PDA

View Full Version : Some observations on Federer


sureshs
04-28-2011, 08:23 AM
From the May issue of Inside Tennis:

In a letter to the Editor:

Roger Federer is the best player of all time, except, perhaps, of his own time.

From Bill Simons article on Federer (my select excerpts - other parts are flattering as usual):

His backhand, while still eloquent, occasionally reveals itself as a vulnerable (dare we say old-fashioned?) stroke in comparison to the two-handed power blasts of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.

The lines on his maturing face may be deepening.

But more often we get a certain peeved attitude: a quiet storm of denial, a simmering anger.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-28-2011, 08:25 AM
Your love for Roger couldn't be more apparent. Stop obsessing.

Cup8489
04-28-2011, 08:51 AM
says the guy who's name is 'djokeristhebest'

lol.

adizzy
04-28-2011, 09:16 AM
says the guy who's name is 'djokeristhebest'

lol.

Brilliant!

Sentinel
04-28-2011, 10:12 AM
Your love for Roger couldn't be more apparent. Stop obsessing.

says the guy who's name is 'djokeristhebest'

lol.
Irony pointed out by the guy with "16" in his avatar.:)

Sentinel
04-28-2011, 10:14 AM
So what are you trying to say, suresh, that his backhand is not his strongest weapon ????

jdubbs
04-28-2011, 10:31 AM
From the May issue of Inside Tennis:

In a letter to the Editor:



His backhand, while still eloquent, occasionally reveals itself as a vulnerable (dare we say old-fashioned?) stroke in comparison to the two-handed power blasts of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.

[

FAIL
10 choking Murray's

sureshs
04-28-2011, 12:25 PM
FAIL
10 choking Murray's

Isn't Murray's BH better than Federer's?

Netspirit
04-28-2011, 12:34 PM
Federer's backhand is his ultimate weakness that did not allow him to dominate Nadal and clay during his prime.

With a 2HBH, he would have been perfect. But there is no such thing as a perfect player, so he is not perfect. He is simply, and humbly, the GOAT of this game to date, the strongest combination of footwork, precision, tactics & artistry, serve & forehand, and all-court play that we tennis fans have been blessed to behold.

BrooklynNY
04-28-2011, 12:53 PM
Federer's backhand is his ultimate weakness that did not allow him to dominate Nadal and clay during his prime.

With a 2HBH, he would have been perfect. But there is no such thing as a perfect player, so he is not perfect. He is simply, and humbly, the GOAT of this game to date, the strongest combination of footwork, precision, tactics & artistry, serve & forehand, and all-court play that we tennis fans have been blessed to behold.

who??? huh???? :D

jigar
04-28-2011, 01:21 PM
I request TW. All threads started by sureshs should be automatically deleted.

jackson vile
04-28-2011, 01:37 PM
IMO his backhand never changed, it is just the fact that the guys playing now are good enough to show it's weakness.

Also Roger Volleys aren't the best either, people don't like to hear it but Roger is just another baseline basher with lower level backhand just like Nadal.

When Roger goes to the net it is of no service to his own game and is almost never something he should go to on big points.

Nadal + Roger = weak backhands.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-28-2011, 01:37 PM
says the guy who's name is 'djokeristhebest'

lol.

There difference is I'm not constantly trying to put down Djoker in order to conceal a hidden love. Whereas the OP is.

AM95
04-28-2011, 01:54 PM
IMO his backhand never changed, it is just the fact that the guys playing now are good enough to show it's weakness.

Also Roger Volleys aren't the best either, people don't like to hear it but Roger is just another baseline basher with lower level backhand just like Nadal.
When Roger goes to the net it is of no service to his own game and is almost never something he should go to on big points.

Nadal + Roger = weak backhands.

i disagree. i think that his net game is the next best on tour without a doubt, perhaps being behind michael llodra.

now one can argue that he is not as decisive at the net as he used to be, which is true to a certain degree (but technically he is still the best volleyer. . he does some stupid stuff at net now a days though, like hitting those useless dropshots when he could just drive the ball. but fed's entire net game was amazing from 03-06 and in the sampras match in 0-1.

sureshs
04-28-2011, 01:57 PM
I request TW. All threads started by sureshs should be automatically deleted.

Why? Because I posted comments from one of the most respected tennis journalists?

TennisFan3
04-28-2011, 03:19 PM
I think the question is valid.

Fed was unbelievable in his prime. But the guys he faced in his prime - insipid Roddick, charmless Hewitt and headcase Safin - was ANY of them as good as Djokovic of 2011 or Nadal of F.O 2008/UsO 2010?

How much would Fed have won if he had to play the current Novak, Nadal and Delpo UsO 2009, repeatedly for his slams?

sureshs
04-28-2011, 03:25 PM
I think the question is valid.

Fed was unbelievable in his prime. But the guys he faced in his prime - insipid Roddick, charmless Hewitt and headcase Safin - was ANY of them as good as Djokovic of 2011 or Nadal of F.O 2008/UsO 2010?

How much would Fed have won if he had to play the current Novak, Nadal and Delpo UsO 2009, repeatedly for his slams?

That is why we say that he played in the weak era between 2 champions - Sampras and Nadal.

rfm29
04-28-2011, 03:31 PM
I think the question is valid.

Fed was unbelievable in his prime. But the guys he faced in his prime - insipid Roddick, charmless Hewitt and headcase Safin - was ANY of them as good as Djokovic of 2011 or Nadal of F.O 2008/UsO 2010?

How much would Fed have won if he had to play the current Novak, Nadal and Delpo UsO 2009, repeatedly for his slams?

Or we could reverse that and ask how many slams would Novak and Delpo have, if they played Federer from 2004-2007? (I think Nadal would still have the same amount, which is why I am not including him here)

Bobby Jr
04-28-2011, 03:33 PM
With a 2HBH, he would have been perfect. But there is no such thing as a perfect player, so he is not perfect.
You're assuming if he had a 2HBH it would have been great which is not a given at all - in fact most players with a 2HBH aren't all that great. Also, the shortcomings of a 2HBH may have detracted from other areas such as reach,short balls etc not to mention the high probability his slice backhand would also only be half as good as his current one.

TennisFan3
04-28-2011, 03:54 PM
Or we could reverse that and ask how many slams would Novak and Delpo have, if they played Federer from 2004-2007? (I think Nadal would still have the same amount, which is why I am not including him here)

Yeah but Novak's won only 2 and Delpo only 1. So it's not like they would've lost a lot. And for Nadal, as you said, it wouldn't have mattered.

The fact is Novak is JUST entering his prime. Delpo isn't even CLOSE to his prime.

Both guys are getting better still, and will win a lot more slams in the next 3-5 years, as they improve and take tennis to new heights.

So we probably could have peak Murray, peak Djokovic, peak Nadal and Prime Delpo in the next few years. Slams will he HARD for everyone from now. If these guys would have been born 5 yrs earlier, and thus overlapped with Fed, it is likely that Fed would have won less slams. In any case definitely not 11 slams in 4 yrs (that he did from '03 to '07).

So in that sense Fed was fortunate.

As Napolean said, Fed's the definition of a great general: "One who's lucky with his enemies!"

Subventricular Zone
04-28-2011, 04:30 PM
Yeah but Novak's won only 2 and Delpo only 1. So it's not like they would've lost a lot. And for Nadal, as you said, it wouldn't have mattered.

The fact is Novak is JUST entering his prime. Delpo isn't even CLOSE to his prime.

Both guys are getting better still, and will win a lot more slams in the next 3-5 years, as they improve and take tennis to new heights.

So we probably could have peak Murray, peak Djokovic, peak Nadal and Prime Delpo in the next few years. Slams will he HARD for everyone from now. If these guys would have been born 5 yrs earlier, and thus overlapped with Fed, it is likely that Fed would have won less slams. In any case definitely not 11 slams in 4 yrs (that he did from '03 to '07).

So in that sense Fed was fortunate.

As Napolean said, Fed's the definition of a great general: "One who's lucky with his enemies!"


Possibly less majors but he would still win a lot.

IMO peak Fed will still beat peak Djokovic more often than not:

He did have chances to win USO '10 (which he should have won had he not been thinking of the final the next day), AO (ahead in 2nd set, which would have changed the dynamics of the match had he won that), and IW (3rd set collapse after getting the momentum back). Not saying that he would have won all those, but still, this is a 29-going-30-year-old playing against a 23-yr-old entering/in his peak.

Ditto for Del Pony.

Obviously, we will never know, but talent (hard work) and luck got him to 16 majors, and that's all that matters in the end.

I will add to your Napoleon quote what Louis Pasteur said:

"In the field of scientific observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared."

And in that sense, Fed took his chances when the opportunities presented itself.

And you're right, it will be very difficult to win slams in the next few years with all these guys entering their peaks. Unless, of course, Nadal really steps it up and gets into an even higher level. Which I believe he can.

sonicare
04-28-2011, 04:35 PM
IMO his backhand never changed, it is just the fact that the guys playing now are good enough to show it's weakness.

Also Roger Volleys aren't the best either, people don't like to hear it but Roger is just another baseline basher with lower level backhand just like Nadal.

When Roger goes to the net it is of no service to his own game and is almost never something he should go to on big points.

Nadal + Roger = weak backhands.

Dude..he beat pete sampras on centre court wimbledon serving and volleying. WTF are you talking about?

FedExpress 333
04-28-2011, 06:34 PM
Federers backhand is like a shank machine these days....

Also, for those who complain about Rogers bad net game:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHLApwiYUw4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4LvjSPePLM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOfUMrsXgjA&feature=fvwrel

jackson vile
04-29-2011, 10:21 AM
i disagree. i think that his net game is the next best on tour without a doubt, perhaps being behind michael llodra.

now one can argue that he is not as decisive at the net as he used to be, which is true to a certain degree (but technically he is still the best volleyer. . he does some stupid stuff at net now a days though, like hitting those useless dropshots when he could just drive the ball. but fed's entire net game was amazing from 03-06 and in the sampras match in 0-1.



The point you are missing is that he is not using the volley to win big points, when it comes down to the line he reverts back to the baseline.

Best volleys on the tour??? How many times has Nadal out volleyed Roger directly at the net?

BrooklynNY
04-29-2011, 11:34 AM
Also, for those who complain about Rogers bad net game:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHLApwiYUw4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4LvjSPePLM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOfUMrsXgjA&feature=fvwrel
He is playing Ferrer, a clay courter on an indoor hard court, and Gonzalez, another clay court style baseliner on a hardcourt, he should be showcasing his volley game in these situations, providing there is something to showcase exists.

The point you are missing is that he is not using the volley to win big points, when it comes down to the line he reverts back to the baseline.


This is true, when it gets down to crunch time, Fed retreats and doesn't force the issue unless he is dominating his opponent already. Run around forehand, inside out looper.

I don't think Nadal has the best volleys on tour, but he uses them intelligently. You really rarely ever see him miss a volley, but then again, he isn't really forcing an issue at net. Although, I must note, whenever he gets an overhead from the baseline, he most certainly always comes in off it, its like a serve-volley, in the middle of the point, and the ball doesn't need to go in the service box.

jackson vile
05-16-2011, 08:52 AM
From the May issue of Inside Tennis:

In a letter to the Editor:

Roger Federer is the best player of all time, except, perhaps, of his own time.

From Bill Simons article on Federer (my select excerpts - other parts are flattering as usual):

His backhand, while still eloquent, occasionally reveals itself as a vulnerable (dare we say old-fashioned?) stroke in comparison to the two-handed power blasts of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.

The lines on his maturing face may be deepening.

But more often we get a certain peeved attitude: a quiet storm of denial, a simmering anger.


I do have to wonder if Federer would have these kind of problems if he had a 2HBH?

sureshs
05-16-2011, 09:47 AM
I do have to wonder if Federer would have these kind of problems if he had a 2HBH?

No, he would have 20 Slams by now

Sentinel
05-16-2011, 10:03 PM
That is why we say that he played in the weak era between 2 champions - Sampras and Nadal.
LOL, good joke, sureshs. Considering that Nadal only made it to Clay Champion/GOAT. But now even that is questionable.

So it should be the weak era between Sampras and Joker !

Pwned
05-16-2011, 10:11 PM
LOL, good joke, sureshs. Considering that Nadal only made it to Clay Champion/GOAT. But now even that is questionable.

So it should be the weak era between Sampras and Joker !

That's gotta hurt..............

namelessone
05-16-2011, 10:21 PM
I think the question is valid.

Fed was unbelievable in his prime. But the guys he faced in his prime - insipid Roddick, charmless Hewitt and headcase Safin - was ANY of them as good as Djokovic of 2011 or Nadal of F.O 2008/UsO 2010?

How much would Fed have won if he had to play the current Novak, Nadal and Delpo UsO 2009, repeatedly for his slams?

Charmless Hewitt?

What does this have to do with hewitt's ability?

Hewitt actually owned Fed for a bit but Lleytton's last good years(as in making slam final) coincided with Fed's first great years.

Safin was very good when on but Fed owned him. Those who doubt Safin should watch his dismantling of Sampras or AO 2005 SF.

Roddick is a incredibly easy matchup for Fed but Roddick was actually a very tough player to beat in 2003/2004 when he was serving big AND hitting the forehand offensively.

I don't think that these guys at their best were anything like Djoker of 2011 or Nadal 2008, but if we believe Fed fans, then Fed was already out of his prime post 2007 so why does it matter any way?

In this train of thought, only Djoker in USO 2007 and Rafa on clay 05-07', WB 06'-07' got a taste of prime Federer.

IvanisevicServe
05-16-2011, 10:41 PM
Power 2-handed blasts from Nadal? Huh?

namelessone
05-16-2011, 10:49 PM
Power 2-handed blasts from Nadal? Huh?

Exactly.

What the hell are people watching?

You would think that Nadal was blasting Safin like backhands with how that's worded.

powerangle
05-17-2011, 12:04 AM
Power 2-handed blasts from Nadal? Huh?

That's exactly where I lol'd.

Agassifan
05-17-2011, 12:09 AM
Power 2-handed blasts from Nadal? Huh?

Yep.

Some people can't sleep at night obsessing about Fed's records. Fed's combo of movement, precision and power (not to mention elegance) are simply unparalleled in the history of tennis. Way to wait until he is 30 to belittle him... GOAT. Suck it.

DeShaun
05-17-2011, 12:16 AM
IMO his backhand never changed, it is just the fact that the guys playing now are good enough to show it's weakness.

Also Roger Volleys aren't the best either, people don't like to hear it but Roger is just another baseline basher with lower level backhand just like Nadal.

When Roger goes to the net it is of no service to his own game and is almost never something he should go to on big points.

Nadal + Roger = weak backhands.

This assumes to be constant their stroke production capabilities from one generation to the next. This capability declines as the miles add up on the legs. Always rotating new competitors onto the ATP...guys nowadays do not seem any better at picking on/exploiting the very same baseline bashing games and/or low forehands that Roger and Rafa may be known for. Those games and strokes went unpicked on for so long simply because they were not exploitable when Roger and Rafa were at their best. Not because today's competitors are any better, but because everybody's strokes and game diminishes independently.

LanceStern
05-17-2011, 02:49 AM
did you see nadals two hander at AO 09? those were ridiculous blasts.

it was frustrating because he's never hit the two hander so hard and out of nowhere as that night and ONLY that night

ledwix
05-17-2011, 03:01 AM
Lol......this thread lost all credibility when someone called Federer a one-dimensional ball-basher.

Magnus
05-17-2011, 03:52 AM
Federer is loling at this article with his 16 slam stropies sitting next to him.

Magnus
05-17-2011, 04:07 AM
Charmless Hewitt?

What does this have to do with hewitt's ability?

Hewitt actually owned Fed for a bit but Lleytton's last good years(as in making slam final) coincided with Fed's first great years.

Safin was very good when on but Fed owned him. Those who doubt Safin should watch his dismantling of Sampras or AO 2005 SF.

Roddick is a incredibly easy matchup for Fed but Roddick was actually a very tough player to beat in 2003/2004 when he was serving big AND hitting the forehand offensively.

I don't think that these guys at their best were anything like Djoker of 2011 or Nadal 2008, but if we believe Fed fans, then Fed was already out of his prime post 2007 so why does it matter any way?

In this train of thought, only Djoker in USO 2007 and Rafa on clay 05-07', WB 06'-07' got a taste of prime Federer.

Hmmm...Fed was not past his prime in 2007, but in 2008 he did show a major decline in his game, both mentally and physically. More importantly, Federer lost some of his movement, and him being a shot maker that relies on timing more than anything else, he started missing a lot more and that affected him. Nadal was always a bad matchup for Federer, even at his prime years, but I don't think it destroys Fed's legacy. I mean, Djokovic is now beating Nadal 4 times in a row, all in MS finals, and yet I don't think it does anything to damage Nadal legacy. The guy won 9 slams, 19 MS titles and plenty more titles and nobody can take that away from him.

I don't believe in saying stuff like "greatest ever" because every fish has a bigger fish. Eventually someone will come and beat Novak as well, that's the nature of the game. Fed had his fair share of good matches and excellent quality of tennis. The fact that he kept the #1 ranking most of the times despite losing to Nadal more often than not, proves that he was still beating all other players the Nadal sometimes did not. Fed lost the #1 spot when he lost that consistency and Nadal had his 2nd best year (2008).

Safin was a terrific player, he won two slams, beat Fed at his absolute best in the best match I've ever seen, so to say he didn't reach Djoko's level - I don't know about that. The game is a bit different I think, today we've got longer rallies, so it makes you think players are better today. But just look at recent years - Roddick has owned Novak for the most part, Davy owned Nadal for the past 4 matches or so, Roddick beat Murray at W09 SF, Baggy beat Nadal and Fed last year, Gonzo beat Murray at FO 09, Nalby had good success against Nadal for a while, and of course Hewitt had good wins against all of them I think.

Conclusion: All the old, "weak era" players didn't do so badly against the new era players and some of them are still doing pretty well. I actully think this is the weakest era in men's tennis right now, not what was going on in 2004-2007.

Magnus
05-17-2011, 04:09 AM
Possibly less majors but he would still win a lot.

IMO peak Fed will still beat peak Djokovic more often than not:

He did have chances to win USO '10 (which he should have won had he not been thinking of the final the next day), AO (ahead in 2nd set, which would have changed the dynamics of the match had he won that), and IW (3rd set collapse after getting the momentum back). Not saying that he would have won all those, but still, this is a 29-going-30-year-old playing against a 23-yr-old entering/in his peak.

Ditto for Del Pony.

Obviously, we will never know, but talent (hard work) and luck got him to 16 majors, and that's all that matters in the end.

I will add to your Napoleon quote what Louis Pasteur said:

"In the field of scientific observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared."

And in that sense, Fed took his chances when the opportunities presented itself.

And you're right, it will be very difficult to win slams in the next few years with all these guys entering their peaks. Unless, of course, Nadal really steps it up and gets into an even higher level. Which I believe he can.

I agree, Fed is a tough matchup for Djokovic more than Nadal is IMO. Djokovic was unlucky to meet Nadal mostly on clay, like Fed.

cc0509
05-17-2011, 04:19 AM
Lol......this thread lost all credibility when someone called Federer a one-dimensional ball-basher.

LOL! Now that is the most inaccurate statement I have ever heard. I can understand that some people don't like Fed but to call him a one-dimensional ball basher? There are no words.........

Thud and blunder
05-17-2011, 05:40 AM
But more often we get a certain peeved attitude: a quiet storm of denial, a simmering anger.

This is the bit that bugs me about watching Fed at the moment...he looks like he's being dragged off to the gallows, rather than living the dream...

Povl Carstensen
05-17-2011, 10:24 AM
That is why we say that he played in the weak era between 2 champions - Sampras and Nadal.
Who are we?

sureshs
05-17-2011, 10:25 AM
But more often we get a certain peeved attitude: a quiet storm of denial, a simmering anger.

This is the bit that bugs me about watching Fed at the moment...he looks like he's being dragged off to the gallows, rather than living the dream...

He has already lived the dream, now he is just irritated

mcenroefan
05-17-2011, 10:42 AM
i disagree. i think that his net game is the next best on tour without a doubt, perhaps being behind michael llodra.

now one can argue that he is not as decisive at the net as he used to be, which is true to a certain degree (but technically he is still the best volleyer. . he does some stupid stuff at net now a days though, like hitting those useless dropshots when he could just drive the ball. but fed's entire net game was amazing from 03-06 and in the sampras match in 0-1.

I don't think anyone on tour has a truly great net game ala Edberg. Rushing net no longer exists as it did in the past game b/c it's a suckers bet with these rackets and strings...hence, no one practices volleying and puts in the reps at net as they did in past generations.

There are many adequate volleyers but no one to match the master net players of the past. Fed's volleys are beatiful and can be masterful (purely b/c of his amazing hand eye) but he's too inconsistent...again, proibably b/c he doesn't spend hours and hours putting in reps at the net.

serengetisunset
05-17-2011, 10:46 AM
I posted this comment to that article.

Let the man play to his heart's content regardless of his wins or losses. He has achieved so much in tennis, and has nothing left to prove. The same fools who said he was winning too easily in a weak era are now saying that he loses too often these days.

Even now Federer is the 3rd best player in the world and is having respectable results. As a fan it is frustrating to see his concentration waver, his tentative play causing errors, his stubbornness in hanging on to the baseline, losing matches he could have won, etc. But who knows what he is going through. This mortal version of Federer should open one's eyes to how difficult it is to sustain excellence day in day out for so long.

The day he won the French Open and completed the career Grand slam, I was very happy and felt that even if he doesn't win a single match for the rest of his life, it doesn't matter because he has already achieved so much. I still feel the same way. If he wins majors, it is gravy. If not, no problem. I don't believe in bestowing GOAT title on any player but to me Federer was aesthetically the most pleasing player to watch. Finesse, power, a little magic, he had it all.

Wilander Fan
05-17-2011, 10:58 AM
I posted this comment to that article.

Let the man play to his heart's content regardless of his wins or losses. He has achieved so much in tennis, and has nothing left to prove. The same fools who said he was winning too easily in a weak era are now saying that he loses too often these days.

Even now Federer is the 3rd best player in the world and is having respectable results. As a fan it is frustrating to see his concentration waver, his tentative play causing errors, his stubbornness in hanging on to the baseline, losing matches he could have won, etc. But who knows what he is going through. This mortal version of Federer should open one's eyes to how difficult it is to sustain excellence day in day out for so long.

The day he won the French Open and completed the career Grand slam, I was very happy and felt that even if he doesn't win a single match for the rest of his life, it doesn't matter because he has already achieved so much. I still feel the same way. If he wins majors, it is gravy. If not, no problem. I don't believe in bestowing GOAT title on any player but to me Federer was aesthetically the most pleasing player to watch. Finesse, power, a little magic, he had it all.

Agree 100%. Once he won the FO, all arguments about GOAT were resolved. Prime Federer was unbelievable to watch and even today's version is astonishing. Against everyone except Nadal, he seems to toy with his opponents. I also like watching Nadal's game simply for his speed and that forehand of his that looks like he is drawing a pistol. The difference between Nadal and the rest of the Spanish is that forehand. I think Djker's game is boring to watch he is basically Soderling on those rare days when Soderling gets everything in.

rcglider
05-17-2011, 11:03 AM
He has already lived the dream, now he is just irritated

I don't know about Feb but seems you are irritated by Fed. How can you hate some
one you never met in person???

Quite Please
05-17-2011, 11:21 AM
I posted this comment to that article.

Let the man play to his heart's content regardless of his wins or losses. He has achieved so much in tennis, and has nothing left to prove. The same fools who said he was winning too easily in a weak era are now saying that he loses too often these days.

Even now Federer is the 3rd best player in the world and is having respectable results. As a fan it is frustrating to see his concentration waver, his tentative play causing errors, his stubbornness in hanging on to the baseline, losing matches he could have won, etc. But who knows what he is going through. This mortal version of Federer should open one's eyes to how difficult it is to sustain excellence day in day out for so long.

The day he won the French Open and completed the career Grand slam, I was very happy and felt that even if he doesn't win a single match for the rest of his life, it doesn't matter because he has already achieved so much. I still feel the same way. If he wins majors, it is gravy. If not, no problem. I don't believe in bestowing GOAT title on any player but to me Federer was aesthetically the most pleasing player to watch. Finesse, power, a little magic, he had it all.

Great post, exactly my thoughts!

Povl Carstensen
05-17-2011, 11:42 AM
Well put. I would say he has the stats to support goat reckognition, but I respect your view. And I wouldn't describe him in past tense.

cknobman
05-17-2011, 12:12 PM
My observation: No one has ever made the game look easier than Federer. Hes the undeniable GOAT (for now) and has nothing left to prove.

You cant change the mind of those who disagree so why bother, just enjoy the tennis.

tennis_pro
05-17-2011, 12:27 PM
Yeah but Novak's won only 2 and Delpo only 1. So it's not like they would've lost a lot. And for Nadal, as you said, it wouldn't have mattered.

The fact is Novak is JUST entering his prime. Delpo isn't even CLOSE to his prime.

Both guys are getting better still, and will win a lot more slams in the next 3-5 years, as they improve and take tennis to new heights.

So we probably could have peak Murray, peak Djokovic, peak Nadal and Prime Delpo in the next few years. Slams will he HARD for everyone from now. If these guys would have been born 5 yrs earlier, and thus overlapped with Fed, it is likely that Fed would have won less slams. In any case definitely not 11 slams in 4 yrs (that he did from '03 to '07).

So in that sense Fed was fortunate.

As Napolean said, Fed's the definition of a great general: "One who's lucky with his enemies!"

That could be true but think in perspective. If prime Federer in 2004-2007 has to play with prime Nadal/Djokovic/Murray etc. he loses some but collects more in 2008-2011 as Nadal/Djokovic/Murray would be 27-30 years old like him. We will know how the trio will hande their games 2,3 years from now. Nadal isn't even 25 and he's starting to fade...

What we do know, however that since 2008 (reputedly Nadal's, Djokovic's, Murray's prime) Nadal has won 6 Slams, Federer 4, Djokovic 2 and Del Potro 1. And that's 27-30 year old Federer we're talking about. I think either way he wins 16.

sureshs
05-17-2011, 12:30 PM
I don't know about Feb but seems you are irritated by Fed. How can you hate some
one you never met in person???

I didn't write this:

But more often we get a certain peeved attitude: a quiet storm of denial, a simmering anger.

aprilfool
05-17-2011, 01:21 PM
From the May issue of Inside Tennis:

In a letter to the Editor:

Roger Federer is the best player of all time, except, perhaps, of his own time.

From Bill Simons article on Federer (my select excerpts - other parts are flattering as usual):

His backhand, while still eloquent, occasionally reveals itself as a vulnerable (dare we say old-fashioned?) stroke in comparison to the two-handed power blasts of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.

The lines on his maturing face may be deepening.

But more often we get a certain peeved attitude: a quiet storm of denial, a simmering anger.

With all due respect, Nadal is the scowl GOAT. He ALWAYS appears angry, as if he hates playing tennis.

BrooklynNY
05-17-2011, 01:31 PM
With all due respect, Nadal is the scowl GOAT. He ALWAYS appears angry, as if he hates playing tennis.

That's just what people call 'competitive spirit'

Most players post 2003- tend to lack this

:twisted:

*puts on flame resistant body suit*