I came across the profile of an 18-year-old Argentine on SI.com, and thought I would share with you the absolutely dirty video of Sergio Agüero tooling on an entire defense for his former club team in Argentina that SI has linked on the page. Enjoy:
Not only is that clip impressive, but he has teamed up with Spaniard Fernando Torres to form a striking tandem that has only 40 combined years and accounts for half of Atletico Madrid's goals this season in the Spanish Primera League. And the best part? HE'S A POP SINGER TOO:
What were you doing when you were 18?
Friday, January 26, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Tennis: The Greatness of Roger Federer
Rarely do I use hyperbole and even rarer is my crowning of today's stars and teams as better than the legends of yesteryear. However, in today's sports, we are seeing two undeniably pantheon-great athletes. As the years go by, it has become harder and harder to deny Tiger Woods and Roger Federer are among the best athletes to ever play their sports, and neither are even out of their prime yet.
I want your thoughts on two issues. First, which of those athletes are more impressive, dominant, or historically significant in their sport? Second, on Federer alone, after his complete demolition of one of the top ranked players in the world this morning, where does he rank with the all time greats?
It is my opinion that not only will Federer end up the greatest tennis player ever (Both in stats and the ability to defeat all tennis players that came before him), but he might - nay, WILL - go down as a top 10 athlete of all time. Thoughts?
I agree with you. Roger Federer could be one of the greatest athletes ever. He's almost technically perfect on a tennis court and absolutely dominates even the highest levels of competition. Early this morning, arouned 3:30am EST, Federer was set to face Andy Roddick in the semi-final match of the Australian Open. In the days leading up to the match, Roddick had been playing probably the best tennis of his life and maybe the best of anyone in the tournament. As a casual tennis fan, I was excited.I set my DVR and had a plan to wake up at 7 (two hours early) to tune in.
So what happened? Well first of all, I woke up at 8 thanks to an alarm clock mishap (i.e. setting my alarm for 7pm instead of 7am, a mistake I make way too often) and zipped through the pre-match stuff, hoping to creatively fast forward through commercial breaks and less interesting portions of the match. And then Federer broke Roddick's serve IN THE FIRST GAME. Roddick has one of the best serves on the tour mind you and it had been great all tournament long. And Federer lost the first two points of the game. Then, down 30-0, Federer ripped four points in a row off attacks from the baseline against a man who has the fastest serve in history. It looked like he made a whimsical decision to start winning points and was following through on that.
To make a long story short, Federer won the match 6-4, 6-0, 6-2. I finished the sped up version in half an hour and was early to work for the first time in a few months, that's how quick it went. His domination of the match was freakish, even to Federer: "I had one of these days when everything just worked, I was unbeatable. It's just unreal. I was playing out of my mind. I am shocked myself." He played so well, HE SURPRISED HIMSELF. Unbelievable. It's tough to compare Federer to champions past, but if you consider how dominant he is over his contemporaries and how the average tennis player has only gotten stronger and faster, he makes a serious case for himself as the best ever. And the best part about Federer is how he makes what he does look so effortless. It looks like he's in warm-up mode all match long.
As for the Roger vs. Tiger debate, I think it's terribly unfair. Their sports are so different. While I will say that Tiger is more historicaly significant for his sport (think back to the golf-splosion of the late 90's), what Roger Federer is doing on the tennis court seems more impressive to me. There's a reason tennis player often burnout at young ages: it's a very physically demanding game with absolutely no off-season. Maintaining that level of play for that long can only be compared to my epic Norwich Little Career (where I hit .000 as a 9 year old, once called for my coach after an opposing player squared to bunt, had two balks where I dropped the ball mid-windup, and kneed a friend of mine in the groin on a play at first base.) Except maybe the opposite. You mentioned top ten athletes of all time and I'm going to take the bait, Ian. Give me your list. I'll start you off: 1) Drew Bledsoe, 2) Nomar Garciaparra-Hamm, 3)...
Federer is the greatest tennis player ever and I'll tell you why. I always thought the most effective argument for our current athletes being greater than their predecessors is that with an ever improving world of science, technology, and medicine, today's athletes are simply better trained and therefore more talented than ever. Thus, even if they are putting up similar numbers to legends, they are doing it against steaper competition.
The premise of that last statement, of course, is untrue. There are many more barometers to an athlete's capabilities than their sheer physical ability. One must always keep in mind the dominance an athlete has over the peers of their era. In fact, that might be the single greatest characteristic of excellence: How much better you are than everyone else that you compete against.
Roger Federer is the embodiment of the characteristics of all-time greatness. His numbers are eye-popping and record setting. The domination of his peers is absolute and unquestioned. And those very peers have had more advantages than anyone in the history of the sport. For all we know, if it wasn't for Federer, there would be an epic struggle in the sport of tennis between the likes of Roddick, Nadal, and Hewitt. In twenty years, we might have been talking about a handful of greats that won all the majors for a ten-year stretch. We'd say they took the baton from Pete and Andre and kept tennis great. But we won't be saying that. We'll be saying Roger Federer dominated a field of players who won few majors. Inevitably, some who didn't see him play will pontificate on his lack of greatness in a field void of stars.
After last this morning's dismantling (I saw the last four games live), it got me thinking about Roddick, and how for a few years, he's had the same look on his face whenever he faces Federer:
I am by no means a Roddick cheerleader. I was an Andre guy, I was a Gustavo Kuerten guy, now I'm a James Blake guy. But Roddick is undeniably a special talent. He has talent coming out of his ears, and from what I hear, a work ethic to match. His serve and forehand are picture perfect in their exposition of pure power. If Federer decided to be a soccer player, Roddick might be going down as the great tennis player of the generation. But in fifteen years, we'll remember him as we remember Michael Stich and Yevgeny Kafelnikov. It's almost tragic.
There's a lot more to be said about Federer-Tiger. Perhaps we'll leave that for Monday, as both will be competing on Sunday for a championship.
As for top 10 athletes of all time, that is a VERY intriguing list. I propose we give that some thought and reveal our lists next Tuesday or Wednesday, before our Superbowl ramp up.
That is an excellent picture of Roddick. Since everyone is probably sufficiently bored with tennis, I'd like to announce the results of yesterday's "Battle of the Bands." It's sad to say but a song I love dearly, Phil Collins' "You'll Be in My Heart," was narrowly edged out by the much more culturally relevant Arrested Development rendition of "Everyday People," three and a half stars to three and three quarters stars. Thank you to the zero people that voted.
I want your thoughts on two issues. First, which of those athletes are more impressive, dominant, or historically significant in their sport? Second, on Federer alone, after his complete demolition of one of the top ranked players in the world this morning, where does he rank with the all time greats?
It is my opinion that not only will Federer end up the greatest tennis player ever (Both in stats and the ability to defeat all tennis players that came before him), but he might - nay, WILL - go down as a top 10 athlete of all time. Thoughts?
I agree with you. Roger Federer could be one of the greatest athletes ever. He's almost technically perfect on a tennis court and absolutely dominates even the highest levels of competition. Early this morning, arouned 3:30am EST, Federer was set to face Andy Roddick in the semi-final match of the Australian Open. In the days leading up to the match, Roddick had been playing probably the best tennis of his life and maybe the best of anyone in the tournament. As a casual tennis fan, I was excited.I set my DVR and had a plan to wake up at 7 (two hours early) to tune in.
So what happened? Well first of all, I woke up at 8 thanks to an alarm clock mishap (i.e. setting my alarm for 7pm instead of 7am, a mistake I make way too often) and zipped through the pre-match stuff, hoping to creatively fast forward through commercial breaks and less interesting portions of the match. And then Federer broke Roddick's serve IN THE FIRST GAME. Roddick has one of the best serves on the tour mind you and it had been great all tournament long. And Federer lost the first two points of the game. Then, down 30-0, Federer ripped four points in a row off attacks from the baseline against a man who has the fastest serve in history. It looked like he made a whimsical decision to start winning points and was following through on that.
To make a long story short, Federer won the match 6-4, 6-0, 6-2. I finished the sped up version in half an hour and was early to work for the first time in a few months, that's how quick it went. His domination of the match was freakish, even to Federer: "I had one of these days when everything just worked, I was unbeatable. It's just unreal. I was playing out of my mind. I am shocked myself." He played so well, HE SURPRISED HIMSELF. Unbelievable. It's tough to compare Federer to champions past, but if you consider how dominant he is over his contemporaries and how the average tennis player has only gotten stronger and faster, he makes a serious case for himself as the best ever. And the best part about Federer is how he makes what he does look so effortless. It looks like he's in warm-up mode all match long.
As for the Roger vs. Tiger debate, I think it's terribly unfair. Their sports are so different. While I will say that Tiger is more historicaly significant for his sport (think back to the golf-splosion of the late 90's), what Roger Federer is doing on the tennis court seems more impressive to me. There's a reason tennis player often burnout at young ages: it's a very physically demanding game with absolutely no off-season. Maintaining that level of play for that long can only be compared to my epic Norwich Little Career (where I hit .000 as a 9 year old, once called for my coach after an opposing player squared to bunt, had two balks where I dropped the ball mid-windup, and kneed a friend of mine in the groin on a play at first base.) Except maybe the opposite. You mentioned top ten athletes of all time and I'm going to take the bait, Ian. Give me your list. I'll start you off: 1) Drew Bledsoe, 2) Nomar Garciaparra-Hamm, 3)...
Federer is the greatest tennis player ever and I'll tell you why. I always thought the most effective argument for our current athletes being greater than their predecessors is that with an ever improving world of science, technology, and medicine, today's athletes are simply better trained and therefore more talented than ever. Thus, even if they are putting up similar numbers to legends, they are doing it against steaper competition.
The premise of that last statement, of course, is untrue. There are many more barometers to an athlete's capabilities than their sheer physical ability. One must always keep in mind the dominance an athlete has over the peers of their era. In fact, that might be the single greatest characteristic of excellence: How much better you are than everyone else that you compete against.
Roger Federer is the embodiment of the characteristics of all-time greatness. His numbers are eye-popping and record setting. The domination of his peers is absolute and unquestioned. And those very peers have had more advantages than anyone in the history of the sport. For all we know, if it wasn't for Federer, there would be an epic struggle in the sport of tennis between the likes of Roddick, Nadal, and Hewitt. In twenty years, we might have been talking about a handful of greats that won all the majors for a ten-year stretch. We'd say they took the baton from Pete and Andre and kept tennis great. But we won't be saying that. We'll be saying Roger Federer dominated a field of players who won few majors. Inevitably, some who didn't see him play will pontificate on his lack of greatness in a field void of stars.
After last this morning's dismantling (I saw the last four games live), it got me thinking about Roddick, and how for a few years, he's had the same look on his face whenever he faces Federer:
I am by no means a Roddick cheerleader. I was an Andre guy, I was a Gustavo Kuerten guy, now I'm a James Blake guy. But Roddick is undeniably a special talent. He has talent coming out of his ears, and from what I hear, a work ethic to match. His serve and forehand are picture perfect in their exposition of pure power. If Federer decided to be a soccer player, Roddick might be going down as the great tennis player of the generation. But in fifteen years, we'll remember him as we remember Michael Stich and Yevgeny Kafelnikov. It's almost tragic.
There's a lot more to be said about Federer-Tiger. Perhaps we'll leave that for Monday, as both will be competing on Sunday for a championship.
As for top 10 athletes of all time, that is a VERY intriguing list. I propose we give that some thought and reveal our lists next Tuesday or Wednesday, before our Superbowl ramp up.
That is an excellent picture of Roddick. Since everyone is probably sufficiently bored with tennis, I'd like to announce the results of yesterday's "Battle of the Bands." It's sad to say but a song I love dearly, Phil Collins' "You'll Be in My Heart," was narrowly edged out by the much more culturally relevant Arrested Development rendition of "Everyday People," three and a half stars to three and three quarters stars. Thank you to the zero people that voted.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Not Sports: Arrested Development vs. Phil Collins
No sports talk today. Just a good old-fashioned battle of the bands:
versus
Please leave comments discussing the merits and demerits of each. A winner will be announced tomorrow.
versus
Please leave comments discussing the merits and demerits of each. A winner will be announced tomorrow.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
NFL: Now that the season's over...
Just kidding. Last night my roommate Rob, a Jets' fan, told me that we better not ignore the Superbowl now that the Patriots' season has ended. I mulled over the existential implications of existing as a spectator outside of the Patriots-verse and decided that all will be well as long as Ian and I jump right into a Red Sox season preview and continue to anger readers with our fan-boy nonsense. Alas, the realization then hit that if we ignore the Superbowl we can't take arbitrary and baseless jabs at Peyton Manning until the first days of NFL training camp this summer. Oh Peyton, you professional commercial actor and fake-moustache model!
First, I'll ask before our readers do: Was that really Brian Scalabrine? And if so, how did he grow less cool as he got older?
Second, I agree with your justification of continuing to talk NFL, but let me suggest that we hold off until next week. We'd hate to oversaturate the topic by the middle of next week, when the game is right around the corner. Plus media day is next Tuesday and I haven't received my press pass in the mail yet.
To kill time this week, I'd like to turn our attention to another local team (surprise) and examine our Boston Celtics. However, while this particular example might be local, the philosophical dilemma that they face has been shared by numerous franchises over the years. The dilemma is this: When a team is clearly not a contender, should they quietly maneuver to lose games and strengthen their draft position?
Ian, I'm sure you recall all the frantic calculations we did during last year's "Race to Reggie Bush" at the end of the season. Even with a week left there was a cluster of teams within one or two wins of each other at the very bottom of the standings. It was like a bizarro playoff scenario where the worst record and the weakest schedule took the prize, with the three-win 49ers vs. the two-win Texans acting as the marquee matchup that Sunday. In the end, the 49ers won a game (in overtime!) they probably should have lost for the good of the franchise and the Texans secured the top pick which they inexplicably flubbed six months later. If Joe Nedney, the 49ers kicker who hit a field goal with 3:52 left in overtime, shanked that kick and the Texans went on to score a few points before the game ended, Reggie Bush ends up in San Francisco and the 49ers probably win the division in 2006. Everything but the winning the division thing I can say with at least some certainty.
Ergo, sometimes it actually works in your favor to tank a game. Then again there are those pesky "integrity" and "pride" things some people have which prevents them from doing something so disingenuous (SEE ALSO: Ricky Davis' triple double, Michael Strahan's single season sack record, and/or Nykesha Sales' UCONN scoring record. Loose examples; don't crucify me for the comparison.) So teams often put themselves in a position where even while trying to win they are in great shape to lose (begging the deontological debate regarding actions versus intentions) which is what the Philadelphia 76ers have successfully done so far this season and what I think the Celtics are hoping to accomplish considering the probable top two picks in the 2007 NBA Draft, Durant and Oden, are being hailed as "can't miss" guys.
But there's one problem here: the Celtics (12 wins at the writing of this post) will probably not end the season with the leagues' worst record. What with the lottery they would still have a chance at Durant and/or Oden but by no means the best. As of now Memphis (10) and Philly (11) stand in their way (and with the pending departure of Gasol, Memphis will only strengthen their futility) with Atlanta (13), Charlotte (14), Seattle (16), Sacramento (16), and New Orleans (16) hanging around.
So what can/should the Celtics do? Play the young guys and hope for the worst(best).
First, I'll ask before our readers do: Was that really Brian Scalabrine? And if so, how did he grow less cool as he got older?
Second, I agree with your justification of continuing to talk NFL, but let me suggest that we hold off until next week. We'd hate to oversaturate the topic by the middle of next week, when the game is right around the corner. Plus media day is next Tuesday and I haven't received my press pass in the mail yet.
To kill time this week, I'd like to turn our attention to another local team (surprise) and examine our Boston Celtics. However, while this particular example might be local, the philosophical dilemma that they face has been shared by numerous franchises over the years. The dilemma is this: When a team is clearly not a contender, should they quietly maneuver to lose games and strengthen their draft position?
Ian, I'm sure you recall all the frantic calculations we did during last year's "Race to Reggie Bush" at the end of the season. Even with a week left there was a cluster of teams within one or two wins of each other at the very bottom of the standings. It was like a bizarro playoff scenario where the worst record and the weakest schedule took the prize, with the three-win 49ers vs. the two-win Texans acting as the marquee matchup that Sunday. In the end, the 49ers won a game (in overtime!) they probably should have lost for the good of the franchise and the Texans secured the top pick which they inexplicably flubbed six months later. If Joe Nedney, the 49ers kicker who hit a field goal with 3:52 left in overtime, shanked that kick and the Texans went on to score a few points before the game ended, Reggie Bush ends up in San Francisco and the 49ers probably win the division in 2006. Everything but the winning the division thing I can say with at least some certainty.
Ergo, sometimes it actually works in your favor to tank a game. Then again there are those pesky "integrity" and "pride" things some people have which prevents them from doing something so disingenuous (SEE ALSO: Ricky Davis' triple double, Michael Strahan's single season sack record, and/or Nykesha Sales' UCONN scoring record. Loose examples; don't crucify me for the comparison.) So teams often put themselves in a position where even while trying to win they are in great shape to lose (begging the deontological debate regarding actions versus intentions) which is what the Philadelphia 76ers have successfully done so far this season and what I think the Celtics are hoping to accomplish considering the probable top two picks in the 2007 NBA Draft, Durant and Oden, are being hailed as "can't miss" guys.
But there's one problem here: the Celtics (12 wins at the writing of this post) will probably not end the season with the leagues' worst record. What with the lottery they would still have a chance at Durant and/or Oden but by no means the best. As of now Memphis (10) and Philly (11) stand in their way (and with the pending departure of Gasol, Memphis will only strengthen their futility) with Atlanta (13), Charlotte (14), Seattle (16), Sacramento (16), and New Orleans (16) hanging around.
So what can/should the Celtics do? Play the young guys and hope for the worst(best).
NBA: Brian Scalabrine, bespectacled and preadolescent
We all did this, but how many had the hutzpah to tape it and call their dunks "the most awesomest"? Brought to you by Stealing Links from Deadspin and made possible, in part, by the generous grants of the MacArthur Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
