PDA

View Full Version : Did Safin ever lose when playing his best?


SerbWhoLovesDelPo
10-22-2009, 11:36 AM
Did Safin ever lose a match when playing his best tennis? Which match was it?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-22-2009, 11:37 AM
Did Safin ever lose a match when playing his best tennis? Which match was it?
This week? This year? His whole career?

Strange question imo...:-?

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
10-22-2009, 11:38 AM
In his career, of course.

Which match was it? I would really like to know.

And let's forget about grass because it's his worst surface. So, just clay and HC.

kafelnikov
10-22-2009, 11:43 AM
Tough to say. Was Federer playing at 100% when he lost to Safin in AO 05?
Was Safin playing at 100% in that match?

If so, I think he would be extremely tough to beat.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
10-22-2009, 11:50 AM
Those who said yes, please tell me which matches were those, so I can download them from somewhere and watch them.

akv89
10-22-2009, 11:51 AM
Safin was in the form of his life towards the end of 04, beginning of 05. He lost to Federer and Roddick in close matches at TMC 04. The Federer match was the one that involved a tiebreak that went to 20-18.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
10-22-2009, 11:54 AM
Safin was in the form of his life towards the end of 04, beginning of 05. He lost to Federer and Roddick in close matches at TMC 04. The Federer match was the one that involved a tiebreak that went to 20-18.

oh, yeah, forgot about those TMCs. ty

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-22-2009, 11:56 AM
TMC 2004 from Houston vs Federer

Telepatic
10-22-2009, 11:56 AM
Theres no such thing like 100% imo, only ups and downs. (and of course match ups between players)

rocket
10-22-2009, 11:59 AM
Those who said yes, please tell me which matches were those, so I can download them from somewhere and watch them.

the Safin-Sampras USO final. You don't beat Sampras in a slam final playing so-so tennis.

r2473
10-22-2009, 12:02 PM
Did Safin ever lose a match when playing his best tennis? Which match was it?

Safin has never even lost a point when playing his best. He just let's the other guys win (a lot of) points because he can't be bothered.

abmk
10-22-2009, 12:05 PM
As someone pointed out already, TMC 2004 matches against fed and roddick. Add his hamburg match vs guga in 2000 that went to the 5th set tie-break ...

Bertie B
10-22-2009, 12:08 PM
2001 USO semifinal v. Sampras

Michael Bluth
10-22-2009, 12:13 PM
Was he playing his best in that match?

IvanAndreevich
10-22-2009, 12:23 PM
This kind of discussion doesn't lead anywhere.

tacou
10-22-2009, 12:43 PM
it leads the OP where he wants to be

lambielspins
10-22-2009, 02:09 PM
Actually he has many times. 2004 at the year end Masters he played his best both in the semis with Federer and the RR with Roddick and lost both in tight 2 sets. He also played his best in the 2004 Bangkok semis with Roddick and lost in a 3rd set tiebreak. Miami quarters in 2002 he played his best and still lost to Hewitt. The semis of Monte Carlo in 2004 was one of his best clay matches ever and still lost to Coria. Halle final of 2005 was definitely his best grass court match ever and still lost to Federer. Heck the Hamburg final in 2002 I am sure if he did anything wrong, and was still destroyed by a pre prime Federer. This Safin myth is way over the top. Safin is very beatable.

The 2005 Australian Open semis was the best match Safin has ever played, or 2nd best after the U.S Open final vs Pete. Roger played very well but it was probably his 200th best match ever or something. Safin still was a point from losing in 4 sets.

LafayetteHitter
10-22-2009, 02:10 PM
Safin was in the form of his life towards the end of 04, beginning of 05. He lost to Federer and Roddick in close matches at TMC 04. The Federer match was the one that involved a tiebreak that went to 20-18.

I was there for the tiebreak. It was a great match.

lambielspins
10-22-2009, 02:14 PM
It is funny to think Safin might have been playing his best in all 4 of his matches vs Roddick in 2004. People who saw those matches (myself included) concede he was in great form in all 4. Yet he won one in 5 tough sets and lost the other 3, 2 of those 3 in straight sets. That should put this argument to rest for good. Even Roddick can beat Safin regularly at his best, so the likes of Federer, Nadal, and others sure as heck could even if Safin did happen to play his best more often vs them.

Max G.
10-22-2009, 02:27 PM
Many players don't ever lose when they're playing their best... because if they're playing their best, that means their opponent is failing to prevent them from playing well. Remember, half of tennis isn't just playing well, it's getting into your opponent's head and making them play poorly... and Safin is quite susceptible to that.

Dgpsx7
10-22-2009, 02:42 PM
Tough to say. Was Federer playing at 100% when he lost to Safin in AO 05?
Was Safin playing at 100% in that match?

If so, I think he would be extremely tough to beat.

I think Fed was 90% in that match. He played really well but seemed tentative in a lot of his shots. It when your shots look good but aren't as effective as usual. It has happened to me before expect I am 1/1,000,000 of a pro.

Netspirit
10-22-2009, 02:47 PM
Safin is the most overrated player on these boards. And not just here - lots of folks seem to love him "for what he could have done" (but apparently failed to do).

TheFifthSet
10-22-2009, 02:48 PM
It is funny to think Safin might have been playing his best in all 4 of his matches vs Roddick in 2004. People who saw those matches (myself included) concede he was in great form in all 4. Yet he won one in 5 tough sets and lost the other 3, 2 of those 3 in straight sets. That should put this argument to rest for good. Even Roddick can beat Safin regularly at his best, so the likes of Federer, Nadal, and others sure as heck could even if Safin did happen to play his best more often vs them.

Hmm, I only watched two (AO and IW). He was great in Melbourne but I wasn't so impressed with him in Indian Wells.

jackson vile
10-22-2009, 03:05 PM
Theres no such thing like 100% imo, only ups and downs. (and of course match ups between players)

I agree with you, the 100% thing is total BS. That goes for everyone including Nadal.

dincuss
10-22-2009, 03:08 PM
Of course he did,
Everyone will lose, when playing at best or not

lambielspins
10-22-2009, 03:17 PM
Hmm, I only watched two (AO and IW). He was great in Melbourne but I wasn't so impressed with him in Indian Wells.

Fair enough. What about Bangkok and the TMC though. He played about as well as he could and still lost to Roddick in both, though I think all 5 sets were tiebreakers (with Roddick winning 4 of the 5). Australian Open he was playing his best tennis and it still took 5 sets to beat Roddick who wasnt playing his best that day, and then 5 sets to beat a 34 year old Agassi. My main point is his best is far from unbeatable. He is a great player who can beat anyone at his best, but is not nearly unbeatable at his best like Federer or Nadal on clay.

The 3 people who voted "no" are complete idiots btw.

NamRanger
10-22-2009, 03:20 PM
Actually he has many times. 2004 at the year end Masters he played his best both in the semis with Federer and the RR with Roddick and lost both in tight 2 sets. He also played his best in the 2004 Bangkok semis with Roddick and lost in a 3rd set tiebreak. Miami quarters in 2002 he played his best and still lost to Hewitt. The semis of Monte Carlo in 2004 was one of his best clay matches ever and still lost to Coria. Halle final of 2005 was definitely his best grass court match ever and still lost to Federer. Heck the Hamburg final in 2002 I am sure if he did anything wrong, and was still destroyed by a pre prime Federer. This Safin myth is way over the top. Safin is very beatable.

The 2005 Australian Open semis was the best match Safin has ever played, or 2nd best after the U.S Open final vs Pete. Roger played very well but it was probably his 200th best match ever or something. Safin still was a point from losing in 4 sets.


LOL, what a ******* spin. Somehow Federer who had godly numbers and was winning the whole way wasn't playing well. OK. Let's just ignore the fact that Federer CRUSHED Agassi in the previous round without even breaking a sweat.

kOaMaster
10-22-2009, 04:20 PM
[/B]LOL, what a ******* spin. Somehow Federer who had godly numbers and was winning the whole way wasn't playing well. OK. Let's just ignore the fact that Federer CRUSHED Agassi in the previous round without even breaking a sweat.

why?
you know what fed did to del potro this year's AO too and what happened in the 5th set vs nadal?
would you say fed play his best in that game overall?

lambielspins
10-22-2009, 04:34 PM
LOL, what a ******* spin. Somehow Federer who had godly numbers and was winning the whole way wasn't playing well. OK. Let's just ignore the fact that Federer CRUSHED Agassi in the previous round without even breaking a sweat.

I didnt say that he wasnt playing well. I said he very often plays that well or better. It certainly wasnt the best or second best match of his career like it was Safin. Yet Safin still had to save a match point to avoid losing in 4 sets, and actually had the worse stats for the match- fewer winners, same # of unforced errors, and fewer points won. Federer always beat old Agassi and crushed him in about half of their matches (atleast a couple worse than their) so what is your point. That wasnt a special achievement for him, it was common, it was Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick who struggled to beat an old Agassi constantly. You are the same one who thinks Federer doesnt own Del Potro, ROTFL!

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
10-22-2009, 05:51 PM
it leads the OP where he wants to be

What? And where do I wanna be?

What a righteous idiot..

JeMar
10-22-2009, 06:17 PM
Every time that Safin has lost he was playing the best he could play that day.

NamRanger
10-22-2009, 07:47 PM
I didnt say that he wasnt playing well. I said he very often plays that well or better. It certainly wasnt the best or second best match of his career like it was Safin. Yet Safin still had to save a match point to avoid losing in 4 sets, and actually had the worse stats for the match- fewer winners, same # of unforced errors, and fewer points won. Federer always beat old Agassi and crushed him in about half of their matches (atleast a couple worse than their) so what is your point. That wasnt a special achievement for him, it was common, it was Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick who struggled to beat an old Agassi constantly. You are the same one who thinks Federer doesnt own Del Potro, ROTFL!



You would be an absolute idiot to think Federer wasn't playing close to his best tennis during that match. You are also an absolute idiot if you think that Federer's lack of godly shots had nothing to do with Safin hitting Federer's 90 mph balls back at him for 100+ mph. Let's just ignore Federer's insane record that year, his insane stats that match, etc. etc. Oh yeah. Let me remind you that Agassi at the AO even in his elder years was insanely tough to beat. It took an onfire Safin who just beat Roddick in 2004, 5 sets to take Agassi out. Federer did it in 3 easy sets the next year. Yet somehow Federer's not playing well. ROFL.



I'm sorry, I have nothing left to say to you. Federer's level at the AO 2005 would have won the USO 2009, Wimbledon 2008, and the AO 2009. That's how good it was. That just speaks loudly about how talented Safin is, and how he flushed it down the toilet for vodka and hot women (which to be fair isn't that bad of a trade).




Irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not Federer owns Del Potro. Trying to discredit a poster when he has totally owned you is quite funny, as it shows how desperate you are.

NamRanger
10-22-2009, 08:09 PM
Actually he has many times. 2004 at the year end Masters he played his best both in the semis with Federer and the RR with Roddick and lost both in tight 2 sets. He also played his best in the 2004 Bangkok semis with Roddick and lost in a 3rd set tiebreak. Miami quarters in 2002 he played his best and still lost to Hewitt. The semis of Monte Carlo in 2004 was one of his best clay matches ever and still lost to Coria. Halle final of 2005 was definitely his best grass court match ever and still lost to Federer. Heck the Hamburg final in 2002 I am sure if he did anything wrong, and was still destroyed by a pre prime Federer. This Safin myth is way over the top. Safin is very beatable.

The 2005 Australian Open semis was the best match Safin has ever played, or 2nd best after the U.S Open final vs Pete. Roger played very well but it was probably his 200th best match ever or something. Safin still was a point from losing in 4 sets.



If you want to prove me wrong, then put together a list of 200 matches where Federer played better than he did against an onfire Marat Safin.

lawrence
10-22-2009, 08:54 PM
This kind of discussion doesn't lead anywhere.

Yeah, you could basically say this about any top ranking player.

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, have never lost this year while playing their best. Because you could easily argue that the matches they lost - they were all not playing their best.

Dark Victory
10-22-2009, 08:59 PM
You would be an absolute idiot to think Federer wasn't playing close to his best tennis during that match. You are also an absolute idiot if you think that Federer's lack of godly shots had nothing to do with Safin hitting Federer's 90 mph balls back at him for 100+ mph. Let's just ignore Federer's insane record that year, his insane stats that match, etc. etc. Oh yeah. Let me remind you that Agassi at the AO even in his elder years was insanely tough to beat. It took an onfire Safin who just beat Roddick in 2004, 5 sets to take Agassi out. Federer did it in 3 easy sets the next year. Yet somehow Federer's not playing well. ROFL.



I'm sorry, I have nothing left to say to you. Federer's level at the AO 2005 would have won the USO 2009, Wimbledon 2008, and the AO 2009. That's how good it was. That just speaks loudly about how talented Safin is, and how he flushed it down the toilet for vodka and hot women (which to be fair isn't that bad of a trade)..
Word to all that.

Minor quibbles about stats aside, I tried making a 30-minute highlight reel lately of the match and, if you include the replays, a half-hour just isn't enough. If you think about it, some matches last only 30-45 minutes. The shotmaking and the rallies were insane and both played incredibly well. When that happens, it's all a matter of execution. Safin executed better at the handful of points that basically won him the match.

That is all.

But Federer was very close to (and it's arguable that he was) playing his best.

And yep, the match Fed played against Agassi (who was still very tough to beat) in the QF, was also one of the best matches he ever played. He absolutely crushed Andre.

NamRanger
10-22-2009, 09:31 PM
Word to all that.

Minor quibbles about stats aside, I tried making a 30-minute highlight reel lately of the match and, if you include the replays, a half-hour just isn't enough. If you think about it, some matches last only 30-45 minutes. The shotmaking and the rallies were insane and both played incredibly well. When that happens, it's all a matter of execution. Safin executed better at the handful of points that basically won him the match.

That is all.

But Federer was very close to (and it's arguable that he was) playing his best.

And yep, the match Fed played against Agassi (who was still very tough to beat) in the QF, was also one of the best matches he ever played. He absolutely crushed Andre.



Federer fans will do everything in their power to descredit Safin's win over him in the 2005 SF. Blisters, not playing as well as he could, etc.

grafselesfan
10-22-2009, 09:32 PM
ROTFL at the 10 people who voted NO. Cmon people Safin was great, heck if he was more focused on tennis he would have alot more than 2 slams, but he isnt some god. I dont know if any people has never lost playing their best but if any hasnt that would be say Laver or Sampras, sure as heck wouldnt be Safin.

navratilovafan
10-22-2009, 09:39 PM
Safin is one of the most overrated players in tennis history. NamRanger's literal Safin jerkoff rants on this very thread are just yet another testement to his many crazy fans. Thank goodness he is retiring.

Shaolin
10-22-2009, 09:46 PM
Safin was on a great run when Fed beat him in the 04 AO finals. Safin had just beaten Roddick and Agassi in incredible matches.

navratilovafan
10-22-2009, 09:49 PM
Safin was on a great run when Fed beat him in the 04 AO finals. Safin had just beaten Roddick and Agassi in incredible matches.

Safin was fatigued for that match and definitely not at his best. He probably still would have lost anyway even if he had though, as Federer at his best beats Safin at his best 9 times out of 10 probably (even if the 05 AO was an aberration to that). Safin is a great player but overall he isnt a particularly tough matchup for Federer, in addition to being the inferior player. He was getting destroyed by even pre-prime Federer in 2002. So he has to play absolutely out of his mind like the 05 AO to even have a chance, and even then it might not be enough, and once in awhile like that day it might be but not very often. I am not a fan of either Federer or Safin. However Safin's over the top fans are more annoying than the worst of the *******s which is saying something.

The fact Safin even has 10 votes in this poll is an utter crime.

cuddles26
10-22-2009, 09:59 PM
I'm sorry, I have nothing left to say to you. Federer's level at the AO 2005 would have won the USO 2009, Wimbledon 2008, and the AO 2009.

That just shows what a ****** you are. Federer played one of his greatest matches ever in the 2008 Wimbledon final. Way better than the 2005 Australian Open semis even though he also played very well in that match. If you doubt that then any a simple question, will a book ever be written about the 2005 Australian Open semifinal as good as it was? The answer of course is hell NO. Nadal is just the worst matchup ever for Federer, and is a much greater player than your man crush Safin also. Nadal is the only player since Sampras who could have beaten Federer that day. Even a top form Safin would have been crushed that day.

OddJack
10-22-2009, 10:01 PM
I liked Safin but...

To those who compare him with Rodge, if you can be at 100% only for few seasons out of a 10 year career, then you should only get honorable mention and not much more.
Some of you guys talk like being at 100% is something given to a player by supernatural powers. It takes dedication, focus and lots of practice:

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u291/RRohan/122116360559485x01pg5.jpg

Don't even go there guys.

LiveForever
10-22-2009, 10:10 PM
Definitely. Safin is incredibly overrated. People escalate this guy to the likes of Agassi, Nadal, Becker, Federer, Sampras etc when he isnt even close.

LiveForever
10-22-2009, 10:13 PM
You would be an absolute idiot to think Federer wasn't playing close to his best tennis during that match. You are also an absolute idiot if you think that Federer's lack of godly shots had nothing to do with Safin hitting Federer's 90 mph balls back at him for 100+ mph. Let's just ignore Federer's insane record that year, his insane stats that match, etc. etc. Oh yeah. Let me remind you that Agassi at the AO even in his elder years was insanely tough to beat. It took an onfire Safin who just beat Roddick in 2004, 5 sets to take Agassi out. Federer did it in 3 easy sets the next year. Yet somehow Federer's not playing well. ROFL.



I'm sorry, I have nothing left to say to you. Federer's level at the AO 2005 would have won the USO 2009, Wimbledon 2008, and the AO 2009. That's how good it was. That just speaks loudly about how talented Safin is, and how he flushed it down the toilet for vodka and hot women (which to be fair isn't that bad of a trade).




Irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not Federer owns Del Potro. Trying to discredit a poster when he has totally owned you is quite funny, as it shows how desperate you are.

It was actually a terrible trade off. His of court charmisa which so many Safin fans are proud of was so lame and Funny. "I am Marat Safin, I play my best tennis once an year, I am no big shot in tennis anymore but I will still act like a rockstar" LOL

President of Serve/Volley
10-22-2009, 10:15 PM
That just shows what a ****** you are. Federer played one of his greatest matches ever in the 2008 Wimbledon final. Way better than the 2005 Australian Open semis even though he also played very well in that match. If you doubt that then any a simple question, will a book ever be written about the 2005 Australian Open semifinal as good as it was? The answer of course is hell NO. Nadal is just the worst matchup ever for Federer, and is a much greater player than your man crush Safin also. Nadal is the only player since Sampras who could have beaten Federer that day. Even a top form Safin would have been crushed that day.



Are you joking? The Vintage Federer wouldn't have had such a slow start in that 2008 Wimbledon Match, in fact, he would have won in 4 sets if he was at is 2005-2006 level. Nadal is no match for a Vintage Federer on grass.

cuddles26
10-22-2009, 10:17 PM
It was actually a terrible trade off. His of court charmisa which so many Safin fans are proud of was so lame and Funny. "I am Marat Safin, I play my best tennis once an year, I am no big shot in tennis anymore but I will still act like a rockstar" LOL

Exactly. He gets more credit for playing his best once a year than others have doing it all the time. Also winning only like 2 big matches his whole career (U.S Open final with Sampras and Aussie semis with Federer) is somehow mythical prove he would beat everyone at his best according to the Safin addicts. It is a joke. This poll and thread are a complete joke.

cuddles26
10-22-2009, 10:19 PM
Are you joking? The Vintage Federer wouldn't have had such a slow start in that 2008 Wimbledon Match, in fact, he would have won in 4 sets if he was at is 2005-2006 level.

Yes the 2008 Wimbledon final was one of the best matches of Federer's career. Even he said so himself. It still wasnt enough since Nadal is both a tennis legend (something Safin will never be) and the worst matchup stylewise for Federer probably in tennis history. You say his 2006 level, yet Federer struggled to win in 4 sets vs a baby Nadal who was nowhere near his 2008 level, which would have been 5 sets if Nadal didnt choke serving for the 2nd set. So where is the logic there. 2006 Federer would win in 4 sets when he won in 4 sets as it was vs a baby Nadal in like his 4th tournament ever on grass, LOL!

zagor
10-22-2009, 10:23 PM
This poll only somewhat makes sense if we're talking about HC,on clay and grass there are a lot of players that can beat Safin at his best.On HC yeah I think Safin is extremely hard to beat at his best,I think Fed's level at 2005 AO was very high and it was a very impressive feat for Safin to beat Fed in that form,that semi IMO was one of the best matches Fed played that he lost(along with 2006 Rome final and 2008 Wimbledon final).

MasturB
10-22-2009, 10:31 PM
Definitely. Safin is incredibly overrated. People escalate this guy to the likes of Agassi, Nadal, Becker, Federer, Sampras etc when he isnt even close.

Talent-wise, he's on their level.

But when it's all said and done, he doesn't have the record or numbers to live up to his potential.

lambielspins
10-22-2009, 10:53 PM
This poll only somewhat makes sense if we're talking about HC,on clay and grass there are a lot of players that can beat Safin at his best.On HC yeah I think Safin is extremely hard to beat at his best,I think Fed's level at 2005 AO was very high and it was a very impressive feat for Safin to beat Fed in that form,that semi IMO was one of the best matches Fed played that he lost(along with 2006 Rome final and 2008 Wimbledon final).

There is a huge difference from being hard to beat at your best on a certain surface and having never lost a match at your best on that surface. The idea that Safin has never played his best on hard courts and lost is a huge fallacy. As talented as he is, he is not the male Serena Williams (and even she has probably lost some matches on hard courts playing her best). Nearly everyone was able to list multiple matches he played his best even on hard courts and still lost. It wasnt that much of a challenge to do in fact.

grafselesfan
10-23-2009, 12:20 AM
Talent-wise, he's on their level.

But when it's all said and done, he doesn't have the record or numbers to live up to his potential.

Not sure if I would put him on Sampras's level talent wise. I agree talent wise he is on par with some of those others though, including Federer.

TheFifthSet
10-23-2009, 12:23 AM
Not sure if I would put him on Sampras's level talent wise. I agree talent wise he is on par with some of those others though, including Federer.

Why is he on par with Federer talent-wise but not Sampras?

I personally think that he's as talented as both of them . . .

dropshot winner
10-23-2009, 12:26 AM
Not sure if I would put him on Sampras's level talent wise. I agree talent wise he is on par with some of those others though, including Federer.
There's no reason to think of Sampras as the more talented player than Federer, the only thing arguable is the opposite.

IMO they are fairly even, slightly above a player like Safin.

Dark Victory
10-23-2009, 01:00 AM
This poll only somewhat makes sense if we're talking about HC,on clay and grass there are a lot of players that can beat Safin at his best.On HC yeah I think Safin is extremely hard to beat at his best,I think Fed's level at 2005 AO was very high and it was a very impressive feat for Safin to beat Fed in that form,that semi IMO was one of the best matches Fed played that he lost(along with 2006 Rome final and 2008 Wimbledon final).
I wouldn't include 2008 Wimbledon. It was a great match for the drama and historical context. But don't agree with the notion that Federer played his best (or near best) and was just outplayed.

He played catch-up all throughout the match, and I never really felt momentum significantly swung in his favor at any point. He got destroyed by Rafa in Paris just prior, and the psychological effect of it was evident when they shortly met again even at Federer's best surface.

At the time of the 2005 AO and 2006 Rome MS, Federer's confidence was incredible. He was damn near invincible. He played extremely well and simply lost because the other guy executed better.

dropshot winner
10-23-2009, 01:02 AM
I wouldn't include 2008 Wimbledon. It was a great match for the drama and historical context. But don't agree with the notion that Federer played his best (or near best) and was just outplayed.

He played catch-up all throughout the match, and I never really felt momentum significantly swung in his favor at any point. He got destroyed by Rafa in Paris just prior, and the psychological effect of it was evident when they shortly met again even at Federer's best surface.

At the time of the 2005 AO and 2006 Rome MS, Federer's confidence was incredible. He was damn near invincible. He played extremely well and simply lost because the other guy executed better.

Well said.

AO 2005/Rome 2006 Federer would not dump 80mph 2nd serves into the bottom of the net on breakpoints.

grafselesfan
10-23-2009, 01:07 AM
LOL at the comments regarding 2008 Wimbledon. Federer was on fire in the 2008 Wimbledon final, even better than how he played in the 2005 Australian Open semis with Safin as an earlier poster stated. Nadal was just too good. It was a classic match, one of the best in Wimbledon history.

dropshot winner
10-23-2009, 01:11 AM
LOL at the comments regarding 2008 Wimbledon. Federer was on fire in the 2008 Wimbledon final, even better than how he played in the 2005 Australian Open semis with Safin as an earlier poster stated. Nadal was just too good. It was a classic match, one of the best in Wimbledon history.

Federer played some great tennis at times in the Wimbledon final, but you can't seriously think that his forehand and footwork (his biggest weapons) were as good as in 2005.

Dark Victory
10-23-2009, 01:14 AM
I see talent primarily in terms of athleticism and aptitude for the game.

And by that criteria, Safin's talent is on the same tier as Andre and Rafa.

Andre's gift primarily covers ball-striking, hand-eye coordination and body reflex.

Rafa is an incredible athlete (he's one of the best movers ever). And it's what makes his unique style of play possible.

Safin moves exceptionally well for a big man. And his game has that kind of "heft" that could match the truly great ones.

grafselesfan
10-23-2009, 01:15 AM
Federer played some great tennis at times in the Wimbledon final, but you can't seriously think that his forehand and footwork (his biggest weapons) were as good as in 2005.

That is why the 2008 Wimbledon final was hailed as one of the greatest finals in Wimbledon history. If Federer had won you would all be signing a different tune I bet.

dropshot winner
10-23-2009, 01:18 AM
That is why the 2008 Wimbledon final was hailed as one of the greatest finals in Wimbledon history. If Federer had won you would all be signing a different tune I bet.

Historically it was one of the most significant Wimbledon finals, it marked (presumably) the changing of the guard and it had some really great, sometimes even unreal (those points in the tiebreak) tennis.

That's why.

grafselesfan
10-23-2009, 01:19 AM
Historically it's was one of the most significant Wimbledon finals, it marked (presumably) the changing of the guard and it had some really great, sometimes even unreal (those points in the tiebreak) tennis.

That's why.

Exactly. It was amazing tennis in an amazing situation. Basically in line with all I said.

dropshot winner
10-23-2009, 01:21 AM
Exactly. It was amazing tennis in an amazing situation. Basically in line with all I said.

I didn't disagree, but Federer was still not at his best (and he still could've won), that's all I'm saying.

abmk
10-23-2009, 02:04 AM
That is why the 2008 Wimbledon final was hailed as one of the greatest finals in Wimbledon history. If Federer had won you would all be signing a different tune I bet.

yes, if federer had won. it'd have been hailed at the biggest comeback ever, but NOT as his best tennis .... "Anti-fed"***** and *********s would've been grumbling and whining about how lucky federer was that nadal let go off that 4th set-tie-break , lol !

If you think a federer who was shanking quite a few easy balls ( that had nothing to do with rafa), making lousy approach shots ( again nothing to do with rafa), flubbing some easy volleys ( again nothing to do with rafa) and dumping second serves on BPs on to the net ( again nothing to with rafa) was playing at his best , you must br crazy. He played well, but by no means was it his best tennis

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 02:15 AM
yes, if federer had won. it'd have been hailed at the biggest comeback ever, but NOT as his best tennis .... "Anti-fed"***** and *********s would've been grumbling and whining about how lucky federer was that nadal let go off that 4th set-tie-break , lol !

If you think a federer who was shanking quite a few easy balls ( that had nothing to do with rafa), making lousy approach shots ( again nothing to do with rafa), flubbing some easy volleys ( again nothing to do with rafa) and dumping second serves on BPs on to the net ( again nothing to with rafa) was playing at his best , you must br crazy. He played well, but by no means was it his best tennis

Stop with the excuses. Federer played great not his best match ever but he still played great, funny enough all Federer's best matches coincidently have come against sub par players.

kOaMaster
10-23-2009, 03:31 AM
Oh come on, the 2008 Wimbledon final was qualitywise the best tennis match I ever saw. Fed was doing really good - Nadal just did better. That's probably the of the few matches where I'd say yes, Federer did everything he could on a high level and still lost.

grafselesfan
10-23-2009, 03:33 AM
If you think a federer who was shanking quite a few easy balls ( that had nothing to do with rafa), making lousy approach shots ( again nothing to do with rafa), flubbing some easy volleys ( again nothing to do with rafa) and dumping second serves on BPs on to the net ( again nothing to with rafa) was playing at his best , you must br crazy. He played well, but by no means was it his best tennis

Umm all those things have everything to do with Rafa. Federer's normal good shots arent enough to win points vs Rafa the way they are vs pretty much everyone else. Thus he has to try and make extraordinary shots. That results in more mistakes. That plus the fact he realizes in Rafa he is playing a player of similar talent but superior mental strength, and who the matchup seems to favor. Considering it was Rafa on the other side of the net he played pretty much the best he could have and still lost. And yes you are right on one thing, Rafa could have closed it out in 3 or 4 sets to boot.

grafselesfan
10-23-2009, 03:48 AM
So you think that Federer in wimbledon 2008 would beat Federer wimbledon 2005???????????????????

It would be a 5 setter. Federer actually played better in the 2008 final than he did in the 2004 final btw.

grafselesfan
10-23-2009, 04:12 AM
And Federer played alot better this year at wimbledon than he did in 08

You are right. Losing a set to Kohlschreiber and being lucky to eke past Roddick in 5 (granted give Roddick credit too as he played excellently) was better than last year when he thoroughly dominated everyone except Nadal. Keep dreaming.

kOaMaster
10-23-2009, 05:25 AM
So you think that Federer in wimbledon 2008 would beat Federer wimbledon 2005???????????????????

I never said that and I would not compare it. In 2005 he had no opponent that forced him to play like he did in 2008. It was a one man show, no one figured out how to play vs federer. Personnally I believe that you raise your level if your opponent is about as good as you are and gives you a tough game.

so to give an answer on your question - I think federer in 2008 could win. maybe not with his shots or his physique, but with his experience and game intelligence which imo improved.

abmk
10-23-2009, 05:38 AM
Stop with the excuses. Federer played great not his best match ever but he still played great, funny enough all Federer's best matches coincidently have come against sub par players.

uhh, what excuses ? I stated what all had happened in the match. As I said, he played well, but committed too many elementary mistakes for it to be considered his best

Btw hamburg 2007 final two sets (nadal), TMC 2007 SF ( nadal ), TMC 2003 final ( agassi ) , 2002 hamburg final ( safin ) , 2004 TMC SF ( safin ) etc etc ring a bell ? This is leaving aside roddick/hewitt whom you under-rate a lot anyways ....

That is apart from the AO 2005 SF (safin) and rome 2006 F (nadal ) , where he lost playing at his best

abmk
10-23-2009, 05:44 AM
Umm all those things have everything to do with Rafa.

umm, not much , those are some elementary mistakes you'd expect a player would NOT do much when they are playing well

Federer's normal good shots arent enough to win points vs Rafa the way they are vs pretty much everyone else. Thus he has to try and make extraordinary shots. That results in more mistakes. That plus the fact he realizes in Rafa he is playing a player of similar talent but superior mental strength, and who the matchup seems to favor. Considering it was Rafa on the other side of the net he played pretty much the best he could have and still lost.

uh, what special shots are you trying by dumping second serves on BPs into the net ?

what special shots are you trying when you flub one simple volley after the other ?

you are playing at your best when you let a 4-1 lead go to 4-6 by shanking left right ??????

And yes you are right on one thing, Rafa could have closed it out in 3 or 4 sets to boot.

uhh, that wasn't the implication of my statement >> I meant there'd be NO credit for federer from the anti-*******s and *********s had he won , all they'd be saying is rafa choked the 4th set-tie-break and federer was lucky, in other words, he put in no effort to fight back from being 2 sets down

abmk
10-23-2009, 05:48 AM
Oh come on, the 2008 Wimbledon final was qualitywise the best tennis match I ever saw. Fed was doing really good - Nadal just did better. That's probably the of the few matches where I'd say yes, Federer did everything he could on a high level and still lost.

Quality-wise the best tennis match ????? Sorry, the fed-safin AO 2005 SF absolutely blows this match away quality wise. Even the nadal-verdasco 2009 SF for that matter. Becker sampras YEC finals in 96 too ...

hell, their rome final in 2006 was clearly better than this

kOaMaster
10-23-2009, 06:07 AM
In 2005 he did have opponents that challenged him - that is why he lost at the AO and FO to Safin and Nadal respectfully. Plus you had prime hewitt and Roddick still playing decent tennis.

If anything the level of play has gotten worse since 04-06.

he had it only in a couple of games. not over a long period. I mean come on, how often did hewitt or roddick win vs federer? safin is I dont know, 1-10 down against fed? he gave him two or three very close games of which he won one...
those players were not a thread to federer. only nadal was, but nadal was not ready yet for other surfaces (I think most people agree that it was nadal who stepped up in 2007, 2008, not federer/the rest going down?)

NamRanger
10-23-2009, 06:44 AM
umm, not much , those are some elementary mistakes you'd expect a player would NOT do much when they are playing well



uh, what special shots are you trying by dumping second serves on BPs into the net ?

what special shots are you trying when you flub one simple volley after the other ?

you are playing at your best when you let a 4-1 lead go to 4-6 by shanking left right ??????



uhh, that wasn't the implication of my statement >> I meant there'd be NO credit for federer from the anti-*******s and *********s had he won , all they'd be saying is rafa choked the 4th set-tie-break and federer was lucky, in other words, he put in no effort to fight back from being 2 sets down





Notice that Federer only does these things against Nadal. Dumping second serve BPs, shanking alot, and flubbing easy volleys. Wonder why? Oh yeah, it's because Nadal is on the other side of the net and he is in Federer's head. That had everything to do with Nadal. Federer was playing flawless tennis up to the Wimbledon final, and even in the final he was playing about as well Nadal was going to let him.

NamRanger
10-23-2009, 06:48 AM
Exactly. He gets more credit for playing his best once a year than others have doing it all the time. Also winning only like 2 big matches his whole career (U.S Open final with Sampras and Aussie semis with Federer) is somehow mythical prove he would beat everyone at his best according to the Safin addicts. It is a joke. This poll and thread are a complete joke.



Safin upsets random people all the time. Obviously you don't watch tennis. I guess we forget who snapped Andre Agassi's 24 match streak at the Australian Open, and who upset the world's best HC player at the time at the AO 2004, or that time Safin beat Hewitt in the indoor tournament in 2002, etc. Or that time Safin beat the living snot out of Djokovic out of the blue at Wimbledon last year, etc.

NamRanger
10-23-2009, 06:49 AM
Hewitt/Safin and Roddick of 2005 were more of a threat to federer in slams than the likes of Murray and Djokovic this season.



Yeah, because they actually MEET Federer most of the time to get pummeled. Murray is busy being taken out by headcase Verdasco, Andy Roddick (good match, but he was heavily favored to win this match), and Marian Cilic (LOL).



Djokovic has retired to Roddick, beaten by Kohlschrieber, Haas, and then finally manages to meet Federer at the USO.

NonP
10-23-2009, 07:05 AM
Yeah, because they actually MEET Federer most of the time to get pummeled. Murray is busy being taken out by headcase Verdasco, Andy Roddick (good match, but he was heavily favored to win this match), and Marian Cilic (LOL).



Djokovic has retired to Roddick, beaten by Kohlschrieber, Haas, and then finally manages to meet Federer at the USO.

NamRanger, unlike many posters here you do know your tennis, but you have this puzzling tendency to way oversimplify things. First of all, you know Verdasco was not a headcase at the AO and came close to beating eventual champion Nadal in the SF. And Murray had a wrist injury when he lost to Cilic at the USO.

Djokovic was indeed a letdown this year, but it's too early to downgrade him yet. Let's see if he fails to make a splash next year and if yes then you'll have a legit punching bag.

NamRanger
10-23-2009, 07:09 AM
NamRanger, unlike many posters here you do know your tennis, but you have this puzzling tendency to way oversimplify things. First of all, you know Verdasco was not a headcase at the AO and came close to beating eventual champion Nadal in the SF. And Murray had a wrist injury when he lost to Cilic at the USO.

Djokovic was indeed a letdown this year, but it's too early to downgrade him yet. Let's see if he fails to make a splash next year and then if yes then you'll have a legit punching bag.



No, in that ONE particular match Verdasco was a MASSIVE headcase. He was doing EVERYTHING in his power to give Andy Murray that match. Murray was leading by a comfortable 2-1 sets, and Verdasco was spraying balls everywhere. He tightened his game up in the 4th set, served well, and just played solid tennis. Murray gets afraid, pushes, and essentially gives the 4th set to Verdasco.



Heck, Murray had oppertunities to break Verdasco in the 5th set at around 3 or 4 all. And guess what he does. He PUSHES and ALLOWS Verdasco to take over. I mean, the stats say both guys played horrendous tennis. There were unforced errors flying in every direction.

NonP
10-23-2009, 07:19 AM
No, in that ONE particular match Verdasco was a MASSIVE headcase. He was doing EVERYTHING in his power to give Andy Murray that match. Murray was leading by a comfortable 2-1 sets, and Verdasco was spraying balls everywhere. He tightened his game up in the 4th set, served well, and just played solid tennis. Murray gets afraid, pushes, and essentially gives the 4th set to Verdasco.



Heck, Murray had oppertunities to break Verdasco in the 5th set at around 3 or 4 all. And guess what he does. He PUSHES and ALLOWS Verdasco to take over. I mean, the stats say both guys played horrendous tennis. There were unforced errors flying in every direction.

Unfortunately the stats don't exactly support your spin doctoring. Murray had 52 winners and 40 UFEs, while Verdasco had 51 and 50. This is not "horrendous tennis" by any means.

zagor
10-23-2009, 07:20 AM
There is a huge difference from being hard to beat at your best on a certain surface and having never lost a match at your best on that surface. The idea that Safin has never played his best on hard courts and lost is a huge fallacy. As talented as he is, he is not the male Serena Williams (and even she has probably lost some matches on hard courts playing her best). Nearly everyone was able to list multiple matches he played his best even on hard courts and still lost. It wasnt that much of a challenge to do in fact.

Well I didn't say Safin's unbeatable on HC playing his best but still extremely hard to beat IMO.I still think in 2005 AO Fed was playing some of his best ever tennis throghout the tourney and Safin still beat him in SF,especially considering the fact that Fed is overall a tough match-up for Safin(by his own admission)what Marat did was pretty damn impressive(for me atleast).

NonP
10-23-2009, 07:32 AM
Your last paragraph is exactly the reason murray will find it hard to win slams. He can't improve his game anymore - he just needs to attack more. Then again he finds it hard because he can't generate much pace except for the backhand.

Actually there's plenty Murray can and should work on. Like his abysmal second serve.

NonP
10-23-2009, 07:44 AM
Quality-wise the best tennis match ????? Sorry, the fed-safin AO 2005 SF absolutely blows this match away quality wise. Even the nadal-verdasco 2009 SF for that matter. Becker sampras YEC finals in 96 too ...

hell, their rome final in 2006 was clearly better than this

Except for the apparently wind-inspired hyperbole, this sounds about right. The '08 Wimbledon final was indeed a great match, but there was rarely any doubt who was in control. Who knows, if not for the rain delay Nadal might well have won in straights.

One caveat, though: I don't think the '05 AO SF and the '96 YEC final can be properly compared. Different styles, different surfaces. This one random blogger I came across astutely observed that the lightning-fast indoor court may account for the relative lack of spectacular shots from defensive positions, and I agree with him. But both men played some ridiculous tennis, especially Becker earlier in the match. Sampras actually said later that in the first set Boris played the best tennis anyone ever played against him. I could cavil and say Pete's serving wasn't quite at its best, but then this was partly due to Becker's superb return game. A classic.

NamRanger
10-23-2009, 07:53 AM
Unfortunately the stats don't exactly support your spin doctoring. Murray had 52 winners and 40 UFEs, while Verdasco had 51 and 50. This is not "horrendous tennis" by any means.



40 UFEs is very high for Andy Murray, and Verdasco typically can hit more than 51 winners in 5 sets. Neither guy played well, and although I did over exaggerate on the "horrendous" part, that match was full of poor quality tennis. Neither guy could play well for more than a few games.



Verdasco though for sure got lucky that Murray started playing extremely passive tennis. Murray was playing much more aggressive earlier on, and forcing errors off of Verdasco. Not so much later on, and Murray paid a huge price for that.

NonP
10-23-2009, 08:17 AM
40 UFEs is very high for Andy Murray, and Verdasco typically can hit more than 51 winners in 5 sets. Neither guy played well, and although I did over exaggerate on the "horrendous" part, that match was full of poor quality tennis. Neither guy could play well for more than a few games.



Verdasco though for sure got lucky that Murray started playing extremely passive tennis. Murray was playing much more aggressive earlier on, and forcing errors off of Verdasco. Not so much later on, and Murray paid a huge price for that.

OK, that sounds better. To be fair I was switching back and forth in between the matches, so didn't get to see the whole thing. Maybe I should revisit it sometime.

Murray will never be an attacker a la Sampras, but I agree that he could use more of that controlled aggression he showed in the USO SF against Nadal last year. His defense is something to behold, though. In the AO match there was one point (not sure which one, but in the last set) where he almost routinely retrieved and returned Verdasco's cannonballs that would've been winners against 99% of the tour. I still remember grinning like crazy, thinking even Nadal would've been hard-pressed to pull that off. I'll see if I can dig it up on YouTube.

Dark Victory
10-23-2009, 08:39 AM
That is why the 2008 Wimbledon final was hailed as one of the greatest finals in Wimbledon history. If Federer had won you would all be signing a different tune I bet.
Not really.

Federer has won significant matches in career wherein he didn't really play his best. Had he beaten Rafa, it'd be yet another one of them. Fed's best Wimbledon performance was the 2005 final against Roddick.

mandy01
10-23-2009, 09:00 AM
That is why the 2008 Wimbledon final was hailed as one of the greatest finals in Wimbledon history. If Federer had won you would all be signing a different tune I bet.That match was hailed as the greatest ever because Federer fought not because he played some exquisite tennis.He hasnt been playing that kind of tennis for last two years now.He played like ***** in the first two sets.For the first two sets-It was pretty much as bad as the FO 08.I would say that final had quite an impact on him even if he didnt show it initially.

For the record-Fed didnt play well in the Wimbledon 2007 final as well.He just played better on big points especially in the fifth set.
Quality-wise the 2005 AO semi ranks way above the Wimbledon 2008 with Roger making errors left and right,blowing away a lead,putting in weak second serves and missing easy volleys..And I thought he played at a very high level in Rome 06 as well.

So its not like I'm talking only because he lost that match.

mandy01
10-23-2009, 09:02 AM
Not really.

Federer has won significant matches in career wherein he didn't really play his best. Had he beaten Rafa, it'd be yet another one of them. Fed's best Wimbledon performance was the 2005 final against Roddick.And Wimbledon 2006.Dropped just one set all along and some fantastic display of tennis on the beautiful lawns there :D

Bertie B
10-23-2009, 09:02 AM
There's no reason to think of Sampras as the more talented player than Federer, the only thing arguable is the opposite.

Sampras is not more talented than Federer. It's arguable whether he's more talented than Agassi.

Aside from Nadal & maybe Nalbandian, not many players could outplay Federer at his best. Stich, Krajicek, Ferreira, Rafter, Korda, even Agassi and others could outclass a blazing-hot Sampras. Despite his mythical talent, he could never make a RG final. This wasn't due to bad luck or anything, just pure inability. Edberg made a RG fina. Stich made a RG final. So, it can't be argued that his style prevented him getting to the final. The "talent" didn't run that deep.

Let's be honest guys, there's really no comparison between the two talent wise.

abmk
10-23-2009, 07:57 PM
Notice that Federer only does these things against Nadal. Dumping second serve BPs, shanking alot, and flubbing easy volleys. Wonder why? Oh yeah, it's because Nadal is on the other side of the net and he is in Federer's head. That had everything to do with Nadal. Federer was playing flawless tennis up to the Wimbledon final, and even in the final he was playing about as well Nadal was going to let him.

yes, nadal does affect him mentally, but he didn't commit that many elementary mistakes in wimby 2007 F ( where nadal played better off the ground than in 2008 wimby F IMO, although his serving in 2008 wimby F was clearly better )

He didn't commit so many elementary mistakes in AO 2009 F where he was doing almost everything well except for his serve .

He wasn't flubbing easy volleys in both cases or dumping so many second serves onto the net on both occasions ( wimby 2007 F and AO 2009 F)

So how can 2008 wimby be his best tennis ? A player like federer, you'd expect to not commit so many elementary mistakes IF he is playing at his best

abmk
10-23-2009, 08:13 PM
Except for the apparently wind-inspired hyperbole, this sounds about right. The '08 Wimbledon final was indeed a great match, but there was rarely any doubt who was in control. Who knows, if not for the rain delay Nadal might well have won in straights.

eh, I know, I got a bit carried away. The wimby 2008 F was nadal holding the advantage almost all the time and federer fighting back, not necessarily through great tennis... It was more like a fight , not necessarily pretty, but effective ...

One caveat, though: I don't think the '05 AO SF and the '96 YEC final can be properly compared. Different styles, different surfaces. This one random blogger I came across astutely observed that the lightning-fast indoor court may account for the relative lack of spectacular shots from defensive positions, and I agree with him. But both men played some ridiculous tennis, especially Becker earlier in the match. Sampras actually said later that in the first set Boris played the best tennis anyone ever played against him. I could cavil and say Pete's serving wasn't quite at its best, but then this was partly due to Becker's superb return game. A classic.

It can get tough comparing matches across different surfaces, but still it is possible - looking at getting the basics right, spectacular shots ( defensive/offensive ) , playing well under pressure etc etc

I don't know why pete said that , becker played very well in the first set, but I've seen others play better tennis against pete in a set - agassi san jose 98 both sets, agassi AO 95 F 2nd set, safin last 2 sets in USO 2000 F, hewitt last 2 sets USO 2001 F etc etc

Dark Victory
10-23-2009, 10:36 PM
As an aside to the arguments, I rewatched Fed vs Safin at 2005 AO again. It's amazing how offensive-minded Federer was. He was looking to pummel the other guy to submission. And come to think of it, it just wasn't this match and this tournament, but the whole of 2005.

Yes, he lost sets in many matches. But a huge part of why he did was just he was so damn aggressive that you have do give him credit for playing attacking tennis. Exciting stuff. And yet, he still ended up with just 4 loses by year's end. Incredible.

2005 Fed actually still had a net game. And a very good one at that. He played serve-and-volley, chipped-and-charged, hit shoe-lace volleys, half volleys. But at the same time, the backcourt game he would use to dominate 2006 was already there.

If you asked me which version of Fed I'd pick to play against prime versions of say, Pete, Edberg, Becker, Mac, I'd pick 2005 all-courter Federer in a heartbeat, and not the dominantly safe baseliner of 2006.

lambielspins
10-23-2009, 10:54 PM
15 people are officialy insane already.

NonP
10-23-2009, 10:57 PM
It can get tough comparing matches across different surfaces, but still it is possible - looking at getting the basics right, spectacular shots ( defensive/offensive ) , playing well under pressure etc etc

I don't know why pete said that , becker played very well in the first set, but I've seen others play better tennis against pete in a set - agassi san jose 98 both sets, agassi AO 95 F 2nd set, safin last 2 sets in USO 2000 F, hewitt last 2 sets USO 2001 F etc etc

Disagree with some of your choices. Pete was clearly not at his best in the '98 San Jose F and in the '01 USO F, so the other guy naturally looks better. Kinda like what recently happened in the Nadal-Cilic match at the China Open. But no beef with the rest of your list. Agassi was indeed superb at the '95 AO, and Safin's demolition of Sampras in the '00 USO F remains one of the most jaw-dropping exhibitions I've ever seen.

As for Becker, I just think he could've achieved more with such a huge game. He was playing some of his best tennis in '96 and in fact was one of the top contenders at Wimbledon that year. Too bad he had to retire in the 3rd round with a wrist injury, though Krajicek no doubt would've been a formidable opponent in the final.

lambielspins
10-23-2009, 10:59 PM
I think one thing that hurt Becker is he wasnt as good an overall athlete and mover around the court as Sampras, Edberg, Wilander, or even Lendl. Superior movement is often a big key to winning big titles. His fitness was iffy at times as well.

NonP
10-23-2009, 11:23 PM
I think one thing that hurt Becker is he wasnt as good an overall athlete and mover around the court as Sampras, Edberg, Wilander, or even Lendl. Superior movement is often a big key to winning big titles. His fitness was iffy at times as well.

Well, if you compare him to those all-time greats, yes, but Becker in his prime was a great athlete in his own right. His fitness usually wasn't a hindrance except in tough, protracted slugfests. And at his best the guy could simply obliterate his opposition with his firepower that only a select few could counter. It's funny that you mention Wilander, because he actually has a quite lopsided H2H (3-7) against Becker, including a stunning beatdown where Mats could get only 4 sets off him. Lendl, OTOH, could match his power, and some of their encounters were classics.

lambielspins
10-23-2009, 11:34 PM
Well, if you compare him to those all-time greats, yes, but Becker in his prime was a great athlete in his own right. His fitness usually wasn't a hindrance except in tough, protracted slugfests. And at his best the guy could simply obliterate his opposition with his firepower that only a select few could counter. It's funny that you mention Wilander, because he actually has a quite lopsided H2H (3-7) against Becker, including a stunning beatdown where Mats could get only 4 sets off him. Lendl, OTOH, could match his power, and some of their encounters were classics.

I did not mean to imply all those players I mentioned were much better than him. Edberg of course has the same # of slams, Wilander 1 more but other than his amazing 88 was never a truly dominant player overall either on a surface or overall. Just because he did well vs Wilander head to head, doesnt mean being less of a mover than him and the others I mentioned wasnt an overall drawback. Keep in mind many of his losses in slams werent even to that group, I am just saying in general if he were a better overall mover it would have helped him win even more titles IMO.

NonP
10-23-2009, 11:39 PM
I did not mean to imply all those players I mentioned were much better than him. Edberg of course has the same # of slams, Wilander 1 more but other than his amazing 88 was never a truly dominant player overall either on a surface or overall. Just because he did well vs Wilander head to head, doesnt mean being less of a mover than him and the others I mentioned wasnt an overall drawback. Keep in mind many of his losses in slams werent even to that group, I am just saying in general if he were a better overall mover it would have helped him win even more titles IMO.

I did see what you meant. I just went off on a tangent.

PCXL-Fan
10-23-2009, 11:41 PM
I wonder what Safin would be like if he wasn't an alcoholic. On the David Letterman show back in 2000 he said he drank everyday every meal even for breakfast.

abmk
10-24-2009, 12:24 AM
Disagree with some of your choices. Pete was clearly not at his best in the '98 San Jose F and in the '01 USO F, so the other guy naturally looks better. Kinda like what recently happened in the Nadal-Cilic match at the China Open. But no beef with the rest of your list. Agassi was indeed superb at the '95 AO, and Safin's demolition of Sampras in the '00 USO F remains one of the most jaw-dropping exhibitions I've ever seen.

well, just because sampras wasn't playing well doesn't mean the opponent wasn't at his best ..

To illustrate, almost all ( except djokovic ) played crappily against nadal at FO 2008, but that doesn't mean you can say that wasn't nadal's best tennis .We know how well he played !

As for Becker, I just think he could've achieved more with such a huge game. He was playing some of his best tennis in '96 and in fact was one of the top contenders at Wimbledon that year. Too bad he had to retire in the 3rd round with a wrist injury, though Krajicek no doubt would've been a formidable opponent in the final.

true, but I think krajicek would've gotten him in the finals if they met

zagor
10-24-2009, 01:04 AM
As an aside to the arguments, I rewatched Fed vs Safin at 2005 AO again. It's amazing how offensive-minded Federer was. He was looking to pummel the other guy to submission. And come to think of it, it just wasn't this match and this tournament, but the whole of 2005.

Yes, he lost sets in many matches. But a huge part of why he did was just he was so damn aggressive that you have do give him credit for playing attacking tennis. Exciting stuff. And yet, he still ended up with just 4 loses by year's end. Incredible.

2005 Fed actually still had a net game. And a very good one at that. He played serve-and-volley, chipped-and-charged, hit shoe-lace volleys, half volleys. But at the same time, the backcourt game he would use to dominate 2006 was already there.

If you asked me which version of Fed I'd pick to play against prime versions of say, Pete, Edberg, Becker, Mac, I'd pick 2005 all-courter Federer in a heartbeat, and not the dominantly safe baseliner of 2006.

I definitely agree,Fed was so much more fun to watch in 2005 which if we only consider level of play and not results(since he won 3 slams in 2006 and 2007)was his best year IMO.In 2006 he started to play less risky,became more of a percentage player and became almost a pure baseliner all of which did him well on clay but he wasn't as entertaining to watch as in 2005.

abmk
10-24-2009, 01:11 AM
I definitely agree,Fed was so much more fun to watch in 2005 which if we only consider level of play and not results(since he won 3 slams in 2006 and 2007)was his best year IMO.In 2006 he started to play less risky,became more of a percentage player and became almost a pure baseliner all of which did him well on clay but he wasn't as entertaining to watch as in 2005.

agree, but you forgot about 2004, he played some insanely entertaining tennis that year as well and won 3 slams that year as well

NonP
10-24-2009, 01:17 AM
well, just because sampras wasn't playing well doesn't mean the opponent wasn't at his best ..

To illustrate, almost all ( except djokovic ) played crappily against nadal at FO 2008, but that doesn't mean you can say that wasn't nadal's best tennis .We know how well he played !

I see what you're saying. My point was just that Pete's subpar level made the opponent look better than he actually was. But on second thought, Hewitt's passing shots and returns of serve were indeed top-notch in that USO F. Yeah, one of his best matches.

And agreed on Nadal. Scary stuff there.

true, but I think krajicek would've gotten him in the finals if they met

I just think Becker would've posed a special psychological problem to Krajicek. Yes, he did dismantle Sampras in straights (BTW, that exhibition was just as awe-inspiring as Safin's demolition job at the '00 USO, if not even more so), but history is full of red-hot juggernauts who burned out in the final to an established name. I'll say this, though: Krajicek would've been extremely tough to beat for anyone if his serve, particularly his second, had been as good as it truly was that day. All this is speculation, of course.

zagor
10-24-2009, 01:18 AM
agree, but you forgot about 2004, he played some insanely entertaining tennis that year as well and won 3 slams that year as well

Yes,he was great in 2004(especially AO where he beat a lot of the guys who
"owned" him at the time)and 2003 TMC and Wimbledon(SF against Roddick one of the best matches I've seen him play)but I still think his highest level of play was in 2005,he was probably a better baseliner in 2006 but in 2005 he was much more of an all-courter.

mandy01
10-24-2009, 01:31 AM
I think federer only lost 4 matches in 2005. And he should/could have beaten safin in the AO and Nalbandian at the Masters Cup. Nadal on clay at the age of 10 was probably unbeatable so that loss is obviously plausable. I think Gasquet was the other one (i think Fed had MP too).

So 3 of those matches that Federer lost he should have won, that's darn impressive. I'm torn between his 2005 and 2006 form..... I've already said Federer of 2005 was something else.Did things with a racqet that just have to be called ridiculous.
I agree with zagor that he could've made the changes he did to get that then elusive French Open..while it helped in the sense that was able to give himself many opportunities atleast his game especially after 2006 was nearly a shadow of its former self.
Sad.......
The positive aspect however is that he IS trying to be more explosive,trying to improve upon his net-game.He knows he's going to need it with the inevitable physical decline.
Ahh...Federer and Safin at their best is probably the best match-up IMO.

mandy01
10-24-2009, 01:35 AM
nope, Federer v's Nalbandian is the best matchup.

or Roddick v's Karlovic.......
LOL..A-Rod vs Karlovic :lol:
I agree Fed vs Nalbo is pretty awesome as well.

abmk
10-24-2009, 01:38 AM
I just think Becker would've posed a special psychological problem to Krajicek. Yes, he did dismantle Sampras in straights (BTW, that exhibition was just as awe-inspiring as Safin's demolition job at the '00 USO, if not even more so), but history is full of red-hot juggernauts who burned out in the final to an established name. I'll say this, though: Krajicek would've been extremely tough to beat for anyone if his serve, particularly his second, had been as good as it truly was that day. All this is speculation, of course.

yeah, that was one hell of a performance from krajicek ... Actually he was spectacular throughout the tournament, not just that one match

It is possible of course that krajicek might've gotten nervous playing against becker in the finals, but I would bet on krajicek to win if I had to

abmk
10-24-2009, 01:42 AM
Yes,he was great in 2004(especially AO where he beat a lot of the guys who
"owned" him at the time)and 2003 TMC and Wimbledon(SF against Roddick one of the best matches I've seen him play)but I still think his highest level of play was in 2005,he was probably a better baseliner in 2006 but in 2005 he was much more of an all-courter.

I'd agree with that ..

NonP
10-24-2009, 01:50 AM
yeah, that was one hell of a performance from krajicek ... Actually he was spectacular throughout the tournament, not just that one match

It is possible of course that krajicek might've gotten nervous playing against becker in the finals, but I would bet on krajicek to win if I had to

Agreed. I wrote a couple days ago that a friend of mine, one of the biggest Pete fanatics you'll ever meet, thought the Sampras era had come to an end with Krajicek's win. He was that spectacular.

Your bet sounds reasonable. I'd probably bet on Krajicek myself.

NonP
10-24-2009, 01:57 AM
Richard Krajicek's performance against Pete Sampras was better than Safin's against Federer in AO05. Remember, Sampras was literally unbeatable at wimbledon, and krajicek handled sampras in 4.

In 3, you mean. And 28 aces to Pete's 8. Anyway I'm not really keen on comparing matches when the surfaces and styles are so different, and am a little stressed out at the moment. But carry on.

NonP
10-24-2009, 02:28 AM
oh sorry, it was 3, my mistake. why are you stressed out?


want some advice - get a panic room.

Bad word choice, I think. I meant I'm exhausted. It is the end of the week after all.

Don't think I need to take such an extreme measure yet, but thanks anyway. I'll be on the lookout.