PDA

View Full Version : What is Federer's most impressive achievement so far?


Moose Malloy
06-05-2007, 10:05 AM
thought I would post this before Sunday, since that is when all this may take a backseat.

Its a tough call, but the Wimbledon/US Open double impresses me the most(it understandably doesn't get as much attention as the French/Wimbledon double, but I think historically these are the 2 most prestigious events)
No one had won these 2 events in consecutive years since Budge in '37/'38, so 3 straight years is unreal.

Sampras & McEnroe only did this double twice in their careers.

chris1992
06-05-2007, 10:06 AM
defeating sampras at wimbledon. from there he has never looked back

Andres
06-05-2007, 10:08 AM
7 straight finals, IMO

dh003i
06-05-2007, 10:09 AM
I think #2, 10-1 record in slams (that is, slam finals). What about you, Moose?

I also think his 2 3-slam seasons are very impressive, which goes along with his win-ratio over the last 3 years. Amazing consistency in excellence.

If he wins the FO this year, that'll cap the most impressive feat of his career so-far: winning all 4 slams in a row (non-calendar); and set him up for the possibility of an even greater feat, the Grand Slam.

tHotGates
06-05-2007, 10:16 AM
Consistency & focus. The high level of play for such an extended stretch is nothing short of amazing.

rommil
06-05-2007, 10:20 AM
Being able to play effortless looking strokes and maintaining high quality tennis with minimal injuries.

TheTruth
06-05-2007, 10:35 AM
Befriending would be rivals off the court so as to take their mental edge away. He's too nice, they cry, like fools!

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
06-05-2007, 10:40 AM
Have to go with the Consecutive Wimbledon titles, with the loss of only 5 sets in that 4 year period.

The same could be said for the US open but has lost 7 sets over the 3 year period.

clymb420
06-05-2007, 11:20 AM
These choices all overlap each other after the first few. They're all equally impressive really. 4 Wmbs might be slightly cooler than 3 USOs.

VGP
06-05-2007, 11:41 AM
Staying with Mirka Vavrinek for so long.

This is not a slam in any shape or form. I just commend them for staying together through everything......they just seem solid together.

Pro Staff Pete
06-05-2007, 11:53 AM
most consecutive weeks at #1

ktownva
06-05-2007, 12:08 PM
Not moving to Monte Carlo. Obliging the press. Not talking smack about Rafa even when getting owned. Being a cool dude, basically.

mmuubb
06-05-2007, 12:35 PM
Being the model sportsman, on and off court.

rwn
06-05-2007, 01:47 PM
Losing only 4 sets in 26 grand slam matches. That will never be repeated, I think.

TheTruth
06-05-2007, 01:52 PM
Not moving to Monte Carlo. Obliging the press. Not talking smack about Rafa even when getting owned. Being a cool dude, basically.

Uh, he talked a lot of smack about Rafa.

1. Called him one-dimensional.
2. Started the mess about how long Rafa took between points. He'll fan the fire with the Djokovic ball bouncing in a minute too, if Djokovic starts beating him.
3. Publicly asked to be removed from the same floor at the player's hotel.
4. Accused Rafa's uncle of cheating.

Model sportsman? Huh?

federerfanatic
06-05-2007, 01:59 PM
Befriending would be rivals off the court so as to take their mental edge away. He's too nice, they cry, like fools!

Even if you are right, you cant fault him for that. You might fault the others for taking the bait, but you cant fault Federer for coming up with that plan. :p

ACE of Hearts
06-05-2007, 02:26 PM
There is one thats not there, the 24 or 25 consecutive finals.I think thats difficult to do.

federerfanatic
06-05-2007, 02:30 PM
Roger Federer is the only player in history to have 2 3-slam seasons within 3 years, and to have 8 slams withint a 3 year period. While part of that is all 4slams were not played regularly by all until the start of the 80s roughly, that is still a very impressive stat. So for me that is the most impressive achivement of this wildly talented player.

Polaris
06-05-2007, 03:03 PM
Uh, he talked a lot of smack about Rafa.

1. Called him one-dimensional.
2. Started the mess about how long Rafa took between points.

Model sportsman? Huh?

He was telling the truth. Surely, you would know. :p

lordmanji
06-05-2007, 03:15 PM
he does everything perfect.

OrangeOne
06-05-2007, 03:19 PM
7 straight finals, IMO

Yeah, I went with this one too. For me, it was a toss-up between this and the 10-1 record.

10 slams is impressive in itself, but for me it's his ridiculously exceptional consistency that takes the cake....

OrangeOne
06-05-2007, 03:21 PM
Uh, he talked a lot of smack about Rafa.

1. Called him one-dimensional.
2. Started the mess about how long Rafa took between points. He'll fan the fire with the Djokovic ball bouncing in a minute too, if Djokovic starts beating him.
3. Publicly asked to be removed from the same floor at the player's hotel.
4. Accused Rafa's uncle of cheating.

Model sportsman? Huh?

As others have said, all of the above are honest.

1. When he called him one-dimensional, it wasn't the insult you make out...
2. Rafa does break the rules in time terms. Next.
3. Big deal.
4. We've all seen it happen.

Next....

Moose Malloy
06-05-2007, 03:42 PM
I think #2, 10-1 record in slams (that is, slam finals). What about you, Moose?


Yeah, that was my (very close) 2nd choice. I think it says more than just 10 total slams, since not long ago not all the top players played all 4 slams. The winning % says more to where a player stands relative to others. Borg was 11-5, Sampras was 14-4, etc

There is one thats not there, the 24 or 25 consecutive finals

There were only 10 choices allowed in the poll. Plus I think think slam records are more important than regular event records.

Roger Federer is the only player in history to have 2 3-slam seasons within 3 years, and to have 8 slams withint a 3 year period.While part of that is all 4slams were not played regularly by all until the start of the 80s roughly

Yeah, it is tough to decide, there are no wrong answers. But I think what you mentioned is a factor in why I chose the US Open/Wimbledon double, those events were always played by the best, not many no-shows.

dh003i
06-05-2007, 03:49 PM
Moose,

What do you think about going back to wooden rackets?

I like the idea of it making the game more well-rounded, but I also think it would result in more UEs and shanks.

I think it ought to be a goal to bring some more balance back to tennis.

PS: Here's an idea for an interesting court-surface: grass planted on clay.

Breaker
06-05-2007, 03:53 PM
I think the consecutive weeks at #1 record is astounding. Especially the fact that no one has even come close to passing him for three years. If he holds the record and simultaneously breaks the most total weeks at number one record then that would be absolutely amazing.

ktownva
06-05-2007, 06:29 PM
Uh, he talked a lot of smack about Rafa.

1. Called him one-dimensional.
2. Started the mess about how long Rafa took between points. He'll fan the fire with the Djokovic ball bouncing in a minute too, if Djokovic starts beating him.
3. Publicly asked to be removed from the same floor at the player's hotel.
4. Accused Rafa's uncle of cheating.

Model sportsman? Huh?

Wasn't all of that during one or two tournaments when Camp Rafa was behaving questionably? I think Fed later said that it was over and no longer an issue, and instantly Camp Rafa is cleared. Compare that to the number of times that Fed has gone to lengths to promote Rafa as his rival to help the game. Yeah, he's human and it stings to lose and he'll let his frustration show at times. But he's way more of a model sportsman than a competitive egomaniac.

Ano
06-05-2007, 06:36 PM
Roger Federer is the only player in history to have 2 3-slam seasons within 3 years, and to have 8 slams withint a 3 year period. While part of that is all 4slams were not played regularly by all until the start of the 80s roughly, that is still a very impressive stat. So for me that is the most impressive achivement of this wildly talented player.

I agree with you.

And I might add: in 2004 he only lost 6 matches, in 2005 he only lost 4 matches and in 2006 he only lost 5 matches.

Moose Malloy
06-06-2007, 03:20 PM
Moose,

What do you think about going back to wooden rackets?

I like the idea of it making the game more well-rounded, but I also think it would result in more UEs and shanks.

I think it ought to be a goal to bring some more balance back to tennis.

PS: Here's an idea for an interesting court-surface: grass planted on clay.


Its strange, they can organize a "battle of the surfaces" match but can't put together an exo with wood racquets involving any players. Guess no one is interested in seeing that.

I'm surprised that most consecutive weeks at #1 is getting so many votes.

TheTruth
06-06-2007, 04:43 PM
As others have said, all of the above are honest.

1. When he called him one-dimensional, it wasn't the insult you make out...
2. Rafa does break the rules in time terms. Next.
3. Big deal.
4. We've all seen it happen.

Next....

1. If he's so one-dimensional, you'd think the person who's always alluding to his own talent would have a superior h2h over him. He doesn't. He also said anyone who thinks Rafa is only a clay courter is crazy. However, it is an insult, because you shouldn't speak everything that you think, especially to a worldwide press.

2. Don't forget Djokovic with the 25 times ball bouncing which will become a problem when he starts beating Federer. Federer always finds something snide to say about those who beat him.

3. Big deal? I have a right to my opinion just like you do with yours. Your next comment is both juvenile and laugable.

4. I could see it a hundred times, but if I want to comment on it I will. That's what forums are for. An exchange of ideas, not just yours!

Some of you kill me trying to be dismissive. You just look silly!

Moose Malloy
06-08-2007, 03:06 PM
I should change it to '8 straight finals'

some of you still haven't voted.

dh003i
06-08-2007, 03:27 PM
I'm also surprised that anyone cares about longest time at #1 consecutively. Slams are what matters. Sure, the #1 is important, but it just doesn't rank up there with slams, imo. Probably it was more important in Connor's day. Now, if he stays #1 straight for 2, 3, or 4 more years straight, then that gets more impressive imo.

Moose Malloy
06-08-2007, 03:37 PM
I'm also surprised that anyone cares about longest time at #1 consecutively. Slams are what matters. Sure, the #1 is important, but it just doesn't rank up there with slams, imo. Probably it was more important in Connor's day. Now, if he stays #1 straight for 2, 3, or 4 more years straight, then that gets more impressive imo.

#1 was even less important in Connors' time(Borg was often considered the real #1 during a lot of Connors' reign, the ITF even created a 'Player of the Year' award since so many thought the ATP ranking was kinda a joke) The slams(well just 2-Wimbledon & the US Open) were what got the most attention in the 70s. As well as some of the big money events.
Connors wasn't even aware he still had that record when Fed passed him.
Its funny how much Sampras has changed the way fans/players view tennis history, no one ever said that winning the most majors, or most year end #1's was an important criteria for greatness in the 70s/80s.

dh003i
06-08-2007, 03:42 PM
Moose,

But Sampras focused on the slams for a reason, right? It's not like he invented their importance?

Maybe he increased their importance, a testament to the great man Sampras.

I think you had a thread about prior indicators of greatness, which included most prize winnings, in eras where players weren't paid as well.

Moose Malloy
06-08-2007, 04:00 PM
Moose,

But Sampras focused on the slams for a reason, right? It's not like he invented their importance?

Maybe he increased their importance, a testament to the great man Sampras.

I think you had a thread about prior indicators of greatness, which included most prize winnings, in eras where players weren't paid as well.

No, they were always important. But they weren't equally important as they (arguably) are now. The gap between Wimbledon & the other slams was huge in the 70s/80s. By the 90s they were all equally important. And 'counting' the amount of majors a player had only became common in the 90s(or late 80s)
For example Borg had 11 majors when he walked away from the game, the record was 12, but I can't find any records of the media/players talking about Borg being close to that record when he won his 10th or 11th major. And they certainly didn't mention it when he retired. Borg may have stuck around if he knew that he would be considered so important a few decades later(& played the AO more). I doubt Borg even knew he was close to that record at the time. It was not widely known. I've read that Emerson didn't even know he had the most slams record until many years after he retired.

Even Sampras said when he won his 13th major, that that didn't mean he was the best ever, I think he knew it was a relatively "new" record.

I think the only way a player was considered maybe the best ever in the 70s
or 80s, is if they won the Calendar Grand Slam(Laver) or Wimbledon a lot(Borg). McEnroe made a comment the other day that he feels a little slighted by this "new" way of judging players, by the amount of total majors. If he knew this would have happened, he said he may have played the Australian more often(which many top players didn't in those days)

dh003i
06-08-2007, 06:16 PM
Moose,

Your knowledge of the history of the game is, as always, impressive. Probably the most knowledgeable person on this board (that I've seen anyways).

I wonder why the transition happened, in terms of what people thought was important.

Probably should have different standards of judgement for different eras. I think you can only say which player was the best of his or her era, and even then it's difficult (because time is continuous, so when do you draw the cutoff). Maybe an easier way to do it is year-by-year.

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander all overlapped with one-another. Difficult to separate out the eras. But probably you could say Connors was the best of the 70s.

Unfortunately, Wiki doesn't list Wimbledon champs year-by-year, but it did list some records, which is how I found out about William Renshaw, who won 14 Wimbledons, 7 singles, 7 doubles (and 6 Wimby singles in a row). He won his doubles playing with his twin brother. Incidentally, he won 3 of his Wimbledon singles titles over his twin brother, Ernest.

Unsurprisingly, all of his wins over his twin brother were either 5 setters, or a close 4-setter:

6-1, 2-6, 4-6, 6-2, 6-2
2-6, 6-3, 6-3, 4-6, 6-3
7-5, 6-2, 4-6, 7-5

His twin brother won 1 Wimbledon singles. Bizarre difference. (unless they were fraternal, not identical twins).

dh003i
06-08-2007, 06:24 PM
In retrospect, Federer better just keep on playing until he drops if he wants to be considered the GOAT, if the standards change again...

Shaolin
06-08-2007, 08:16 PM
This one is amazing.

Federer won 24 straight finals from the tournament in Vienna in October 2003 through the tournament in Bangkok in September 2005. This streak was a new open era record, breaking the previous record of twelve straight final wins, shared by John McEnroe and Borg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_held_by_Roger_Federer

diggler
06-08-2007, 08:26 PM
Moose,

Your knowledge of the history of the game is, as always, impressive. Probably the most knowledgeable person on this board (that I've seen anyways).

I wonder why the transition happened, in terms of what people thought was important.

Probably should have different standards of judgement for different eras. I think you can only say which player was the best of his or her era, and even then it's difficult (because time is continuous, so when do you draw the cutoff). Maybe an easier way to do it is year-by-year.

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander all overlapped with one-another. Difficult to separate out the eras. But probably you could say Connors was the best of the 70s.

Unfortunately, Wiki doesn't list Wimbledon champs year-by-year, but it did list some records, which is how I found out about William Renshaw, who won 14 Wimbledons, 7 singles, 7 doubles (and 6 Wimby singles in a row). He won his doubles playing with his twin brother. Incidentally, he won 3 of his Wimbledon singles titles over his twin brother, Ernest.

Unsurprisingly, all of his wins over his twin brother were either 5 setters, or a close 4-setter:

6-1, 2-6, 4-6, 6-2, 6-2
2-6, 6-3, 6-3, 4-6, 6-3
7-5, 6-2, 4-6, 7-5

His twin brother won 1 Wimbledon singles. Bizarre difference. (unless they were fraternal, not identical twins).


I wouldn't put too much weight on old records like that. I think in those days if you were defending champion, you only had to play the winner of an elimination tournament to win the title again.

Also, doubles is a bit demanding for the modern players to also play, so you can't hold it against them for not winning any.

And tennis was not a global sport in those days.

Roger is Boring
06-08-2007, 09:27 PM
.
that he has managed to kill interest in tennis by his robotic personality !

rommil
06-08-2007, 10:18 PM
.
that he has managed to kill interest in tennis by his robotic personality !

....and Roger has manage to irritate the hell out of you and make you eat your words. That's just priceless.

psamp14
06-08-2007, 10:23 PM
federer's had such amazing and unbelievable achievements in the sport, and its so hard to pick apart one as the most impressive...but i could say winning 3 slams in a row, because he makes it seem so easy....he had the chance to win 4 slams in a row last year....he came up short...so he just went around in a circle for one year, and here we are again...he's 1 match away from winning 4 slams in a row...

boojay
06-08-2007, 10:39 PM
Fed's most impressive achievement will be.............winning 20 grand slams.......wait, let's make it 21.

Roger is boring is boring
06-09-2007, 04:50 AM
.
that he has managed to kill interest in tennis by his robotic personality !
repetitive/compulsive rituals, that would make a robotic personality!:D

NamRanger
06-09-2007, 07:40 AM
Uh, he talked a lot of smack about Rafa.

1. Called him one-dimensional.
2. Started the mess about how long Rafa took between points. He'll fan the fire with the Djokovic ball bouncing in a minute too, if Djokovic starts beating him.
3. Publicly asked to be removed from the same floor at the player's hotel.
4. Accused Rafa's uncle of cheating.

Model sportsman? Huh?


1. Nadal is primarily a baseliner, what else would you call him? An allcourter? That's laughable.

2. Nadal gets called on time violations all the time. It's not just Federer, it's ALOT of other players.

3. Point taken.

4. Nadal's uncle has been known to throw signals at times, he has also had some past violations.


3 out of 4, not bad.


Federer's human, not god. I'd be pretty annoyed to if I got beat by a guy who only knows how to hit forehands in one direction.

TheNatural
06-09-2007, 08:00 AM
greatest achievement . He beat the Goat once at Wimbledon. He can tell all the grand kids .

TheNatural
06-09-2007, 08:05 AM
Maybe no one talked about Borgs majors because he played in a weak Era until Mcenroe came along.


For example Borg had 11 majors when he walked away from the game, the record was 12, but I can't find any records of the media/players talking about Borg being close to that record when he won his 10th or 11th major. And they certainly didn't mention it when he retired. Borg may have stuck around if he knew that he would be considered so important a few decades later(& played the AO more). I doubt Borg even knew he was close to that record at the time. It was not widely known. I've read that Emerson didn't even know he had the most slams record until many years after he retired.

Moose Malloy
06-11-2007, 09:03 AM
Fed is now 10-2 in slam finals, still an amazing %. Guess the poll options here are still debatable, after the final.

Maybe no one talked about Borgs majors because he played in a weak Era until Mcenroe came along.


Guess you missed my previous comment on Mac & his opinion on "most majors" and what that meant his time.

Mac skipped the Australian Open(which was on grass) in '77,'78,'79,'80,'81,'82,'84. Considering his record at Wimbledon those years(& the fact that he was #1 during 3 of those AOs) I think judging him solely on amount of majors is a little unfair.

The talked about Borg's Wimbledon titles a lot during his time, just not his total amount of majors(which they do a lot today)

Rabbit
06-11-2007, 09:11 AM
For me, the 10 Grand Slams is the most impressive. That's what will outlive Federer himself, or whatever the total is when he does hang it up. The rest of the stuff is great, no doubt, but it's going to wind up being mostly trivia stuff that only folks like us would know.

Moose Malloy
06-11-2007, 09:20 AM
For me, the 10 Grand Slams is the most impressive.

But I think the kinds of majors are important, not just the # of majors. If Borg or Sampras won 10+ majors & had no Wimbledons(or only one or 2) I seriously doubt they would have had as much attention as a GOAT type that they did.

Federer has 4 Wimbledons, in addition to 10 majors, that's the important aspect of his 10 majors. Even he has said(at least as of last year) that he would rather win Wimbledon than the French, because it is the most important tournament to him, regardless of the fact he hadn't won the French.

Imagine a player with 3 FOs, 3 US, & 4AO, 10 total majors. I doubt that player would be called a possible GOAT(& Lendl came very close to being that player)

TheTruth
06-16-2007, 08:02 PM
1. Nadal is primarily a baseliner, what else would you call him? An allcourter? That's laughable.

Nam, 99% of the tour are baseliners. There are virtually one or two serve and volleyers left, including Federer who only comes in when he has to. And in their most recent encounters, I know last year at Wimbledon, Nadal came in more than Fed did. So, by that analysis Federer and everyone else is one dimensional too. So, him calling Nadal one-dimensional not only was sour grapes, because that makes him look worse. He's multi-dimensional and struggles with a one-dimensional player. You're right, that is laugable.

2. Nadal gets called on time violations all the time. It's not just Federer, it's ALOT of other players.

It started WITH Federer. When it first came out, Nadal was understandably confused. He said, "I've always played at this speed, it was never a problem before." And he's right. It wasn't a problem until he started beating Federer with regularity.

3. Point taken.

4. Nadal's uncle has been known to throw signals at times, he has also had some past violations.

Again, that came from Federer when he called out in the middle of a match to Rafa's uncle.


3 out of 4, not bad.

Actually, it's 0-4! Just Federer and his mind games. Most of that negativity stems from him!



Federer's human, not god. I'd be pretty annoyed to if I got beat by a guy who only knows how to hit forehands in one direction.

Any excuse will do!

Attila the tennis Bum
06-16-2007, 08:18 PM
I believe his record is at least 3 losses in slam finals. He lost two finals to Nadal at the FO and one to Safin at the AO.

BreakPoint
06-16-2007, 08:21 PM
I believe his record is at least 3 losses in slam finals. He lost two finals to Nadal at the FO and one to Safin at the AO.
Federer NEVER lost to Safin in a Slam final. His loss to Safin at the AO in '05 was in the semis.

Once again proving how little you know about tennis.

Roger is Boring
06-16-2007, 08:24 PM
that he could bore so many tennis fans to death and get away with murder

caulcano
06-17-2007, 01:45 AM
that he could bore so many tennis fans to death and get away with murder

And you're boring too with your remarks.

anointedone
07-16-2007, 08:52 PM
I think now that he has tied Borg with 5 Wimbledons it might be that.

robin7
07-17-2007, 03:42 AM
Wimbly 5 in a row ('03 to '07). 9 straight finals (Wim '05 to Wim '07).

capriatifanatic
07-23-2007, 06:28 PM
5-peat at Wimbledon.

lambielspins
07-24-2007, 07:04 PM
If he wins his 4th straight U.S Open he will probably set a record that will take 100 years to break. The Wimbledon-U.S Open double 4 times in a row.

Einstand
08-24-2007, 06:30 AM
Stopping the all-time Wimbledon champ from winning five in a row and going on to accomplish the feat himself .. that's fairy tale stuff. Hard to believe it happened.

blakealltheway
08-24-2007, 06:58 AM
Isnt it 5 straight Wimbledon victories?

snapple
08-24-2007, 07:05 AM
how bout getting to 9 straight GS finals, that's just sick.

ninman
08-24-2007, 07:35 AM
Uh, he talked a lot of smack about Rafa.

1. Called him one-dimensional.
2. Started the mess about how long Rafa took between points. He'll fan the fire with the Djokovic ball bouncing in a minute too, if Djokovic starts beating him.
3. Publicly asked to be removed from the same floor at the player's hotel.
4. Accused Rafa's uncle of cheating.

Model sportsman? Huh?

1. Federer's exact words were something along the lines of "He only plays one way, he just does it very well", sounds like a compliment to me.

2. We all know he does it, and Djokovic bounces the ball a lot but still sticks to the time limit, I know I've timed him.

3. Can you tell me where you read that please?

4. Federer complained about it after the Rome match and Llubicic has also complained about it. Federer said he actually stopped in the middle of the match and said "Stop it Tony", so if you wanna watch the video you can see if he's lying. It's not called being a sore loser it's called getting annoyed that your opponent cheats all the time and gets away with it.

Federer is a not a saint, but he's a hell of a lot nicer than the supposed "King of Clay".

Jack the Hack
08-24-2007, 08:02 AM
how bout getting to 9 straight GS finals, that's just sick.

Totally agree with that one! I'm not sure people realize how amazing this record is... the general public certainly doesn't understand!

TheModernEra
08-24-2007, 09:14 AM
This one is amazing.

Federer won 24 straight finals from the tournament in Vienna in October 2003 through the tournament in Bangkok in September 2005. This streak was a new open era record, breaking the previous record of twelve straight final wins, shared by John McEnroe and Borg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_held_by_Roger_Federer

I agree with this post. Although "records are made to be broken", this one won't.....His detractors will say that from Oct 2003 to Sept 2005 there was no competition, yada, yada, yada, but his consistency (on all surfaces, despite losing to Nadal in Clay-court finals) will be his greatest legacy.

downthewall
08-24-2007, 10:01 AM
2 straight loses to canas

whistleway
08-24-2007, 10:36 AM
Getting into 9 consecutive GS finals is just sick sick and sick.

Besides that he's just a really cool dude and plays stylish tennis.

Warriorroger
08-24-2007, 10:45 AM
Breaking the Graf record. :(

ninman
08-24-2007, 10:50 AM
Breaking the Graf record. :(

I'd have to agree with that, it's very rare for a male player to break a female record.

jelle v
08-24-2007, 10:55 AM
Breaking the Graf record. :(

What record is that?

come on lleyton!
08-24-2007, 10:57 AM
Being totally dominant in the world of tennis in the 21st century, where there are millions of players who train like animals 24/7 in academys with the best coaches to beat the goat. You can´t even compare what tennisprofessionals were 20 years ago and what they have become.

seestern
08-24-2007, 11:36 AM
1. Nadal is primarily a baseliner, what else would you call him? An allcourter? That's laughable.

2. Nadal gets called on time violations all the time. It's not just Federer, it's ALOT of other players.

3. Point taken.

4. Nadal's uncle has been known to throw signals at times, he has also had some past violations.


3 out of 4, not bad.


Federer's human, not god. I'd be pretty annoyed to if I got beat by a guy who only knows how to hit forehands in one direction.

What a rubbish!!!
answer:
1. did you see the statistic of Nadal's game, how is net points percentage? check atptennis.com
2,3,4: sources pleases.

OrangeOne
08-24-2007, 11:48 AM
Being totally dominant in the world of tennis in the 21st century, where there are millions of players who train like animals 24/7 in academys with the best coaches to beat the goat. You canīt even compare what tennisprofessionals were 20 years ago and what they have become.

Maybe you wanna go for 30 years ago instead of 20? 20 years ago was a very very big period in tennis. The fitness revolution had been started thanks to Lendl and Nav, the power-hitting era was on the way in, and there were more people playing tennis, period.

Warriorroger
08-24-2007, 01:53 PM
What record is that?


Being number one for more than 186 consecutive weeks. August 27th he will be number one for 187 weeks and therebye break her record.

ShooterMcMarco
08-24-2007, 02:13 PM
Breaking the Graf record. :(

For what, longest nose?

Warriorroger
08-24-2007, 02:34 PM
For what, longest nose?

hahhaha.:p Both have big noses, I must admit. But hey, if that's what it takes, that's what it takes.


http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/6319/roger20federer88152wj4.jpghttp://i.cnn.net/si/pr/subs/swimsuit/images/97_sgraff_02.jpg

Steve132
08-24-2007, 03:40 PM
Totally agree with that one! I'm not sure people realize how amazing this record is... the general public certainly doesn't understand!

I voted for this too. The closest any man has come to this record is Jack Crawford's 7 during the 1930's. No other male player of the Open era has reached more than 4 consecutive Slam finals.

Mind you, he is still a long way away from the women's record (Steffi Graf's 13).

Moose Malloy
08-24-2007, 03:54 PM
I voted for this too. The closest any man has come to this record is Jack Crawford's 7 during the 1930's. No other male player of the Open era has reached more than 4 consecutive Slam finals.


To be fair, Borg made 6 straight slam finals '80-'81(he skipped the '80 australian, as did every top player at the time)
Fed's 9 straight is obviously harder, since he didn't skip any, but it seems likely that Borg would have made the australian open final in '80, making it 7 straight finals. he was so consistent in the big events back then.