I will miss Roger too, but he isn't going anywhere for a while. Winning Wimbledon again will make him want to stick around even longer. I didn't think he would win Wimbledon this year, but he beat Djokovic and Murray handily when it came to it. It's a big boost to win another Wimbledon at 30, two and half years since his last Major and regain the no.1 position. Federer is actually my favourite player to watch since the 80's.
I will miss Federer
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
zagor
Bionic Poster
Actually, "hostility" from my part in this thread started much earlier, I considered OP to be full of it back when this thread was made and have correctly predicted what his reaction will be should Fed ever win another major (or slam, whatever you wanna call it).
He can only appreciate Fed's game when the aforementioned isn't winning any majors for 2+ years but as soon as the Swiss vet wins another major OP's true colours show, doesn't even matter that Fed played some genuine all-court tennis (that the OP supposedly respects so much) to win the final.
While I don't regret changing the focus of this thread (as you put it) as I never for a moment believed OP was truly sincere, I will not derail it (or post in it) any further.
I agree, Federer's grasscourt ability by itself would have been enough to defeat Djokovic and Murray. In that sense I don't think the roof closing had much to do with his winning. But I do think he got a further edge in that environment -- and I believe with that edge he would have defeated Nadal as well (under open skies I would have called it a toss-up, maybe slight edge to Federer).
Yeah it's strange to think of Wimbledon as an indoor venue. But if closing the roof makes Wimbledon more of what it was historically, ie, a fast-court major, requiring and rewarding such things as good serving and net skills, then I'm glad for the roof.
I saw a stat in the NY Times, that Federer's average first serve during the final was 120 mph before the roof was closed, 125 after.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Interesting about his serve speeds. In the first set of his 2001 match against Sampras, his average 1st serve was 115 (if I recall correctly), and Sampras' was 125, and Sampras was crushing his serve. They had to still be measuring the speed of the ball as it crossed the net at that time.
Federer's average for the whole match was 114, while Sampras was at 121. I don't have that broken down by set.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Hahaha! Sampras was high on adrenaline in the first set. I also remember that, in the first set, Sampras' average second serve was almost as big as Federer's average first serve.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I concur: good for him!
Setmatch45
Rookie
Wow I am suprised by some of the comments. I will admit I am a Roger fan. I do not route for Nadal but I think he is great and a class act for the most part. I don't route for Djokovic because I don't. Murray may have changed my mind this past slam. Roger while arrogant is great! I don't use that word much but he is. What he just did was a remarkable. Tennis really singles tennis at that level is a me sport arrogance comes with that I think.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think a lot of people read things into this thread that aren't there. Hoodjem just did a tribute thread to Federer and praised him.
Heck I miss Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Gonzalez, Mecir, McEnroe, Leconte, Evert, Graf, Navratilova, Goolagong, Henin, Sampras, Agassi, Nastase, Ashe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker etc. At least you can still watch and enjoy Federer.
Heck I miss Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Gonzalez, Mecir, McEnroe, Leconte, Evert, Graf, Navratilova, Goolagong, Henin, Sampras, Agassi, Nastase, Ashe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker etc. At least you can still watch and enjoy Federer.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Guru Zagor,
I fear your irony-detection/prediction meter has run amok, and is rendering too many false-positives.
I have always liked Fed's game. My OP was quite sincere. But that does not mean I was/am a Fedidolizer. His achievements are his. The competition of the era in which he plays, I would not blame on him and thus call "his." It is the competition that exists. As to the level of much of this competition, I do have some doubts.
I have always favored an all-court game. I believe that a great all-court player will beat either a great baseliner or a great serve-and-volleyer.
I look forward to reading what my reaction should be if Fed were to win the US Open. (I am sure you will let me know.)
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
Can't discount the posibillity but hey you tell me.
This is your attitude when Fed hasn't won a major in over two years (and at that point seemed he might well not ever win one again):
And here's after his recent Wimbledon win:
Keeping in mind that Fed who is almost 31, beat a 6 year younger defending champion and world #1 in SF and a very talented home crowd favourite Murray in the final.
He also approached the net almost 70 times in the final in a 4 set match.
Oh please, it's not black and white, there's a whole slew of different possibilities in-between being a Fedidolizer (who screams Fed is GOAT all the time and think he's the bestest ever in every facet of the game) and not giving Fed any credit whatsoever (for example see your own posts after he won).
Oh the usual, luck, weak era, choking opponents etc.
But hey once he starts bombing out before SF/QF in majors when the age/mileage catches up with him even more I'm sure you'll start to appreciate his "classic" game again.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes, he played an excellent match.
Again, I concur. And I am somewhere in between. (Perhaps I do try too hard to counter-balance those "who scream Fed is GOAT all the time and think he's the bestest ever in every facet of the game."
So far, Fed has an amazing ability to almost always make it to the semis of slams, but you could be right about age catching up with him.
Perhaps this whole thread is a case of typical human nature: that is, an example of the "you don't miss it till it's gone" syndrome. And now that he's back with a slam win, there "ain't nothin' to miss."
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
It's not that he just played an excellent match, it's that he played an excellent match using the whole court, aside from 2003 Wimbledon I haven't seen him volley this well in a major final ever.
Yeah, Fed has a number of nutty worshipers which are currently drowning the forum with threads about Fed's greatness, even though I'm a big Fed fan I find it nauseating.
That said, there are also a number of people who never give him any credit no matter what.
Overall, it seems very few people are neutral when it comes to Fed.
Age & mileage catches up to anyone eventually but I hope Fed plays as long as his body allows it like Agassi did and not quit for other reasons (like mental fatigue or something).
Maybe, but Sampras for example decided to retire about 6-7 months after he won his last major so it doesn't necessarily mean just because Fed won Wimbledon now he won't hang it up relatively soon (I hope not of course).
Personally, in addition to being my favourite player of all time I'll miss Fed because the way things are at the moment (homogenized conditions and playing styles) you gotta wonder how long will it pass after Fed's gone before we see another one hander with some all-court flare contend for the big titles? The game is going in the direction I don't like, every tournament is starting to look the same to me.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Yes I find it disturbing also. I have rarely seen such incredible hero worship of a player, a great player but every player has faults, usually many faults. I cannot believe sometimes the praise of Federer in which all his shots are rated the greatest ever. I think to myself, "hey the guy wins 81 to 82 percent of the time, not 100% of the time, he has to be making some errors or losing some points."
I just think some of the fans should have a reality check on his greatness. And to be fair I would feel that way about Laver, Nastase, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, Hoad, Connors, Sampras, Gonzalez or anyone.
So often when I try to toss in some logical perspective (in my opinion) I am often prepared to be criticized by the Federer fans.
I've seen this with some of the older players too in which they were made out to be super giants of the game and when I researched some of them I realized they weren't the giants many writers made them out to be.
The problem I find is that while Federer deserves great praise when I do try to point out things like that I don't believe Federer's backhand is one of the top ten of all time like some have posted I am afraid I will get jumped on. Fact is that I believe that his solid backhand fits in well with his game and his super forehand which could be the greatest ever imo.
Bottom line is I enjoy the smoothness of the Federer game and his shots.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
When I first read this I thought, wait a minute, the only one? But, frankly, I can't think of anyone else playing today, man or woman, who plays "gorgeous tennis." And, it starts with his footwork.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
This brings something to mind, who in your lifetime has played gorgeous tennis? The definition can change with different people and their perspectives.
I liked Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Connors just to name a few in the past. Sometimes gorgeous tennis can be smooth economical tennis like Rosewall. It can a variety of shots and smoothness like Laver. Federer is smooth as can be in his footwork and most of his shots. Connors was a great pure hitter of the ball and had great footwork.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Off the top of my head, the men whose games, movement, stroke production, that I thought were aesthetically pleasing, graceful, etc., included players like: Rosewall, Nastase, Okker, Ashe, Drysdale, Pilic, Amritraj, Edberg, Stich.
Laver's strokes and shotmaking were beautiful, but, any grace was overshadowed by his superhuman intensity. Borg and Connors, as great as they were, had neither attractive strokes or graceful movement, IMO. Compared to those listed above, they were more in the manner of gorillas on the court.
As for the ladies, there was Bueno, King, Casals, Goolagong, Mandlikova . . . and everyone else.
Laver's strokes and shotmaking were beautiful, but, any grace was overshadowed by his superhuman intensity. Borg and Connors, as great as they were, had neither attractive strokes or graceful movement, IMO. Compared to those listed above, they were more in the manner of gorillas on the court.
As for the ladies, there was Bueno, King, Casals, Goolagong, Mandlikova . . . and everyone else.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I actually thought of Borg as a very smooth mover on the court. Vijay is a super choice. He was about as smooth as you can get in his strokes.
Among the females Goolagong was about the smoothest in everything. I also loved to watch Mandlikova.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I actually think Edberg's forehand was as graceful as the rest of his game. Frankly, if he turned his grip over to a full Eastern, I think it would have made a excellent modern forehand. Unfortunately, his Continental grip caused him to shank a lot of balls, but, it was still a long, graceful looking stroke, IMO.
I never liked its look.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Loving this post. It reminds me of an argument I saw here about Graf. Personally I found her quite robotic and exacting and jerky in her play rather than smooth, pristine and beautiful etc. (btw, loved Graf).
I adore Connors, he's my fave of that general era, no doubt. I agree though, he wasn't exactly attractive or graceful - Borg's movement was, IMO, but not his strokes...
zagor
Bionic Poster
I don't put much stock in winning % when it comes to Fed because it took him somewhat longer to mature compare to other tennis greats and he was wildly inconsistent as a young player.
However, I agree, that Fed fans can go overboard with his praise at times (like after his recent Wimbledon win), Fed's BH, serve and volleys are certainly not best ever material. Not to mention that finding a number of obscure stats and passing them off as records in order to bolster Fed's credentials is hilarious.
Sorry, I don't really buy that you would but that's fine, we all have our biases.
Yes, but Fed fans also get criticized when they disagree about Fed's success being down to weak era and luck or that he's a mental midget.
And regardless, what may seems like a logically sound opinion to one person may seem like complete nonsense to another, it's all relative.
For example Laver beating Federer 10 out of 10 on the old grass, Connors beating Fed 9 out of 10 times at USO, Vilas dominating Fed on clay to the same extent Nadal did and Nadal having better volleys than Fed seems like gibberish to me personally but it made perfect sense to a number of regular participants on this forum.
Probably the only regular participant in this part of the forum with whose opinion on Federer I completely agree with is Krosero, other's stances on Fed here are almost as alien to me as are those of Fed fans who think he has the best BH of all time, that his serve is slightly worse than Sampras's and that he dominated the game during 2004-2007 playing all-court tennis (when in fact he was mostly a power baseliner).
Yeah, we've had that discussion before, I agree in a sense that I've always saw Fed's BH as a great tool which complements the rest of his game so well but not particularly impressive as a standalone weapon (there are a good number of better rally topspin BHs in this era let alone all-time).
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Trust me, while I thought Laver was great I got annoyed at times (late 1960's and early 1970's) that some got carried away with the praise of Laver in those days. So whether you believe it or not I know how I felt. But that's true in general with almost any number one who is better than the average number one player. I felt the same about Connors and some others. Oddly enough I didn't feel that way about Lendl because I actually felt he was underrated because many just didn't like him.
Now it doesn't mean that years later I won't toss praise at them.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I've been on these boards for about 2 years, and I haven't read any posts saying, in earnest, that Fed was a mental midget, or that anyone would beat him 10 for 10 on any surface. But, you should see the food fly when I suggest that Federer's backhand technique isn't the best on his topspin or his slice.
Last edited:
What about other stuff that you said about Graf and her fans? You were pretty harsh and the intention was to instigate a quarrel.
kiki
Banned
Nastase´s grace, Mac´s touch, Roche´s volley technique, Laver´s all court game, Rosewall´s fluid shots ( and THAT bh), Borg´s dancing footwork,Sampras raw power, Agassi´s hand eye game, Boris tremendous raw power,Edberg´s unmatchable S&V game, Connors pure shots and many many others.
Not to trace backwards to Santana,Hoad,Pietrangeli,Kramer,Budge,Cochet,Tilden,Sedgman and so forth...
kiki
Banned
Plus Hingis,Evert and the big baseline shots from Seles and venus Williams.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Again, I agree wholeheartedly.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
While I always liked Connors (and at times couldn't stand him) I've grown to appreciate him more in recent years as I have viewed more of his matches that I recorded over the years. Such a great ball striker and mover.
Federer is a great player. No doubt. Praise by the posters is reasonable. But I cannot understand that Roger is praised by most posters beyond any border.
Federer's achievements are great but we should not forget that Roger had rather weak opposition (Roddick and so on) when he won most of his many Grand Slam tournaments. No comparison to that of Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and others.
Federer has several skills but he also has a defensive backhand and is not a great volleyer.
Roy Emerson deserves the title "Most overrated player of all times" but I suppose Federer is a tough challenger...
But of course Roger is much greater than Roy.
Federer's achievements are great but we should not forget that Roger had rather weak opposition (Roddick and so on) when he won most of his many Grand Slam tournaments. No comparison to that of Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and others.
Federer has several skills but he also has a defensive backhand and is not a great volleyer.
Roy Emerson deserves the title "Most overrated player of all times" but I suppose Federer is a tough challenger...
But of course Roger is much greater than Roy.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne,
I think it's pretty clear that Federer is the most popular player in tennis today and arguably the most popular in tennis history. His fans clearly idolize him and want to believe he is the best in every aspect of the game. This is a natural thing for the fans to do but it's unrealistic for any player to be close to perfection in every stroke.
This was true of virtually every super great player in the past, when they are playing they are perfection and this is of course not true. McEnroe c. 1984 was being raved about as the greatest in history. Connors just a few years before was being called this plus he was called by some the hardest hitter in tennis history with perhaps only Lew Hoad rivaling him. Budge and Tilden were raved about in the same way. Same with Laver.
Did they deserve all this praise? Well I believe they deserve a lot of praise but not to the almost god-like type abilities some almost gave them. It's the same with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic today. They are superb players, among the best in history but they do not float on air.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
For most popular in tennis history I'm going with Borg. Borg was not just popular among tennis fans, he was a teen idol adonis. Federer, no. Federer may be the most popular among the young tennis players of the day, maybe not. But, I wouldn't think that he compares favorably to Borg general popularity. Even Tilden probably had more general popularity than Federer.
I stop reading your post after I read the bolded part. It's just one of many bitter fans who doesn't like Fed and all of his achievement.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I thought of Borg also but I guess in this super media driven world I thought Federer may have been more popular. Perhaps you're right. Certainly Borg was a huge teen idol which Federer was not.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Well you're making an assumption a bit too early on BobbyOne don't you think? The comment is just an opinion anyway just like when you venture the opinion of the past players having poor competition compared to today. Wait a few more posts before you make a generalized comment about him.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Why do you have to feel that Federer is like a member of your family and you have to rush to his defense? Federer doesn't need defending. He's a fantastic player. It's BobbyOne's opinion just as it's your opinion that many players of the past had weak competition.
Out of curiosity do you feel Federer has any weaknesses? I know Laver did, Tilden did, Ashe did, Connors, McEnroe, Djokovic, Nadal, Kramer, Nastase, Vilas, Sampras all had weaknesses. I've yet to see you hint at any criticism of Federer.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Tennis is different from other sports. It takes a certain mentality to be a champion. For the past decade there have been only two with that mentality. And, for the past 1.5 years there have been only 3. All of the physical skills and conditioning in the World won't win a championship without a champion's heart, mind and spirit. Champions are champions because the believe it to be true. Some of the biggest, strongest, hardest hitting athletes in tennis aren't even in the top 100 and never win a tournament. Lukas Rosol is a prime example. He's a beast. His skills are amazing. But, he doesn't believe, and he forgot himself for a match.
I started following tennis around 2008, so naturally I became a Federer fan. I have seen many great matches, but I began watching arguably past his prime. I just wish I had been following in 2004 - 2007!!
Almost as terrible...I was only able to watch the first 2 sets of this year's Wimbledon
Almost as terrible...I was only able to watch the first 2 sets of this year's Wimbledon
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I started following tennis around 2008, so naturally I became a Federer fan. I have seen many great matches, but I began watching arguably past his prime. I just wish I had been following in 2004 - 2007!!
Almost as terrible...I was only able to watch the first 2 sets of this year's Wimbledon
You didn't miss much. The 3rd and 4th sets looked a lot like the second set.
TMF,You think that Federer in his prime had as strong competition as the Rose- walls and Lavers had? I'm eager to learn from you about really great players Federer had to beat. I only knew of Roddick (hardly a champion) and a too young Nadal. There was no prime Nadal, no Djokovic and no Murray in that period. But I give credit to Federer's recent Wimbledon win.
To put it into perspective: Rod Laver for example had to beat Roche (twice), Gimeno, Okker, Rosewall, Smith, Drysdale, Ashe (twice), Newcombe, Ralston and Emerson to win his second Grand Slam. Is n't it a Who's Who of all-time greats?
Even the 1980s had tougher competition than Federer years ago faced. There were Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander and Lendl among others.
So please list up the mighty opponents of the prime Federer. Thank you.
To put it into perspective: Rod Laver for example had to beat Roche (twice), Gimeno, Okker, Rosewall, Smith, Drysdale, Ashe (twice), Newcombe, Ralston and Emerson to win his second Grand Slam. Is n't it a Who's Who of all-time greats?
Even the 1980s had tougher competition than Federer years ago faced. There were Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander and Lendl among others.
So please list up the mighty opponents of the prime Federer. Thank you.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Obviously, Federer had to beat many great players to win his Slams in the earlier part of his career such as Safin, Hewitt, Nadal, Roddick and Agassi and even Djokovic by 2007. These shouldn't exactly be laughed at now, should they. Winning majors isn't easy. There were also guys like Ferrero, Nalbandian. Since then he has had to beat guys such as Del Potro, Murray, as well as other Slam finalists like Tsonga, Berdych and Soderling. It's a bit hard to criticize the list when the 3 greats of the era have been so greedy as to win virtually every major in sight. It's a very good list of players. I'm not saying it's better or worse than other times when the whole period of say 2003 to now is taken into account, but I'm sure it's comparable, arguably better or worse.
Similar threads
- Locked
- JRAJ1988
- General Pro Player Discussion
