PDA

View Full Version : Roger Repeat!


Ballmachine
03-02-2004, 09:25 AM
Roger Federer beat Marat Safin again in a tight two-set, two tiebreak first round match in Dubai. How's that for the first round? It sounds like it was a great, highly competitive match. Did anybody get a chance to see it?

Personally, I think the most exciting thing about 2004 is Roger Federer. I am very interested to see how well he does in the remaining Slams, especially the French Open. How great would that be if Roger could conquer the red clay of Roland Garros? How many of you think he will? All I know, is I will be watching!

@wright
03-02-2004, 09:54 AM
I definitely think he can and could, but there's alot of other guys who really want it, so I'm not going to say he will, but I'd love to see Fed, Safin, Coria, Rios, or Guga hoist the cup.

AAAA
03-02-2004, 10:27 AM
I agree. Federer is the biggest thing in tennis right now. We haven't IMHO seen the best of him yet.

magiset
03-02-2004, 01:27 PM
Forget Federer. How did Santoro do vs. A. Martin?

irishbanger
03-02-2004, 02:50 PM
Federer won the Hamburg Masters Series on clay---against Safin. He can play on the dirt.

Currahee
03-02-2004, 03:41 PM
Federer will win the French eventually but not this year. Like AAAA said we haven't seen the best of Roger yet.

PureCarlosMoyaDrive
03-02-2004, 04:10 PM
Federer is the man in tennis right now. He's #1 this year for sure I'd say. His game is just insane, he can hit literally anything. Clay will obviously be his hardest, but with his clay court masters success, you'd have to believe that he can do it on the clay. If he won the French, then for sure he'd be at least a carrear grand slam winner I'd say. God do I love his backhand, and that super insan-o forehand of his.

magiset
03-02-2004, 04:36 PM
Fabrice Santoro def. Alberto Martin, 6-3, 6-7 (7-9), 6-4 :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol:

sseemiller
03-02-2004, 06:29 PM
Roger has some great clay results in Masters events, and he could be a Roland Garros contender. But the guys who grew up on clay have an advantage -- i.e., Coria and Ferrero. They are good on other surfaces, but they are like ducks to water on clay, and that serves them well, especially over two weeks of best-of-five matches. Just as it served Guga for quite a few years.

But I wouldn't rule out a Federer win, that's for sure, especially if he gets a good draw.

corncob3466
03-02-2004, 06:36 PM
federer is the **** on the tour right now. i think he could win on any surface he wants

sliceroni
03-02-2004, 09:22 PM
I agree, Federer is the reason why millions of fans are interested in watching and taping tennis again since the likes of Becker, Rafter, Sampras and all the others retired. Federer will only get better and the greatness he displayed at Wimbledon last year will be an annual performance (if injury free) grass suits him well. There's no reason why he can't perform well at the French either. It will be fun to watch that's for sure.

Verbal_Kint
03-02-2004, 11:38 PM
I think Federer has also grown up on clay.

Marnix

C_Urala
03-03-2004, 03:53 AM
I woudn't speak for millions. I watch tennis not because of him. He's number one, but not the only one.

jings
03-03-2004, 04:00 AM
This is as much about perceived weakness as anything else. Simply, The Fed has won on all surfaces in good measure over the last 2 years. He does not "fear" any given domain. He may win Roland Garros in 2004, he may not. He is an all court and all surface player which is why he makes such compulsive viewing. Sampras, for whatever reason, was uncomfortable on clay, Federer is not. Scarily such is Federer's skill that he can draw such a comparison. For the sake of men's tennis may Federer continue his form and stretch those other very talented top men's players to raise their games.

sliceroni
03-03-2004, 04:29 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble C_Urala, I know he's not the only one out there, but millions of tennis fans who have somewhat lost interest in recent years because of big serve-baseline play have again sparked interest in tennis because they enjoy watching Federer's traditional game, and proof that a traditional game can work, it's just not practiced for some reason. The excitement of his slice bh all-court play is undeniable at every club I frequent and ofcourse on this board. Becker hit the nail on the head when he said "it's good to have a player on top who has all the shots and doesn't try to hit the ball as hard as can at every opportunity". Federer is so good he doesn't need to.

theprophe
03-03-2004, 07:33 AM
Federer is great , thats no question now, but alot of people here are starting to compare him to sampras, and maybe greatest ever title. I think the person with the most game is Safin, here's a guy who showed so much promise years ago, and then through his mentals breakdowns and injures was a non factor. Now he has come back from injuries hasn't played much in a year, and federer the best on the tour can barely beat him, what hapens when Safin actually has played for a couple months?

ErwinFromParis
03-03-2004, 07:42 AM
I believe FED is the only player (maybe with Marat) that can hold the 4 Grand Slam cups.
The hamburg's master final showed he can be the One on clay.
While u have seen him playing, you never watch tennis the same way. He's for sure one of that performer that change the dimension of their art. I have the chance to shake his hand and having few words last year at Bercy, the guy he's amazingly cool and humble.
And I agree we haven't seen the best FED yet... Just insane!

sliceroni
03-03-2004, 11:41 AM
theprophe- Federer can barely beat him. Uh, did you see the final of the Australian? Marat admittedly said after the match "I lost to a magician." Sure Marat gave him a close match at the Dubai, 7-6 7-6. But that was the first round so it could've went either way, after some match play and if it were the semis or finals Federer would have took out the steamroller again.

Verbal_Kint
03-03-2004, 11:43 AM
Marat was pretty spent in the AO final, not having one three-setter on his way there.

Marnix

Ballmachine
03-03-2004, 05:07 PM
People forget that Pete Sampras won the Italian Open in the early 90's, which is a Master Series Event, like Hamburg. Sampras actually had some good results spattered throughout his career on clay, although obviously it was his worst surface. My point is, that people have to realize that just because Roger did win Hamburg, that doesn't necessarily mean he will hoist the cup at Roland Garros. I think it will be the most interesting story in tennis, every year, for the next ten years to see if he can do it. Second to that will be the U.S. Open, where Federer should win, but stranger things have happened. Remember, 6 time French Open Champion and 5 time Wimbledon Champion, Bjorn Borg, could never get over the hump in NY.

PureCarlosMoyaDrive
03-03-2004, 07:01 PM
He's one of the reasons I'm still really interested in pro tennis right now, a lot. His game is the best I've ever seen. My main love for him is his amazing shot making, but also the fact that he'll keep up the rallies, which I love the most. He's got the all-court game too, and slice backhands are bomb. Not to mention his ice-cold attitude is awesome.

C_Urala
03-04-2004, 12:46 AM
Again, I woudn't speak for millions.
I just physiologically can't stand such generalizations.

Federer may be the best but such gushing just makes me sick.
I guess I shouldn't have read this thread in this case. But I think this has happened to Roddick and can easily happen to Federer. Reckless hipe of Roddick from the side of his frantic fans and media just diverted many people from him.

Sorry for striking a discordant note ..

ErwinFromParis
03-04-2004, 12:52 AM
[quote="Ballmachine"]People forget that Pete Sampras won the Italian Open in the early 90's, which is a Master Series Event, like Hamburg. quote]

Hi Ballmachine, ('scuze my unforgivable english :( )
You have to admit that FED he's better on the baseline than Pete, he can play very fast striking heavy balls in both forehand and backhand strokes. Also, I'm not sure but i guess Pete's best result in RG was semifinal (which is not very far...) beating by Courier on his way to the title in the early 90's... Does anybody can confirm this?

Verbal_Kint
03-04-2004, 02:36 AM
He was beaten in that semi by Kafelnikov, after beating Bruguera and Courier, both in 5 sets. By the way, SF not very far?

Marnix

ErwinFromParis
03-04-2004, 04:17 AM
Of course, it was Kafel :!: :!:
SF was not very far 'cause we can imagine that with a better draw Pete could have beat Kaf and .. maybe... won the title

Ballmachine
03-04-2004, 06:56 AM
Again, when talking about Pete Sampras, many people forget that he was awesome from the baseline early in his career. In fact, Sampras only served and volleyed at Wimbledon. He beat Jim Courier on clay, Sergi Brugera on clay, and Andre Agassi on clay. How do you do that if you can't play from the baseline? Also, Sampras beat Andre Agassi in the 1995 U.S. Open from the baseline. That's right. He outhit Andre and consistently won the longer rallies. Also, Pete beat Carlos Moya, a baseliner at the Australian Open final in 1994 on a slow hard court. When most people think of Sampras, they only think about the later years, when he was a serve and volleyer on all surfaces. I have been watching Pete since the 1990 U.S. Open, and he didn't exclusively serve and volley until 1999. In 1995, Pete Sampras accounted for all three points in Davis Cup play against the Russians on a very, very slow clay court. He beat Kafelnikov, Chesnikov, and the doubles. He rarely came to net in the singles, and he outhit Kafelnikov from the baseline. His running forehand was the best forehand in the game for many, many years. If you don't take my word for it, look at the tapes. As they say, the proof is in the pudding.

ErwinFromParis
03-04-2004, 07:09 AM
Precision: I have many tapes of Pete's matches and i do love his game!!
For my point, despite all his talent from the baseline, he's not as complete as FED on that part of the game... And there, I only reproduce the opinion of Agassi and many ATP professionnals...

AAAA
03-04-2004, 08:23 AM
BM, Borg's biggest problem at the USO was the floodlite conditions the finals were played under. He had no problems with hard courts.

Verbal_Kint, Looking at the record it was normal for Pete to win Wimbledon or reach the latter stages. The french open record shows it was normal for Pete to loose early, often before or by R3.

polakosaur
03-04-2004, 09:19 AM
he got to the quarters in 2001 in the french, he got the game, and the movement to win

PureCarlosMoyaDrive
03-04-2004, 06:26 PM
Sampras got to the semis in 1996 after beating some huge names, then just died out against Kafel in the semis. He was a great baseliner. I have the 1997 aus open final vs. Moya on tape, and he just murders Moya from all over the baseline. Moya would go inside out, then go inside out down the line, and sampras would just run it down and rip that oh so famous running forehand and put Moya right on the defensive, and the point was probably Sampras' then. Sampras' forehand was huge, bigger than Fed's, but I think just has a little more consistency from the baseline and patience, and I see him possibly winning RG in a few years, if not this 2004.

Claudius
07-11-2009, 06:04 PM
Federer is the man in tennis right now. He's #1 this year for sure I'd say. His game is just insane, he can hit literally anything. Clay will obviously be his hardest, but with his clay court masters success, you'd have to believe that he can do it on the clay. If he won the French, then for sure he'd be at least a carrear grand slam winner I'd say. God do I love his backhand, and that super insan-o forehand of his.

You're right. He won 15 Grand Slam titles.

フェデラー
07-11-2009, 06:05 PM
You're right. He won 15 Grand Slam titles.

massive grave digging.

Serendipitous
07-11-2009, 06:06 PM
Archeology :cry::cry::cry::cry:

Claudius
07-11-2009, 06:09 PM
Pretty interesting to look at 5 year old threads and see what people thought of Federer back then.

raiden031
07-11-2009, 06:14 PM
I'm very impressed with some of these posts from '04. People really believed in him and he lived up to all of it. I wish I was a poster back then. I didn't even know who Federer was because I stopped watching tennis for about 5 years in about 2000.

GameSampras
07-11-2009, 06:38 PM
Even back then...


Who is Fed almost ALWAYS compared to? Not Laver, Not Pancho, Not Borg, Not Rosewall, Not Budge, Not tilden,... But Pete sampras.

I always found that funny. When you think of the greatness of Roger, its only compared to one other player

JeMar
07-11-2009, 06:41 PM
Even back then...


Who is Fed almost ALWAYS compared to? Not Laver, Not Pancho, Not Borg, Not Rosewall, Not Budge, Not tilden,... But Pete sampras.

I always found that funny. When you think of the greatness of Roger, its only compared to one other player

It's really just because that's who people are most familiar with, I wouldn't make too much of it.

severus
07-11-2009, 06:48 PM
Even back then...


Who is Fed almost ALWAYS compared to? Not Laver, Not Pancho, Not Borg, Not Rosewall, Not Budge, Not tilden,... But Pete sampras.

I always found that funny. When you think of the greatness of Roger, its only compared to one other player

That's because Petros was playing a lot closer to Federer than Laver , Pancho etc.( actually I highly doubt that someone watched them), but Petros is the other deal he actually played with Federer at Wimbledon I must say and lost.....

EtePras
07-11-2009, 07:26 PM
My, how Federer has risen and fallen since then. He may be #1 in the world, but his game has become so pusher-like and uninspiring ever since he switched away from the nCode.

FEDEXP
07-11-2009, 11:13 PM
Yeah, it's a real shame.....

ChanceEncounter
07-11-2009, 11:18 PM
My, how Federer has risen and fallen since then. He may be #1 in the world, but his game has become so pusher-like and uninspiring ever since he switched away from the nCode.
Yeah, he needs to get an oversized, yellow Babolat.

Cup8489
07-11-2009, 11:24 PM
Then VS. Now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPrVpXMYdp4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLT8YG3Mu9o
( best i could find, not much for highlights out there on this one)

shawn1122
07-11-2009, 11:25 PM
Where were all the trolls back then?? What has become of these boards?

joeri888
07-11-2009, 11:54 PM
My, how Federer has risen and fallen since then. He may be #1 in the world, but his game has become so pusher-like and uninspiring ever since he switched away from the nCode.

His game isn't as smooth as it once was, but he's still a great player. I agree with you that his game is not THAT beautiful anymore. It's understandable though. Playing your B-game and still winning the channel, being world no. 1 and being the massive favourite to win the US Open, only supports his legacy. At this point, I'm a rather big fan of the legend, Roger Federer, but his game isn't that extra extra special anymore.

I would not say he's uninspiring though. His RG win was probably the most inspiring tennis I've seen him play. His fighting spirit, the way he battled himself out of there.. It was amazing imo. After some of those matches I really had the feeling that I had NO idea how he had won points at all, his forehand didn't seem to win him points, his serve seemed to not win him many points, his backhand never wins him that many direct points.. But still he found his ways.. That was really inspiring to me.

Cool to see so many expected him to win many Slams in the beginning of 2004. I think I started expecting him to win many more after the US Open of that year, but he was on 4 already back then. Predicting it at 2 is pretty impressive.

OddJack
07-12-2009, 12:25 AM
How far back can u go on these threads? would like to see older than this...2004 is still not to tough to be optimistic on Fed. I would say 2001 the soonest...can u go back 8 years?

Rippy
07-12-2009, 06:06 AM
Lol it's funny looking back to see that person on the first page thought Safin would have more success than Federer.

(And wow, that was a hugely old thread to post in whoever bumped this)

raiden031
07-12-2009, 08:14 AM
How far back can u go on these threads? would like to see older than this...2004 is still not to tough to be optimistic on Fed. I would say 2001 the soonest...can u go back 8 years?

I tried, and think the history on this board only dates back to 2004. I believe there might be an older, different version of the board that you can find on google.

RCizzle65
07-12-2009, 10:06 AM
Lol it's funny looking back to see that person on the first page thought Safin would have more success than Federer.

(And wow, that was a hugely old thread to post in whoever bumped this)

I remember someone saying that on Tennis Channel there was some predictions of players futures, saying Federer and Safin would be winning the slams, with Safin edging out Federer since he was bigger off the baseline.