I am not talking about the drug here. Just to clarify. He isn’t putting any thing fishy in the bottle in the above picture either. How do I know? I have my sources.

Federer has been dominant on grass and we all know about that. He has now equalled the Borg record for consecutive wins on the surface. People are not satisfied though. The common point raised is - Federer doesn’t have to deal with as competetive a scenario as Sampras or Borg had to. Borg had his fierce rivals we know about. Even Sampras had guys like Agassi, Rafter, Ivanisevic.

Who does Federer have in comparison? Hewitt, Roddick. Big question marks over Nadal and Safin on grass. I feel this is a bit unfair. The career of these players isn’t over. We do not know how Roddick or Hewitt or some one else from the current era will be looked back upon. So we should wait a while before comparing Federer’s accomplishments on the surface with past greats.

It is no small feat to equal the record of consecutive wins. Sampras, for all his grass court prowess and great wins, couldn’t manage it. Federer has. It will be fascinating to compare the two players over all once Federer retires taking the full career of the two into account. Sampras didn’t win the French. He won X titles but not title A. On the other hand, Federer won Y titles plus B,C should not be forgotten. What will be equally fascinating will be matching up the two players on how they would fare on grass versus each other.

Federer did defeat Sampras in a Wimbledon at such a young age - a match which is now part of the folklore of tennis. But who would have won more had they lived in the same time? Could any of these two players, known for their domination, dominate the other over all? How would the almost complete Federer game match up with the unplayable Sampras serve on clutch points? For now, we should cherish that we can see Federer playing live and hope some one does up his game to create a memorable Wimbledon.

When I think of Pete Sampras, the first word which comes to my mind is clinical. The second, which Vijay Amritraj often reffered Sampras with, is champion. In sport, there is always the contemporary versus past debate. We always like to ponder over and even conclude wherever possible who the greatest ever has been. Is Tiger Woods better than Jack Nicklaus? Is the recent Australian cricket team even better than the invincibles of 1948 and the West Indies of the 80s? Did Lance Armstrong do enough to become the best ever in his sport? Is there ever going to be some one who is going to emerge as good as a Bobby Fischer, Mohammad Ali, Nadia Comaneci or a Don Bradman?

Aren’t all sporting competitions set to find out who the best is given the time and place? So dwelling over the greatest over eras is only natural. We even compare the greatest of various sports to try and evaluate the greatest sports persons to have graced us with their presence. So some one will argue that Michael Jordan was the greatest as he changed the face of basketball while others will go for Mohammad Ali as he stretched beyond sport itself while yet others while vouch for Bradman as his margin over cricketers in any era is vastly bigger compared to any sportsperson in his or her sport.

Read the rest of this entry »