PDA

View Full Version : Could Federer in another era be one of the Clay Court Greats.


PCXL-Fan
06-06-2008, 09:11 PM
Despite all the praise Federer gets, often times I don't think people are aware of his capability on Clay. Heck, many would even hesitate to call him definitively the second best clay courter of this era, which he has been for the past 4 years.

If Nadal wasn't in the picture Federer could quite possibly have 3 or 4 Roland Garros titles under his belt (taking this current years into account and the semifinal lost to nadal in 2005) as well most of those clay court master series titles where he lost to Nadal in the final.

I know among many board members a player has to actually get the titles to be considered one of the greats. But I think the problem is Federer who could be considered one of the greats is living in an era with the greatest claycourter ever.

Well if you guys refuse to agree with me about him being one of the clay greats despite his lack of victories I would at least hope that there isn't much argument he is definitely overall the best clay courter other than Nadal of this generation (also taking into account rising Djokovic).

Lets take a look at Gustavo Kuerten who is unquestioned by most of you as a clay court great. In his runs to his 3 Roland Garros titles he never dominated his opponents in mostly 3 but occasionally 4 sets like Federer. Quite often he'd go to 5 sets. Federer never losing more than 1 sets to an opponent since 2005 (other than Nadal) is indicative of his profound skill on clay.

http://forums.ngemu.com/attachments/recycle-bin/162525d1212811957-post-random-picture-now-federer-kuerten-comparison.png

In the very end I'm just trying to show that he should get more recognition for his clay court ability than is often given to him, whether or not he is considered a possible clay court great.

PCXL-Fan
06-06-2008, 09:31 PM
come on someone read my post, I put a bit of effort into it.... :p

Purostaff
06-06-2008, 09:32 PM
need cliffs =/

flyer
06-06-2008, 09:37 PM
very interesting and thoughtful thread, it def deserves much more attention

I've never really thought about it that way I guess because Nadal is so great we don't realize that Federer may have been on the verge of his 4th strait Roland Garros were it not for Nadal, so yeah defiantly Federer;s clay court achievements will always be under appreciated and yes were it not for Nadal Federer would be seen the not only one of the clay court greats but definitely, without a doubt, no questions asked the all time greatest

PCXL-Fan
06-06-2008, 09:41 PM
need cliffs =/

Its really not that long :'( :cry: Just a paragraph long... and a picture showing both of their most successful runs in roland garros.

flyer
06-06-2008, 09:45 PM
Its really not that long :'( :cry: Just a paragraph long... and a picture showing both of their most successful runs in roland garros.

it really is a great thread man, i guess some people would just rather not think that hard

Medved
06-06-2008, 09:46 PM
Yeah, but this is true for a lot of guys. If it weren't for Federer, we'd probably be calling Andy Roddick a great grass court player, and Andy would have 3 US Open crowns. And how many times has James Blake run into Federer when James was playing very well? How much credit do we give Nadal on grass?

Fed is clearly the second best player in the world on clay. In my opinion, the second best ever on clay.

Part of why I believe Federer is the greatest ever is that I don't think Rafa, as good as he is, is the second best player at the Australian or New York. Too many other guys have knocked him off at those tournaments. But how many guys have knocked off Federer in any grand slam other than Nadal at Roland Garros? Safin, Djokovic. I really can't think of many others. That's not many. Depending on when Fed retires, Novak might win more slams than Nadal.

And to me there is huge difference between Australia and New York even though they're both hard courts. September in New York seems to favor taller, stronger, and quicker striking players that would often fade in the miserable heat of Australia. Federer has been dominant on both of these.

PCXL-Fan
06-06-2008, 10:07 PM
it really is a great thread man, i guess some people would just rather not think that hard

Thank :)

Yeah, but this is true for a lot of guys. If it weren't for Federer, we'd probably be calling Andy Roddick a great grass court player, and Andy would have 3 US Open crowns. And how many times has James Blake run into Federer when James was playing very well? How much credit do we give Nadal on grass?

Fed is clearly the second best player in the world on clay. In my opinion, the second best ever on clay.

Part of why I believe Federer is the greatest ever is that I don't think Rafa, as good as he is, is the second best player at the Australian or New York. Too many other guys have knocked him off at those tournaments. But how many guys have knocked off Federer in any grand slam other than Nadal at Roland Garros? Safin, Djokovic. I really can't think of many others. That's not many. Depending on when Fed retires, Novak might win more slams than Nadal.

And to me there is huge difference between Australia and New York even though they're both hard courts. September in New York seems to favor taller, stronger, and quicker striking players that would often fade in the miserable heat of Australia. Federer has been dominant on both of these.

oh Absolutely. Nadals runs to the Wimbledon finals has proven he's a phenominal grass court player. Him, andy roddick, and Djokovic are above rest of the field on that surface. Its to bad roddick is usually taken out early in Wimbledon by federer because of his poor luck on the draw.

!Tym
06-06-2008, 10:08 PM
Lets take a look at Gustavo Kuerten who is unquestioned by most of you as a clay court great. In his runs to his 3 Roland Garros titles he never dominated his opponents in mostly 3 but occasionally 4 sets like Federer. Quite often he'd go to 5 sets. Federer never losing more than 2 sets to an opponent since 2005 (other than Nadal) is proof of his skill on clay.


Well, Guga post-peak still beat Fed in straight sets at the French.

What you have to understand about Guga is that he wasn't your typical dominant clay court player whose base was defense mixed in with moderated offense (meaning they were more picky and calculating about when to pull the trigger). I.e. Most dominant clay courters, their strategy was to distribute their game so that it was 3/4 impenetrable defense and 1/4 impenetrable offense. Nadal fits this mold/ratio, the difference is that he apparently just does it better than everyone else. Guga on the other hand was more like a *clay* court version of Petr Korda in the way that he played...only with heart.

How consistent was Petr Korda? Exactly. One match, he would be an absolute terror and it was like his groundies were heat-sinking missles that burned the paint off the lines they were so bone-chillingly accurate...and then the next day it wasn't safe to be in the front row, because he was spraying balls out of bounds like someone had spiked his morning cereal with caffeine.

Kuerten was much the same way in that he often had GREAT days as often as he had mediocre days, the difference is that on his off days, he still managed to keep his head in the game and keep on fighting until his heart and how much he wanted it could make the difference. Korda wasn't like that. If he saw his balls were sailing, with him, it was like the ship had already sailed, because he wouldn't recover and kind of just go away. Kuerten is a guy who could win pretty just as consistently as he could win ugly. That's what made him a champion, and Korda one of those perpetual "unfulfilled promise" types every generation sees. To me, that's the route Thomas Berdych for instance seems to be heading down.

Federer and Kuerten aren't really alike. Fed never really seems to have an off-OFF day. Fed's worst days are like B+ territory for him, he's a consistently solid performer whose best days are sublime, and not much fall off on his worst days.

Fed's a guy you expect to win in straight sets with his eyes closed until he gets bored or something. Guga's a guy who you expect a down and dirty back alley cat fight just to survive one day, and advanced ballet class with Cyndi Lauper the next.

Guga's a guy whose hair got grungy, he was a rocker. Fed's prim and proper, he's "Duke" and "King" from the Virtua Tennis series, never with a hair out of place, never gets too ruffled, always looks in control of himself and his destiny out there. He's that guy with no eyebrows from "Titanic".

Guga's Leo the romantic (but unpredictable) and whistful one.

35ft6
06-06-2008, 10:12 PM
I find it interesting that guys who love the wooden days will insist a champion is a champion is a champion, that true champions transcend eras and technology. But it really only seems to work in one direction, the guys of old would be good today, but today's players don't measure up, really, to the guys of old. Interesting.

flyer
06-06-2008, 10:13 PM
I find it interesting that guys who love the wooden days will insist a champion is a champion is a champion, that true champions transcend eras and technology. But it really only seems to work in one direction, the guys of old would be good today, but today's players don't measure up, really, to the guys of old. Interesting.

very wise post

a_6m
06-06-2008, 10:21 PM
He is over-shadowed by Nadal on clay.

Also, considering clay is harsh on body, Fed still continues to play equal number of matches as Nadal on clay, but unlike nadal continues to reach final of almost all major tournaments round the year.

So, you can say the Master of all against a Specialist Master of Clay. Fed vs. Nadal.

flyer
06-06-2008, 10:41 PM
He is over-shadowed by Nadal on clay.

Also, considering clay is harsh on body, Fed still continues to play equal number of matches as Nadal on clay, but unlike nadal continues to reach final of almost all major tournaments round the year.

So, you can say the Master of all against a Specialist Master of Clay. Fed vs. Nadal.

What do you mean by clay is harsh on the body? You need to be in better shape but its actually much more forgiving on the joints, tendons, etc

CyBorg
06-06-2008, 10:46 PM
I think that Roger could have been like Laver. A tremendous grass courter who's also adept at clay, but wasn't at his best on clay until an opportunity came along.

In Laver's days the best was Rosewall, but he was older than Rod and eventually an opportunity presented itself. Laver beat an aging Rosewall at the 1969 Roland Garros in what was perhaps his greatest victory on the surface. Between 1969 and 1971 Laver was perhaps the game's best clay court player, albeit not by far.

What made the difference was probably the age of his greatest opponent on the surface. If things were the opposite - let's say in Rosewall was younger than Laver - then maybe Rod would have been remembered as the guy who couldn't win the big one on clay.

Neither of these guys (Laver/Federer) are in the top 10 all time on clay, but I think that one was a bit more fortunate.

*I noticed I wasn't clear in the last sentence, so I adjusted it.

superman1
06-07-2008, 12:35 AM
He probably could, although he might have to avoid Guga and Borg and a few others. But then he'd get Sampras at Wimbledon, and he might get screwed there.

You get what you get.

urban
06-07-2008, 02:00 AM
Now, Cy Borg, that neither Laver or Rosewall are top ten on clay, is a bold assumption. Laver would have given Borg all he could handle on clay. His record on the amateur circuit on clay in 1962 is still unsurpassed. His record on clay on the pro tour since 1963 is positive against Rosewall. He beat Rosewall in the Kitzbühl final in 1963 on clay in three straight sets.And Rosewall was 28 then. Overall in the open era there head to head on clay is just about even 4-4.And in Laver's era there were Santana, Gimeno, Okker, Kodes, Ayala and Pietrangeli, too. Not to metion Lundquist, Mulligan, Franulovic and others. And Emerson, who could play really well on clay.

Rhino
06-07-2008, 02:40 AM
Yeah, but this is true for a lot of guys. If it weren't for Federer, we'd probably be calling Andy Roddick a great grass court player, and Andy would have 3 US Open crowns.

I don't agree with this. Andy Roddick would still have to play someone else in the final, he was unable to beat Davydenko after beating Federer in Miami, by your reasoning he would've taken that title.

flyer
06-07-2008, 07:19 AM
I don't agree with this. Andy Roddick would still have to play someone else in the final, he was unable to beat Davydenko after beating Federer in Miami, by your reasoning he would've taken that title.

You might be right but the Davy example is IMO not a good one because that is the only time Davy has ever beaten him, so that was more bad timing....as for him having to play someone else, that is certainly true but he was clearly the second best player (and by far) at many of those Wimby and USO, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he would have won a great majority of them

joeri888
06-07-2008, 07:51 AM
If, if.. if doesn't count. Sure, he could have won roland garros titles. doesn't matter though.. Making finals against Nadal time after time won't be forgotten.

federerGOAT
06-07-2008, 07:55 AM
Federer is definitely the 2nd best claycourter of all time.Think about it, if not for Nadal, he would have 3 French Open titles. He also has numerous Masters titles on clay.

BeHappy
06-07-2008, 07:57 AM
No .

joeri888
06-07-2008, 08:14 AM
Federer is definitely the 2nd best claycourter of all time.Think about it, if not for Nadal, he would have 3 French Open titles. He also has numerous Masters titles on clay.

That's a bit overdone. It's not for nothing that there's a guy always beating him.. He's well in the top 10 I think though.

urban
06-07-2008, 08:19 AM
He only won at Hamburg 4 times, which is good.. But still no win at Rome or Monte Carlo. Agassi and Sampras, both won Rome. People like Muster, Guga, Nastase, Panatta, Bruguera, Laver won at least two, if not three of the most important, including RG.

PCXL-Fan
06-07-2008, 08:36 AM
He only won at Hamburg 4 times, which is good.. But still no win at Rome or Monte Carlo. Agassi and Sampras, both won Rome. People like Muster, Guga, Nastase, Panatta, Bruguera, Laver won at least two, if not three of the most important, including RG.

Uhh the only reason he never won Rome or Monte Carlo multiple times is because of Nadal. Nadal dominates virtually every clay court event he enters. Federer often times makes it to the finals but has lost 5 clay court master series finals to Nadal.

And pointing out that Sampras won a Rome or Monte Carlo is pointless. Federer is in another league to Sampras on Clay. Sampras's best at Roland Garros is a single qtr final finish. For all intents and purposes I think Sampras may be only a little better than Andy Roddicks on clay.

Federer is definitely the 2nd best claycourter of all time.Think about it, if not for Nadal, he would have 3 French Open titles. He also has numerous Masters titles on clay.
Lets call a spade a spade. Actually he probably would have won the 2005 Rolland Garros as well. If Nadal wasn't around in 2005 Federer would have faced David Ferrer in the semi finals and Mariano Puerta in the final.

I'm fairly certain Federer would have beaten Mariano Puerta, and as for Ferrer Federer is 8-0 against him including 3 victories on clay. Federer is absolutely no question a better claycourter than claycourt specialist Ferrer.

dh003i
06-07-2008, 09:07 AM
Well, unless he wins more than 1 GS on clay, he'll never be considered one of the greats on clay (Laver isn't really considered a great on clay, and he won 2 French Opens...although that does give him his argument for GOAT).

He does however have a lot of talent, and in another era, he'd be dominating on clay. He's probably one of the top talents on clay, just by virtue of his general talent. But of course, talent-wise -- for clay -- Borg, Vilas, Nadal, Kuerten, and others are all ahead of him. He's still pretty impressive on clay. But to say #2 all time, is nuts.

CyBorg
06-07-2008, 09:32 AM
Now, Cy Borg, that neither Laver or Rosewall are top ten on clay, is a bold assumption.

No, no. Neither Laver nor Federer. Wasn't talking about Rosewall.

Laver would have given Borg all he could handle on clay. His record on the amateur circuit on clay in 1962 is still unsurpassed. His record on clay on the pro tour since 1963 is positive against Rosewall. He beat Rosewall in the Kitzbühl final in 1963 on clay in three straight sets.And Rosewall was 28 then. Overall in the open era there head to head on clay is just about even 4-4.And in Laver's era there were Santana, Gimeno, Okker, Kodes, Ayala and Pietrangeli, too. Not to metion Lundquist, Mulligan, Franulovic and others. And Emerson, who could play really well on clay.

From what I've seen of Laver on clay he didn't impress me as much as I would have expected. I don't see how he would have troubled Borg. He didn't hit with nearly enough topspin to trouble Borg. Then again, neither did Rosewall.

60s clay tennis is very rhythmic, at least comparatively to 70s tennis. Groundies a lot flatter; none of that big topspin; none of that huge whipping action on the windup. I don't know. Maybe I'm missing the magic here.

You might be right that I'm overrating Rosewall. I was going on his adjusted clay majors (as we tend to do here) which are plentiful. As for Laver, I've read nothing to suggest that he ever was the game's best clay player until 1969. Ultimately it comes down to what I see. I've seen the 1968 and 1969 RG matches with Laver and I didn't like what I saw. I love the guy on grass, but he doesn't excite me on clay. Then again neither does Federer and he's getting some results.

CyBorg
06-07-2008, 09:54 AM
Here are the guys I deem to be top-10. You tell me if perhaps I'm era-biased, urban.

(In no particular order) Borg, Cochet, Rosewall, Lendl, Nadal, Kuerten, Trabert, Wilander, Muster, Vilas.

There are many flaws and holes to my highly unscientific list. I've seen some footage of Cochet, which I really liked. But I like idiosyncratic guys and Cochet's big topspin looks perfectly suited for the surface and we know that he has the results to back that up. Rosewall - I admit that I thought he was more dominant against Laver on clay than what you told me. Trabert is the great clay courter of the 50s and, of course, I'm a big Muster fan, although perhaps going on results alone Laver has accomplished more on the surface.

Even though people tend to say that I'm woodie-biased, I actually tend to rate contemporary guys a lot higher. I also considered Von Cramm for this list.

Perhaps the Rosewall-Laver/Nadal-Federer link doesn't work after all.

TheTruth
06-07-2008, 10:18 AM
It's hard to speculate on that one. Until Nadal surfaced, it appears Fed didn't put much stock in the clay court season. Having Rafa around helped elevate his clay game. Had Rafa not been around who knows what might have happened. Then again, we don't have many clay court specialists nowadays. Guga, Coria, and Ferrero were holding the mantles of clay court kings until Rafa showed up, but now we have Ferrer and Almagro, two mentally weak players who have never been dominant. I guess Federer would have won the French three times if Rafa wasn't around. A pity really!

urban
06-07-2008, 11:14 AM
Laver did beat Borg on clay in straight sets, on red clay at Houston and on a clay-like rubber surface at Tokyo. Borg wasn't at his highest peak, but still RG champion that year (1974), but Laver was 36. In 1975, Borg, who won RG with a 3 set defeat of Vilas, beat 37 year old Laver on a slow indoor court at Dallas in a long 5 setter, coming back from a1-2 deficit with two tiebreak wins, and on har tru at Forest Hills in four. But Laver was still able to take a set off Borg, which not many did at that time on clay or har tru. Old Laver was 1-1 against Vilas, and had positive records on clay vs. Panatta, Kodes, Solomon, Gerulaitis and Orantes. And those were Borgs main rivals on clay.

CyBorg
06-07-2008, 11:41 AM
Laver did beat Borg on clay in straight sets, on red clay at Houston and on a clay-like rubber surface at Tokyo. Borg wasn't at his highest peak, but still RG champion that year (1974), but Laver was 36. In 1975, Borg, who won RG with a 3 set defeat of Vilas, beat 37 year old Laver on a slow indoor court at Dallas in a long 5 setter, coming back from a1-2 deficit with two tiebreak wins, and on har tru at Forest Hills in four. But Laver was still able to take a set off Borg, which not many did at that time on clay or har tru. Old Laver was 1-1 against Vilas, and had positive records on clay vs. Panatta, Kodes, Solomon, Gerulaitis and Orantes. And those were Borgs main rivals on clay.

I get you and I know that Laver and Borg had competitive matches in those two years, but they never played each other on red clay. Bjorn was pretty good in those years on green clay, but we know that at that time at least Connors was better and perhaps US champion Orantes.

Laver certainly wasn't a slouch on clay, but I don't see how he would have been able to bother Borg on red clay on a hot Sunday afternoon.

federerGOAT
06-07-2008, 11:41 AM
He only won at Hamburg 4 times, which is good.. But still no win at Rome or Monte Carlo. Agassi and Sampras, both won Rome. People like Muster, Guga, Nastase, Panatta, Bruguera, Laver won at least two, if not three of the most important, including RG.

If not for Nadal, he would have had those Rome and Monte Carlo titles as well. Of those people you mentioned, only Guga on a good day has a chance against Fed. Fed would have blown the other guys of the court.

CyBorg
06-07-2008, 11:44 AM
If not for Nadal, he would have had those Rome and Monte Carlo titles as well. Of those people you mentioned, only Guga on a good day has a chance against Fed. Fed would have blown the other guys of the court.

I think that Roger's victory in Hamburg was just as good as winning Rome.

I mean, just look at the draw. Everyone was there and Roger beat Nadal. That's more impressive that Djokovic's win in Rome this year. He didn't beat the best player in that event.

That said, I think that Monte Carlo is definitely the second most important event after Roland Garros. Historically speaking and in terms of surface similarity to Roland Garros.

Greenfin Beta
06-07-2008, 01:35 PM
come on someone read my post, I put a bit of effort into it.... :p

i think the reason why not so many have responded to this thread is everyone's over at the 'pro match results' it being the middle (or end) of the french.

it's a good post, btw, and i agree with most of your points but there's no getting around the fact that nadal exists and until federer actually wins a FO trophy, he's not going to get credit for being one of the all-time greats on clay. he really only needs that one FO for all skeptics to agree.

veroniquem
06-07-2008, 01:39 PM
Uhh the only reason he never won Rome or Monte Carlo multiple times is because of Nadal. Nadal dominates virtually every clay court event he enters. Federer often times makes it to the finals but has lost 5 clay court master series finals to Nadal.

And pointing out that Sampras won a Rome or Monte Carlo is pointless. Federer is in another league to Sampras on Clay. Sampras's best at Roland Garros is a single qtr final finish. For all intents and purposes I think Sampras may be only a little better than Andy Roddicks on clay.


Lets call a spade a spade. Actually he probably would have won the 2005 Rolland Garros as well. If Nadal wasn't around in 2005 Federer would have faced David Ferrer in the semi finals and Mariano Puerta in the final.

I'm fairly certain Federer would have beaten Mariano Puerta, and as for Ferrer Federer is 8-0 against him including 3 victories on clay. Federer is absolutely no question a better claycourter than claycourt specialist Ferrer.
All your arguments are right on the mark. Fed is just a phenomenon on all surfaces. On the other hand, it's really hard to make a definite judgement based on ifs and buts. Records are established on actual victories. Would and should are not in the picture when you examine a player's greatest achievements. It's the same for Nadal. He won't be remembered as a legend on grass if he never wins Wimbledon even if he makes the final half a dozen times losing against Fed each time.

veroniquem
06-07-2008, 01:44 PM
Thank :)



oh Absolutely. Nadals runs to the Wimbledon finals has proven he's a phenominal grass court player. Him, andy roddick, and Djokovic are above rest of the field on that surface. Its to bad roddick is usually taken out early in Wimbledon by federer because of his poor luck on the draw.
Roddick has been taken out by other players too...

akv89
06-07-2008, 02:00 PM
Well, unless he wins more than 1 GS on clay

Would you not consider Muster a great on clay?

NikeWilson
06-07-2008, 02:38 PM
Gustavo Kuerten would destroy Federer on clay, in his prime.

Philcoa
06-07-2008, 02:45 PM
Federer is definitely the 2nd best claycourter of all time.Think about it, if not for Nadal, he would have 3 French Open titles. He also has numerous Masters titles on clay.So a two time loser is better than Rosewall (won 9 lost 1), Bjorg (won 6 lost 0), Wilander (won 5 lost 2) Lendl (won 5 lost 3) or Laver (won3 lost 5)? Gimme a break. The key to Federer's long run of succes is not that he was great but that he also plays in one of the weakest eras of tennis. Today American tennis is at its worst level in decades and Australia is about the same. Andy Roddick has been in three Slam finals on the basis of a good service anhd players as poor as Bagdhatis and Phillipoussis and joined the ranks of Federer's final opponents. Federer is good but nothing near the level that he is acclaimed to be.

jmsx521
06-07-2008, 02:48 PM
That is one dreadful picture of Serena on the avatar!

veroniquem
06-07-2008, 02:56 PM
That is one dreadful picture of Serena on the avatar!
That's Serena? I thought it was from a zombie flick...

2nd_Serve
06-07-2008, 04:48 PM
Despite all the praise Federer gets, often times I don't think people are aware of his capability on Clay. Heck, many would even hesitate to call him definitively the second best clay courter of this era, which he has been for the past 4 years.

If Nadal wasn't in the picture Federer could quite possibly have 3 or 4 Roland Garros titles under his belt (taking this current years into account and the semifinal lost to nadal in 2005) as well most of those clay court master series titles where he lost to Nadal in the final.

I know among many board members a player has to actually get the titles to be considered one of the greats. But I think the problem is Federer who could be considered one of the greats is living in an era with the greatest claycourter ever.

Well if you guys refuse to agree with me about him being one of the clay greats despite his lack of victories I would at least hope that there isn't much argument he is definitely overall the best clay courter other than Nadal of this generation (also taking into account rising Djokovic).

Lets take a look at Gustavo Kuerten who is unquestioned by most of you as a clay court great. In his runs to his 3 Roland Garros titles he never dominated his opponents in mostly 3 but occasionally 4 sets like Federer. Quite often he'd go to 5 sets. Federer never losing more than 1 sets to an opponent since 2005 (other than Nadal) is indicative of his profound skill on clay.

http://forums.ngemu.com/attachments/recycle-bin/162525d1212811957-post-random-picture-now-federer-kuerten-comparison.png

In the very end I'm just trying to show that he should get more recognition for his clay court ability than is often given to him, whether or not he is considered a possible clay court great.

I also think this. He is the second best clay courter and the best clay courter if only Nadal wasn't here. Hopefully, he could win the French and replace Nadal.

PCXL-Fan
06-07-2008, 06:01 PM
That is one dreadful picture of Serena on the avatar!

I have a better one with a photoshopped picture of serena. :p

Nah this isn't from a zombie flick, from the new Incredible Hulk II movie coming out in 2009.

PCXL-Fan
06-07-2008, 06:04 PM
So a two time loser is better than Rosewall (won 9 lost 1), Bjorg (won 6 lost 0), Wilander (won 5 lost 2) Lendl (won 5 lost 3) or Laver (won3 lost 5)? Gimme a break. The key to Federer's long run of succes is not that he was great but that he also plays in one of the weakest eras of tennis. Today American tennis is at its worst level in decades and Australia is about the same. Andy Roddick has been in three Slam finals on the basis of a good service anhd players as poor as Bagdhatis and Phillipoussis and joined the ranks of Federer's final opponents. Federer is good but nothing near the level that he is acclaimed to be.

Where USA and Australia (population less than 35million) have lost interest in tennis, it has been largely pickup by european and particularily eastern european countries and russia.