hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Let me connect them for you.
And anyone who even attempts to denigrate Federer is one who clearly knows nothing about tennis and His infinite perfection.
And it would appear that he was right about you.
Last edited:
I will miss Federer
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
And anyone who even attempts to denigrate Federer is one who clearly knows nothing about tennis and His infinite perfection.
Hood, this all goes to prove the truism. No good thread goes unpunished. Pay no heed.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Unfortunately true.
Incidentally has anyone ever seen TMF write anything remotely negative about Federer?
I don't mind anyone praising Federer, he certainly deserves it but at the same time I cannot believe the overreaction when someone writes something like "Federer doesn't have one of the top ten backhands of all time." That statement is not a negative about Federer but simply an opinion that his backhand, unlike some other strokes of Federer isn't on the level of some of the all time great backhands but it is regarded as a negative statement. It is not.
For example I am a great admirer of Ken Rosewall but I will call anyone insane if they wrote Rosewall had one of the top ten forehands of all time. I admired Sampras but no one can tell me that Sampras had a great backhand. He could make great shots off the backhand at times. I try to objectively look at the great champions I have seen. I may fail but at least I try.
Fed had pretty great players throughout his career. Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ferrero, Agassi, Coria, Henman, Roddick, Safin, Berdych, Haas, Soderling, Del Potro, Tsonga, Nadal, Murray, Nole. Second tier group include Ferrer, Lbucic, Davydenko, Verdasco, Gonzalez, Bagdatis, Almagro, Gasquet, Kohlschreiber, Wawrinka. There’s more but I’ll leave to that for now.
Laver is great player, no doubt. But you can’t ignore that he was competing in a split fields which lost some depth, not to mention there were much less athletes competing in the 60s than today. Like some players, Emerson past his prime in 1969 when Laver won the GS. And his 12 slams were from the amateur. The 1969 GS is still great, but that’s only 1 year achievement while Fed’s 17 slams(so far) a career achievement which is way more impressive.
Nadal_Power
Semi-Pro
Amazing 2nd tier.. legend after legend
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Laver played Rosewall, Roche, Newcombe, Ashe, Nastase, Smith, Emerson, Gimeno, Okker, Gonzalez, Ralston, Drysdale during the Open Era alone. Most still superb, many in their primes.
BobbyOne was asking who Federer played during his prime years. I'm not going to get into arguments about how overall strong the opposition was except on one point, anyone who thinks Agassi was nearly the player he was let's say 1995 would be delusional. He was not nearly the player he was. He had physical problems.
Nadal_Power
Semi-Pro
And with all that amazing players Federer scored 15-1 in Major finals, when there was no Rafa on the other side of the net
So basically you're saying the players above are better than the players I've listed. If you and Bobby believe so then that's your opinion. Agassi isn't at his prime in his 30s(but still play amazing tennis) but what makes you think he isn't at the level or above those players above? And Agassi in his 30s isn't as bad as Pancho in his 40s.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Numerous multi-slam winners here.
Quite a list of all-time greats!:wink:
I still sincerely contend that I will truly miss Fed after he retires. While I respect each player individually, I do not enjoy Nadal versus Djokovic: too much homogeneity, IMO.
Exactly right.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
See you're overreacting AGAIN and reading too much into it. I'm simply saying that you're underrating Laver's opposition as you often tend to do.
Read your post below, I've put in bold the part I was responding too. And my response is right below your post. I put in bold the main part of my response to that. And I would agree with you that Agassi in his thirties was probably a little better Pancho Gonzalez in his forties. The key is that you included Agassi as a great player, I wrote "most still superb", I did not include the word great.
Question for you, do you really think that ALL of those guys you wrote were great were really and truly great during 2004 to 2007? Perhaps some but clearly not all. Never thought of Henman, Ferrero, Berdych, Haas, Soderling as great players for example. When I think of great players of all time the first names that come to mind are not Henman, Haas and Berdych.
Edit-Don't bother answering the question. Just remember that when some people write things it's not always a knock on Federer.
Last edited:
TMF, Your two lists of tough opponents are not as impressive as the list of Laver's direct opponents of his 1969 run.
The depth today is greater than earlier but this does not mean automatically that the peak is higher now!
You seem to forget that "unvincible" Federer has won only 1 Grand Slam tournament out of the last recent 10 events. The reason? Nadal and Djokovic are now in their prime...
You compare Federer's 17 majors with only 1 year of Laver. Have you forgotten that Laver had about 7 years of great accomplishments? (I omit even 1962). For instance some experts like pc1 even rank his pro Grand Slam of 1967 higher than the 1969 feat.
Laver has won 19 majors and it will be interesting to see if Federer can surpass this feat.
I hope you are ready to learn from experts who have a different opinion than you have.
The depth today is greater than earlier but this does not mean automatically that the peak is higher now!
You seem to forget that "unvincible" Federer has won only 1 Grand Slam tournament out of the last recent 10 events. The reason? Nadal and Djokovic are now in their prime...
You compare Federer's 17 majors with only 1 year of Laver. Have you forgotten that Laver had about 7 years of great accomplishments? (I omit even 1962). For instance some experts like pc1 even rank his pro Grand Slam of 1967 higher than the 1969 feat.
Laver has won 19 majors and it will be interesting to see if Federer can surpass this feat.
I hope you are ready to learn from experts who have a different opinion than you have.
MG 1, Okker was a superb player. The discussion goes about tough players, and Tom was very tough.
Gimeno was also very strong and tougher than legend Emerson for example. He is much underrated by experts because his best years came when he could not play the Grand Slam tournaments. Andres was a player who often beat Laver and Rosewall. Enough prove of his greatness, I think.
Gimeno was also very strong and tougher than legend Emerson for example. He is much underrated by experts because his best years came when he could not play the Grand Slam tournaments. Andres was a player who often beat Laver and Rosewall. Enough prove of his greatness, I think.
MG1
Professional
The main reason that he crossed 28 ... gimme list how many slam laver won after 28 !!
i guess 5-6
MG1
Professional
If your career does not have grand slam than you are not legend.
Safin was much greater player than okker & ralston.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
He was on the old Pro Tour and was the third best player in the world for years, just behind Laver and Rosewall and ahead of Pancho Gonzalez. I didn't write he was a legend but to put it in perspective he probably would have won some majors if he was allowed to compete in his best years. If he competed against the same competition Emerson did some believe he would have won more majors than Emerson.
Check it out, he beat Laver and Rosewall a number of times to win tournaments, sometimes in the same tournament.
I wrote he was a superb player which he was. He won a major when he was in his thirties. It wasn't a fluke even if the field in that major wasn't as strong as it could be.
Now I know I talk about stats all the time but we also have to know the story behind the stats. Top players like Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall and Gimeno wasn't allowed to play the majors for years, therefore their total of majors weren't as high as it should have been. Gimeno was a terrific player. Do you believe the tennis experts would have put him in the Tennis Hall of Fame because he was just an average player? Of course not.
So perhaps the Tennis Hall of Fame believes Gimeno to be a legend. Remember that's your word, not mine.
Sometimes we have to know the story of the player's career instead of just jumping to conclusions. For example Emerson won twelve majors, Pancho Gonzalez only two classic majors. Logically we would conclude that Emerson is the far superior player. But if you research the story you realize Pancho Gonzalez was by far the superior player.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrés_Gimeno
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
If you include Pro Majors and the Wimbledon Pro in 1967 Laver won 20 majors. This includes the Pro Grand Slam in 1967 and the Open Grand Slam in 1969. The latter at the age of 31. I'm including 1966, the year Laver turned 28. I believe Laver won about 80 tournaments after age 30. Probably close to 100 after age 28.
We're just discussing opposition and all I'm writing is that Laver's opposition was top notch despite some writing it wasn't. I'm not questioning the quality of Federer's opposition. I saw these guys that Laver played and they were superb. Notice that I didn't use the word great. Some may be great but that's up to debate however I think they were all superb players, at least the ones I mentioned. There's no need for arguing. We're just exchanging information and opinions. I disagree with some of your points and you disagree with me on some of my points.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Incidentally I don't see where BobbyOne used the term great or legend. I didn't use that word either.
And I think you're right, Roddick is better in my opinion than Drysdale but Drysdale was still an excellent player. According to Vainqueurs, Drysdale won 33 tournaments in his career. That's more than Patrick Rafter or Kuerten or Safin.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
If you'd read between the lines :
focus on the part where the opposition list starts with roddick , when federer had to face nadal, djoker as well...... If that's not a sign of disdain, what is ?
for heaven's sake, federer has already faced djoker 11 times in majors ..... despite djoker being younger by more than 5 years ...sampras/agassi despite being only about an year apart in age faced each other only 9 times in majors ....
abmk
Bionic Poster
ah, the ignorance ......
roddick of 2004 wimbledon and 2009 wimbledon was easily a more formidable opponent on grass than either murray/djoker on grass ....2003 roddick was just as good, if not better
hewitt of 2004-05 was just as good, if not better ....
federer faced nadal, roddick, safin, hewitt, agassi ( still playing pretty good tennis ) , djoker ( 2007 ), ferrero, nalbandian, davydenko , coria etc .....that is from 2004-07
if we're talking about 2008-09 as well , then include murray, delpo, soderling ......
since when did ralston, drysdale become all time greats ???? seriously ???? the likes of berdych, haas, soderling, coria etc are easily better than both of them .....
As far as the list of opponents of prime federer goes ( from 2004-2009 ) - nadal, agassi, djoker, safin, hewitt, roddick, del potro, murray, nalbandian, davydenko, coria,soderling,berdych etc .....
zagor
Bionic Poster
And I've been on these boards for about 5 years and I've certainly read such posts over the time, however I'm definitely not gonna bother searching for them so take my word for it or don't.
Regarding Fed's technique on BH and slice, I missed that discussion, I consider Fed's slice to be the best (most effective) in current game regardless of his technique.
Can't see how anyone who actually watched the match could have come to such conclusion.
3d and 4th sets were significantly different from the 2nd set, in the 2nd set Murray was serving better (got around 70% 1st serves in) and was having the upper hand from the baseline, he was cruising on his serve and constantly pressuring Fed's and had a number of opportunities to break, some of which were saved by Fed's clutch play and others being some misses from Murray (there was that one BH DTL miss at 4-4 IIRC).
In short, in the 2nd set Fed was hanging for his dear life and barely digging out his service games while mostly doing nothing on Murray's serve until 6-5 when Fed played a terrific return game and broke Murray with some great volleys.
3d and 4th set were quite different, Murray 1st serve % dropped to below 50 while Fed started serving better in indoor conditions and started having the upper hand from the baseline while Murray was playing more defensive compared to the first 2 sets, Fed was jumping on Murray's 2nd serve and protecting his own service games very well (Murray only had 1 BP chance combined in 3d and 4th sets while having 4 BPs in 2nd set alone), overall the feeling was that Fed was controlling the match at that point and it was a matter of time before won it.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Haha, yeah I always find that funny, how people looking to denigrate Fed's achievements always start with how his opposition was Roddick, Bagdathis, Gonzales etc. while Fed was lucky he didn't face Nadal and Novak more often all the while ignoring the fact that he faced those two 21 times in slams combined, the # of times Fed and Novak met in HC slams only is almost equal to the # of times Sampras and Agassi faced in slams overall despite that as you said Sampras and Agassi were about the same age while Fed and Novak are 5 years apart.
You gotta wonder how many times Fed should have faced Djokodal to satisfy these people, 40 or something?
Regarding HC slams, Novak is by far Fed's biggest rival despite the age difference yet people will still bring up Roddick all the time despite the fact that as HC slams go Fed faced him merely 3 times.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I would put Tom Okker in the discussion for best player to never win a slam. His best slam performance came in in 1968, when he lost the final of the US Open to Arthur Ashe, 14–12, 5–7, 6–3, 3–6, 6–3.
Gimeno won the FO in 1972, and was runner-up at the AO of 1969.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Fed has faced Djokovic 27 times. He has faced Nadal 28 times. 55 times total.
(Just stats; no comment intended.)
Last edited:
abmk, It's pretty unfair to include Nadal and Del Potro in the list of great opponents of prime Federer, because Roger usually lost to Nadal and Del Potro (in their only encounter then).
Rod Laver faced all the great opponents of his time and BEAT THEM ALL (I concede that Gonzalez and Rosewall were on the decline when mostly they played Laver).
It's pretty bold to write that Coria was stronger than both Ralston (Hall of fame) and Drysdale. I guess you have not heard of Ralston and Drysdale too much...
Did you know that Cliff Drysdale beat prime Laver in the 1968 US Open, winning the last two sets by 6-1, 6-1? Could Coria have done the same?
Rod Laver faced all the great opponents of his time and BEAT THEM ALL (I concede that Gonzalez and Rosewall were on the decline when mostly they played Laver).
It's pretty bold to write that Coria was stronger than both Ralston (Hall of fame) and Drysdale. I guess you have not heard of Ralston and Drysdale too much...
Did you know that Cliff Drysdale beat prime Laver in the 1968 US Open, winning the last two sets by 6-1, 6-1? Could Coria have done the same?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Just for informational purposes as I wrote before Drysdale won 33 tournaments in his career according to Vainquers. Ralston won 42 tournaments in his career according to Vainquers. Both were among the top players of their day.
According to the ATP tour website Coria won 9 tournaments in his career. Coria was a superb player and I loved his game.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Co/G/Guillermo-Coria.aspx?t=tf
abmk
Bionic Poster
please, get your facts right ........
federer faced delpo thrice in grand slams in 2009 ( he thrashed him in AO - with a double bagel , then there was a close 5 setter at the FO in 2009 which federer won, then finally the close 5 setter at the USO which delpo won ...) ...... But of course you take notice only when an opponent beats federer , ..... until then he is weak, a pigeon blah blah blah
hence the comment -> only encounter !
federer only "usually" lost to nadal on clay ..... outside of clay he is 8-6 vs him ......how on earth is it unfair to include nadal in the list of great opponents of prime federer ? he was already great on clay by 2005. he met federer 3x @ RG till 2007, 2x at wimbledon ( including a close 5 setter in 2007 ) .....
I was talking about singles alone .... ralston's greatness is based on his doubles achievements , not singles ......
drysdale beat laver at the USO ? jeez, soderling beat nadal at the FO in 2009, a considerably more difficult task and next year followed up with an even better performance to beat federer (and of course he beat the likes of ferrer, davydenko,gonzalez, berdych as well in those 2 runs ) ..... I don't see the likes of you giving him that much of respect
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
agreed ... fed's performance in the 2nd set and those in the 3rd/4th set were like day and night. the 3rd and 4th were truly peak roger federer tennis ..... nothing more needs to be said regarding that ..... 2nd set , he was just somehow hanging on .....
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I've written extensively on Fed's backhand technique, topspin and slice. His technique is suboptimal and not a good model to emulate. Feel free to do a forum search if you like.
You've actually argued my point without knowing it. Having found himself in an unfamiliar, uncomfortable situation - a set up in a major final against Federer, he hit his psychological glass ceiling, and his game assisted him (like a boyscout assisting an elderly woman across the street), in his return to his more familiar, comfortable status as the runner up. In other words, Murray lost all 3 sets when, had he maintained his level of play, he would likely have won the match.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, wut ?????
murray played by some distance better in the 2nd set than he did in the 1st set
and no, murray would most probably have not won against the federer who turned up in sets 3 and 4, regardless of how well he played ....
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Just for information. No opinion. If you believe one way or the other I don't care. I'm hardly a fan of Drysdale or Ralston. Drysdale annoys me as an announcer sometimes. I actually am an admirer of Coria.
Tournaments won by the way is still an indicator of the strength of a player. Some was against amateurs, some in the open era. How many tournaments has Ferrer won with Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic in the field? I would guess very few but you take them out and he has a great chance to win.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Or, maybe you under-rate them. I'm not a big fan if the ATP, but, one thing they've done correctly is their assignment of the number of points for winning the majors compared to the other events. As a result, winning four 500 level events will result in the same ranking as winning one major.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I know this is difficult for a Fed cultist to wrap his small head around, but, what happend is that Federer's game improved because Murray's game declined.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, fed-novak have squared off 8 times now in HC slams, 5 times at the USO ( in a row !!!!! ) and 3 times at the AO ....
in contrast fed-roddick have "only" squared off 4 times ( not 3 ) in HC slams ( 2x at the AO and 2x at the USO ) .
abmk
Bionic Poster
wrong. fed's game improved by itself and he put pressure on murray as a result of which murray's game went down by a bit ......now go and actually watch some tennis without those rose tinted glasses .......
IIRC, near the end of the 2nd set , they showed a stat
federer had 2 forehand winners and 9 UEs
murray had 8 forehand winners and 2 UEs ...
are you like kidding me by saying federer playing well has those sort of stats on his forehand side ( and it is even more shocking when compared to murray's FH stats !) ?
murray in set 2 had 14 winners to 4 UEs ....
that was his best set in the match by far even though he lost that because federer somehow held on and produced one great return game to win it .....
abmk
Bionic Poster
exactly ..... put players like drysdale, ralston in full fields and they don't win many tournaments either .....not even remotely close to what you mentioned ....
sure , no of tournmanents is a factor that needs to be considered, but it needs to be taken in context of the field, strength , the trends of those times etc etc .....
pc1
G.O.A.T.
But remember there are a lot of tournaments without full fields (no Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzalez, Hoad etc) in which Ralston would have stood a good shot to win. That's the case with Ferrer.
At any rate Ralston was a pretty good player at his best in my opinion. Very talented but problems with keeping his calm to put it nicely.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Like I said, it's difficult for a Fed cultist to wrap his head around the notion that Fed won a match because his opponent melted down, but, that's what happened. That's what usually happens when a champion plays against a non-champion. A champion is someone who believes he's the champion. Murray doesn't believe, and when he got too close, he did what non-believers do, he retreated back to his comfort zone. It's an inherent part of the game and of the history of tennis. Anyone who has played tournament tennis knows this.
abmk
Bionic Poster
absolutely wrong as usual ....
there are some times federer has partly won because his opponent melted down ....see haas 2009 FO SF 4th set ( bagel ) , davydenko AO 2010 QF ( 3rd set bagel ) .......
this year wimbledon's final wasn't one of those occasions. Now go and actually watch some tennis properly......you think murray's level went down in the 2nd set from the first set ??? LOL, the 2nd set was his best set of the match ....
I call BS on the champion vs non-champion stuff on this instance ..... murray was still focused and played well till the end , not giving federer any easy games at all ( he threatened fed's serve till the end with his great returning )
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Hahaha! Defending your demigod to the end, as usual. If you played tournament tennis, or any competitive individual sport, you'd understand sports psychology better than you do. Murray's level of play, especially his serve, dropped when he couldn't bear the pressure of winning because he doesn't believe he can beat Federer in a major final, and then Federer's game picked up.
I don't think you saw the match. Murray had a strong belief and confident that he can win. If he had doubt, he wouldn' come out with a positive attitude, playing aggressive. Just because he can't win isn't the reason why he doesn't believe, it's because his opponent was a better player, simple as that. You're insinuating if a player can't win, then it has to be that he doesn't belief. That's too simple way of thinking.
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL, what ???? can you even read ??? I just mentioned examples where federer benefited from the other players level going down considerably ....
Just because you are crazy enough to think that was the case in this year's final , doesn't mean that is what happened ....
Murray's serve % in the 2nd set was 72%, his highest in the match .... ( 58% in the 1st, 49% in the 3rd, 45% in the 4th )
the 2nd set was his best set of the match , so how/when on earth did this happen ?
Having found himself in an unfamiliar, uncomfortable situation - a set up in a major final against Federer, he hit his psychological glass ceiling, and his game assisted him (like a boyscout assisting an elderly woman across the street), in his return to his more familiar, comfortable status as the runner up.
he was still getting deep into the federer service games in the 3rd/4th set .... staved off plenty of BPs in the 3rd set ... fought till the end ..... But then I wouldn't expect you to get that .... you didn't actually watch the match and are still stuck with the rigid mentality of champion vs non-champion ......
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Yes, I can read, and I've done a lot more of it than you have. Murray lost that match, he gave it to Federer because he doesn't believe that he is a champion, at least, not yet. It takes years to overcome that kind of self imposed glass ceiling, all of which is, apparently, over your head and beyond your understanding. Hopefully, that's what Lendl is working on with him.
This is the reason why this place is call THE LAVER FORUM.
Laver's 19 majors is no where near the magnitude of the modern slam. His 6 of 11 slams were in the amateur. You can't be serious in believing a split fields has no effect on the lack of depth and competition. His 8 pro majors were also from a split fields, with smaller draws thus required to win less number of matches.
Only Laver fans on planet TT would rate his majors are equivalent to the modern slam, but experts/historians see it differently and objectively, this is what they based on:
Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
= Rafael Nadal 11*
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Similar threads
- Locked
- JRAJ1988
- General Pro Player Discussion
