PDA

View Full Version : Is Federer becoming Sampras?


Defcon
08-15-2007, 01:10 PM
Sampras cared about 2 things - slams and #1 ranking. Everything else was secondary and he didn't really care that much about winning every tournament or dominating his peers.

I see the same attitude beginning to show in Roger's play this year. There is just no other way to explain it. We start with the 2 losses to Canas - ok, that was a bit of a shock. Clay court season played out according to predictions, Wimbledon was a fight but it was a foregone conclusion. The HC season has been the real shock - this is Fed's turf and the way he played in Montreal just didn't give the impression that he cared all that much. His play in the USO will be telling.

To me it seems that Fed has realized that other tournaments, even Master's series, are just tuneups for the slams. If he wants to be at the top till he's 30, he just cannot try and win every single thing he enters and keep giving 100%. Its just not possible, even for Fed. So I predict from now on we'll see him get fired up for the slams and keep getting 2-3/year, but perhaps not the Fed who loses only 5 matches a year.

I would love to be wrong and maybe he's just going through a bad patch. But I can't help but wonder that this remarkable turn of events came right after his meeting with Pete. Coincidence? - I think NOT!!

Jonny S&V
08-15-2007, 01:13 PM
Sampras cared about 2 things - slams and #1 ranking. Everything else was secondary and he didn't really care that much about winning every tournament or dominating his peers.

I see the same attitude beginning to show in Roger's play this year. There is just no other way to explain it. We start with the 2 losses to Canas - ok, that was a bit of a shock. Clay court season played out according to predictions, Wimbledon was a fight but it was a foregone conclusion. The HC season has been the real shock - this is Fed's turf and the way he played in Montreal just didn't give the impression that he cared all that much. His play in the USO will be telling.

To me it seems that Fed has realized that other tournaments, even Master's series, are just tuneups for the slams. If he wants to be at the top till he's 30, he just cannot try and win every single thing he enters and keep giving 100%. Its just not possible, even for Fed. So I predict from now on we'll see him get fired up for the slams and keep getting 2-3/year, but perhaps not the Fed who loses only 5 matches a year.

I would love to be wrong and maybe he's just going through a bad patch. But I can't help but wonder that this remarkable turn of events came right after his meeting with Pete. Coincidence? - I think NOT!!

I think he might be saving himself so he can try to win slams later in his career.

tHotGates
08-15-2007, 01:14 PM
What a relief ... I thought Fed was starting to bald for a moment.

latinking
08-15-2007, 01:16 PM
What a relief ... I thought Fed was starting to bald for a moment.

HAHAHAHA......

Kim
08-15-2007, 01:20 PM
Fed is just becoming smart, unlike Nadal. He realizes there's only THE RECORD now (the slams), and he must focus on that esp at his age.

Defcon
08-15-2007, 01:22 PM
Another thing I've noticed is that Fed of late has been relying more and more on his serve to get him cheap points, and his groundstrokes seem to lack power - where is that lethal forehand that could end points at will?

Kim
08-15-2007, 01:26 PM
We fans, put too much on players...they are humans after all. Fed is, as I said, trying ot end points quickly, and one way to accomplish that is by using his serve...why does he want quick points? So his body will not suffer, ergo he will have a long career at the top. Is that so hard to understand?

Bottomline is, FED is probably the most talented and skilled player of all time...and he is also one of the SMARTEST one there is. He knows the value of pacing and longevity.

daddy
08-15-2007, 02:18 PM
What a relief ... I thought Fed was starting to bald for a moment.

Great, just great ! ;)

daddy
08-15-2007, 02:21 PM
We fans, put too much on players...they are humans after all. Fed is, as I said, trying ot end points quickly, and one way to accomplish that is by using his serve...why does he want quick points? So his body will not suffer, ergo he will have a long career at the top. Is that so hard to understand?

Bottomline is, FED is probably the most talented and skilled player of all time...and he is also one of the SMARTEST one there is. He knows the value of pacing and longevity.

Sampras strung his 85 square racquet harder and harder as he was getting older and I do think his game changed alot towards the end of his career, so watching Fed now, he also has fairly small head, 90 I think and he also relys more on serve and I do think that is the resemblence and its fair to say this post is good. Remains to be seen, but fed has got better claycourt record and is better than sampras in this department. Most gifted is or was probably borg but just not so into the game at his time ..

prince
08-15-2007, 02:58 PM
What a relief ... I thought Fed was starting to bald for a moment.

i was thinking the same . LOL.

well you cant blame fed probably - everyone gets older at some point.

drakulie
08-15-2007, 03:24 PM
Uhmmm didn't he make it to the finals or am I missing something??? :roll:

The Dolphin
08-15-2007, 03:25 PM
he's only 26

daddy
08-15-2007, 03:28 PM
Uhmmm didn't he make it to the finals or am I missing something??? :roll:

Who ? did not understand you ..

David L
08-16-2007, 02:57 AM
Sampras cared about 2 things - slams and #1 ranking. Everything else was secondary and he didn't really care that much about winning every tournament or dominating his peers.

I see the same attitude beginning to show in Roger's play this year. There is just no other way to explain it. We start with the 2 losses to Canas - ok, that was a bit of a shock. Clay court season played out according to predictions, Wimbledon was a fight but it was a foregone conclusion. The HC season has been the real shock - this is Fed's turf and the way he played in Montreal just didn't give the impression that he cared all that much. His play in the USO will be telling.

To me it seems that Fed has realized that other tournaments, even Master's series, are just tuneups for the slams. If he wants to be at the top till he's 30, he just cannot try and win every single thing he enters and keep giving 100%. Its just not possible, even for Fed. So I predict from now on we'll see him get fired up for the slams and keep getting 2-3/year, but perhaps not the Fed who loses only 5 matches a year.

I would love to be wrong and maybe he's just going through a bad patch. But I can't help but wonder that this remarkable turn of events came right after his meeting with Pete. Coincidence? - I think NOT!!I have a question. Why is it people assume they know what motivates a player, despite not actually knowing what motivates the player? People can speculate, guess, concoct etc, till the cows come home, but it rarely has any basis beyond their own and others fertile imaginations.

Marius_Hancu
08-16-2007, 03:14 AM
Wouldn't mind that at all ... he better take care of his body ... look at Nadal at 21 ...

mileslong
08-16-2007, 10:02 AM
Another thing I've noticed is that Fed of late has been relying more and more on his serve to get him cheap points, and his groundstrokes seem to lack power - where is that lethal forehand that could end points at will?
well if you watched his first round match he did hit a forehand winner at 106 MPH! i think he still can hit it when wants to or needs to...

Batoussai
08-16-2007, 01:14 PM
Finally a sane and normal thread witch really makes a point...

I think from now on Federer will lose more matches. After all, he's proven he can win anything he wants (except RG) so he will focus on those slams, and just getting enough points in other tournaments to hold his #1 ranking.
Nadal will try and play as much as possible to get Federer, but eventually he will have trouble with his playing too much tournaments!

zacinnc78
08-16-2007, 04:57 PM
fed cant just focus on slams and stay #1 because theres another dominant player(possibly 2) racking up frenchs and lots of masters

callitout
08-16-2007, 05:05 PM
Another thing I've noticed is that Fed of late has been relying more and more on his serve to get him cheap points, and his groundstrokes seem to lack power - where is that lethal forehand that could end points at will?

I dont know Fed hit a 106 mph forehand vs Benneteau yesterday. Perhaps the hardest forehand ever struck. Ive never seen more of a killer forehand. He loses to good players playing well. I dont see him losing to George Bastl.

Rhino
08-16-2007, 10:47 PM
I doubt Federer got all the way to the final set tiebreak of the final match in Montreal and thought "Ok thats enough of a tune-up now in Canada, I can't really be bothered with this tiebreak."

BigServer1
08-16-2007, 10:58 PM
fed cant just focus on slams and stay #1 because theres another dominant player(possibly 2) racking up frenchs and lots of masters

Well, I hate to start this up, but that player can't really seem to stay healthy during the second half of the season. Nadal will never be #1 if he can't win a hard court slam. Federer will be around for a few more years, and Djokovic is gaining momentum and has shown the ability to beat Nadal on HC. He's won (almost) all of the clay points that exist, thrown in two Wimbly finals and some HC masters series titles and still hasn't sniffed #1. Something has got to give with his scheduling, and hopefully we'll get see what that will be in the near future.

gerikoh
08-16-2007, 11:49 PM
federer doesn't like playing long matches coz he wants to collect more trophies :)

rwn
08-17-2007, 01:26 AM
It seems that way. I prefer the Federer of 2004-2006.

origmarm
08-17-2007, 02:14 AM
I definitely get this feeling recently re Fed. That said with the results I can't really justify it, I just feel it watching him play

crazylevity
08-17-2007, 08:14 AM
I think it is inevitable that as a player ages, he has to prioritise. I think Fed's still doing well. Nadal and Djokovic played abt the same no. of matches as Fed in Montreal, but both are out 1st round in Cincy. For a guy 5 yrs their senior, he's pretty darn good.

Then again, he IS Federer.

Michelangelo
08-17-2007, 10:05 AM
Federer will become another Sampras... coz he can't win FO. Haha!

WhiteSox05CA
08-17-2007, 10:07 AM
Hell no .

daddy
08-17-2007, 10:16 AM
Hell no .

YOu greek ? Pitty all your players have other nationalities. Fed has a couple of more shots at FO, otherwise... Also after playing the hamburg and whatever, and after playing in final last year, this years final was a pure dissapointment for me ! FO final that is !

LafayetteHitter
08-17-2007, 11:33 AM
If Nadal continues to have some of these injuries and Federer stays healthy he may have a much better shot at a FO title.

VGP
08-17-2007, 12:21 PM
Three and a half years at (an uninterupted) #1, 11 slams by the time he's 26, double-digit singles titles for three years running.....how could you not expect a drop in performance.

If he "becomes Sampras" that would be great. If he "became Borg" then it would be a shame.

(strictly talking about retiring outright after the USO....Borg was a great player too)

drpepper4590
08-17-2007, 03:14 PM
fed's losing more now because he's finally getting some competition...not because he just wants to focus on slams

psamp14
08-17-2007, 03:44 PM
Three and a half years at (an uninterupted) #1, 11 slams by the time he's 26, double-digit singles titles for three years running.....how could you not expect a drop in performance.

If he "becomes Sampras" that would be great. If he "became Borg" then it would be a shame.

(strictly talking about retiring outright after the USO....Borg was a great player too)

i couldnt agree more..

as long as federer stays healthy he will be a threat at every slam for a few more years, and a threat at the non-clay slams for the rest of his career

daddy
08-17-2007, 06:23 PM
fed's losing more now because he's finally getting some competition...not because he just wants to focus on slams

He can still get to where he aims to get thoug, he has a good few years ahead. It would be a shame if hes not going to take the french but hey - it may happen easilly.

rockthebox
08-17-2007, 07:56 PM
Fed is gonna focus on the slams, especially the french IMO. I think were gonna see him put more emphasis on his clay game. He will also try to secure aus, wimby and uso with his serve, whilst keeping his amazing arsenal of shots intact, perhaps even getting stronger. He's said himself that this year, he's been trying to incorporate an element of 'explosivity' into his game.

His losses on clay this year - well, its clay
his close wimby final - he was a bit off, and nadal really wanted to win wimbledon
his loss to djoker - djoker is an amazingly talented player, and he basically pulled an AUS 05 Safin

from uso 2008 and on, djoker will challenge fed for all the harcourt slams.
If fed doesn't win FO 08, we might see him taking some emphasis off his hardcourt game and putting more on clay. He will win wimbledon for the rest of his career (with Nadal maybe making a valiant push one more year), and perhaps half of the aus and uso's he plays.

let's say he plays till he is 30 (although who knows, maybe more)

total slams:
wimby 03
aus 04
wimby 04
uso 04
wimby 05
uso 05
aus 06
wimby 06
uso 06
aus 07
wimby 07
uso 07
aus 08
FO 08 ??? <--- climax of his career
wimby 08
uso 08
aus 09 ?
FO 09 ??
wimby 09
uso 09
aus 10 ?
FO 10 ??
wimby 10
uso 10 ?
aus 11 ?
FO 11 ??
wimby 11
uso 11 ?

minimum: 22 slams
maximum: 28 slams (being very generous here)

G.O.A.T to the limit, pounds Sampras into the ground

lordmanji
08-17-2007, 08:09 PM
i think you have a point except for another reason: federer is more and more relying on his serve to bail him out of pressure moments esp in wimbledon and his play afterward. i dont know if its him not doing the off court training necessary to maintain his groundstroke rallying ability but his form is becoming more and more erratic.

also, i think you have a point in that he's concentrating more on slams cause he's getting older and he CANT rally as much as he did before. of course take this relatively because he won Hamburg and finals of the French which are clay court and taxing on body tournaments.

I hope that he keeps caring about breaking serve and not just waiting for one moment to break like Pete.

samprasbackhand
08-17-2007, 10:49 PM
Also seems like he's coming to net a lot more..chips and charges, serves and volleys

tennispro11
08-17-2007, 10:57 PM
Also seems like he's coming to net a lot more..chips and charges, serves and volleys

He is trying to change it up. Nothing wrong with that.

Zaragoza
08-18-2007, 07:42 AM
fed's losing more now because he's finally getting some competition...not because he just wants to focus on slams

I agree. Federer is the kind of player that tries to win every tournament he plays, he is a winner and doesn´t tank tournaments. If he doesn´t win it´s because someone played better that day, not because he didn´t try his best.

superman1
08-18-2007, 07:48 AM
When Sampras tanked a tournament, he didn't do it 6-7 in the third in the final.

armand
08-18-2007, 07:56 AM
Sampras cared about 2 things - slams and #1 ranking. Everything else was secondary and he didn't really care that much about winning every tournament or dominating his peers.

I see the same attitude beginning to show in Roger's play this year. There is just no other way to explain it. We start with the 2 losses to Canas - ok, that was a bit of a shock. Clay court season played out according to predictions, Wimbledon was a fight but it was a foregone conclusion. The HC season has been the real shock - this is Fed's turf and the way he played in Montreal just didn't give the impression that he cared all that much. His play in the USO will be telling.

To me it seems that Fed has realized that other tournaments, even Master's series, are just tuneups for the slams. If he wants to be at the top till he's 30, he just cannot try and win every single thing he enters and keep giving 100%. Its just not possible, even for Fed. So I predict from now on we'll see him get fired up for the slams and keep getting 2-3/year, but perhaps not the Fed who loses only 5 matches a year.

I would love to be wrong and maybe he's just going through a bad patch. But I can't help but wonder that this remarkable turn of events came right after his meeting with Pete. Coincidence? - I think NOT!!You've been reading my posts, haven't you? Yeah I said these same things right after Sampras and Federer had their hit.

What coulda been so secret about their conversations? Well he couldn't tell the world "now, I'm only focused on the slams; I can't last forever. I won't be giving my 100% at other tournaments"

Looks like it's becoming true

Stchamps
08-18-2007, 08:05 AM
Only in the sport of tennis is 26 considered old.

daddy
08-19-2007, 12:02 AM
Fed is gonna focus on the slams,

let's say he plays till he is 30 (although who knows, maybe more)

total slams:
wimby 03
aus 04
wimby 04
uso 04
wimby 05
uso 05
aus 06
wimby 06
uso 06
aus 07
wimby 07
uso 07
aus 08
FO 08 ??? <--- climax of his career
wimby 08
uso 08
aus 09 ?
FO 09 ??
wimby 09
uso 09
aus 10 ?
FO 10 ??
wimby 10
uso 10 ?
aus 11 ?
FO 11 ??
wimby 11
uso 11 ?

minimum: 22 slams
maximum: 28 slams (being very generous here)

G.O.A.T to the limit, pounds Sampras into the ground


I never saw someone brakes the recors id any game so overwhelmingly. He may get to 14 , 15 , even 16 who knows, but 22 ? Im willing to put my house on this, 22 my friend, that means he needs to win as many as he has won. He is alresdy a most dominint player in a 4 year period ever. He is 26. if he has 3 more good years, that a max of 9 slams if all goes perfect for him ( no new tallents, no current players developing into real contenders etc ) which is impossible. If he takes 1 or 2 per season, its most likely hell get to 16 or there about , hopefully with one frenc. I think if he takes the french 08 he will be satisfied with 15 + French. Face it , no player will come near this any time soon, \ IMO

daddy
08-19-2007, 12:04 AM
Only in the sport of tennis is 26 considered old.

Borg retired at 26, Becker never done anything major after 26 etc.

drpepper4590
08-19-2007, 06:34 PM
Fed is gonna focus on the slams, especially the french IMO. I think were gonna see him put more emphasis on his clay game. He will also try to secure aus, wimby and uso with his serve, whilst keeping his amazing arsenal of shots intact, perhaps even getting stronger. He's said himself that this year, he's been trying to incorporate an element of 'explosivity' into his game.

His losses on clay this year - well, its clay
his close wimby final - he was a bit off, and nadal really wanted to win wimbledon
his loss to djoker - djoker is an amazingly talented player, and he basically pulled an AUS 05 Safin

from uso 2008 and on, djoker will challenge fed for all the harcourt slams.
If fed doesn't win FO 08, we might see him taking some emphasis off his hardcourt game and putting more on clay. He will win wimbledon for the rest of his career (with Nadal maybe making a valiant push one more year), and perhaps half of the aus and uso's he plays.

let's say he plays till he is 30 (although who knows, maybe more)

total slams:
wimby 03
aus 04
wimby 04
uso 04
wimby 05
uso 05
aus 06
wimby 06
uso 06
aus 07
wimby 07
uso 07
aus 08
FO 08 ??? <--- climax of his career
wimby 08
uso 08
aus 09 ?
FO 09 ??
wimby 09
uso 09
aus 10 ?
FO 10 ??
wimby 10
uso 10 ?
aus 11 ?
FO 11 ??
wimby 11
uso 11 ?

minimum: 22 slams
maximum: 28 slams (being very generous here)

G.O.A.T to the limit, pounds Sampras into the ground

Wow...that's a high minimum...considering there is a new generation coming up full of a lot of talent. You have him winning wimbledon 9 years straight for sure which is pretty nice considering the grass is getting slower every year. And you have him wining the US seven years straight as one of your minimum's and there is this kid who's pretty good on the hardcourts named Djokovic along with a few other guys like Nadal and if roddick weren't so stubbourn i would say roddick but...sigh...winning the french for him will always be hard because you always have those random guys that win that and then you have you're nadal's etc. also it's doubtful that he'l be able to keep up this pace for four more years...he's is human aand will get older and now that he has competition i think he's lost a little bit of his mystique because now everyone is realizing he is beatable. Federer was born in a very fortunate generation and we'll see if he can prove himself for sure now that he's actually being challenged...not that he hasn't proved himself enough...but to be considered in the same class as sampras, bjorg, becker, agassi even, he has to be able to win with 5 or 6 guys challenging him. And remember This generation, roddick, blake etc. were getting beat up by old men like andre and pete for a majority of the time.

daddy
08-19-2007, 06:39 PM
Wow...that's a high minimum...considering there is a new generation coming up full of a lot of talent. You have him winning wimbledon 9 years straight for sure which is pretty nice considering the grass is getting slower every year. And you have him wining the US seven years straight as one of your minimum's and there is this kid who's pretty good on the hardcourts named Djokovic along with a few other guys like Nadal and if roddick weren't so stubbourn i would say roddick but...sigh...winning the french for him will always be hard because you always have those random guys that win that and then you have you're nadal's etc. also it's doubtful that he'l be able to keep up this pace for four more years...he's is human aand will get older and now that he has competition i think he's lost a little bit of his mystique because now everyone is realizing he is beatable. Federer was born in a very fortunate generation and we'll see if he can prove himself for sure now that he's actually being challenged...not that he hasn't proved himself enough...but to be considered in the same class as sampras, bjorg, becker, agassi even, he has to be able to win with 5 or 6 guys challenging him. And remember This generation, roddick, blake etc. were getting beat up by old men like andre and pete for a majority of the time.

As I wrote before, djoko is not a joker, this guy is, I mean he thinks that you brake a record of 14 majors with min 22 ? Its like someone runns 100m 7.45 and brakes a 9.78 record that stands now .. SIlly.

lakis92
08-20-2007, 05:15 AM
I think Federer should try to gain more muscle and lose some more fat. He could kick some serious butt then and work more on his fitness levels. He has to be as fit and have the same endurance with Nadal.

Rybo
08-20-2007, 06:14 AM
I was looking at Sampras's career stats, and it's actually pretty interesting. Of course they're their own players, but it seems as though their careers have almost mirrored each other up to this point. At the end of 1997, Sampras had 52 career wins and 10 majors. He then only won 12 more tournaments for the rest of his career. It will be interesting to see how the downside of Fed's career compares.

ninman
08-20-2007, 06:26 AM
Sampras was good, but he was no genius like Federer. For a start he was only ever a contender for the French once when he reached the semi's and lost in straight sets, secondly he didn't dominate hard courts and grass the way Federer has. Federer is currently tied equal for the longest winning streak at 3 of the four grand slams, how many players can say they've done that?

OrangeOne
08-20-2007, 06:50 AM
fed's losing more now because he's finally getting some competition...not because he just wants to focus on slams

Finally getting some competition? He turned around losing records into winning records, and he's owned some people that would be being very respected were Fed not around (like Roddick, Hewitt etc).

I hate the no competition argument, because it simply implies that if Fed lost more often, we'd think the competition was stronger. So illogical.

BounceHitBounceHit
08-20-2007, 06:52 AM
To the OP: No, I don't think Roger is exclusively focused on the Slams. However he may become more so. If the trend continues (and there's no really substantial reason to think it won't, at least for the next 3-4 years) he is on his way to 16-20 GS titles. If YOU had that opportunity, where would you place most of the emphasis/effort??!! ;) CC

daddy
08-20-2007, 11:33 AM
Sampras was good, but he was no genius like Federer. For a start he was only ever a contender for the French once when he reached the semi's and lost in straight sets, secondly he didn't dominate hard courts and grass the way Federer has. Federer is currently tied equal for the longest winning streak at 3 of the four grand slams, how many players can say they've done that?

His domination was of a different character - longer. He had mamy genius strokes, he is a genius for sure. Its just a diferent kind of game he played and a different kind of guy he was ..

drpepper4590
08-20-2007, 02:37 PM
Finally getting some competition? He turned around losing records into winning records, and he's owned some people that would be being very respected were Fed not around (like Roddick, Hewitt etc).

I hate the no competition argument, because it simply implies that if Fed lost more often, we'd think the competition was stronger. So illogical.

the two examples you used were illogical. Roddick wouldn't be doing incredibly because he has some serious mental lapses at times and a completely one demensional game. Hewitt had his little run but most of the top pros figured him out before federer was even a factor. He's still doing great but he wouldn't be winning slams.

drpepper4590
08-20-2007, 02:40 PM
and i'm not saying federer isn't great i'm just saying we may be hyping him a little much. Yes he is an extremely smart player and knows how to use the court. His better results at the French are a result of him growing up on clay. And yes he has dominated this generation and it is near impossible to compare cross-generationallly but i'm saying that i think there are a lot of player in the past who i believe would have consistantly beaten federer. Still that does not in any way demean his accomplishments

OrangeOne
08-20-2007, 03:35 PM
i'm saying that i think there are a lot of player in the past who i believe would have consistantly beaten federer. Still that does not in any way demean his accomplishments

Big words there - a lot of players who would consistently beat Fed?

Go on - be brave - name them - who are these 'lot' of players that would have consistently beaten him in your opinion?

Remember that he's found a way to overcome all-comers in this generation, he's even making inroads into the negative H2H with Nadal. I'm keen to see who these 'lot' of players are.

OrangeOne
08-20-2007, 03:44 PM
the two examples you used were illogical. Roddick wouldn't be doing incredibly because he has some serious mental lapses at times and a completely one demensional game. Hewitt had his little run but most of the top pros figured him out before federer was even a factor. He's still doing great but he wouldn't be winning slams.

Well: if Roddick and Hewitt wouldn't have been doing well.... who would have? Someone would have, and it wouldn't just have been Nadal. Maybe Safin, maybe Davy, but some players would have been doing well.

Anyways - doesn't matter if the examples are illogical or not, it's the bigger point that the 'no competition' argument is fundamentally flawed. People judge the amount of 'competition' based on how often a player loses, and it's phenomenally insane to say that if only Federer lost more often then we could consider him a better player, because we'd assume his competition was stronger. Insane.

drpepper4590
08-20-2007, 03:47 PM
sampras, agassi, bjorg, mcenroe on grass at least, connors, villander maybe, becker, rafter on grass def. hardcourt maybe, ivonisovic if his head was in it. etc.

kingkong
08-20-2007, 03:51 PM
sampras, agassi, bjorg, mcenroe on grass at least, connors, villander maybe, becker, rafter on grass def. hardcourt maybe, ivonisovic if his head was in it. etc.

orangeone is going to say your argument is wrong because you misspelled ivanisevic's name

Rybo
08-20-2007, 03:56 PM
i'm saying that i think there are a lot of player in the past who i believe would have consistantly beaten federer.

Of course there is absolutely positively no way to prove this.

drpepper4590
08-20-2007, 04:07 PM
that's why i used the words think and believe and the post i said there wasn't a way to prove it...fruit for thought...perhaps put it in perspective

OrangeOne
08-20-2007, 04:31 PM
sampras, agassi, bjorg, mcenroe on grass at least, connors, villander maybe, becker, rafter on grass def. hardcourt maybe, ivonisovic if his head was in it. etc.

Firstly, I take it you're assuming the impossible: that these guys somehow update their games to the modern game? Because there's no way that any of the 80s or earlier players would beat the modern players, even just 'phase shifting their careers' so that they were peaking now. The game has changed, so i assume you're thinking they'd update their games for this comparison, and you're just guesstimating how their games would end up?

Secondly, I assume villander = wilander? I can't imagine a world in which Wilander would consistently beat Federer, even with a 'modern game update'. Ditto for Connors, for that matter. McEnroe was undoubtedly a genius, but Wimbledon isn't for S&Vers anymore, so I don't see him being relevant. Rafter was a modern-day-S&V-legend, but again with S&V not being as relevant (one word: Luxilon), and his ground game would be broken down by Federer anyways. Ivanisevic struggled to beat his own generation, and it took him a whole career to get a single slam, I can't fathom for a second why you think he would have 'consistently beaten Federer'.

Agassi struggled with Sampras in the majors, and most consider Fed a modern update of Sampras. Borg - well I didn't see him enough myself, but anyways, we're left with Borg and Sampras, two all-time legends, who it would be great to have seen overlap Federer.

The more I think, with the exception of Lendl, (I wonder why you left him out?), you rattled off almost every big-gun of the last 30 years in tennis. You honestly think Federer is behind EVERY big gun of the last 30 years? You're dreaming.

shakes1975
08-20-2007, 04:51 PM
it doesn't make sense when you say something that you know can't be proven. which is why, at the end of the day, all that matters is what numbers a particular player puts up. period.

if fed wins 15 slams, he's greater than sampras, agassi, borg, becker etc. etc., regardless of whether peak sampras or peak agassi are going to beat fed or not. that's reality, whether you like it or not.

further, except for sampras who can hold his own with fed, i don't think any of the players you listed can "consistently" beat fed. you are extrapolating a lot, considering how the surfaces have slowed down, how the balls have changed, the change in strings etc. when you directly translate player's games from previous generations into this generation. did you see the wim F last month ? it played almost like a fast clay-court with a somewhat lower bounce. you put sampras or becker or rafter or edberg or mac against fed on such a surface, and i still think fed would win.

every player is a product of his generation. competition, like water, always seeks its own level. so, for one player to break away and dominate like fed's doing now and like sampras did before him, it's really incredible.

Kim
08-20-2007, 05:00 PM
..let me just add, by some people's idiotic standards, Sampras NEVER dominated...hell he lost more that ONE match :)

Fed's era ended when he lost ONE match (sarcasm intended...of course!)

kingkong
08-20-2007, 05:10 PM
Firstly, I take it you're assuming the impossible: that these guys somehow update their games to the modern game? Because there's no way that any of the 80s or earlier players would beat the modern players, even just 'phase shifting their careers' so that they were peaking now. The game has changed, so i assume you're thinking they'd update their games for this comparison, and you're just guesstimating how their games would end up?

Secondly, I assume villander = wilander? I can't imagine a world in which Wilander would consistently beat Federer, even with a 'modern game update'. Ditto for Connors, for that matter. McEnroe was undoubtedly a genius, but Wimbledon isn't for S&Vers anymore, so I don't see him being relevant. Rafter was a modern-day-S&V-legend, but again with S&V not being as relevant (one word: Luxilon), and his ground game would be broken down by Federer anyways. Ivanisevic struggled to beat his own generation, and it took him a whole career to get a single slam, I can't fathom for a second why you think he would have 'consistently beaten Federer'.

Agassi struggled with Sampras in the majors, and most consider Fed a modern update of Sampras. Borg - well I didn't see him enough myself, but anyways, we're left with Borg and Sampras, two all-time legends, who it would be great to have seen overlap Federer.

The more I think, with the exception of Lendl, (I wonder why you left him out?), you rattled off almost every big-gun of the last 30 years in tennis. You honestly think Federer is behind EVERY big gun of the last 30 years? You're dreaming.



you're saying Wilander, or Canas as he likes to call himself these days, would have no chance against fed?


LOL ;)

kingkong
08-20-2007, 05:21 PM
Sampras didn't play anyone who was capable of consistently beating federer, he did however play lots of guys who were capable of beating ANYONE when there game was on, simply because they played such high risk/reward games, that when the cards fell their way they were unstoppable, guys like korda, ivanisevic(who youdismissed despite reaching no.2 in the world),kraijeck,becker, stich etc.

They were very unlikely to play this way right throughout a tournament, but it was very likely that you would be beaten by one of these guys, as odds were that one of them would get hot, even if it was only for one round, and beat you.

That is what made Sampras's dominance so amazing, when one of these guys started getting hot, ran down their winners and won.


this is what makes federer's dominace so unimpressive by comparison.

His average is better than everybody elses average but there is no prospect of anyone throwing the kitchen sink at him and painting the lines because those guys don't exist anymore.

the only modern day equivelant is Marat Safin, there is no one else with the alround power and recklessness to have a chance of beating federer.Rather than attempt to reach a higher level which they have less of a chance of attaining, they instead play at the highest level they can produce consistently, which is enough to beat journeymen, but not federer.

Dilettante
08-20-2007, 05:33 PM
Sport, as every single human discipline, evolves. It may get less stylish or whatever, but for sure it gets more effective and powerful.

So you can't really compare. ¿Was Kasparov really greater than Bobby Fischer? ¿Was really Bobby Fischer greater than Raúl Capablanca? Chess was deeper in Kasparov's times than in Capablanca's, so without an "update" Capablanca would have never won. But: is that comparison fair? Capablanca played the game of his times, and he dominated as Fischer or Kasparov did. So they were geniuses in their own times, but you can't really make a fair head-to-head between them. Kasparov played a much more evolved and powerful chess than Capablanca, but that doesn't really mean that Kasparov was more of a genius than Capablanca or Fischer.

So Federer, in terms of domination of his contemporaries, is becoming a Great like Sampras, Borg, Laver were.

Federer has a weaker competition? No, he's just facing his own competition. If it was not for him, Nadal would have probably won 1 or 2 Wimbledons, Roddick a Wimby and at least one more US Open, Safin one more Aussie Open, the same for Hewitt, etc.

Add to this: tennis has evolved just as anything and today's game is more deep, more powerful, more subtle in the things that make the difference between two players. Tennis can seem less stylish than in the past, but that happens to many sports (European football, for example) as their basics become more technically demanding and their practice more phisically demanding too. So I think that Federer is playing perhaps the most powerful tennis ever played.