Part Two: Number Two Greatest Player All Time...

So, as my friend Ron put it in the gym the other day: "How can we rate your third choice Ed without knowing the other two?" He's right! So, I have been hard at work thinking and rethinking my top two slots of Greatest Player Ever...

The Era In Which We Play Clearly Creates A Bias

I am constantly reminded I am still just in my 40s. I feel like youth has followed me since I was a kid: "Ed, you're just a teenager..." has turned into: "Ed, your just in your mid 40s." Perhaps I hang with an older crowd? I know I did as a toddler but infants, disregarding the Etrade advertisements, couldn't hold a conversation with me. So I went for older kids when looking for friends. Maybe that trend has never changed.

Whatever the reason, it came up today once again as I toweled off between games. As I got into the car, I thought about the greatest players of all time and how it is so hard to compare a Rod Laver whom I saw play once to an Andre Agassi, with whom I have hit balls and watched play hundreds of times.

The Open Era changed the game in terms of competition in the 60s. Television coverage and popularity of the sport brought masses to the sport in the 70s. Racquet advancement and technology have changed the game in more recent years. Can you imagine Rod Laver with a Wilson Spin? Interesting to think about.

Needless to say, I finally put all the facets of the game and its players in place. The second slot, all time, greatest... and here comes the double whammy:

Rod Laver and Margaret Court

Rod Laver really was an immense presence in the game. He is even to today. Respected by his peers as well as those great players to follow like Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.

But his peers, especially in his native Australia, were some of the greatest players the sport of tennis has ever seen. These were the golden days of Australian tennis with players like Roy Emerson, John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Fred Stolle, Tony Roche, Neale Fraser, and Frank Bromwich among others. Has a country ever dominated a sport as the Australians did through the 50s and 60s? Maybe the All-Blacks in rugby? But then again not too many Word Cups to their country's team. Maybe America with Lance Armstrong and cycling? But we know what happened there. Maybe British rowing with Sir Steve Redgrave? But the Aussies in tennis surely dominated.

With all this said, Rod Laver, with this incredible group of countrymen competing against him at every turn, was able to win two Grand Slams - all four majors in one year. Yep, he did that twice. Never done since. I doubt it will be done again.

Had I been Australian, I think perhaps Rod Laver and Margaret Court would be tied for Number One all time. For as Laver was completing his domination of the sport, Margaret Court took 62 Grand

Slam titles - 24 Singles titles with 19 Ladies Doubles and 19 Mixed Doubles. Yes, 24. We are in awe of Roger's 17. Court has 24! Add the doubles. You can't discount those numbers.

In addition, we often forget about those doubles titles when we talk about the greatest player ever, but the talent required to play both singles and doubles, in my opinion, is a true test of the greatness of any player. I've said it before defending McEnroe and I'll say it again. Talent and mental toughness for two different games.

Margaret stands atop the professional tennis world with the most Grand Slam Championships to her name in the sport. And who said the Greatest Player Of All Time was limited to just the men? I didn't.

So, who is the greatest player of all time? I've taken out of my mix: Federer, Laver and Court. Who's left? Your call! I know my vote.

Roger Federer - The Best Player Ever?

One of my colleagues, Mary, said that she has to hand it to the ESPN commentators covering the US Open. "What other sport can last up to 4 hours with just 2 people to talk about? How can they fill all that time?" You're right, Mary. And, of course, while we were watching the Roger Federer's US Open at the hands of Tommy Robredo two nights ago, the issue whether Roger was the best player was discussed for at least 3 of the 32 games.

I love making lists, and on my list Roger is third. You may ask why. Here's why.

Number One, All-Time Primary Reason. Each and every great player in a sport has a rival, someone who brings the best out of his or her game. One thinks of Ali and Frazier, Bird and Johnson, Nicklaus and Watson. These are storied rivalries. In tennis we've had Navratilova and Evert, Sampras and Agassi... for Federer, that rival is Rafael Nadal. Between the two gentlemen, they have held the top two rankings in the world for close to 4 years, roughly 2005 through 2009. And in such great rivalries it is usually the case the two have close head to head records: Navratilova led Evert 43-37 for example.

Nadal 21 Wins, Federer 10 Wins

This is remarkable. Nadal really has Federer's number. And before you say anything: on each surface. Nadal has won 13 of the 15 matches they've played on clay, 7 of the 13 matches on hard courts and one of their three encounters on grass - that one win in the perhaps the greatest final at Wimbledon... ever.

One can argue with me that you can be the greatest player of all time based on number of Grand Prix wins, based on a sport's domination for 9 years, based on his or her game. I take all those into consideration and they are important. But I would also argue that if one were to be the greatest player in the world that we've ever seen, one needs to have a closer record against a rival. To have lost more than half the encounters begs the question: How can Federer be the greatest player of all time if he can't even beat the rival of his own era?

With Roger's career coming to a close I am sure in the not-too-distant future, I think this question is at the heart of the debate and a great debate it is. Keep thinking about it and perhaps it might help you to come up with your own list of the greatest of all time. I'll let you know who my number one and two are soon - and maybe there's a new one coming down the pike. Let's hope so. We're gonna miss The Fed more than we know once he hangs up his racquet.

C'est Si Bon - The French Open in Springtime

Les Courts Rouge. La Rive Gauche. Porte d'Auteuil. Roland Garros. C'est Paris en les printemps.

I have been to the French Open on two occasions. One was way back in my post student years when I was working with the ATP Tour. The more recent opportunity to visit was a few years ago. One of my best friends, who is French, was having a tough time and his father, who had never called me and doesn't speak any English, called me to see if I could go and visit and spend some time with him - we met in Paris and hung out and the French Open seemed like a great day out. It was. C'est si bon...

Yves Montand - C'est Si Bon

Paris in the Spring, as Cole Porter wrote, is truly special. There are other cities I guess that have some great qualities in the Spring - Washington DC's cherry blossoms are amazing - but Paris has that "je ne sais quoi" and The French Open at Roland Garros is a part of the Spring Saison. In 1865, Jules Jaluzot founded the famous department store Printemps - which surely meant that Springtime in Paris is surely special.

Have you noticed that the French really love wearing ties and scarves? The crowds at Roland Garros, named after the aviator above who was the first man to fly across the Mediterranean, are by far the best dressed in the sporting world.

Named after one of the aviators at an exclusive Parisian Club, Roland Garros is perhaps the most intimate of all the tennis majors. The show courts are comfortable, unlike Wimbledon. They are cozy, unlike the US Open and Australia. The site was given to the French Tennis Federation back in 1928 by Stade Francais to host the 4 Musketeers who had just beaten the Americans on US soil in 1928

Jacques "Toto" Brugnon, Jean Borotra, Henri Cochet and René Lacoste in fact took French tennis global, winning five Davis Cups and winning the long awaited rematch at the new French tennis home in 1928 at Roland Garros. These Frenchmen went on to win an unprecedented five Davis Cups in a row.

The Four Musketeers who won The Davis Cup in 1928 at the new Roland Garros. Rene Lacoste already has the alligator. All they're missing are the ties!

The surface has never changed, and the maxim that the red clay is a leveler is surely appropriate. What's most interesting in looking at the list of Champions and even runner-ups is who is not there. Pete Sampras never won here, which in my book denies him from being the best player ever. The fact that Roger Federer has won this Championship only once speaks volumes. One of the best finesse players ever to take the court, Roger finally won here in 2009. Guess who only won once as well? Rod Laver who many say is the greatest player of all time won it just once - the year he won all the majors fortunately for him. And Ilie Nastase, who arguably was the greatest finesse player, won it just once.

On the women's side, people rarely note that among all her majors, Martina Navratilova just won it twice whereas the clay favored diminutive Justine Henin who took home the trophy on four separate occasions.

The list of Champions is surely a quirky statistic that we can reflect on every year as the red clay in Paris covers socks, ankles, racquets and balls. But there is an art to tennis when the tour makes its ultimate annual stop in what was once fields just to the South of the beautiful Bois du Boulogne. Even the cameramen for France 2 find artistic angles and views which I believe bring the viewer in closer to the action and help the television viewing world to feel just that little bit Francais.

Thus far this year's French Internationale, as it was called when they opened the tournament to non French Club players back in the early 20th Century, has not waivered too much away from the seeds. Upsets are coming I am sure and the quirky list that mark the Championship's winners I am sure will have another surprise in store for us this year.

The Drop, Technology, Media and The Penalty of Being the Best and Worst in Sport

Technology, Media And A Penalty Drop

After his round Friday, Tiger Woods was just behind the leaders and thinking how he could overtake the leaderboard on the third day at Augusta. He received an early morning text message to meet with the Rules Committee and was told that he was receiving a two-stroke penalty for an improper drop.

The rule, in and of itself, is vague. The rule stipulates that after entering a hazard an option is to: "Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played." But, this is golf. Rulings are always complicated. But now, they take on even more complexity when the media, television and Twitter are involved.

A television viewer initially made contact with a Rules Official at Augusta noting that the drop on the 15th hole was in violation of the rule. The Rules Committee investigated and decided that no rule had been violated. Then, Tiger, as he does so often, said too much. In his television interview he said that he had dropped "two yards" behind his original divot and hit the same exact shot. The Rules Committee then decided that there was intent to achieve a better position and thus assessed the two-stroke penalty. All because of a television viewer and a television interview. My question, initially, was where was the Rules Official walking along with Tiger's threesome? Obviously not on the ball if he or she didn't notice a "2-yard" difference. In fact, it looked more like two feet in reality. But, then again, a good on-course official may have been able to avoid this whole issue. As a former official, I look at the official on the spot.

A friend of mine asked yesterday if Major League Baseball could have changed the first base call that cost a perfect game. First base umpire Jim Joyce cost Tigers' pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game back in June 2010 when, on replays, he clearly missed a call at first base on the last out. We all saw it. Major League Baseball and Jim Joyce had to stomach the mistake and move on. Viewers called. But there was no change in the call.

On Friday, viewers called, the Committee made an initial decision, viewers called, Tiger spoke, The Committee changed its ruling - it's hard being the best in the world. Everyone sees you and actually listens to you.

Did we see every swing of the club of Adam Scott on Friday? No. How about Angel Cabrera or Brandt Snedeker? No. But we saw almost every stroke that Tiger took, including the drop. If we hadn't, Tiger would be just two strokes off the pace. Being the best in the world has its drawbacks.

Technology, Tennis And The Penalty Of Being A Lower Ranked Player

While on tour with the ATP Tour as a chair umpire, a similar outcry came from the players who were not on the same level as the tennis Gods of the time: Jim Courier, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras and Steffi Graf. The lesser players felt they were being penalized by Cyclops, and then Hawkeye. Now known widely as Chase Review, the system that can verify a ball being in or out at professional tournaments, the ball tracking system is not on every court at every tournament in the world. It usually is found on stadium court and perhaps another "show" court, as they term it in the industry. I find the term "show court" an interesting one as it denotes a difference from other courts.

Show Courts and Lesser Courts - all are used at tournaments but all do not have the same number of officials or Chase Review.

I always felt that lower-ranked players were penalized long before the Hawkeye system. On the tour, televised courts receive a bigger plethora of line umpires. If you look at a televised court, there are almost always three officials along the back screen on each side. One umpire calling the center service line and an umpire on each sideline. The non-show courts have just two officials at the back of each court and one official is required to run from the center of the court after calling the serve to the sideline. I know while I played, I found this quite distracting. As an official, I found it darned right difficult to cover that sideline after a 126 mile-per-hour serve.  But television, in its way, demands a bigger and better team of officials for the "show" courts. It demands Chase Review. And that actually makes for better line calls.

Walk, Talk and Walk

Sports personalities, as they gain insight into this media age, will do the walk on course or court, talk the interview and keep it short, and then walk away from the microphones. Twitter has, on so many occasions, created celebrity sports figures wide-ranging issues. As we pass through the Social Media century, I believe we will find that more and more celebrities and sports personalities will clam up. Tiger's post-round interview on Saturday was a lot shorter and a lot sweeter than normal. He probably doesn't want to get another two-stroke penalty, unwittingly.

As for us in the industry, we should perhaps revisit the rules of our individual sports and realize that perhaps instant replay is not always the way forward. Perhaps Major League Baseball has it right not allowing instant replay or review. The call on the field stays in almost every situation. The rules are part of the game on the course, court, field - wherever the game is played. The rules should stay on the course. They should not be subjected to the Twitter and Social Media fad, which will come and go. Golf, and its archaic rules, will be here a lot longer than Twitter, and even Tiger.

Davis Cup: Why America Struggles

Spain Runs Away With Singles Matches

The first two singles matches in this Davis Cup semi-final saw the U.S. drop both of its matches to go down 2-0 in the best of five match. John Isner and Sam Querry both lost here in Gijon, Spain to give the Spaniards the decided advantage. David Ferrer, still tired from a semi-final match in New York on Sunday at The US Open, outlasted Querry in 4 sets and 3 hours. It took 5 sets and and over 4 hours for Spain's Nicolas Almagro to gain the 2-0 match advantage.

Granted that the Americans are missing Mardy Fish who pulled out of the US Open with heart issues and the USA is playing in Spain, but to go down 2-0 so quickly is again another tough day in the history of the Cup for the Americans. In the past 25 years the USA has won the Cup just 5 times. In the last 15 years, the USA has won it just once. Spain has won it 5 times in the past 25 years. Serbia, a country with a population of just 7 million, has won it twice in the last 5 years! And here are the Americans struggling yet again.

This morning the Bryan brothers, who are 20-2 in Davis Cup play, will try to keep the American hopes alive in this semi-final and I am left pondering why as a country the United States has such difficulty in winning this competition. I believe there are several reasons, but two come to mind at the top.

#1 The Play In Spain Stays Mainly On The Clay

The Spaniards excel on red clay, which is the surface of choice for the nation with a population around 50 million. Rafa Nadal has dominated on the red clay of Roland Garros and Rome. The Spanish are dominating here in Parque Hermanos Castro in Gijon on the Northern coast of Spain overlooking the gorgeous Bay of Biscay. It has been a reign close to that of Sweden's when Sweden won 6 Cups in fourteen years. In fact, Sweden is the team with the most Davis Cup match wins since the Cup expanded to The World Group in 1981. The years of Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg and Mikael Pernfors were a vintage era for Sweden. Borg had put Sweden on the Davis Cup map with an astounding 33 win match streak in Davis Cup play, a record that might never be broken.

Could it be that those countries with juniors that grow up playing the majority of their tennis on red clay have an advantage? It seems so in the past 25 or so years, especially in regard to the Davis Cup. Even those years where the Americans had Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, the Americans have had a relatively poor showing at the Davis Cup.

In the USA, hard courts are the mainstay of the junior tournaments. Ame rising hopes are hitting balls on the cement or the decoturf in hopes of winning their home title: The US Open. Just as I would argue that the British juniors play much more frequently on grass with aspirations looking at Wimbledon, the Spaniards, and even the Swedes, look at the French Open and red clay is the surface of choice.

Does red clay allow for more stroke production than the hard courts of America or even the green, green grass of Britain? One would have to argue of course it does. As the slowest of the surfaces, juniors are allowed the time to learn proper swing technique with proper form, backswing, and follow through. Just looking at the history of the Davis Cup and the wins, those countries playing on red clay as juniors completely dominate the event. Let's look at it this way: the red clay courts at The French Open's Roland Garros require the ultimate in stroke production from the baseline and a repertoire of shot-making. The last American to win in France? Andre Agassi in 1999. Since the French Open "opened" its doors in 1968, only 3 Americans have won the French title. Michael Chang in 1988, Jim Courier in 1991 and 1992 and Agassi in 1999.

Perhaps with Andy Murray's win on a hard court, the British will realize that looking at the grass is just a small part of preparing a junior for the tour, the Grand Slam, and the Davis Cup. Americans should take note as well and look past just training and playing on hard courts.

In looking at the first two matches of this semi-final in Spain, Isner's 95 unforced errors really was too big a mountain to climb, even with his 24 aces in the match. His opponent, 12th ranked Nicolas Almagro, had just 52 unforced errors in the 5 set marathon. Unforced errors really point at the confidence of a player and his stroke production. Clearly Almagro had the hefty edge in this statistic. Stroke production rears its ugly head yet again. A big serve can get one out of trouble, but it can't win big matches all the time. One needs all the shots on the red clay - the slice, the volley, the swing volley. Sadly, Americans growing up on the hard courts, don't have the opportunity to work on their repertoire as much as nations with juniors growing up on red clay. The pace of the court is just too fast.

Reason number two that America struggles in the Davis Cup will appear in tomorrow's blog, but let's hope that, at least for today, the Bryan brothers keep the American hopes alive and their win avoids a white-washing at the Davis Cup, a world-wide tennis event that Americans should hold dear in their heart. Perhaps the next 20 years will mute my point and see the USA take home Cup after Cup... not likely but we can always hope.