Let's face it, Federer has done GREAT

RalphNYC

RalphNYC

Semi-Pro
Whether or not he continues on to beat Sampras' record, or whether he begins to focus more on his family and being a new dad, Federer has had a DREAM career in professional sports. Not only did he become the #1 player, but he did it in a way that inspired so many fans of tennis, and sport in general - including the greatest living players of past decades. The game that he brought to us is a work of art, and his record - no matter what happens next - will always justify his inclusion in conversations about the greatest players of all time. His friendly, down-to-earth personality together with his out-of-this-world talent has raised the bar for how great athletes might present themsleves in the world and how they can be role models for kids in every country. I've been watching and playing tennis and sports since the 70's, and no one has had a greater impact on me than Roger Federer.

Good on ya mate - Well done!!
 
N

nikdom

Guest
Agree with you on one hand, but it would also be a shame if he doesn't break the 14 Grand Slam record having come this close. Of course, Nadal or someone else may come around and break the record again in a few years, but would he not want to have his name cemented up there having spent pretty much his whole life devoted to the sport.

He can spend the rest of his life being a good dad and a husband. Right now he only has a window of 2-3 years to do it.
 
E

Emelia21

Rookie
P_Agony said:
Good post, but I hope he's not done yet. Tennis would be quite boring if he's gone.
Click to expand...


To some fans of his. Tennis survived without him for many a years and was not boring, and Tennis will survive without him again when he's gone, and Tennis will not be boring.
 
egn

egn

Hall of Fame
Do we need all these point out the obvious threads..or how Federer changed my life..I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but come on how many of these do we need.

Tennis will survive without him..the next Fed will come along soon enough.
 
GameSampras

GameSampras

Banned
I dunno how Fed would even manage not being able to at least tie Pete's record. That would be the ultimate shot to Fed's ego etc. He dominated his way all the way to one slam shy of tieing and 2 of breaking and he cant get it done? Ohh.. Fed would end up in the nuthouse
 
E

Emelia21

Rookie
egn said:
Do we need all these point out the obvious threads..or how Federer changed my life..I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but come on how many of these do we need.

Tennis will survive without him..the next Fed will come along soon enough.
Click to expand...

Good post :) I posted this above
 
egn

egn

Hall of Fame
GameSampras said:
Someone will come along in a few years out of the blue and dominate probably. It always happens.
Click to expand...

Yep and everyone will suddenly appreciate Fed more, Sampras will become like Borg, Borg everyone will refer to as if he was Laver and Laver people will try even more ridiculous arguements to discredit him as we will be further and they will have found a way to make another new tennis surface but it will be just like all the other ones.
 
oberyn

oberyn

Professional
Sir Andrew of Roddick said:
He's won 13 GS in 5 years...it took sampras 12 to get 14 I think.
Click to expand...


Sampras was born in August 1971. Federer was born in August 1981.

Sampras turned pro in 1988. Federer turned pro in 1998.

On this date in 1999, Pete Sampras had 11 slams (he'd pick up a 12th at Wimbledon).

From 1993-1998, Sampras won 10 of his 14 slams.
From 2003-2008, Federer won 13 slams.

Federer is ahead of Sampras' pace, but the way you presented it made it sound as if Federer is light years ahead. If Fed goes slamless this year, he'll end 2009 1 slam ahead of Sampras at the equivalent point in their careers.
 
vtmike

vtmike

Banned
GameSampras said:
I dunno how Fed would even manage not being able to at least tie Pete's record. That would be the ultimate shot to Fed's ego etc. He dominated his way all the way to one slam shy of tieing and 2 of breaking and he cant get it done? Ohh.. Fed would end up in the nuthouse
Click to expand...

Yeah I would think so too...but the best thing for him is to NOT think about the slam record and just go from slam to slam...easier said than done though!
 
RoddickRook

RoddickRook

New User
oberyn said:
Sampras was born in August 1971. Federer was born in August 1981.

Sampras turned pro in 1988. Federer turned pro in 1998.

On this date in 1999, Pete Sampras had 11 slams (he'd pick up a 12th at Wimbledon).

From 1993-1998, Sampras won 10 of his 14 slams.
From 2003-2008, Federer won 13 slams.

Federer is ahead of Sampras' pace, but the way you presented it made it sound as if Federer is light years ahead. If Fed goes slamless this year, he'll end 2009 1 slam ahead of Sampras at the equivalent point in their careers.
Click to expand...

:shock: Good mathematics
 
grafselesfan

grafselesfan

Banned
P_Agony said:
Good post, but I hope he's not done yet. Tennis would be quite boring if he's gone.
Click to expand...

Actually TV ratings were plumeting during the Federer dominance and have shot up since Nadal rose to the top. Tennis was boring with Federer on top, now that he has been pushed to the side by younger and more exciting talents it is very exciting.
 
P_Agony

P_Agony

Banned
grafselesfan said:
Actually TV ratings were plumeting during the Federer dominance and have shot up since Nadal rose to the top. Tennis was boring with Federer on top, now that he has been pushed to the side by younger and more exciting talents it is very exciting.
Click to expand...

You make no sense whatsoever, as Nadal was on top as well for most of Fed's dominance. In fact, Nadal is the longest running #2 in history I believe. More exciting talents is your opinion. I think both eras are exciting, but as far as comparing the number 1, Nadal is the most boring #1 IMO I've ever watched. BTW, I hated Fed's dominance, and I hate Nadal's current one.
 
GameSampras

GameSampras

Banned
oberyn said:
Sampras was born in August 1971. Federer was born in August 1981.

Sampras turned pro in 1988. Federer turned pro in 1998.

On this date in 1999, Pete Sampras had 11 slams (he'd pick up a 12th at Wimbledon).

From 1993-1998, Sampras won 10 of his 14 slams.
From 2003-2008, Federer won 13 slams.

Federer is ahead of Sampras' pace, but the way you presented it made it sound as if Federer is light years ahead. If Fed goes slamless this year, he'll end 2009 1 slam ahead of Sampras at the equivalent point in their careers.
Click to expand...

Yea but Pete could maintain for longer it is appearing. Fed cant beat his rival and is having trouble even winning a tournament anymore. Pete wouldnt let one player dominate him on every surface as Fed has let Nadal. Pete was winning a slam at 31 years old, and even though he didnt a slam for just short of 2 years he still made deep runs at slams. Fed is already diminishing before our eyes at only 27 years of age. The way Fed is going he may be done with tennis before he hits 30 years of age unless he picks it up. Pete didnt really begin to drop in play until he was around 29 years old. Fed is already dropping at only 27
 
Last edited:
veroniquem

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
egn said:
Hah word just saw it yay =] Gosh I mean Fed is great and it will be different when he is gone but someone else will become the center of attention.
Click to expand...
Someone else has already become the center of attention. Haven't you noticed? :wink:
 
GameSampras

GameSampras

Banned
cshokraii said:
YEAH, HIS NAME IS NADAL!

FEDERER WILL GET 14 OR 15 BUT NADAL COULD EASILY GET 20 IF HE DOESN'T BREAK DOWN!
Click to expand...


I highly doubt Nadal will be as dominant in a few years as he is now. This year and next year is probably Nadal's peak. Hes been around since 17 at the top. Hes not a late bloomer like Roger and Pete were even though pete did manage a slam at 19,. So his peak, chances are wont be in his mid-late 20s. It is NOW. Not to mention the way Nadal plays which is more taxing for him as it would be for Pete and Roger who play with less effort
 
kevsaenz

kevsaenz

Rookie
GameSampras said:
Yea but Pete could maintain for longer it is appearing. Fed cant beat his rival and is having trouble even winning a tournament anymore. Pete wouldnt let one player dominate him on every surface as Fed has let Nadal. Pete was winning a slam at 31 years old, and even though he didnt a slam for just short of 2 years he still made deep runs at slams. Fed is already diminishing before our eyes at only 27 years of age. The way Fed is going he may be done with tennis before he hits 30 years of age unless he picks it up. Pete didnt really begin to drop in play until he was around 29 years old. Fed is already dropping at only 27
Click to expand...

Even though Fed is still making the semi's or higher in the tournaments he's entering? Doesn't sound to bad to me.
 
GameSampras

GameSampras

Banned
kevsaenz said:
Even though Fed is still making the semi's or higher in the tournaments he's entering? Doesn't sound to bad to me.
Click to expand...

Hes still managing deep runs yes.. But his days of winning may be over as long as Nadal is around and Murray continues to improve and finally does something at the slams
 
grafselesfan

grafselesfan

Banned
P_Agony said:
You make no sense whatsoever, as Nadal was on top as well for most of Fed's dominance. In fact, Nadal is the longest running #2 in history I believe. More exciting talents is your opinion. I think both eras are exciting, but as far as comparing the number 1, Nadal is the most boring #1 IMO I've ever watched. BTW, I hated Fed's dominance, and I hate Nadal's current one.
Click to expand...

Yeah Nadal was at #2 during most of Federer's dominance. However Federer was winning every Australian, Wimbledon, and U.S Open almost. A boring player with a boring personality dominating 3/4s of the year, YAWN and the TV ratings say so too. Since Nadal first proved to be a real threat to Federer on grass with that super exciting 2007 Wimbledon final ratings began picking up, then when he proved to be a bigger big event threat on hard courts in 2008 they picked up even more. Nadal is the one bringing in fans, Federer during his dominance never did this. Nadal is the one tennis should try marketing as the Tiger Woods of tennis, especialy now that he is the best player and dominant #1 and not Federer, since as far as marketability and star quality Federer even at the peak of his greatness is more on par with being the Vijay Singh of tennis than the Tiger Woods.

Nadal boring? The kid gives 120% every point and fights like there is no tommorow. He doesnt woose out under pressure vs his biggest rivals or facing rivals on surfaces that present his biggest challenges (eg- his matches vs Nadal on clay over the years). He rises to the challenge and he plays with spirit and passion out there. In addition he is willing to adapt and change strategies, not just try to beat his opponents forehand with his own backhand over and over even as he keeps losing. Nadal is far more exciting to watch than the Federer will ever be.

I wouldnt expect anymore logic from someone who really believes Gasquet is a greater natural talent than Safin and Nalbandian though.
 
edberg505

edberg505

Legend
GameSampras said:
Yea but Pete could maintain for longer it is appearing. Fed cant beat his rival and is having trouble even winning a tournament anymore. Pete wouldnt let one player dominate him on every surface as Fed has let Nadal. Pete was winning a slam at 31 years old, and even though he didnt a slam for just short of 2 years he still made deep runs at slams. Fed is already diminishing before our eyes at only 27 years of age. The way Fed is going he may be done with tennis before he hits 30 years of age unless he picks it up. Pete didnt really begin to drop in play until he was around 29 years old. Fed is already dropping at only 27
Click to expand...

So, making it to the finals of a slam and not bowing out before the semi-finals of the past 3 events he's played in is going down hill? Wow!
 
icedevil0289

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
grafselesfan said:
Yeah Nadal was at #2 during most of Federer's dominance. However Federer was winning every Australian, Wimbledon, and U.S Open almost. A boring player with a boring personality dominating 3/4s of the year, YAWN and the TV ratings say so too. Since Nadal first proved to be a real threat to Federer on grass with that super exciting 2007 Wimbledon final ratings began picking up, then when he proved to be a bigger big event threat on hard courts in 2008 they picked up even more. Nadal is the one bringing in fans, Federer during his dominance never did this. Nadal is the one tennis should try marketing as the Tiger Woods of tennis, especialy now that he is the best player and dominant #1 and not Federer, since as far as marketability and star quality Federer even at the peak of his greatness is more on par with being the Vijay Singh of tennis than the Tiger Woods.

Nadal boring? The kid gives 120% every point and fights like there is no tommorow. He doesnt woose out under pressure vs his biggest rivals or facing rivals on surfaces that present his biggest challenges (eg- his matches vs Nadal on clay over the years). He rises to the challenge and he plays with spirit and passion out there. In addition he is willing to adapt and change strategies, not just try to beat his opponents forehand with his own backhand over and over even as he keeps losing. Nadal is far more exciting to watch than the Federer will ever be.

I wouldnt expect anymore logic from someone who really believes Gasquet is a greater natural talent than Safin and Nalbandian though.
Click to expand...

Um, they are plenty of people who became huge tennis fans, like myself, because of roger. Both have their share of fans and it just comes down to preference. Some people find nadal's style of play boring, while other's find fed's style boring. I don't think nadal is any more popular than fed or vice versa.
 
GameSampras

GameSampras

Banned
edberg505 said:
So, making it to the finals of a slam and not bowing out before the semi-finals of the past 3 events he's played in is going down hill? Wow!
Click to expand...

Fed aint getting any younger and its clear with the mixture of better players around at the top, and Nadal now at his peak, Fed may never win another slam. I wouldnt say its certain Fed never wins another, but its definitely possible. Nadal isnt going anywheres and neither is Murray or Djoker.

Making it to the finals and winning the slams are a different story. What happens if Fed begins losing in the earlier rounds? It is bound to happen eventually. How will that affect him? Hes been so dominant, and consistent he may never recover once he hits rock bottom.

Fed is showing he doesnt have the focus and mental toughness to perservere and turn things around. It began in 2008, and has been steady ever since
 
Last edited:
veroniquem

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
P_Agony said:
I believe he said "when he is gone". Until then Fed is the center of attention ;-)
Click to expand...
Only in your imagination! In the media, it's very clear who is the center of attention at the moment... (around the practise courts as well)
 
Last edited:
L

lawrence

Hall of Fame
feds game may seem boring to some of you on TV, but im pretty sure you'll eat your words once you've seen him play in person.
 
veroniquem

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
To me tennis now is the most exciting it's been in years. In 2008, we had 3 different slam winners. This year promises to be very competitive too. We have Djokovic, will he win another slam? He has the talent to do it, we have Murray coming into his own, when will he win his first slam?, we have Nadal, a charismatic champion at the top but how long will he last? And we have Federer, still dangerous, can he break Sampras's slam record?
Tennis is wonderfully exciting right now and more competitive than before.
 
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
oberyn said:
Sampras was born in August 1971. Federer was born in August 1981.

Sampras turned pro in 1988. Federer turned pro in 1998.

On this date in 1999, Pete Sampras had 11 slams (he'd pick up a 12th at Wimbledon).

From 1993-1998, Sampras won 10 of his 14 slams.
From 2003-2008, Federer won 13 slams.

Federer is ahead of Sampras' pace, but the way you presented it made it sound as if Federer is light years ahead. If Fed goes slamless this year, he'll end 2009 1 slam ahead of Sampras at the equivalent point in their careers.
Click to expand...
This is just scary. These two guys are exactly 10 years apart and turned pro at the exactly 10 years apart... I think the number 10 is telling us something here...
 
VivalaVida

VivalaVida

Banned
grafselesfan said:
Yeah Nadal was at #2 during most of Federer's dominance. However Federer was winning every Australian, Wimbledon, and U.S Open almost. A boring player with a boring personality dominating 3/4s of the year, YAWN and the TV ratings say so too. Since Nadal first proved to be a real threat to Federer on grass with that super exciting 2007 Wimbledon final ratings began picking up, then when he proved to be a bigger big event threat on hard courts in 2008 they picked up even more. Nadal is the one bringing in fans, Federer during his dominance never did this. Nadal is the one tennis should try marketing as the Tiger Woods of tennis, especialy now that he is the best player and dominant #1 and not Federer, since as far as marketability and star quality Federer even at the peak of his greatness is more on par with being the Vijay Singh of tennis than the Tiger Woods.

Nadal boring? The kid gives 120% every point and fights like there is no tommorow. He doesnt woose out under pressure vs his biggest rivals or facing rivals on surfaces that present his biggest challenges (eg- his matches vs Nadal on clay over the years). He rises to the challenge and he plays with spirit and passion out there. In addition he is willing to adapt and change strategies, not just try to beat his opponents forehand with his own backhand over and over even as he keeps losing. Nadal is far more exciting to watch than the Federer will ever be.

I wouldnt expect anymore logic from someone who really believes Gasquet is a greater natural talent than Safin and Nalbandian though.
Click to expand...

US television ratings are in the toliet already and your boy Nadal isnt doing a thing to pick up the ratings. Around the world, both guys are immensely popular but federer is still the fan favorite around the world. Oh and the bolded part, well that is your opinion, nothing more nothing less. Nadal's game is considered boring by many and his personality isnt that amazing either. If you want the best of both worlds, than there is Djokovic :lol:. Sadly, he isnt doing well. :(
 
Last edited:
VivalaVida

VivalaVida

Banned
veroniquem said:
To me tennis now is the most exciting it's been in years. In 2008, we had 3 different slam winners. This year promises to be very competitive too. We have Djokovic, will he win another slam? He has the talent to do it, we have Murray coming into his own, when will he win his first slam?, we have Nadal, a charismatic champion at the top but how long will he last? And we have Federer, still dangerous, can he break Sampras's slam record?
Tennis is wonderfully exciting right now and more competitive than before.
Click to expand...
More than Djokovic and Murray, I think tennis is exciting because we have federer trying to break the all time record but at the same time, the young Nadal is side tracking him every opportunity he gets. Federer has 13 GS while Nadal has 6 GS. We are living in a time with 2 Tennis greats.
 
Chelsea_Kiwi

Chelsea_Kiwi

Hall of Fame
grafselesfan said:
Actually TV ratings were plumeting during the Federer dominance and have shot up since Nadal rose to the top. Tennis was boring with Federer on top, now that he has been pushed to the side by younger and more exciting talents it is very exciting.
Click to expand...
Link? No way I am going to believe this otherwise.
 
VivalaVida

VivalaVida

Banned
Chelsea_Kiwi said:
Link? No way I am going to believe this otherwise.
Click to expand...
It is BS. Nadal isnt bringing higher viewership, at least not in the USA
wimbledon2008-500x400.gif


link:http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209
 
GameSampras

GameSampras

Banned
VivalaVida said:
Since these are American ratings. It probably has to do with having a great American champion like Pete win wimbledon.:)
Click to expand...

Well Pete won 7 wimbeldons in 8 years yet the final 2 wimbeldons he won drew the best. Maybe it was because the Pete-Andre final in 99?
 
RalphNYC

RalphNYC

Semi-Pro
veroniquem said:
To me tennis now is the most exciting it's been in years. In 2008, we had 3 different slam winners. This year promises to be very competitive too. We have Djokovic, will he win another slam? He has the talent to do it, we have Murray coming into his own, when will he win his first slam?, we have Nadal, a charismatic champion at the top but how long will he last? And we have Federer, still dangerous, can he break Sampras's slam record?
Tennis is wonderfully exciting right now and more competitive than before.
Click to expand...

this is the most positive thing i've seen you write.. is everything ok? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GasquetGOAT
  • Poll
Let's face it, Nadal made Federer greater.
2 3
Replies
131
Views
6K
The Edberg
The Edberg
F
Let's face it. Tennis is expensive!
Replies
40
Views
4K
edge
E
I
Federer knows what needs to be done
Replies
0
Views
538
iPlayer
I
Death Master
Federer Is Far From Done
Replies
48
Views
3K
Steve0904
Steve0904
C
Federer is most talented player EVER!!
Replies
40
Views
4K
pc1
pc1
Top