Federer's feeling hundred per cent! Will he win the Aussie Open again?

GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
Enough threads on "Will nadal/murray/nalbandian/safin win the AO...blah blah blah"

I'm asking the obvious one here: Will Federer win the AO again?

Interested to see how many people actually like him to win and how many want him to lose.

"I've been playing sets the last couple days, you know, which was very important for me, to be able to play points. I'm happy with my form, to be honest. Very pleased. Physically I'm fine now, too. No more issues. I would consider myself a hundred per cent."

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU...801131200205016968.html?promo=sub_toparticles
 
cknobman

cknobman

Legend
He looked in top form during last nights match. Kicked some major butt!!!

I say until beaten he still the favorite to win.
 
Phil

Phil

Hall of Fame
It's hard to bet against the guy who's won it three out of 4 years and who absolutely wiped the field last year.
 
C

clymb420

Rookie
GasquetGOAT said:
Enough threads on "Will nadal/murray/nalbandian/safin win the AO...blah blah blah"

I'm asking the obvious one here: Will Federer win the AO again?

Interested to see how many people actually like him to win and how many want him to lose.

"I've been playing sets the last couple days, you know, which was very important for me, to be able to play points. I'm happy with my form, to be honest. Very pleased. Physically I'm fine now, too. No more issues. I would consider myself a hundred per cent."

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU...801131200205016968.html?promo=sub_toparticles
Click to expand...

A resounding Yes!

I'm hoping he can tie Sampras this year, so we can put the whole GOAT thing to rest. I feel like he'll be GOAT when he ties because of his FO finals amidst all of his other gawdy multi-year streaks.
 
T

teneighty

New User
Yea I think he will win, and I am one of the people always cheering for him.

He is the perfect player: perfect technique and a perfect gentleman... I think it should be a crime to not like him. You could never ask for a better number one.. in my opinion.
 
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
His victory was so easy it makes you wonder how strong really is his competition.... I felt like watching a pro destroying a 5.0 or something...
 
McLovin

McLovin

Legend
He really has a favorable draw. Santoro will give him the most headache in his quarter (I like Blake, but lets be real here people). And lucky for him Djokovic & Ferrer will kill each other in the other quarterfinal, leaving nothing in the tank for the Semis against Fed.
He'll stroll through the Semis & be fresh for the finals.

The real question should be:

"How many sets will Federer lose on his way to the title"
 
noeledmonds

noeledmonds

Professional
clymb420 said:
A resounding Yes!

I'm hoping he can tie Sampras this year, so we can put the whole GOAT thing to rest. I feel like he'll be GOAT when he ties because of his FO finals amidst all of his other gawdy multi-year streaks.
Click to expand...

I guess Rod Laver's 2 Grand Slams, 1 Pro Slam and 184 tournaments don't come into it then. Not to mention the impressive achivements of the likes of Gonzales, Tilden and others. Anyone with any real tennis knowledge and perspective on life will know that the GOAT debate will never be resolved unless Federer was to win "The Grand Slam" 3 times or something equvilantely improbable and ridiculous of that nature. Only a very simplistic mind believes that number of grand slam titles won alone can decide who the greatest players are.
 
Last edited:
M

Max G.

Legend
The top players that looked like they were at the top of their game in the first round were Safin and Hewitt. Safin's just starting his comeback, so I don't think he can make his way through the brutal draw he'd have to go through to have a crack at Fed. Hewitt's game plays right into Fed's strengths.

So yeah, I think Fed is on track to take another one. Of course, I'll be rooting against him all the way, since I'd love to see somebody new show that he's ready to take on Fed, but I don't know who it would be. Djokovic has perhaps the best shot, but he's also in that monstrous section of the draw, and however much I'd like him to take down fed, I wouldn't bet on it.

So yeah, most likely Fed for Aus Open '08.
 
SempreSami

SempreSami

Hall of Fame
I'm wondering if beating Sampras' record will make the fanboys quieter or whether this forum will be awash with "FED = DA BEST LOL" for years to come until it breaks the internet itself.
 
B

BigServer1

Legend
noeledmonds said:
I guess Rod Laver's 2 Grand Slams, 1 Pro Slam and 184 tournaments don't come into it then. Not to mention the impressive achivements of the likes of Gonzales, Tilden and others. Anyone with any real tennis knowledge and perspective on life will know that the GOAT debate will never be resolved unless Federer was to win "The Grand Slam" 3 times or something equvilantely improbable and ridiculous of that nature. Only a very simplistic mind believes that number of grand slam titles won alone can decide who the greatest players are.
Click to expand...

I think that it is just as ridiculous to think that the only way the Federer can be the cleat GOAT is to win three calendar slams or something similar. Laver himself has said that Federer is the best ever, and I think that if he manages to win ONE calendar slam, get to 17-18 slams and 75-80 titles he should be considered the GOAT. In an era where 1-100 is deep, slams are played on 4 different surfaces and one of the best clay court players ever stands in his way of the French, if all of these things come to pass (not saying that they will), I see little argument on behalf of anyone else.
 
P

PROTENNIS63

Hall of Fame
Federer looked playing solid against Diego in his first round match. Will be interesting how well he plays next round against Santora.
 
sargeinaz

sargeinaz

Hall of Fame
BigServer1 said:
I think that it is just as ridiculous to think that the only way the Federer can be the cleat GOAT is to win three calendar slams or something similar. Laver himself has said that Federer is the best ever, and I think that if he manages to win ONE calendar slam, get to 17-18 slams and 75-80 titles he should be considered the GOAT. In an era where 1-100 is deep, slams are played on 4 different surfaces and one of the best clay court players ever stands in his way of the French, if all of these things come to pass (not saying that they will), I see little argument on behalf of anyone else.
Click to expand...

Yup. When he breaks Sampras's record he will be the GOAT. All the other players who people argue for say that Fed already is or will be the GOAT. If they can say it, why cant any of you?
________
Babes Cams
 
Last edited:
Blade0324

Blade0324

Hall of Fame
I'm not sure whether he will win or not but I have to say that I hope he will lose somewhere along the way so we can stop have a discussion about whether or not he will win and start discussing who will win. I really want to see someone other than him win AO, and USO. We already know he won't win the French so I would like to see him only win Wimby this year. It's good for the game to have some parity.
 
noeledmonds

noeledmonds

Professional
BigServer1 said:
I think that it is just as ridiculous to think that the only way the Federer can be the cleat GOAT is to win three calendar slams or something similar. Laver himself has said that Federer is the best ever, and I think that if he manages to win ONE calendar slam, get to 17-18 slams and 75-80 titles he should be considered the GOAT. In an era where 1-100 is deep, slams are played on 4 different surfaces and one of the best clay court players ever stands in his way of the French, if all of these things come to pass (not saying that they will), I see l on behalf of anyone else.
Click to expand...

I did not say that Federer would need 3 Grand Slams to be the GOAT. I said that Federer would need to achieve this to "resolve the GOAT issue", i.e. be the undisputed GOAT. In my opnion Federer will be the GOAT if he wins "The Grand Slam" this year. However some will disagree so there will still be a GOAT issue or debate.
 
B

BigServer1

Legend
noeledmonds said:
I did not say that Federer would need 3 Grand Slams to be the GOAT. I said that Federer would need to achieve this to "resolve the GOAT issue", i.e. be the undisputed GOAT. In my opnion Federer will be the GOAT if he wins "The Grand Slam" this year. However some will disagree so there will still be a GOAT issue or debate.
Click to expand...

Ok, that makes sense and I agree with you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
CAM178

CAM178

Hall of Fame
I saw some of Fed's R1 match against Hartfield. I had to turn it off it was so bad. Fed was destroying the guy with little to no effort. If Fed keeps playing like that, he has a very good chance of winning the AO again.
 
N

nikdom

Guest
firstservethenvolley said:
What are the old legendary players supposed to say?
Yeah, Federer is good but not as good as I am ?
Click to expand...

No one asked them to say anything. People came out and said stuff on their own. There is no reason for people like the McEnroes or Drysdale or Cahill or Bollettieri or Tiriac or Courier to say he's the best they've ever seen unless they feel that way. If they disagree, or have reservations, people have indeed said stuff like "let's wait till he retires" or that "he belongs with the very best". So its not like someone held a gun to their collective heads.
 
S

Steve132

Professional
nikdom said:
No one asked them to say anything. People came out and said stuff on their own. There is no reason for people like the McEnroes or Drysdale or Cahill or Bollettieri or Tiriac or Courier to say he's the best they've ever seen unless they feel that way. If they disagree, or have reservations, people have indeed said stuff like "let's wait till he retires" or that "he belongs with the very best". So its not like someone held a gun to their collective heads.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You could also have added Jack Kramer, Andre Agassi, Sergi Bruguera, Tim Henman and others to this list.
 
drakulie

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
BigServer1 said:
I think that it is just as ridiculous to think that the only way the Federer can be the cleat GOAT is to win three calendar slams or something similar. Laver himself has said that Federer is the best ever, and I think that if he manages to win ONE calendar slam, get to 17-18 slams and 75-80 titles he should be considered the GOAT. In an era where 1-100 is deep, slams are played on 4 different surfaces and one of the best clay court players ever stands in his way of the French, if all of these things come to pass (not saying that they will), I see little argument on behalf of anyone else.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Laver was amazing, but when he won that calendar slam, 3 of 4 slams were played on Grass. I can't even imagine how many slams Sampras would have if he was playing 3 of 4 slams a year on grass. (20+?)

To me, what Fed has done to date is more impressive than what Laver did.
 
noeledmonds

noeledmonds

Professional
drakulie said:
I completely agree. Laver was amazing, but when he won that calendar slam, 3 of 4 slams were played on Grass. I can't even imagine how many slams Sampras would have if he was playing 3 of 4 slams a year on grass. (20+?)

To me, what Fed has done to date is more impressive than what Laver did.
Click to expand...

The Australian Open grass played very differently from the Wimbledon grass. Just ask McEnroe, he lost to Wilander at the 1983 AO when he was near his prime. Wilander never made it beyond the QF at Wimbledon. I cannot say about the US Open grass. Grass was also not a specilist surface back then as it is today. Today many good hard court players perform poorly on grass. Back in the 1960s pretty much everyone was a grass court specilist as grass was the regular practice surface for the vast majority of players. This is no different from todays different hard courts where everyone is brought up on hard courts and different hard court surfaces vary.
 
drakulie

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
^^^ I agree, and I am aware of the difference in grass. However, Laver never contended (continuously) with the talent level Fed is contending with today.

I will remind you, that in Lavers day, many tourneys had recreational club players filling up the draws.

Lastly, whether slow or fast grass, it is still grass. Just the same way some hard courts today play differently.
 
alonsin

alonsin

Rookie
Why does every thread regarding Federer turns out to be a discussion about whether he is or is not the GOAT? Why can't we just discuss about his current condition which is the purpose of the thread?
 
noeledmonds

noeledmonds

Professional
drakulie said:
^^^ I agree, and I am aware of the difference in grass. However, Laver never contended (continuously) with the talent level Fed is contending with today.

I will remind you, that in Lavers day, many tourneys had recreational club players filling up the draws.

Lastly, whether slow or fast grass, it is still grass. Just the same way some hard courts today play differently.
Click to expand...

I agree that the depth in tennis is greater today than in Laver's day but the tallent?! Noone in this era can compare to Rosewall surely, who himself has a fairly strong GOAT argument. Laver also face Gonzalez for the first part of his career, another player with a strong GOAT argument. Players such as Newcombe and Ashe were no push over either. In comparison Federer has Nadal as his only consistant rival, who can win majors. This should be no suprise as with increasing depth you are bound to get an apparent reduction of strength. However Laver's competition was undoubtably strong in comparison with any era's compeition.

Grass courts are still grass, but if they play differently then it does not matter. Hypothetically if two different grass courts play more differently then lets say a hard court and a grass court; then winning on the two different grass surfaces would be an acomplishment showing more versility than winning on the more similar surfaces. Just because both surfaces are called grass it does not make them neccesarily more similar to play on than surfaces with different names.
 
drakulie

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
noel, I thoroughly enjoy your posts, and know that you are an amazing historian of the game. But you can't honestly believe that when you have 1000 top players in the world,, compared to a few hundred, that the quality of players will be better in the pool with the few hundred. Come on.

There is no way, you, or anyone else, will ever convince me that the guys you mention are anywhere near the caliber of Federer.

Let me add>>> I live in a Tennis Club, where there are a bunch of retired pros from the era you speak about. One guy that lives there actually played Pancho in a final and won. Another guy has played kramer, another one Rosewall, etc, etc, etc. You get my point.

I have had extensive conversations with these guys. For arguments sake, I have even taken up your point of view. They all laugh.

They are all in agreement, that there has NEVER been a player as good as Fed (equipment or not).
 
A

Arrows

Rookie
6-0, 6-3, 6-0

He will win! If his first-round match was anything to go by, then this tournament's already won. Granted, Hartfield was only something like 106th or 107th in the world, so it was an uneven match-up, but Federer was just playing superbly. They did a slow-mo replay of his serve, and apparently he closes his eyes mid-way through the motion...which explains nothing about his brilliance. Just totally dominant last night and I believe he'll remain so right throughout these two weeks. Rest of the draw (Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick and Hewitt included), beware.



Arrows
"Stupid yellow letters..."
 
CAM178

CAM178

Hall of Fame
drakulie said:
They are all in agreement, that there has NEVER been a player as good as Fed (equipment or not).
Click to expand...
drak, I don't know why more people don't see that. I sure do. Fed's the sickest baller I've ever seen, and I've only been watching tennis for a little over 25 years. He's just nasty. You should not be able to do what he does with a racquet, and make it look so damn easy on top of it. Watching him makes me want to take up another sport, but I love the game too much to leave. All I can do is aspire. . .
 
psamp14

psamp14

Hall of Fame
federer, 100% or not, is better than most of the tour...if he says he is feeling 100%, i would bet (what?!?!) on him winning the australian open this year....#3 in a row, #4 overall
 
I

isuk@tennis

Rookie
he's playing too good too soon...
he should wait till he gets to the quarters and play roddick again and then start bring out the bread products
i think he's peaking too early in the tourny
 
Last edited:
B

BigServer1

Legend
isuk@tennis said:
he's playing too good too soon...
he should wait till he gets to the quarters and play roddick again and then start bring out the bread products
i think he's peaking too early in the tourny
Click to expand...

I think it's hard to peak when he just played his first match of the season yesterday. I think that he A: Played well and B: Played a guy that's never won a HC match at the tour level. Everything makes sense in the right context.
 
I

isuk@tennis

Rookie
i didn't see the match i just saw the score and im like whoa wtfxx. double bagel in the first match??
granted i wasn't surprised he could do it, just usually he doesn't bagel people so early in the tourny
was he hitting winners all over the place or was the other guy just imploding.
 
L

lilminihorse

Rookie
the guy was imploding, he did what he needed to do.. let everyone know the stomach thing he had didn't affect him one bit and that everyone should fear stepping on the court with him
 
cknobman

cknobman

Legend
isuk@tennis said:
he's playing too good too soon...
he should wait till he gets to the quarters and play roddick again and then start bring out the bread products
i think he's peaking too early in the tourny
Click to expand...


For starters Andy Roddick is not in Rogers half, he is in Nadals. Secondly, peaking too early? lol. Rogers play looked all that much better because is opponent was all that much worse. Roger will peak when he opponent requires it of him. First round was just routine "hit ball back, get some practice strokes in, and watch my opponent lose the match".

In regards to Roddick, I feel sorry for Rafa because his draw was so easy until the quarters. When(if) they meet in the quarters I am going to predict a solid thrashing by Roddick and Nadal limping off the courts like a one-legged gimp!
 
C

caulcano

Hall of Fame
isuk@tennis said:
i didn't see the match i just saw the score and im like whoa wtfxx. double bagel in the first match??
granted i wasn't surprised he could do it, just usually he doesn't bagel people so early in the tourny
was he hitting winners all over the place or was the other guy just imploding.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't take most of the early round scores as an indication of how well anyone is playing. Hell, even Murray bagelled Tsonga but still lost the match.
 
C

caulcano

Hall of Fame
cknobman said:
For starters Andy Roddick is not in Rogers half, he is in Nadals. Secondly, peaking too early? lol. Rogers play looked all that much better because is opponent was all that much worse. Roger will peak when he opponent requires it of him. First round was just routine "hit ball back, get some practice strokes in, and watch my opponent lose the match".

In regards to Roddick, I feel sorry for Rafa because his draw was so easy until the quarters. When(if) they meet in the quarters I am going to predict a solid thrashing by Roddick and Nadal limping off the courts like a one-legged gimp!
Click to expand...

I pesonally don't think that if Roddick & Nadal do meet in the QF, it will be so one-sided (i'd even say Nadal would win).
 
GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
isuk@tennis said:
i didn't see the match i just saw the score and im like whoa wtfxx. double bagel in the first match??
granted i wasn't surprised he could do it, just usually he doesn't bagel people so early in the tourny
was he hitting winners all over the place or was the other guy just imploding.
Click to expand...

IMO it's not that hard to double bagel someone in the first round of a slam even Hewitt did it in the exact scores 6-0 6-3 6-0. That's the real world difference between a top 10 player and someone ranks 100 or lower.
 
noeledmonds

noeledmonds

Professional
drakulie said:
noel, I thoroughly enjoy your posts, and know that you are an amazing historian of the game. But you can't honestly believe that when you have 1000 top players in the world,, compared to a few hundred, that the quality of players will be better in the pool with the few hundred. Come on.

There is no way, you, or anyone else, will ever convince me that the guys you mention are anywhere near the caliber of Federer.

Let me add>>> I live in a Tennis Club, where there are a bunch of retired pros from the era you speak about. One guy that lives there actually played Pancho in a final and won. Another guy has played kramer, another one Rosewall, etc, etc, etc. You get my point.

I have had extensive conversations with these guys. For arguments sake, I have even taken up your point of view. They all laugh.

They are all in agreement, that there has NEVER been a player as good as Fed (equipment or not).
Click to expand...

I can see that we will continue to disagree. However I will endevour to make a few final points. Regardless on whether or not you consider Federer's compeition to be stronger than Laver's (and I do not for various reasons including some outlined in previous posts) you surely cannot argue that Federer's current achivements exceed Laver's. Laver's massive haul of tournaments (184 at least) combined with his amateur grand slam, profesional grand slam and open-era professional grand slam, his large collective haul of pro and amateur majors and his numerous doubles grand slams exceeds Federer's 12 singles grand slams at 3 of the 4 majors.

The opnions of your tennis club associates are probabely no more valid than my own opnion. Anyone who was a former player may have bias or vested interest based on their own career and I very much doubt your doubt your associates were around to witness great players such as Tilden play. If these associates have not viewed Tilden play extensively then how can they judge that Federer is a greater player? Ultimately all opnions by their nature will be subjective and not objective so comparison is very difficult at all. This combined with technological changes means that although comparisons can be valid, they can only be said with a certain degree of certainty. Those who are "convinced" that Federer is the greatest ever should contemplate this.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
drakulie said:
^^^ I agree, and I am aware of the difference in grass. However, Laver never contended (continuously) with the talent level Fed is contending with today.

I will remind you, that in Lavers day, many tourneys had recreational club players filling up the draws.

Lastly, whether slow or fast grass, it is still grass. Just the same way some hard courts today play differently.
Click to expand...

Top FIVE in 2007
1. Federer
2. Nadal (3 Grand Slam titles: singles--to date)
3. Djokovic (1 Grand Slam titles: singles--to date)
4. Davydenko (0 Grand Slam titles--to date)
5. Ferrer (0 Grand Slam titles--to date)


Top FIVE in 1969
1. Laver
2. Rosewall (17 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles)
3. Roche (15 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)
4. Ashe (3 Grand Slam titles: singles)
5. Newcombe (26 Grand Slam titles: singles, doubles, mixed doubles)
 
Last edited:
F

FiveO

Hall of Fame
Noel,

I agree with you.

The qualifiers often attached to Laver's Open slam and comparisons to Sampras or Federer and the "imagine if they played in the 3 of 4 grass court majors what their title count would be" argument, blatantly ignores the fact that the entire field was well versed in grass court play and doubles play (IOW net play) in Laver's heyday.

Not only were 3 of 4 majors played on grass, the warm-ups to them were also played on grass. Pre-US Championships/US Open there was a grass court circuit in the northeastern US in that era.

In addition the majority of Davis Cup ties were played on grass, with clay being second. Synthetic surfaces, i.e. hardcourts were more rare.

Even in that environment of the pre- and early Open eras, Laver took his grasscourt/clay game, indoors on everything from carpet to wood, and hardcourts better than his better grass prepared competition.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

vtmike
Fearless Forecasts - AO Website
Replies
1
Views
529
TheMusicLover
TheMusicLover
V
For those of us who want CARLOS ALCARAZ to win the U.S. Open!
2
Replies
66
Views
1K
DSH
DSH
D
The problem with Roger Federer G.O.A.T. claims: Nadal and Djokovic rivalries
8 9 10
Replies
452
Views
13K
TheGhostOfAgassi
TheGhostOfAgassi
malakas
Gonzalez:He's winning all the time. He has to lose sometime
Replies
18
Views
1K
CoconutGT
CoconutGT
B
Borg on Nadal: he will win the US Open
Replies
24
Views
2K
Mungo73
Mungo73
Top