PDA

View Full Version : Federer - The greatest to ever play?



Kirkus
09-12-2004, 08:48 AM
I've said it in the past, here and on other forums. But it's worth repeating.

There will come a day when the question of "who is the best man to ever play tennis?" will bring the reply, "Roger Federer". The man is supernatural on court. Congratulations, Roger!

(ps-I still say he has no reflection)

gernaserna
09-12-2004, 10:21 AM
OK people:

I always knew that Federer could be good...no, really good. He has the game for sure. He was always just a little shy on the mental toughness, but it seems he has overcome that flaw. His game is like poetry in motion. The only other recent player that seemed to have all the shots in his arsenal was Marcelo Rios, but alas he also was defunct in the mental toughness category. He couldn'r get past that and were is he now. Retired: He says is body gave out but i'm not so sure of that. I personally was an Ivan Lendl freak,but now I have a male tennis player to take his place in my zeal of tennis heart. Rock on Roger!!!

Gerna

Moose
09-12-2004, 10:27 AM
it's funny. I always respected Sampras, but never loved him. Too little emotion on the court.
I feel the same way about FedEx.
Lotta respect for his game, his shotmaking is beautiful, he looks great on the court. I like his style more than Sampras.
But I still want him to lose to almost everyone in the top 10 whenever he plays.
Great season Roger...3 Slams is a tremendous accomplishment, especially when the ATP is loaded with talent right now. But he doesn't do anything that endears him to me.

Sebastien447
09-12-2004, 12:14 PM
this the most ridiculous thread I've read in quite some time ... Fed the greatest ever, after one year at the top

nobody has mentioned Rod Laver ... he's not even part of the poll!

and somebody actually made reference to RIOS? LMFAO

good stuff folks ::)

3mlm
09-12-2004, 12:34 PM
this the most ridiculous thread I've read in quite some time ... Fed the greatest ever, after one year at the top

nobody has mentioned Rod Laver ... he's not even part of the poll!

and somebody actually made reference to RIOS? LMFAO

good stuff folks ::)

Can't disagree Seb. Best this year, though, is clearly Federer.

Kirkus
09-12-2004, 12:53 PM
this the most ridiculous thread I've read in quite some time ... Fed the greatest ever, after one year at the top

nobody has mentioned Rod Laver ... he's not even part of the poll!

and somebody actually made reference to RIOS? LMFAO

good stuff folks ::)

Really? The most ridiculous in quite some time? I assume you haven't been to TOB lately.???

My original post said:
There will come a day when...
I didn't come close to suggesting he was the greatest player now.

gernaserna said:
The only other recent player that seemed to have all the shots in his arsenal was Marcelo Rios
Again, no reference of Rios being the greatest ever.

I added Laver to the poll.

Did you not read the entire posts or are you cranky because you're old now? ???

Kirkus
09-12-2004, 12:59 PM
Kirkus, correct me if I'm wrong, you aren't a tennis player correct? Since you started the poll, I imagine your not including Laver in your poll is either an oversight or you might not have a complete historical context that Seb appears to want.

I don't play. I go our local courts and flail about now and then, but I wouldn't call it playing. ;D

I did start the thread but someone else added the poll. At the time I had polls set up to only allow 8 choices. So it's my fault for not allowing enough options. I've changed the polls to allow up to 12 and I've added Laver to the poll.

gernaserna
09-12-2004, 10:23 PM
wow, sorry everyone: I see a started a hot bed of discussion on who we feel is the best male tennis player. That is the thing about polls and voting. I would not like to see how a political poll would escalate. But I did my job. Enjoy!!!

Sebastien447
09-12-2004, 11:57 PM
My response was harsh. I would like to apologize to anyone whom I may have offended or even just irritated.

I was out of line, my only explanation ... I just turned 40! :o

Sebastien447
09-13-2004, 07:25 AM
i feel ya, brotha.

i, myself, am turning the big 21 in just two more months.

that means my young'n ass is finally evolving to the legal drinking age. we're such old farts ;D

LOL ... that's good stuff! :D

Sebastien447
09-13-2004, 08:02 AM
I actually think this is a fun debate, despite all thread evidence to the contrary ... and I've seen the argument get quite hot on other boards as well

so, just for the record, I have Rocket Rod as all-time #1 and I do happen to feel that Fed has that same special something that Rod had, and that Pete had ... but so many things can happen to a guy during the course of a career.

right now it seems as though there's no stopping the guy ... I'll give you that Fed fans ... but will he have the luck, sustained desire and motivation? That's why we watch em play eh sports fans?

Sebastien447
09-13-2004, 08:24 AM
I wondering here why no one has talked about borg. Somebody voted for him but nobody has said anything about him. I think he is awesome one of my absolute favorites. Vilas wasnt on that list either.

Vilas is my all-time favorite player, but I don't think he's even top 10. Though he did have one of the best years ever in 77.

Borg is definitely top 10 IMHO

Sebastien447
09-13-2004, 08:30 AM
Some say his winning is boring....


Those are the aforementioned "casual fans" who don't understand the sport because there's absolutely nothing "boring" about Fed's tennis when he's on ... if anything, it actually gets humorous at times. Sometimes I just find myself laughing out loud at the shots he comes up with. He makes it look so easy ... it must be frustrating as hell to play the guy.

Sebastien447
09-13-2004, 08:57 AM
Fed's volley let him down against Agassi, but I wouldn't call his volley weak

The only times that I've ever seen the guy vulnerable in the past year and a half have been periods where he seems to space out a bit ... seems to lose focus and his UFEs increase. But that's just part of the normal ebb and flow of match play.

He reminds me of Sampras in the 90s ... sure he lost, but it wasn't because of the other guy as much as it was due to Pete. Fed is unbeatable now in the same way Pete was then.

Kirkus
09-13-2004, 09:21 AM
I find it funny (not funny haha, funny odd -- then why didn't I just say "I find it odd" hmmmmm ??? Anyway, I digress) that when a discussion about Federer is going on, he's usually compared to Roddick. Which is kinda silly since their games are polar opposites. I guess it's because they're #s 1 and 2.

I find that watching an all-court player like Federer is just as enjoyable to me as watching a "ball-basher" (I use that term not for myself, but rather the Roddick-haters). I think the reason for that is because I'm more involved in the Player than the Play; the fight and fighter rather than the weapons they use.

A perfect example was the Women's Final on Saturday. I didn't really care about it. Both players are excellent in the sport and for some, dare I say most, watching the match was enjoyable. But I didn't really care about either player, or who won the match. If I can't root for someone or against someone, I don't find it nearly as exciting.

As for Roger ever being considered the best player ever -- if he stays healthy and doesn't come down with "safinbrain", I think he'll break every record out there... literally every record. As someone alluded to earlier, I think we're watching tennis history.

Betsmoyo
09-13-2004, 09:53 AM
I think that roger very well could he is my favorite still playing but i cant pick in my mind who the best is. Roger i think will break that 14 slam one quicker than Pete set it. The serve one may take a while because Roddick will probably break it soon. Which isnt bad. Johansson could break that one too but probly Roddick. Roger is amazing to watch. I just cant say he is the best its too hard for me to choose between him borg lendll sampras....you get the drift.

Betsmoyo
09-13-2004, 09:57 AM
I find it funny (not funny haha, funny odd -- then why didn't I just say "I find it odd" hmmmmm ??? Anyway, I digress) that when a discussion about Federer is going on, he's usually compared to Roddick. Which is kinda silly since their games are polar opposites. I guess it's because they're #s 1 and 2.

BTW i think its because people are waiting for this rivalry to really come out and get interesting. no offense, Roddicks not doing to great with it and it would be great to have a rivalry like pete and andre or even better borg and mcenroe.

Kirkus
09-13-2004, 10:08 AM
BTW i think its because people are waiting for this rivalry to really come out and get interesting. no offense, Roddicks not doing to great with it and it would be great to have a rivalry like pete and andre or even better borg and mcenroe.


I agree, Bets. It would be good for a rivalry to develop. However, if Roddick doesn't get his head out of his ass and into the game, "The Rivalry" won't include him.

Betsmoyo
09-13-2004, 10:17 AM
Roddick said it best, it wont be a rivalry until he starts winning some. In time i think he will start to beat Roger, not all the time but he will win 1 or 2 against Federer within the next few years.

Kirkus
09-13-2004, 11:01 AM
PJ, I wasn't singling you out. The comparison of the 2 players happens quite often (i.e., Feds game is beautiful and Rod just smashes his serve, if Andy was as good at the net as Roger, etc.)

Again, I enjoy the hard-hitting, record-breaking power of Andy, but also the "how in the hell did he do that so effortlessly" fluid game of Roger's. You mentioned the "caring about a player" aspect. I've realized during this thread that's exactly what it is for me. I have to care about a player. Whether I'm cheering for Andy no matter who he's playing, or I'm cheering against Andre no matter who he's playing, I have to feel that I have a stake in it. I have to cheer for someone. I don't just watch the sport for the "beauty" of it.

I also don't think smashing the serve for the oohs and ahs is a bad thing. If some people want to see a record breaking serve totally unreturnable by an opponent, I say cool. If that's what turns you on watching the sport than more power to you.

Sebastien447
09-13-2004, 11:12 AM
Roger's behind ... Pete had 5 "slam" wins by the same age.

Betsmoyo
09-13-2004, 11:15 AM
Maybe so but i think Roger has a much better shot at the grand slam next year thus giving him an edge on pete i think. Roger took longer to get his first slam but he will accumulate them faster. At the moment he doesnt have as much competition.

Sebastien447
09-13-2004, 11:55 AM
If Fed ever wins the grand slam I will eat my shorts :-*

Sebastien447
09-13-2004, 12:07 PM
no condiments, no ketchup, no mustard ... nothing ...

just straight shorts

Kirkus
09-13-2004, 12:11 PM
Roger's behind ... Pete had 5 "slam" wins by the same age.

And Andy has all of next year to win 2 more slams to catch up with him. Roger's been a pro 1 year longer than Roddick... sounds like a head start to me. ;D

BTW, are these going to be brand-new shorts or used? It's a valid question.

Sebastien447
09-13-2004, 12:17 PM
And Andy has all of next year to win 2 more slams to catch up with him. Roger's been a pro 1 year longer than Roddick... sounds like a head start to me. ;D

BTW, are these going to be brand-new shorts or used? It's a valid question.

whatchu talkin bout kirkus???

and, of course ... they will be used shorts, but I'll never have to eat em!

Kirkus
09-13-2004, 12:30 PM
Seb: Federer turned pro in 1998. Andy in 2000. That means Roger has been a pro at least a year longer. It took Roger 6 years to win 3 Slams. That means Andy has at least another year to win 2 more Slams, thereby keeping up with him. Sometimes we hang on to any possibility for our players. ;D

Kirkus
09-13-2004, 01:33 PM
And I quote from remarks John McEnroe said on his show tonight when introducing Roger Federer to his audience: "The greatest to ever play the game."



:D LMAO

Well there ya go. If Mac said it, it must be true! :D

Sebastien447
09-14-2004, 07:47 AM
Seb: Federer turned pro in 1998. Andy in 2000. That means Roger has been a pro at least a year longer. It took Roger 6 years to win 3 Slams. That means Andy has at least another year to win 2 more Slams, thereby keeping up with him. Sometimes we hang on to any possibility for our players. ;D

that's why I was confused by your other post ... Fed has won 4 majors, the three this year and Wimby in 03. Rod has more catchin up to do than you think!

Sebastien447
09-14-2004, 08:10 AM
One thing that has not been mentioned yet as far as Fed equalling, or surpassing Pete ...

sure the 14 majors is big ...

but I think Pete's run of 6 straight years as world #1 is equally impressive.

For me, if Fed cannot equal both of those records, he simply cannot be considered Pete's equal, much less his superior

Sebastien447
09-14-2004, 09:46 AM
To me it seems odd to think that a player's greatness depends only on how many majors he/she wins. And it also seems to be implied here that whomever has won the most is necessarily the greatest player.

If some guy wins 15 majors would that make Pete any less great? I don't think so. What I am saying is it doesn't matter to me if Roger surpasses Pete or not. If Roger hangs in there playing like this for several more years, he will be as great as Pete even if he doesn't reach 14 majors.



There needs to be some criteria by which to judge greatness. And since winning a major and finishing the year world #1 are such rare accomplishments for a tennis player, it makes sense to use them as a basis for comparing great players.

If Fed doesn't win 14 majors by the end of his career ... you may believe him as great as Pete, but I doubt many people would agree with you.

Sebastien447
09-14-2004, 10:20 AM
That aside, I feel it's OK for me personally to call Federer the greatest because I have a crush on him, so it's allowed.

LOL ... there is no doubt that Fed has the POTENTIAL to earn the greatest of all time title. Personally, I think if he plays long enough ... he'll break Pete's 14 ...

UNLESS ... a young Pete or Fed type appears on the scene ... or how bout a young Rocket Rod Laver! Wouldn't THAT be fun! As for Roddick ... I think he has a ton of talent, just not in that "elite" league.

Sebastien447
09-14-2004, 10:23 AM
I agree. I think Henman is ranks up there with some great players even though he never won a slam. Maybe not up there with Pete and Roger and Borg and all of them but i think he certainly measures up with Googa and Ivanisavic and all of the guys like them maybe even a little higher.

I love Henman and I'm going miss his serve and volley

But he had a game that fit grass to a T, and could never win Wimby even once. I call that disappointing, not great.

Sebastien447
09-14-2004, 10:49 AM
I still don't think that Pete faced a greater field than today. With the prize money today, aren't there more kids from many countries trying to suceed in tennis than ever before?


Men's tennis just keeps getting deeper every year, but the quality of the top 10 has remained fairly well unchanged through the years. I think the top 10 from 1975 could compete toe to toe with the top ten today.

I'd give the nod for degree of field difficulty to Pete (so far) because he had one of the all-time greats to deal with for most of those years ... Andre. Remember, if it weren't for Pete ... Andre would be the one with 14 majors ... maybe more.

Sebastien447
09-14-2004, 10:53 AM
Come on he was a great player. He had to deal with Pete for some time and Andre and now th new guys his game is great but i think that he wasnt as good as some of those guys. It is dissappointing but he still had a great career. You dont have to win a slam to have a great career, Amy Frazier and Chanda Rubin both had and still have great careers. Zina Garrison, Philippoussis, Malvai Washington.

I think we're just talking about different degrees of "great." I certainly believe Henman to be a great great tennis player.

In fact, I see #100 as a Tennis God. Richard Gasquet is an unbelievable tennis player and he's not even in the top 100. So, yeah, Henman is great! :D

Kirkus
09-14-2004, 11:06 AM
I think I'm great. ;D

Sebastien447
09-14-2004, 11:30 AM
here's some numbers for ya! this site is amazing ... http://stevegtennis.com/

1990:

1 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
2 Becker, Boris (GER)
3 Lendl, Ivan (TCH)
4 Agassi, Andre (USA)
5 Sampras, Pete (USA)
6 Gomez, Andres (ECU)
7 Muster, Thomas (AUT)
8 Sanchez, Emilio (ESP)
9 Ivanisevic, Goran (YUG)
10 Gilbert, Brad (USA)

1991:

1 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
2 Courier, Jim (USA)
3 Becker, Boris (GER)
4 Stich, Michael (GER)
5 Lendl, Ivan (TCH)
6 Sampras, Pete (USA)
7 Forget, Guy (FRA)
8 Novacek, Karel (TCH)
9 Korda, Petr (TCH)
10 Agassi, Andre (USA)

1992:

1 Courier, Jim (USA)
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
3 Sampras, Pete (USA)
4 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
5 Becker, Boris (GER)
6 Chang, Michael (USA)
7 Korda, Petr (TCH)
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA)
9 Agassi, Andre (USA)
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED)

1993:

1 Sampras, Pete (USA)
2 Stich, Michael (GER)
3 Courier, Jim (USA)
4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP)
5 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
6 Medvedev, Medvedev (UKR)
7 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
8 Chang, Michael (USA)
9 Muster, Thomas (AUT)
10 Pioline, Cédric (FRA)

1994:

1 Sampras, Pete (USA)
2 Agassi, Andre (USA)
3 Becker, Boris (GER)
4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP)
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
6 Chang, Michael (USA)
7 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
8 Berasategui, Alberto (ESP)
9 Stich, Michael (GER)
10 Martin, Todd (USA)

1995:

1 SAMPRAS, PETE USA 4842
2 AGASSI, ANDRE USA 4765
3 MUSTER, THOMAS AUT 4474
4 BECKER, BORIS GER 3325
5 CHANG, MICHAEL USA 3211
6 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY RUS 2560
7 ENQVIST, THOMAS SWE 2505
8 COURIER, JIM USA 2471
9 FERREIRA, WAYNE RSA 2144
10 IVANISEVIC, GORAN CRO 1861

1996:

1 SAMPRAS, PETE USA 4865
2 CHANG, MICHAEL USA 3597
3 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY RUS 3564
4 IVANISEVIC, GORAN CRO 3492
5 MUSTER, THOMAS AUT 3166
6 BECKER, BORIS GER 2983
7 KRAJICEK, RICHARD NED 2380
8 AGASSI, ANDRE USA 2364
9 ENQVIST, THOMAS SWE 2191
10 FERREIRA, WAYNE RSA 2149

1997:

1 SAMPRAS, PETE 0 4547 4865 -318
2 RAFTER, PATRICK 60 3210 741 2469
3 CHANG, MICHAEL -1 3189 3597 -408
4 BJORKMAN, JONAS 65 2949 710 2239
5 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY -2 2690 3564 -874
6 RUSEDSKI, GREG 42 2617 871 1746
7 MOYA, CARLOS 21 2508 1283 1225
8 BRUGUERA, SERGI 73 2367 590 1777
9 MUSTER, THOMAS -4 2353 3166 -813
10 RIOS, MARCELO 1 2317 2114 203

1998:

1 Sampras, Pete USA 0 3915 4547 -632 3131 784 22
2 Rios, Marcelo CHI 8 3670 2317 1353 2920 750 23
3 Corretja, Alex ESP 9 3398 2275 1123 2759 639 24
4 Rafter, Patrick AUS -2 3315 3210 105 2464 851 26
5 Moya, Carlos ESP 2 3159 2508 651 2432 727 24
6 Agassi, Andre USA 116 2879 375 2504 2135 744 20
7 Henman, Tim GBR 10 2620 1929 691 1804 816 29
8 Kucera, Karol SLV 16 2579 1423 1156 1820 759 25
9 Rusedski, Greg GBR -3 2573 2617 -44 1849 724 25
10 Krajicek, Richard NED 1 2548 2299 249 1815 733 18

1999:

1 Agassi, Andre USA 5 5048 2879 2169 4059 989 17
2 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny RUS 9 3465 2515 950 2733 732 30
3 Sampras, Pete USA -2 3024 3915 -891 2427 597 13
4 Enqvist, Thomas SWE 18 2606 1500 1106 1850 756 26
5 Kuerten, Gustavo BRA 18 2601 1472 1129 1875 726 24
6 Kiefer, Nicolas GER 29 2447 1007 1440 1757 690 23
7 Martin, Todd USA 9 2408 1774 634 1864 544 17
8 Lapentti, Nicolas ECU 82 2284 545 1739 1654 630 23
9 Rios, Marcelo CHI -7 2245 3670 -1425 1769 476 19
10 Krajicek, Richard NED 0 2095 2548 -453 1581 514 21

Betsmoyo
09-14-2004, 11:59 AM
Cool Site Sebs!

Kirkus
09-14-2004, 12:03 PM
1993:

1 Sampras, Pete (USA)
2 Stich, Michael (GER)
3 Courier, Jim (USA)
4 Bruguera, Sergi (ESP)
5 Edberg, Stefan (SWE)
6 Medvedev, Medvedev (UKR)
7 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO)
8 Chang, Michael (USA)
9 Muster, Thomas (AUT)
10 Pioline, Cédric (FRA)

Who's #6, "Medvedev, Medvedev"? ;)

Kirkus
09-14-2004, 12:04 PM
And I quote from remarks John McEnroe said on his show tonight when introducing Roger Federer to his audience: "The greatest to ever play the game."



Actually what he said was, "the greatest player I've ever seen play tennis."

Sebastien447
09-15-2004, 08:06 AM
I am not sure how much pressure Becker and Edberg put on Sampras



probably a lot more than Hewitt or Roddick are putting on Fed

and I mentioned earlier that the quality of the top 10 has remained unchanged for decades ... men's tennis is a lot deeper today, but the top guys aren't any better

Kirkus
09-15-2004, 09:15 AM
probably a lot more than Hewitt or Roddick are putting on Fed

and I mentioned earlier that the quality of the top 10 has remained unchanged for decades ... men's tennis is a lot deeper today, but the top guys aren't any better

Really? You think Sampras at the top his game could beat Federer at the top of his?

I think I might disagree. I think players raise the bar as time goes on. I think that explains the greater number of injuries now than, say 10 or 15 years ago.

Sebastien447
09-15-2004, 09:16 AM
So is it a question of how good Federer is feeling or the match conditions that make the difference?



Back in the mid 90s people were talking about Pete in the exact same way as they talk about Fed today. Pete was referred to as "unbeatable" but he still lost matches. No matter how good you are, you can still have an off day, your opponent can play a perfect match ... you're still a human being.

Pete never had a year as good as this one for Fed though ... he came close in 96, but ran out of gas against Kafelnikov at RG. That's one knock on Pete ... his fitness was not always what it could have been. If he had been more fit at RG in 96 he'd have won the French.

Sebastien447
09-16-2004, 05:54 AM
Really? You think Sampras at the top his game could beat Federer at the top of his?

I think I might disagree. I think players raise the bar as time goes on. I think that explains the greater number of injuries now than, say 10 or 15 years ago.

Players are hitting the ball harder today than they did 15, 20 years ago and the game is faster ... I'll give you that. But much of that has to do with the rackets. I don't think the skill level is any higher. Give a 20 year old Borg one of today's shoulder cannons and there is no way he would not be battling Fed for the top spot.

But ... back to the Fed/Sampras debate. I'll always believe that Sampras or Laver would win more times than not against Fed because they had a suprerior style of play. Serve/volley/chip/charge players have the best chance to win because of superior court position. As great as Agassi was, he rarely beat Sampras because he was typically in a defensive position. But S/V/C/C is also much higher risk, which explains the paucity of players willing to adopt this style of play ... yet when you combine a great serve with solid volleys and quickness at net ... it can be "unbeatable."

In fact, I'd give the nod to Rafter vs. Fed too. God I miss that guy's game ... and my wife misses his bod!

And if anyone's wondering about Henman ... his serve, especially second serve, just wasn't quite good enough. Though he has accomplished a great deal, just not the level of a Sampras or Rafter. And just think how little Timmy would have fared had he not played such an agressive style of play. Little Timmy stays back and he's not even top 100.

Sebastien447
09-16-2004, 06:15 AM
Thats a really good point about the s/v/c/c not many players do that and that would give an egdge to Pete. Fed does come to the net when he feels he has a good enough lead to the risk. He has a great net game but he doesnt go there much but i think what makes his net game great is his disposition if hes behind (i highly doubt he is that much) he tends not to play so great at the net, when hes up and knows he will win and has confidence he will pull out all sorts of shots. He has these volleys on his backhand side the ones where he jumps and turns around to get the ball (sorry not a good description) its amazing its like hes pulling this stuff out of nowhere.


yeah, Fed does everything so incredibly well that he would certainly give Pete a run for his money ... but I just gotta go with Pete because of the superior position ... and the fact that he also did everything incredibly well

Sebastien447
09-16-2004, 08:42 AM
Some feedback for wroad and PJVA ...


"Sampras had the best serve in mens' tennis and he built his game around it" Yes wroad, he served and volleyed

"Without that serve, how many slam titles do you think he would have won?"
None, serve and volley without a great serve is a suicide mission

"I would like to see Roger break Pete's records"
So would I. That would mean a long career for Fed, and he is a joy to watch play.

"(Fed) is an awfully good returner and he knows how to keep S/V guys nailed to the baseline."
Which "S/V guys" does he keep on the baseline? There aren't many around. If you're truly a S/V guy, you are at net ... win or lose, you're crashing the net. Agassi has the best return in the game and I don't remember Pete hanging out at the baseline because of it.

"I think the serving has now speeded up so a serve like Roger's in the 120's is not considered so big.....but in the 1990's wouldn't it have been considered big similar to Pete's?"
Pete's first was in the 130s but it was his second serve that made him great. He was typically in the 120s with the second. If he missed his first serve, he was still coming in behind a rocket with one hell of a kick.

"(Fed) appears to have an answer for everything"
So did Pete for about 6 years. Let's just see how long Fed lasts. He's going to need to sacrifice a lot to get close to the 14, or the 6.

Sebastien447
09-16-2004, 09:32 AM
Seb,

Right now I can only think of Henman and Fish as S/V guys that Fed would keep nailed to the baseline. I know they don't compare to Sampras.

I would love to see the 2001 match where Federer beat Sampras to see just how that went. I saw it when it was on TV, but I couldn't tape it.

Any way....what I was getting at is that is impressive how this last year Federer seems to have gotten better each time he faces a particular opponent and that he will use different tactics which each. He doesn't just play his game and try to scrap out a win.....like some guys.




Fish is only a S/V part-timer. If it isn't working, he stops.

And you actually saw Henman stay back? Man, I've seen the guy play at least a couple dozen times and even on red clay the guy is coming in. That's his game. I guess if you saw it you saw it ... I've just never seen it.

I fully agree with you about Fed ... just an amazing talent and an amazing thinker out there. Great for tennis. The other guys are going to have to get better or Fed will continue to rule unchallenged.

Sebastien447
09-16-2004, 09:50 AM
if Henman were to stay back it could only be due to him being absolutely baffled by some kind of Godlike tennis magician ... but even so, Henman staying back is tantamount to him tanking the match.

Sebastien447
09-16-2004, 09:59 AM
Ive seen Tim stay back, he doesnt charge the net every point, he does 80-85% of the time. He was asked about that in an interview and said he thinks he only goes to the net about 40-45% of the time.

look bets, we're talking about serving and volleying, not just going to the net.

and 85% sounds about right to me for the S/V ... his second serve isn't good enough to come in off every time. But I promise you, if his first serve is in ... you won't be able to find him on the baseline. I suppose if he's having some kind of horrible day serving, you might find him staying back more. But that's not because of anything his opponent is doing.

Sebastien447
09-16-2004, 11:11 PM
i know what you mean by serve and volleying and not staying at the net, thats what i meant. 85 is a lot but what about 10-15% of the time that he doesnt serve and volley meaning he does stay back.

I just don't think his second serve is good enough to come to net every time ... kind of a suicide mission against a guy with a good return. I think if his second was better he'd be in there every time. If you remember Sampras or Rafter, their second serve was good enough to allow them to come in on both first and second with success. They both came in on first and second serves every time. That's really what will make or break a S/V player is their second serve, not so much the first. If you figure a guy serving very well might get close to 70% first serves in. That leaves 30% of points on serve with a second to start the point. If the second isn't coming in with good speed and good kick, either you have to stay back or go to net and watch the ball go by you.

Sebastien447
09-17-2004, 06:34 AM
He'll have to sacrifice no more than Pete and perhaps even less.


that's my point ... Pete sacrificed quite a lot

Sebastien447
09-17-2004, 10:38 AM
Pete did sacrifice a lot but hes happy now, hes married to the teacher from Billy Madison (the best Adam Sandler Movie) and has a kid.

yeah, that movie is hilarious, gotta love Adam Sandler

but Bridget has a weird looking scrunchy face :P

Sebastien447
09-17-2004, 10:44 AM
she kinda does but i dont think she cares shes married to one of the greatest atheletes ever, let alone tennis. and has tons of money.

yeah, I guess that would make up for being a scrunchface

but what about Pete? He MARRIED a scrunchface!

Sebastien447
09-17-2004, 11:30 AM
Actually, I don't think Pete sacrificed a thing. In fact, I think he did exactly what he wanted to do. And, I think Roger is doing the same.

you're right wroad ... the training, 11 month long seasons, living out of your suitcase, putting your non-tennis life on hold ... no sacrifice there at all, you're right again.

but more importantly ... is Bridget a scrunchyface or not?

Sebastien447
09-17-2004, 01:37 PM
yeah, I suppose being a millionaire could soften the grind of the tour ... but I still think that living out of your suitcase and putting your career before anything else would be a sacrifice for almost anybody.

Especially when you've made all the money you could ever spend by your mid 20s

Kirkus
09-17-2004, 03:14 PM
yeah, I suppose being a millionaire could soften the grind of the tour ... but I still think that living out of your suitcase and putting your career before anything else would be a sacrifice for almost anybody.

Especially when you've made all the money you could ever spend by your mid 20s

I don't think to them it's a sacrifice. I like to think the travelling, the suitcases, all the things that seem like hardships to us, are to them part of the "fire". It's all part of tennis and tennis is their passion. The fact that they've made all the money they could ever spend by their mid 20s, yet continue to do it proves my point.

Patrick Rafter tells the story of how he and his brother would spend rainy nights in ATM kiosks because they couldn't afford hotel rooms. Why? Because he was a tennis player. Was it sacrifice? Might seem so to us, but to him, I highly doubt it.

Sebastien447
09-18-2004, 04:19 AM
The fact that they've made all the money they could ever spend by their mid 20s, yet continue to do it proves my point.

Patrick Rafter tells the story of how he and his brother would spend rainy nights in ATM kiosks because they couldn't afford hotel rooms. Why? Because he was a tennis player. Was it sacrifice? Might seem so to us, but to him, I highly doubt it.

Greed could also prove your point kirk. And I believe Rafter is himself evidence to the difficulty of life on tour. He retired quite early, at the top of the game. Why? He was making a ton of money ... if there were no sacrifices to make, why not continue living the good life and rake in the dough at the same time? Most of this debate is pure speculation, but I believe there is evidence to be found in the careers of players such as Borg and Rafter who quit competitive tennis at the height of their abilities and at the top of the game. Why?

Personally, it has been my experience that life on the road is tough. No matter how nice your hotel is (I wasn't quite THAT destitute wroad), living out of your suitcase gets old real quick. It's no picnic, I assure you. And for 11 months a year? Good God these guys have the tour and a few weeks at "home." It's just hard for many people to see the toll that such a life takes on a person year after year. I think it all seems very glamorous to the majority of tennis fans.

I also believe there to be some convolution going on here with choice and sacrifice. Just because a person chooses to make a sacrifice, does not mean that sacrifice does not exist. People choose to dedicate themselves to their careers at the expense of their personal lives every day, and in all professions, not just tennis. Such people are typically leaders in their fields, but their lives are out of balance, one-sided. You see it all the time, especially in the states. People who work very hard, trying to succeed and accumulate wealth ... so much so that they lose sight of all other aspects of life. They succeed but never take the time to enjoy their success, too afraid they might lose it. And just because they cannot see themselves making these life-altering sacrifices ... does not mean that they don't exist.

Kirkus
09-18-2004, 05:56 AM
Greed could also prove your point kirk. And I believe Rafter is himself evidence to the difficulty of life on tour. He retired quite early, at the top of the game. Why? He was making a ton of money ... if there were no sacrifices to make, why not continue living the good life and rake in the dough at the same time?


Actually a shoulder injury had something to do with his retirement. And retirement at age 30 isn't early in tennis, unless your Agassi and just don't know when to call it quits ;) I really doubt it was because he no longer wanted to sacrifice. (I'll defend Rafter with more fire than I've ever defended Roddick ;) )

Maybe for some players there's an element of sacrifice, but I don't believe that's true for the majority. I go back to my last post... I don't know that they see it as sacrifice. I believe it's part of their passion.

Sebastien447
10-02-2006, 09:59 AM
For the continuing "Blast From Your TAT Past" series ...


The voting is still open. It's over two years later now ... maybe you'd like to change your vote. Makes a good read too.

So, is Fed the greatest ever?

neka
10-02-2006, 12:05 PM
I've said it in the past, here and on other forums. But it's worth repeating.

There will come a day when the question of "who is the best man to ever play tennis?" will bring the reply, "Roger Federer". The man is supernatural on court. Congratulations, Roger!

(ps-I still say he has no reflection)

Ok, will the REAL Kirkus please stand up and claim back your avatar. There's NO way the REAL Kirkus would have written something like this; unless of course I am locked inside the time-space continuum where Condi Rice is President and there is a war in Mexico going on (against "terror")

neka
10-02-2006, 12:06 PM
For the continuing "Blast From Your TAT Past" series ...


The voting is still open. It's over two years later now ... maybe you'd like to change your vote. Makes a good read too.

So, is Fed the greatest ever?

YES!

neka
10-02-2006, 12:06 PM
Is that clear enough for you?

slicentice
10-02-2006, 12:41 PM
Since I wasn't really around when the other guys were at their peak (I haven't even heard of Bil Tilden) I have to say Federer. I saw Sampras play a bit, but I think Fed would probably handle him easily by getting the serve back and rarely letting Sampras take control of the point and get to the net.

neka
10-02-2006, 01:10 PM
Since I wasn't really around when the other guys were at their peak (I haven't even heard of Bil Tilden) I have to say Federer. I saw Sampras play a bit, but I think Fed would probably handle him easily by getting the serve back and rarely letting Sampras take control of the point and get to the net.


Well put Slice. I couldn't have said it better myself (and I'm not even THAT big a fan of the Fed ;D)

Sebastien447
10-02-2006, 01:44 PM
Since I wasn't really around when the other guys were at their peak (I haven't even heard of Bil Tilden) I have to say Federer. I saw Sampras play a bit, but I think Fed would probably handle him easily by getting the serve back and rarely letting Sampras take control of the point and get to the net.


Well put Slice. I couldn't have said it better myself (and I'm not even THAT big a fan of the Fed ;D)

funny boy ... so Fed gets the serve back and Sampras is at the net for a volley winner. How does he counter that? And don't tell me that Fed is going to hit return winners off the Sampras serve!

Sebastien447
10-02-2006, 01:47 PM
More TAT discussion here ...

RELATED THREAD (http://www.talkabouttennis.com/cgi-bin/TATv2/YaBB.pl?num=1101831171;start=all)

Darcy
10-02-2006, 02:20 PM
I've said it in the past, here and on other forums. But it's worth repeating.

There will come a day when the question of "who is the best man to ever play tennis?" will bring the reply, "Roger Federer". The man is supernatural on court. Congratulations, Roger!

(ps-I still say he has no reflection)

Ok, will the REAL Kirkus please stand up and claim back your avatar. There's NO way the REAL Kirkus would have written something like this; unless of course I am locked inside the time-space continuum where Condi Rice is President and there is a war in Mexico going on (against "terror")


Actually, my thought is that Kirkus might write much the same thing today...maybe without the congrats though. :P

And...I probably won't surprise anybody when I say that I'd vote for Condi! I prefer Giuliani though. ;D

Kirkus
10-02-2006, 03:18 PM
I've said it in the past, here and on other forums. But it's worth repeating.

There will come a day when the question of "who is the best man to ever play tennis?" will bring the reply, "Roger Federer". The man is supernatural on court. Congratulations, Roger!

(ps-I still say he has no reflection)

Ok, will the REAL Kirkus please stand up and claim back your avatar. There's NO way the REAL Kirkus would have written something like this; unless of course I am locked inside the time-space continuum where Condi Rice is President and there is a war in Mexico going on (against "terror")

Notice the date on that original post. It was more than 2 years ago, long before he started kicking Andy's ass on a regular basis. ;D

Darcy's right. I've never denied the man's talent on court. It's still supernatural.




BTW - My vote's for Hillary.

neka
10-02-2006, 11:49 PM
Since I wasn't really around when the other guys were at their peak (I haven't even heard of Bil Tilden) I have to say Federer. I saw Sampras play a bit, but I think Fed would probably handle him easily by getting the serve back and rarely letting Sampras take control of the point and get to the net.


Well put Slice. I couldn't have said it better myself (and I'm not even THAT big a fan of the Fed ;D)

funny boy ... so Fed gets the serve back and Sampras is at the net for a volley winner. How does he counter that? And don't tell me that Fed is going to hit return winners off the Sampras serve!


Seb did you see the ease with which he picked on Andy's serve during the US Open final? It was unreal...

suliso
10-03-2006, 12:57 AM
Since I wasn't really around when the other guys were at their peak (I haven't even heard of Bil Tilden) I have to say Federer. I saw Sampras play a bit, but I think Fed would probably handle him easily by getting the serve back and rarely letting Sampras take control of the point and get to the net.


Well put Slice. I couldn't have said it better myself (and I'm not even THAT big a fan of the Fed ;D)

funny boy ... so Fed gets the serve back and Sampras is at the net for a volley winner. How does he counter that? And don't tell me that Fed is going to hit return winners off the Sampras serve!


From these discussions it would seem that Pete and Roger never played each other. But they HAVE played each other!!! On Pete’s favorite surface and in his favorite tournament! It was Pete after his prime (but not match after, he was the defending champion) and Roger before his prime (he was still 19 that day), but the match itself is very informative nonetheless. I suggest you download it and watch it for yourself in case you have forgotten that transpired that day 5 years ago. I did and all the answers on how Fed would deal with Pete are there.

It wouldn’t be easy and it wouldn’t always work - Sampras was great too, but still Roger would have better than 50% chance...

Sebastien447
10-03-2006, 06:53 AM
Since I wasn't really around when the other guys were at their peak (I haven't even heard of Bil Tilden) I have to say Federer. I saw Sampras play a bit, but I think Fed would probably handle him easily by getting the serve back and rarely letting Sampras take control of the point and get to the net.


Well put Slice. I couldn't have said it better myself (and I'm not even THAT big a fan of the Fed ;D)

funny boy ... so Fed gets the serve back and Sampras is at the net for a volley winner. How does he counter that? And don't tell me that Fed is going to hit return winners off the Sampras serve!


Seb did you see the ease with which he picked on Andy's serve during the US Open final? It was unreal...

Andy doesn't serve and volley neka ... do you understand tennis? ::)

Sebastien447
10-03-2006, 06:54 AM
Since I wasn't really around when the other guys were at their peak (I haven't even heard of Bil Tilden) I have to say Federer. I saw Sampras play a bit, but I think Fed would probably handle him easily by getting the serve back and rarely letting Sampras take control of the point and get to the net.


Well put Slice. I couldn't have said it better myself (and I'm not even THAT big a fan of the Fed ;D)

funny boy ... so Fed gets the serve back and Sampras is at the net for a volley winner. How does he counter that? And don't tell me that Fed is going to hit return winners off the Sampras serve!


From these discussions it would seem that Pete and Roger never played each other. But they HAVE played each other!!! On Pete’s favorite surface and in his favorite tournament! It was Pete after his prime (but not match after, he was the defending champion) and Roger before his prime (he was still 19 that day), but the match itself is very informative nonetheless. I suggest you download it and watch it for yourself in case you have forgotten that transpired that day 5 years ago. I did and all the answers on how Fed would deal with Pete are there.

It wouldn’t be easy and it wouldn’t always work - Sampras was great too, but still Roger would have better than 50% chance...


I saw the match ... Pete AFTER his prime.

Nuff said.

suliso
10-03-2006, 10:00 AM
I saw it too and there was very little difference from "Pete in his prime". Pete was playing quite well - enough to beat almost everyone else. And it sure as hell wasn't Roger at his prime....

Sebastien447
10-03-2006, 04:56 PM
I saw it too and there was very little difference from "Pete in his prime". Pete was playing quite well - enough to beat almost everyone else. And it sure as hell wasn't Roger at his prime....

We disagree here but he played pretty damn well anyway huh? And Pete was at the tail end of his career, will you give me that much?

There are two topics here for me. Fed will be above Pete, though behind Laver on my list of greatest players because he wins on all surfaces (slams included, he'll get the French once or twice). Pete couldn't win on clay and that matters.

However, I believe Pete would win more often than not vs Fed because of superior court position. Sampras' strength was his serve, no doubt, but the reason he was so effective coming in was because of his second. Sure he could bomb aces like Roddick, but his second was so good, 120s with hard kick, that he could come in just as effectively off the second. To think that Roger would have some magic formula to counter that is unrealistic. We may never know for sure because serve and volleyers are a dying breed. Fed will probably never face a serve and volley game like Pete in his prime. But just as Agassi experienced as he lost more often than not, a great return often isn't enough when there's a guy standing at net ready to knock off a volley winner. It's a superior position.

Likewise, Navratilova would work all of today's screaming baseline bashers because she would be in better position.

Believe me, I understand the Fed worship. He's going to be the second best ever to play the game. But Pete would take him more often than not.

suliso
10-03-2006, 05:51 PM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Federer is a great returner (may be not quite Agassi but still very good), but that is not the point. His main weapons are serve and forehand. He would do very well - especially if they played on anything slower than grass or indoor carpet. In fact Pete’s and Roger’s games are very similar. Pete had the most effective serve of his generation (but not the fastest - Krajicek, Ivanisevic and Rusedski had faster ones) and Roger has the best serve of current generation (again - Roddick's serve is faster, but less effective). Pete’s 2nd serve was better, but Roger is better from the baseline. He would win 8/10 if they were to play on clay.

Also notice how much more Roger served and volleyed in that match. He doesn't do it as much these days mainly, I believe, because of change in playing conditions (balls, surface).

As for "greatest ever" lists - perhaps it is a bit too early. Roger's career is only ca. 60% done… He needs at least 3 more GS (preferably including FO) to be seriously considered. I would be very surprised if he didn't get them though....