It’s truly bizarre reading a few of the ‘who is the best’ articles floating around at the moment.
There was one I read today that had about 12 ‘experts’ saying who they thought was the best and why.
There were some truly stupefying answers - one idiot even said McEnroe. Almost to a man though, those saying Federer cited how easy he is on the eye, and how much everyone loves him. Seriously? How does that make someone the best? Using that logic Jason Holder is a better test match batsman than Steve Smith.
The best argument I’ve seen for any of them even though I don’t necessarily agree with it, is that as hard as Federer and Nadal are to beat, their games DO have a couple of chinks that allow their opponents to at least have a game plan to follow. Djokovic doesn’t have that and you are more reliant on him having a bad day than you are of being able to have a good day yourself and beat him.
There was one I read today that had about 12 ‘experts’ saying who they thought was the best and why.
There were some truly stupefying answers - one idiot even said McEnroe. Almost to a man though, those saying Federer cited how easy he is on the eye, and how much everyone loves him. Seriously? How does that make someone the best? Using that logic Jason Holder is a better test match batsman than Steve Smith.
The best argument I’ve seen for any of them even though I don’t necessarily agree with it, is that as hard as Federer and Nadal are to beat, their games DO have a couple of chinks that allow their opponents to at least have a game plan to follow. Djokovic doesn’t have that and you are more reliant on him having a bad day than you are of being able to have a good day yourself and beat him.