|
Does Federer have to beat Rafa in his prime at Roland Garros to be the best ever?
i think Roger has done most things now - he has won as much money and glory out of the game as he could ever need or use.
He has shown proven himself as the greatest player of his generation
He is capable of playing shots again and again which only exist in the imagination of 99.9% of professional players who have ever been in the sport.
I think, health permitting, the all time grandslam record is there for the taking for him if he wants to play on and take it.
But to be the best ever, it is my opinion that he needs to beat Nadal in France.
It isnt straightforward: Agassi won all 4, and no serious fan would say Agassi was at the same level as Roger - and we know Andre would have been dismissed by Nadal on the clay... but all sports are defined by the great occasions, and Roger has only won three of the four. Agassi won all 4.
I think Federer plays the game at a level no other player has reached before, but taking into account the changes in equipment, the devlopment of the game: he needs the French to take the next step to place in himself in a different league to anyone else who has ever played the game- and he needs it against Rafa (who is himself a master and one of the all time greats already) - imo anyway.
__________________
"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
|