Once again since we are still an up and coming blog without consistant traffic we have trouble getting questions for topic tuesdays. This week we have 2 questions from others, and Ryan has come up with a couple of questions we will both be answering. Hope you enjoy!
Here We Go :
Do you think the suspension (in any sport) should be greater if its a better player? -@Blueyed7
Chris: This is a tough question, whether the "star" is the victim, or the instigator. I think if the star player is the one who does the damage, then yes it should be greater. That person is being watched more than these other guys, kids especially look up to them (for example Crosby). If the star player though is the victim, then no, I don't believe it would be appropriate to put a higher value on one human's body/brain over another.
Ryan: I don't think the severity of the punishment should be based on the type of player of not. Whether that player is of star caliber or not the punishment should be the same for all players, even if they are the face of the league or franchise.
Buster Posey collision. Should the MLB do something about it or is he (Posey) just being a (wimp)? -@Bobswan14
Chris: In terms us suspensions, nothing should be done. The collision was totally legal and is actually embraced as opposed to sliding which could hurt the base runner. I think the MLB figures that catchers know the risks of their position and if they are dumb enough to play it, then that is their choice. I do believe the MLB should change the rule about running into the catcher, and maybe avoid blocking the plate overall. However Posey's block was also not how it should technically be done. He put his whole body in front, whereas you are supposed to put one leg towards the plate and one towards the catcher, limiting the potential risk. So really, Posey just needs to accept it and learn from it, but so does the MLB.
Ryan: After watching it several times on Youtube it doesn't really look like he was blocking the plate at all. In fact he was about a foot in front of the plate, but as he turned towards the plate he put himself in harms way.I really don't think the league has to do anything since it was just a freak accident during a play and thats all it was.
Will Tiger Woods ever regain his pre-scandal form?
Chris: No. Everyone expects that at the next tournament he will regain is old form, and does it happen? No. People are getting tired of waiting for the "old Tiger" and soon have to start embracing the next generation of golfers. Tiger had his run, and it was great, but there are just some things you can't go back on. I do honestly hope he proves me wrong, but i just don't see that happening. He's already pulled out of this years US Open and people are starting to realize the Tiger era is done.
Ryan: Nope. He's already 35 and has had a nagging knee injury for quite some time now. His last majors win was way back in 2008 when he won the US Open, and since his off-court activities he hasn't seemed to be the same player. He even hired a new swing coach, but that hasn't really seemed to help as much as he would have expected. Though he'll probably get a few wins here and there when he does return and we'll see glimpses of his former self, he's just not gonna be that dominant force he once was.
Who Will Win Game 4 Of The NBA Finals Tonight?
Chris: The Dallas Mavericks. Each game has been a see-saw affair, and honestly anyone could win it. I just believe that in the end Dallas will win 96-89.
Ryan: As much all I'll like to see the Heat take a 3-1 series lead tonight Dirk and the Mavs aren't gonna let that happen. I still think Miami needs to win 2 games in Dallas to win the series though, but that second victory won't happen tonight. Also Jason Terry and Deshawn Stevenson have been running their mouths a bit lately so they'll have to put up or shut up tonight.
The Nadal-Federer Debate
Chris: Many people consider Roger Federer to be the best of all time, one of them being me. I think 16 grand slams would explain that pretty good. There has also been a lot of talk thought about if Rafael Nadal can one day be the best of all time, and to that I say no. Below is a table illustrating Roger's grand slam performances.
| Tournament | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam Tournaments | |||||||||||||||||
| Australian Open | A | LQ | 3R | 3R | 4R | 4R | W | SF | W | W | SF | F | W | SF | |||
| French Open | A | 1R | 4R | QF | 1R | 1R | 3R | SF | F | F | F | W | QF | F | |||
| Wimbledon | A | 1R | 1R | QF | 1R | W | W | W | W | W | F | W | QF | ||||
| US Open | A | LQ | 3R | 4R | 4R | 4R | W | W | W | W | W | F | SF | ||||
| Win–Loss | 0–0 | 0–2 | 7–4 | 13–4 | 6–4 | 13–3 | 22–1 | 24–2 | 27–1 | 26–1 | 24–3 | 26–2 | 20–3 | 11–2 | |||
As you can see he has dominated every tournament (by winning it) except for the french open. Instead of looking and saying "oh he didn't win the french open, there for he isn't an all-surface player" you first must look at where he finished. With exception to 2010 which (other than the Aussie open and the US Open) was an off year, he has constantly made the finals of the french open. Only problem is he has run into Nadal who is a clay court specialist. So it isn't a matter of he can't play on clay, he just can't match Nadal on clay.
Here is Nadal's grand slam performance chart.
| Tournament | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Career SR | Career W-L | Win % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam Tournaments | ||||||||||||||
| Australian Open | A | 3R | 4R | A | QF | SF | W | QF | QF | 1 / 7 | 29–6 | 82.85 | ||
| French Open | A | A | W | W | W | W | 4R | W | W | 6 / 7 | 45–1 | 97.82 | ||
| Wimbledon | 3R | A | 2R | F | F | W | A | W | 2 / 6 | 29–4 | 87.87 | |||
| US Open | 2R | 2R | 3R | QF | 4R | SF | SF | W | 1 / 8 | 28–7 | 80.00 | |||
| Win–Loss | 3–2 | 3–2 | 13–3 | 17–2 | 20–3 | 24–2 | 15–2 | 25–1 | 11–1 | 10 / 28 | 131–18 | 87.92 | ||
As you can see he has won every grand slam, but has been very inconsistent between. Now I don't want to take anything away from Rafa, but in order to be known as the greatest of all time he will have to dominate on all courts and consistently. Until then I will continue to to believe that Roger Federer is and always will be the best of all time. If Rafa does become an all court player, and consistently proves it, then I will tip my hat to him. I just think that we need to embrace and remember what Roger has done and continues to do in tennis, his records and his legacy. People always talk about if they could have watched Babe Ruth, or Ted Williams or Michael Jordan, or Gordie Howe. We have missed out on seeing some of the best atheletes of all time, but we also get the chance to witness Federer who continues to make history and will probably retire with at least 20 grand slam titles, lets not lose sight of that. History is in the making, lets take advantage of it.
Ryan: In every sport there's always that debate as to who's the greatest of all time, whether itbe Lebron-Kobe, Crosby-Ovechkin, and in tennis it's Nadal-Federer. Now both players have done quite a bit in their careers and still have quite some time left before they hang up their boots, but keep in mind that Federer is 4 years older than Nadal, as he is 29 while Rafa recently turned 25, so the best way compare them will be based on what they have accomplished at age 25.
| Player | Date | Age | ATP | Master | Majors | Weeks No 1 | |
| STATUS as of 6th June, 2011: | |||||||
| Rafael Nadal | 25 years 3 days | 46 | 19 | 10 | 99 | ||
| Roger Federer | 25 years 3 days | 39 | 10 | 8 | 132 | ||
As we can see there, Nadal is ahead of Federer in all categories except the total number of week in which they were ranked as #1. One thing to keep in mind though is whether Nadal will have the same longevity in his career as Federer will have and if he won't eventually run into injury issues. Also by age 25 Roger had 9, 8 of which he won, as seen above, while Nadal has 12 finals appearances and has won 10, also seen above.
Now both players could have been at different stages in their career at that age, so its not quite an accurate comparison, but if we were to compare the two at that age it's pretty clear that Nadal is that better player, but in four years time when he's 29 will he have accomplished what Roger has done, will he be able to dominate on other surfaces besides clay or will his production fall off a bit? Right now we can only speculate, but the debate as to who's the greatest of all time shall certainly continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment