What player would give Federer the most problems winning since 1984?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by pc1, Feb 5, 2010.

  1. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,447
    I'm not sure what I take from that Federer/Sampras match. It was in 2001 and Sampras wasn't beating that many people at the time and Federer wasn't nearly at his peak yet.
     
    #51
  2. ALten1

    ALten1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    200
    I am a Fed fan along with being a Sampras fan. As a matter of fact I am a fan of anyone who is the best in their respected fields. In 2001 Sampras is 30 by now he has lost half a step. Thats a bigtime loss at their level. We will see shortly that 30 is a magical number. Old age hits fast, hard, and without warning. Sure, after 30 you can still compete but to compete for the number 1 spot is different. Players that compete as no. 1 lose the drive to compete a lot faster than guys that compete just to stay in top 100.
     
    #52
  3. Enigma_87

    Enigma_87 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,360
    It's Wibledon and Sampras is 100% motivated as a defending champion(4 times defending champion that is). Right after the 02 USO Sampras said that was one of the best tennis he has ever played.

    In other words Sampras was capable of being close to his best where it mattered most - slams.

    Granted they both were not in their prime(hence the off their prime), but IMO Sampras was closer to his (reaching USO finals months later, beating Rafter, Safin and Agassi).

    Federer was much more frustrating and inconsistent player back then.

    Add to that the current much slower conditions at Wimbey, which hugely favor Fed.

    Not saying Federer would smoke Sampras, both are great champions and would hold their own, but I can see Federer having the edge
     
    #53
  4. swordtennis

    swordtennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    4,442
    WTF! For the love of God! No! No!
     
    #54
  5. MarcRosset1992

    MarcRosset1992 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    197
    Michael Stich
     
    #55
  6. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,110
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    Er, OK. It's that simple. Yes--great post.
     
    #56
  7. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    great thread PC. I think 84 Mac would give Fed fits. Besides Pete, Mac in the early 80's was dominant. Mac being left handed and his attacking serve/volley game would make things tough on Fed.
     
    #57
  8. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    try not to compare Davy/DelPo with Agassi...that would be a shame.

    also, DelPo handled Fed at the USO...so.
     
    #58
  9. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    Fed would probably own Wilander. I agree that Mat's was the type of player that could run circles around most players, but he had no true weapon to hurt Fed.
     
    #59
  10. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    and Agassi from ages 21 to 28 was handled at the U.S Open by:

    -Krickstein the 1st round in straight sets, the same Krickstein who would go on to lose to a 39 year old Connors about 7 days later

    -Courier for the 3rd time in a slam and a 5th straight match head to head

    -19 year old Enqvist in the 1st round

    -Chang in easy straight sets in the semis, only allowing Agassi 7 games

    -by Rafter in the round of 16

    -by Karol Kucera in the round of 16

    .......so
     
    #60
  11. big bang

    big bang Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,885
    Location:
    behind your curtain
    in general I say:

    Sampras (grass, HC, carpet)
    Mac (grass, HC, carpet)
    Lendl (every surface but grass)
    Safin (99-05 only)(every surface but grass)
    Edberg (every surface)
    Muster (clay only)
    Bruguera (clay only)
    Kuerten (clay only)
    Courier (HC, clay)
    Becker (grass, HC, carpet)

    when I say grass I mean the old fast grass of wimby. HC I mean fast HC only.
    on clay I bet there is a few more that could cause Fed some trouble
     
    #61
  12. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    BB, your post is very good and I agree with it. but it makes me wonder..are you on the side that Fed has better competition than players of the 80-90's player or opposite. Your list shows that today's player is simply a joke. yes, they are stronger, faster and in better shape..but they are no where near the tennis player of the 80-90's. Fed is in a bad era because literally no one gives him any trouble.
     
    #62
  13. big bang

    big bang Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,885
    Location:
    behind your curtain
    I truly believe that the competition in the 80´s and 90´s was better than the last decade. Fed had it very easy until Nadal came(05) he was beating guys like Hewitt, Roddick and old Andre in pretty much every final. only Safin and Nalbandian could beat him when they where in form..
    but I think the field has become much stronger the last few years, unfortunately we seem to have more headcases in top 10 than I recall we ever had:(
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2010
    #63
  14. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    yes, the mental attitude of the top 10 is horrid..good thinking. but I think DelPo and Novak have some game..so we shall see this year.
     
    #64
  15. big bang

    big bang Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,885
    Location:
    behind your curtain
    I agree, was very impressed how Delpo handled the pressure in the final of USO, hes mentally very strong of his age.
    I really like djokers game, hope he will get it together and improve his stamina.
    if he does he could be the new #1.
     
    #65
  16. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,447
    I was shocked how psyche out Murray was in the Australian Open final. The guy couldn't buy a first serve. All I wanted was a well played final but Murray seemed so overwhelmed by the situation. I still think he can win a major but he has to learn to prepare better mentally.


    Big Bang, I was also impressed by del Potro. Federer seemed to come into that match with the idea it was going to be easy and del Potro overcame his nerves and just overpowered Federer at the end.

    Outside of Nadal, I think these guys (Djokovic, del Potro, Murray) do have it in them to give Federer a great battle and perhaps beat him in a major. Djokovic and del Potro have already done it.
     
    #66
  17. holera

    holera New User

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    48
    imo, it is nadal. terrible match up for federer.

    imo, the main thing to take from the sampras federer match is that federer would be able to return sampras' serve.

    that would be a big advantage for federer, since that is sampras' main weapon.

    sometimes players do not serve well. murray served badly in the 1st 2 sets of AO final and lost (murray served well in the 3rd set, though).

    federer served very badly in USO final and lost.

    not necessarily a mental thing.
     
    #67
  18. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    You do know that Federer plays with an 80s racquet, right? It's nearly the same frame as Sampras and Edberg used.
     
    #68
  19. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Look, I think Wilanderfan is making a sincere post...but it's doubtful he was a wilander fan when Wilander actually played, or has played tennis at a high level if he belives all of this. Fed was the first? Sampras was the first? Yikes.

    Peoplel have been hitting the same short angle shots Federer uses. Just as sharp, just as angled. Fed does it a lot, because he's a great baseliner, and has great movement, and great spin. On the other hand, Sampras and others regularly made the same angles at Wimbledon, because they had SV targets to contend with. In that sense, they may have made more sharp angled shots (passes) than Fed does now.

    Sampras WAS NOT the first to have that running forehand. Players have had them throughout history. Sampras' was particularly good, because of his speed and confidence, but Lendl for example, could, and did, hit every running forehand Sampras ever hit. Lendl also hit every angle Fed has ever hit. People just forget...and when commentators blithely announce that a player has "invented" that shot, or that it's never been seen...newbs eat it up. What should be said is that rarely to such great players come along, that they "often" make great shots like that against worthy opponents. But that lacks the hyperbole that fans and commentators like.
     
    #69
  20. vllaznia

    vllaznia Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    406
    Love the double standard here,in one hand you take in consideration an exho on the other hand you dismiss the only competitive match that they had.
     
    #70
  21. kOaMaster

    kOaMaster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,030
    Location:
    Basel/Switzerland
    Datacipher, I think it's pretty clear those players did not invent the shots, but what they did is made it popular because they used it effectively.
    nadals topspin playwise isn't new, but that's what you remember when you think "nadal".
    neither is federer's dropshot anykind of an invention and sampras jump smash isnt either.

    no doubt almost all players could do that too, but how often you see this kind of play from lets say davydenko? or hewitt?
     
    #71
  22. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    I agree PC1, I posted before the AO, that Murray (and a couple others) are not proven under fire yet. But, I also wrote that this is now they're chance. Every player gets a pass in his first final from me. Hey, human beings get nerves. It's the rare player, who can face down a great (or even a real good) in his first final, and come through. But your 2nd time around...hey...if you're a natural fighter/champ, this is your chance. Even then, if you face a great, I don't "expect" you to win, but I expect you to come with the very best tennis you have on that day...Murray was tight and scared...again.

    Yes, he can still overcome this...even some of the great champs were not naturally like that eg. Lendl, Martina, but it is a really poor sign. When you think of the powerful confidence of young Becker, the "cool as a cucumber" Sampras, the bullish enthusiasm of young Nadal, the arrogant punk Connors...well like them or not, you know you were seeing championship mentality on another level.

    It does make Delpo's breakthrough remarkable when you think about say, how Gonzalez, Murray, Djoko or Tsonga played....I thought his mentality was great in that match...though I still worry about his injuries and footwork.

    Djoko has done it...but he did it against TSONGA! Which is...maybe a bit like Agassi facing down Ivanisevic to take his first title ;-) Agassi knew that he was mentally stronger than Goran....and Djoko got to the experienced favorite in that match. I think Djoko is arrogant, and that may help, but I still have some question marks about him to!
     
    #72
  23. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Mmm...well what do you mean by popular? Like I said, Sampras for example, hit all kinds of sharp angled topspin passes, but yes, it wasn't what he was known for.

    I don't know that those shots became MORE common on tour, or in amateur play....maybe lame attempts to recreate them became more popular...like all the Mcenroe serves out there, and currently, all the poorly mimicked Federer forehands! ;-)

    But certainly Fed does them extremely well and effectively...so yes, if we're just talking about "influence" then I think it could have an effect some effect on juniors etc. It was the whole Fed/Sampras invented those shots and it's due to their racquets argument that I found truly asinine.
     
    #73
  24. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Uhm...............no.I know its a common line of thinking with quite a few people here but with all due respect,I disagree.

    Where Roger went wrong was when he decided to stay back instead of coming in on Del Potro.It was working well for a set and a half and then for some reason Federer hardly approached the net for the rest of the match.
    Not to mention his serve was steadily declining as the match progressed.I know Federer is not the best server out there but the serve still constitutes an important weapon for him.A weapon thats has helped him bail out of trouble on numerous occasions.
    You can disagree of course but I dont believe Federer or any player would go into a slam final thinking its going to be easy.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #74
  25. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    You're right, we wouldn't want to do simplistic armchair analysis. The real reason is indeed, that Federer is borderline mentally retarded, and for no apparent reason, just stopped coming in. I guess he just plain forgot. Maybe he needs more experience....
     
    #75
  26. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    edit-
    *sigh*.I almost made the mistake of coming up with a response .
    Moving on..........
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #76
  27. fhdowntheline

    fhdowntheline Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    303
    One should take a look at the Edberg Lendl SF australian Open 1985. It had some phenomenal shotmaking particularly Edberg's Backhand, exceptional volleys by Edberg AND Lendl, and yes, some unbelievable crosscourt forehands by Edberg.

    I do agree that sometimes commentators and us fans do get too generous in our praise. After watching the abovementioned match on Youtube , I realised that.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU9cGGIGUXY
     
    #77
  28. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    LMAO @ some of the comments here.

    "murray was tight in the final !"

    "del potro displayed mental toughness of the highest order in the USO final"

    Let's see:

    [sarcasm].......................

    a nervous murray opens the match with a BH winner DTL , breaks back fed in the first set with a scorcher of a game ( remember that BH pass down the line ? )

    A fired up , mentally tough del potro gifts away the 3rd set with 2 DFs in a row !

    ........................[/sarcasm]

    Del potro gagged much worse in the USO final than roddick did in the wimby final ...

    murray wasn't that nervous at all , its just that his strategy didn't work against an in-form fed

    Del potro wasn't pretty much there in the match until federer was serving for the 2nd set . He committed not one , but 2 DFs when down 4-5 in the 3rd set to allow fed to take the set .

    That is MUCH MUCH worse than the roddick flubbed volley in the 2nd set tie-break or the FH down the line that murray missed in the 3rd set tie-break

    While it's true that he never gave up and that is highly commendable, federer gave him those chances to come back ( the only mini-break in the 4th set tie-break was the fed double-fault !)

    The difference was the fed gave del potro many chances ( with his horrid serving along with less than his best groundstrokes ) , and roddick and murray simply didn't get those many chances.

    As a result, del potro gets praised for his mental toughness, while murray(who wasn't nervous ) and roddick ( who choked far lesser than DP did and played very well ) get dissed , LOL !
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #78
  29. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    @ topic :

    considering all surfaces, sampras and possibly mac
     
    #79
  30. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    umm, sampras wasn't close to being as good at them as fed is plus he didn't have those "flick" BH passes
     
    #80
  31. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    Read my post regarding murray,del potro and roddick regarding this for the reply ! Only point to be added is murray didn't serve well only in the first set, he served more than decently in the 2nd and 3rd

    Lets see, del potro gives federer one hell of a battle at roland garros, cleans up nadal 2,2 and 2 in the USO SF and federer comes into the match thinking its going to be easy. Nice logic, I must say !
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #81
  32. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    I agree.

    10 chars
     
    #82
  33. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    You have to love fedfanboys like abmk. He thinks nothing of displaying his ignorance about tennis here for post after post and still makes idiotic statements like this.

    Why idiotic? May he just sincerely be mistaken....well...anytime you take a 14 time slam champion, who played against guys like Becker, Edberg, Krajicek etc and you start your post with "wasn't close to being as good" with his passing shots...well you've disqualified yourself from serious discussion right off the bat!

    In actual fact, as I mentioned in my other post, it's actually hard to compare the two, as Fed doesn't face all that many passing shot situations. When he does, I'd actually say he handles them much worse in general, but I don't think that's due to deficiencies on his part. I think that's due to the surprise factor of having an opponent rush him. I think were he to face sustained attack, he'd have time to dial them in and be one tough passer. Of course, this is ignoring the fact that I merely said that Sampras had hit every shot Federer has...I never began to get into who is better. But of course, that is blasphemy to the worshipers. Lettuce continue to believe that neither Sampras nor any other hit those shots over the course of their careers! If we did not see it, it does not exist! IF WE DID NOT SEE IT, IT DOES NOT EXIST! REPEAT. REPEAT. REPEAT.

    As to the infamous "flick", backhand...LOL...sigh. Indeed, Sampras' technique APPEARS different (it really isn't....neither player truly flicks the backhand with much flexion/extension, other than some minor emergency improvisation, which both are capable of doing). What you're actually seeing is an effect of grip, as well as the fact that Sampras sometimes used his heavier racquet to produce power, with a slower swing speed, while Fed uses a bit more spin. But hey, that doesn't sound nearly as exotic as pretending Fed has a special wrist technique eh?

    I remember even Sampras being impressed by some of Fed's wristy-LOOKING passes, but of course, he was being generous, because he produced every single one of those passes in his own way. Stretched wide, full run, crosscourt backhand pass, landing halfway up service box? Check, been there done that. In any case, Laver arguably LOOKED like he produced wristier flicks than either of them.

    In any case, people should try watching some Sampras matches...I was looking for a compilation of backhands I once saw of Sampras(not on youtube) but didn't see it immediately on youtube. In any case, there are plenty of examples out there, this isn't a great one, but it certainly is a start:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUfv3K1ctSM&feature=related

    Actually one of the best backhand short angles I ever saw was Sampras vs Chang. Sampras was on the run, and then hit a short angle backhand for an outright winner, when Chang was in position ON THE BASELINE. Now THAT isn't easy to do.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #83
  34. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    edit-delete post.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #84
  35. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6razIbD4Lg8

    On a side note, I just noticed somebody made a series of videos comparing Federer and Lendl BH's. Which is ironic because I had an argument about just that subject a short while ago here. The vids verify what I had said...I believe it was another one of my favorite regular TW tennis-challenged posters (35ft...). His basic premise being that Lendl could not hit the ball as hard, because he used "old" mechanics. I tried to explain that Lendl's COULD hit the ball as hard and that his mechanics were actually completely in-line with modern mechanics, and most of the variance he saw between them was a result of individual differences in flexibility and style; that the only real difference stemmed from Lendl's continental grip, which made his swing follow through look a bit different...but hey, what do I know?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PF2UVbXW2E&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvpBs50NcBI&feature=related
     
    #85
  36. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    you gotta love people pretending they're SOOOOO neutral while they're AS biased as anyone else ( *chuckles* )

    LOL @ 2nd sentence in the bold part ..... Fed has the better passing shots , off any wing. This isn't even debatable. Sampras' passing shots were good, but fed's are definitely better ...

    And pete didn't hit those flick BH shots , I never said he couldn't hit BH passing shots on the run or create great angles with his BH while passing , did I ?

    About pete having every shot as fed has, that wasn't the main issue of debate, the main issue was/is how good they are at those ...

    Couldn't other players hit those slam dunks by pete ????? They certainly could, but not as well , which is why that's regarded as pete's 'trademark' so as to speak.

    Nadal has used dropshots on clay pretty effectively, how many raved about them ???

    But when federer started using frequently them the previous year ( he did use them previously, but more sparingly ) , many raved about it. Why ? Because they were that good ! What gets people's attention is when the strokes are used enough to be noticeable and they're that good !
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #86
  37. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    LOL! Too late! I saw it! For others: her reply was "I didn't say that...I said I don't know why he stopped coming in". (we all KNOW her real reasoning..."I prefer to think Federer could have won, but for whatever reason, LET himself lose the match. That feels a lot better to me, even if it makes him sound like a ****** who simply chose to stop using a very winning tactic that was hardly a subtle change).

    Oh...and of course...since she had no substance, the next sentence was a string of her normal personal attacks "you're so self-righteous...you're mean!"

    Yep, Mandy, sorry, I call BS from tennis-kiddies like you, and WILL continue to do so. Too bad for you. I'm a mean mean man.
     
    #87
  38. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    looking at the latest response from the poster I think its best to delete this as well.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #88
  39. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    *sigh*.........yawn
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010
    #89
  40. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Everyone is biased. If you think I say anything, that is based purely on emotional bias, and NOT on tennis analysis, feel free to SPECIFICALLY address it. This generalized rhetoric is nonsense, as I'm sure you are well aware. Like saying "you say..um..ALL KINDS...of WRONG things...". O...K...that is meaningless, you need to address them specifically.

    Actually, it's quite debatable. The fact that you declare it as not, simply shows how misguided you are. It's a bit sad.

    Again, I spent some time explaining "flick"..but I see it went over your head. In any case, Pete hit every shot Roger has, if you want to call Roger's a "flick", go ahead. Roger never hit Lendl's "slingshot" forehand ever, but he nonetheless has produced all the same forehands Lendl did. Goran and Krajicek never broke their arm after contact like Lendl and Sampras did on the serve...if you want to say that made Lendl and Sampras' serves "different" go ahead. They all produced every serve in the book, at one point and time. Too bad you don't understand this.


    Oh good....that's funny because I could swear this came from a post claiming that Roger had INVENTED some shots and that Sampras had to. For SOME reason, I think it was me debunking that. BUT NOW, AS of this post, it's about who did it best eh? Well, enjoy, I am not, and never was part of that conversation.

    WOW. Faulty analogy on two levels:
    1.I have seen very FEW players produce that slam dunk. In fact, that's one of the few unique shots in tennis history! Great call! However, we did see jumping smashes before Pete, some great (eg. Noah) though we were almost invariably jumping up, and/or backward, not forward. Since Pete, I've seen a handful of players make similar shots, notably Chang, Federer, Pioline, Roddick (though Roddicks was again, more of a vertical leap), and a few journeymen.

    2.the discussion WAS Not about "Trademark" shots..in fact, after I debunked the invention theory, Koamaster already addressed the "made popular" idea, and I agreed with him. It would serve you well to read all the posts before you spout off...

    Um..no...actually there are a number of people with better drop shots than Federer, what got people talking about it is that Federer is one of, if not THE highest profile player. He is SO popular, he has legions of relative newcomers to tennis who post on forums almost exclusively about him, and put his picture in their avatars! HOWEVER, even if we pretend his dropshot is the best, that does not mean he invented it, and again, if you had read the whole thread, you would know that was what the discussion was about.

    I am glad we got the matter resolved. Again, the discussion WAS NOT about who's particular shot is THE BEST.
     
    #90
  41. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    in this case, it was pretty clear I was talking about your points with respect to federer and sampras

    actually,no. How many actually think pete's a better passer than federer ????

    that flick BH helps in getting more reach and getting the ball to dip in more, which makes the BH passing shots more effective, which is why I mentioned that ... my point was about how the player hit the shot rather than the final result of the shot


    Actually I did read your response to KoA and it wasn't clear whether you agreed or disagreed , especially when you mentioned pete's BH shots

    Again, I don't think it is a faulty analogy, anyways the reason why I brought it up was pretty clear.

    umm, no I didn't say he has the best dropshot nor that he invented it ( by any means LOL ) .

    Isn't nadal also very popular?? How many did you get raving about his dropshots on clay ( which are also pretty effective btw ) ??????

    Again, it wasn't clear from your response to kOa, which is why I replied the way I did. Anyways we agree on that point. So no cause for debate there ...
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #91
  42. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,447
    It was my opinion when I saw Federer playing del Potro that he was too nonchalant in the beginning. Notice I wrote the word SEEMED.

    As far as the Murray match was concerned, I was writing about the beginning of the match where he seemed very nervous. To be fair Federer SEEMED nervous too but he is experienced and began to play normally shortly after the match started.

    I'm glad you're pointing out any possible errors on my part.:) Thanks.
    If there wasn't disagreement, all the threads would be lousy.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #92
  43. sargeinaz

    sargeinaz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,540
    Yes really, he would and ambk youre wrong.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #93
  44. JeMar

    JeMar Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    6,698
    Sampras was a bad 14-time slam winner because so many people gave him trouble.

    See how that works?:)
     
    #94
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,362
    abmk is right. Sampras said he didn't have that flickering cross court bh when they played exo. He compliment Federer since he never seen anyone did it to him. Guys like Datacipher should take notes on what Sampras said instead of dissing Roger's bh skill.
     
    #95
  46. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    sorry, if I was being a bit harsh.

    I am tired of "revisionist" posts , ie telling a player was playing so and so seeing the match result, instead of actually telling how they felt it was while seeing the match . That's why my previous post regarding roddick,del potro and murray and mental toughness ! Anyways any arguments against my point on the mental toughness displayed by roddick and del potro ???????

    mandy, this holds true for your post regarding federer's serve in the USO final, he was serving cr*p throughout the match, his serve didn't get worse as the match progressed , its just that fed was playing well off the ground in the first set and half and del potro wasn't...

    pc1,

    federer was indeed toying around with DP in the first set and half ; when he was dominating him, I don't see why he shouldn't appear relaxed ?? I don't think he'd under-estimate him right from the beginning, esp. with the circumstances being as I already said before ..

    Fed didn't appear that tensed/intense when davy was hammering him in the recent Aussie QF in the first set and half ...... he appears non-cholant on so many occasions , I don't think it means he under-estimates them ( his opponent ) ..
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #96
  47. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    No,I dont think Federer's serve was stellar even at the beginning of the match but to me it looked like it only got worse especially towards the end.He was literally dumping his first serves into the net as if he were aiming for the net itself .
    I also think he's still not too comfortable with approaching the net persistently.Its not moving forward in itself but the fear of being passed perhaps that prevents him from going there IMO.

    I remember reading a recent interview where Roger said that he was planning to primarily S&V in the Tokyo event he had entered himself in last year.
    I think he simply needs more confidence at the net and needs to be more comfortable playing from that part of the court.
    For example-At the USO 08 Roger came in a lot throughout the course of the event because by his own admission playing doubles with Stan at the olympics and winning the gold there gave him more confidence at the net.

    Another final I can think of where he reduced his net approaches would be the 2006 FO final.
    I thought he did brilliantly in the Rome final of 2006 though he ended up losing it.

    I think that by giving DP more rhythm from the baseline Roger gave him more confidence.Of course credit to Juan Martin for hanging in there and dictating points in many crucial moments.
    Overall,I thought it was a pretty high quality match from both players.

    Some commentators were speculating that Roger may have had back problems especially considering the way he was moving and serving but I think DP really gave it to Roger and to his credit, back problem or not, he came back into the match beautifully the moment he saw an opening.

    Anyway,the point of this whole discussion is that I dont believe Roger or anyone for that matter would take a slam final "easy".I just don't.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #97
  48. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Perhaps the only thing more humiliating for fedfanboys than when I point out there errors and ignorance, is when they, simply do it to themselves. Perhaps YOU should take notes about what you're responding to...but of course...that would require reading and comprehension. If you had that ability, you'd have known I already talked specfiically about Sampras's acknowledgement of that in the post made at 4:02. LOL.

    Fedfanboys...I'd like to think it's a good thing that Roger is brining newbs into the game, but the ones that post here....with no logic, no knowledge of tennis, can't play tennis...yet, mouth off like there's no tomorrow....could this really be good for the game? Oh well. Can't stop em!
     
    #98
  49. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    well, I disagree, he was serving pretty badly from the beginning itself

    agree, just talent at the net isn't sufficient, its tougher these days at the net and he needs practice

    to me, it was just about a decent quality match, most part of the first 2 sets and the final set were too lopsided with one player not playing well at all ...

    agree .....
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2010
    #99
  50. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    response in bolded parts.:wink:
     

Share This Page