|
Yo, some really good posts in here. I prolly should have considered Armstrong (although he has announced his retirement so maybe that's a get out clause)... I guess it's maybe partly cos Ive never followed cycling, but also to me it just seems a pure endurance effort, there is no real skill - just strength and stamina and heart.
I suppose someone could throw that back at me on Tirunesh Dibaba - cos distance running is pretty much a purely physical activity too. i suppose the difference I see - which may just be that I never watched Tour de France - is that cycling just seems almost like a test to destruction of the riders, just a endless endurance trial - while running does invole a degree of timing, and technique.
But I would stand by Federer as my pick. I honestly believe he is the greatest player of his game in history... you kind of get the feeling he could walk into the Olympics and win a Gold in Squash or Badminton if he practised for a month beforehand. Yes, he still does need to conquer clay, but he is still a young guy. It's the way he dominates not only in terms of performance, but the imagination of the sport. Nowadays if Federer loses one match it is a huge shock... he plays shots that simply are not possible for other players. What he did to Roddick - a magnificent player, who can serve at 150 mph - at Wimbledon was just riduculous... Roddick played a good game, close to his best level and did nothing wrong, and Federer made him look like a boy at times. The only people I can think of in recent times who had the aura Federer does would be Tyson and Jordan, maybe for a couple of years Brian Lara - when he hit the 375 and the 501 in quick succession.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."
The Gospel of Thomas
|