View Single Post
Old 04-30-2013, 06:19 AM   #458
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Inside the service box - the business end
Posts: 3,620

Originally Posted by Vish13 View Post

You are using achievement at Junior level to answer my question on what he achieved before winning against Sampras. Leander Paes won junior Wimbledon and US open, was number 1 in junior rankings and ended up winning only 2-3 matches in GS. Gael Monifils won AO, FO and WIM in 2004 at junior level and no GS final so far. Sounds any bell on how much to read in to Junior level achievements?.
That is what happenes, when you don't think about what you are posting and what the others are responding to.

You wrote:

Originally Posted by Vish13 View Post
Infact he got noticed only when he beat Pete in 2001 at Wimbledon. What performance, except beating Sampras, did he gave that people like you started expecting him to win a slam soon.
which is clearly NOT true.

I was merely responding, that Federer got noticed earlier than that.

It may come to you as a shock, but the experts start paying attention, when a certain player achieves something significant in the junior ranks (at least with the players that achieve something there). Hence my reference to Federer's initial success as a junior and the consequent interest on behalf of the experts.

So, to put it as clear as it possibly can be: once a player achieves something significant as a junior he raises expectations. Although not all junior champions achieve significant things in their future careers, it is a safe thing to have such expectations, since they are (obviously) the best players in their respective age groups.

Certainly, you haven"t watched Federer matches from that period. If you did, you would know, that he made waves in the tennis world before he beat Sampras.

Giving Monfils as an example doesn"t exactly prove your point. The guy played to his ranking (improving all the time) and, generally, was denied titles and remarkable runs by either very experienced players or the very best (beating some of the very best along the way). His injuries also played part in his inability to fulfill his potential. And, his career is not over, so, who knows.

Originally Posted by Vish13 View Post
If you re-read my post you will find that I was not even slightly suggesting that Rosol is the next Federer. I wanted to drive home the point that because Federer won against Sampras, that did not automatically marked him for greatness.
You drove the point home, alright.

Even suggesting, that Rosol's win could possibly mean the same as Federer's win, is absurd. Not because a great win doesn't mean great ability (it does), but because you have to consider everything else (age, circumstances surrounding the development of the sport, player's previous success, playing style and strengths etc.).

Also, noone is "marked for greatness" as you put it. But the expectations towards some players are higher than towards others.

Have you looked up Federer's results in the Majors prior to Wimbledon 2001 (obviously you haven't watched his matches back then, so that would be the next thing to do, when talking about him)?

He reached 3 times 3rd round, once 4th round and once QF before his match with Sampras (and before he was 21). I would say, that those are some decent grounds to think of him as potential future threat in the Majors.

Originally Posted by Vish13 View Post
His game was still far from complete at that time. ultradr is suggesting that it was not the case. He thinks that with the same game Federer started winning once the field got clear of booming serve and volleyers.
Well, as far as I am concerned you are both wrong.

Federer's game was not complete at the time he beat Sampras. Hell, it became clear, that he can improve on his game even after his peak. But, he beat Sampras with a game, which had its visible strengths (I hope, that you are not saying, that he got that game during his match with Sampras or even after that,. It would be a nonsense) and was a full package (not any serious weaknesses, relatively speaking).

However, I was responding to your "everything or nothing" approach. By claiming, that Federer was noticed only after he beat Sampras is even further from the truth as to say, that he had the "complete package" (which is obviously not possible, because there is no such thing as complete package).
Crisstti:It's not cheating (arguable at best), it's merely breaking the rules./ Vero:Armstrong lacks the arrogance.

Last edited by Tennis_Hands; 04-30-2013 at 06:22 AM.
Tennis_Hands is offline   Reply With Quote