Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Applez, Jan 31, 2006.
What's your preference?
One-sided matches are, IMO, never as interesting as closely contested ones... Also, matches where both players play well are more interesting than matches in which one is playing below his best.
With Federer's dominance right now, it just isn't possible for Federer to have a close match where he plays well - if the match is close, it's because he hasn't turned on his game yet.
(There are exceptions - Safin and Gasquet on days where they happen to play at their peak, Santoro because he's just crazy and manages to give top players good matches, and I suppose Nalbandian based on recent results. But none of them have managed to challenge him consistently - Nalbandian, Safin, and Gasquet rarely play well enough to get far enough to play him, and Santoro is more of a quirky opponent rather than an actual contender to beat him, though they have entertaining matches)
break all records.
But have you forgotten that Nadal already is his dangerous rival at present who is equally tough to beat? So, I don't think Federer is completely dominating now. Of late, a lot of opponenets have made him struggle. Plus Nadal is set to resume soon. So, it's going to be a tough time ahead for Federer which let's hope he successfully handles and maintain his top position.
I wonder how Nadal will be playing when he returns. Hopefully this is not the beginning of injury tennis for him
I think it would be cool for someone to challenge Federer but if it dosen't happend, you gotta bow down!
10 char minimum sucks...
I'd like to see him break Sampras - but I want him to do it and win a calendar Slam. It's been way too long since the last one on the men's side - it's time and he's the guy to do it.
Overtake Sampras as the greatest? "Like to see him break Sampras", Roger is great....but a Pete he can never be. Last time I checked how many consistent Grand Slam Winners in their prime does Roger play against day in and day out?
The 06 Oz Open was perfect. He won it, but it was dramatic.
Imagine four successive 5 set comebacks over the likes of Marcos, Coria, Nalbandian and Nadal at RG?
Then a match or two where the result is in doubt until the last point at Wimbledon against solid grasscourters like Grosjean, Hewitt, Keifer, Henman, Ancic, Dent, Roddick or Guccione?
Then a grueling weekend against Marat and Marco at the Open capping a truly Grand Slam?
Is it even feasible? Well, as a fan, that's what I would vote for. Six in a row, mostly the hard way.
Welcome to the board.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't think Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal, etc are chopped liver. And I'm not sure all the people you're alluding to were in their prime when Sampras played them. Federer can only play who makes it into the draw.
If he ends up with more Slams, wins at least one French, and (already) has a more rounded overall game than Sampras, I don't see how anyone wouldn't say Fed was better.
Thank you for the Welcome. Lets look at this from another perspective. Aside from numbers. Pete battled against the best in the world who at the time happened to be his own country men. Imagine how much harder it is to win against your own American buds. Roger has no worries there with the next SUI Wawrinka (51) Bastl (137) non contenders. Just another little something that seperates their worlds, other than serves and groundstrokes.
We want the guy to be challenged, not dead.
FED owns by end of 2008
slice bh compliment
This is like spotting the McGuffin in Hitchcock movies!
Tell you what slice, we'll both fly over to SE 19 when he reaches the Wimby Final (which is being touted) where you can keep me a place in the queue. On the other hand, if he's to meet Wawrinka we won't bother.
An unexpected treat to see him play 3 days in succession, allowing maximum appreciation of his talent.
Would agree with you if Sampras was a warm buddy to the Americans you mentioned. I don't think Sampras was considered a bud amongst Courier and Agassi.
Roger would have fared against the past greats, because he is a better tennisplayer and athlete than most of them. Sampras was great too, but Roger is more complete. I never had the feeling Pete could do the Grand Slam. With Roger I have that feeling.
It's impossible to compare past greats to current dominate players. Roger is a great player, but he isn't a legend yet.
This McGuffin is 6ft7 w/ red hair...cannot miss him!
Yours!05, I've been waiting for this. Chris Guccione, Davis Cup Hero.....Wimbledon hopeful. I never made it to Wimbledon as a traveling fan or as a wannabe tennis player, but I may have to queue up and do it right one year soon.
Wawrinka is a friend / paisan of Federer's huh? Do they play alike at all?
I'd like to see Roger get pushed more than now.
In AO 06, Federer was pushed more than any other slams
But I'd like to see him challenged more by variety of players.
I'm tired of watching all the same power baseliners vs another
Separate names with a comma.