignominious results against him in Wimbledon semifinal of 2003, Wimbledon final of 2004 and Wimbledon final of 2005.....
मागच्या पोस्टमधे मी फ़ेडररच्या सर्व्हीसबद्दल लिहीले पण त्याचे पददालीत्य आणी ऍंटीसिपेशन सुद्धा खरच खुप अप्रतिम आहे. आणी त्याच्या जोडीला त्याची तिक्ष्ण नजर....त्यामुळे प्रत्येक शॉटला तो नेमक्या ठिकाणी उभा असतो. तो ज्या पद्धतीने व विद्युतवेगाने स्वतला पोझीशनमधे आणतो खासकरुन तो जेव्हा इनसाइड आउट फ़ोरहॅंड मारणार असतो तेव्हा..ते खरच पाहण्यासारखे असते. एखादी निपुण बॅलेरिना जसे आपले पाय कौशल्याने वापरुन आपली न्रुत्यकला सादर करते तशाच तोडीचे त्याचे पददालीत्य असते.
फ़ायनल चालु असताना दुसर्‍या सेटमधे एका किड्यामुळे २ मिनिटे खेळात व्यत्यय आला. गोन्झालेसने त्या किड्याला न चिरडता पकडायचा प्रयत्न करुन आपली सह्रुदयता दाखवुन दिली. (may be in the hope that he will get the same treatment from Federer...in the match.. ) Mind you...Federer is the nicest guy off the court...but when you are playing a match...that too....a final of a Grand Slam....that too... when your opponent is down a set...in his book at that time there is NO MERCY FOR THE OPPONENT....
So it was just another routine straight set win for him... and another grand slam title in his kitty...which is 10 and counting....all in all... it was like...JUST ANOTHER DAY IN THE OFFICE FOR FEDERER
|
मुकुंद, खुपच छान लिहिले आहे तुम्ही. औस्ट्रलिअन ओपन विषयी तुमची comment एकदम सही तरी पण वर्षाची पहिलीच grand slam म्हणुन तीचे महत्व आहेच. ही स्पर्धा जींकणार्‍या खेळाडुलाच Grand Slam पुर्ण करायची संधी असते ना...२००६ ची final घेतल्यावर Roger Federer ची reaction तुम्ही पाहिलीच असेल
|
मुकुंद, छान लिहिलंय. बर्‍याचशा स्पर्धा फ़क्त जिंकणार्‍यामुळे लक्षात राहतात असं नाही हे खरंय. ३ एक वर्षांपूर्वीच्या विंबल्डन मधे Ivansevic आणि Philippoussis ह्यांच्यातला एक अटीतटीचा सामना टाय ब्रेकरवरती २४-२५ इथपर्यंत गेला होता. बहुतेक ज्या वर्षी गोरानने विंबल्डन जिंकली त्या वर्षी. अजूनही ती excitement लक्षात आहे.
|
Farend
| |
| | Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 6:53 pm: |
|
|
मुकुंद चांगले लिहिले आहे. तू स्वत:च्या रंगबिरंगी मधे का लिहीत नाहीस? येथे हरवून जाईल.
फ्रेंच ओपन मला आठवते ती आन्द्रे गोमेझ ने जिंकलेली ९० किंवा ९१ सालची. तो बराच म्हातारा असावा तेव्हा.
|
Andres Gomez ने 1990 जिंकली होती.
http://sify.com/sports/tennis/fullstory.php?id=13481710
|
|
| मायबोली |
|
| चोखंदळ ग्राहक |
|
| महाराष्ट्र धर्म वाढवावा |
|
| व्यक्तिपासून वल्लीपर्यंत |
|
| पांढर्‍यावरचे काळे |
|
| गावातल्या गावात |
|
| तंत्रलेल्या मंत्रबनात |
|
| आरोह अवरोह |
|
| शुभंकरोती कल्याणम् |
|
| विखुरलेले मोती |
|
|
|
|