FedFan_2007
Banned
psamp14 said:
That cream blazer is totally anti-nerd. Only cool alpha-types would have the cojones to walk on court with that.
That cream blazer is totally anti-nerd. Only cool alpha-types would have the cojones to walk on court with that.
ShooterMcMarco
Hall of Fame
Bjorn99 said:
There you have it everyone, that is the secret Bjorn has found about Federer. He has the ability to neuter serves.
Well, a raw Federer has beaten an attacking Sampras playing very well. This year he also took out attacking players like Henman, Mahut and Ancic, at Wimbledon. Mahut and Ancic played the game of the lives and were still dismantled comfortably. Nadal described the match against Ancic as one of the best displays of tennis he had ever seen. Federer is very adaptable and will do what the situation requires. The style of tennis, opponents play, does'nt really make a difference . If you look at the games of attacking players from the past, they never had to deal with a player of Federer's calibre.TennisandMusic said:
I find Federer and his current game infinitely more entertaining than any of the attacking players of old, whether it be Rafter, Becker, Sampras, Edberg, Mcenroe etc. I think he is a better player than all of them and would beat them more times than not. I must admit, I am not a big fan of the two shot rally, serve and volley winner. To me, what Federer does is more technically demanding, more impressive and far more entertaining.
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
Bjorn99 said:
I like it. I'm all for it. Underneath that abrasive internet persona of yours, Bjorn99....is a guy who knows sports. But then you already knew that.
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
TennisandMusic said:
I am thoroughly impressed with the man, both on and off the court. I am not anywhere near the level where I could be anything other than impressed with Fedi's game.
I do think there is an upcoming generation of guys who will have respect for Roger, but who will be unimpressed.
At the moment, Novak Djokovic is knocking on that door. I personally feel he is committed to fakin' it 'til he's makin' it. But maybe that's just me.
Rickson
G.O.A.T.
It looks like you're the only one because Roger is about to become the greatest player of all time on paper by winning 15 plus slams, but he's already proven that he actually is the GOAT now. Federer would have beaten all the greats of the past and there won't be another player as good as he is possibly ever. Federer is to tennis what Tiger is to golf and Jordan is to basketball.TennisandMusic said:
abenguyen
Hall of Fame
come on, the guy's amazing. you all speak of how his tennis gets boring this and that, this and that. to me i have never seen someone hit the ball as amazing as he can. you guys are all just jealous of his ability and say he isn't that good. i am jealous too, but i don't hate him. it is true that his energy is not as big as players of eras before him, but that is what makes him so good. he doesn't go crazy over winning every good point. he stays calm and that is how he succeeds. lets all quit this hi-bi-di-ji-bi-dee talk about federer being good or not and lets just go and watch some tennis.
tennis_hand
Hall of Fame
He's the undisputed world no. 1. Period. All the talk about GOAT is from the media. Media needs this sort of crap ratings, that crap rankings with ex-players to generate that fuzz. Well, it is their job... just as all the **** that you do every day in your job.. just a job that goes by with you every day.
But one thing is clear: Federer has already inscribed his name in the history books, no matter he is going to win another GL or not, although it is almost impossible that he will not.
Whether you are impressed or not is not going to displace him. He does not play for you. What you can do is to shut off your TV and pretend to be deaf.
He does not even know who you are, in fact I doubt any of the top 10 ATP players knows you even if you don't like him.
But one thing is clear: Federer has already inscribed his name in the history books, no matter he is going to win another GL or not, although it is almost impossible that he will not.
Whether you are impressed or not is not going to displace him. He does not play for you. What you can do is to shut off your TV and pretend to be deaf.
He does not even know who you are, in fact I doubt any of the top 10 ATP players knows you even if you don't like him.
andyroddick's mojo
Professional
my god man,
have you not seen federer play?
the ease he puts into his shots, compared to others?
his overall perfect balance?
and his ability to perfectly see the ball, and then rip it with topspin, or flat power?
His miraculous ability to pull a winner from the most difficult positions?
He may not be the best ever, but without a doubt, he is the best NOW!, and could be, the best EVER.
have you not seen federer play?
the ease he puts into his shots, compared to others?
his overall perfect balance?
and his ability to perfectly see the ball, and then rip it with topspin, or flat power?
His miraculous ability to pull a winner from the most difficult positions?
He may not be the best ever, but without a doubt, he is the best NOW!, and could be, the best EVER.
Federer
The "gang": Borg Mac and Jimmy etc all had us on the edge of our seats - they were exciting - a big match was never that predictable - cannot remember a yawn free predictable Wimbldon final in those days - we need a few more charactes in the game - do you ever see anyone smile these days or evoke the emotions that the gang did? As for being one dimensional that is not so - they were constantly adapting their game - wonder if Federer would really be where he is if he had them around now!
The "gang": Borg Mac and Jimmy etc all had us on the edge of our seats - they were exciting - a big match was never that predictable - cannot remember a yawn free predictable Wimbldon final in those days - we need a few more charactes in the game - do you ever see anyone smile these days or evoke the emotions that the gang did? As for being one dimensional that is not so - they were constantly adapting their game - wonder if Federer would really be where he is if he had them around now!
Federer will be a great player in any era. The thing about Federer is that he has really exceptional court sense (or court instinct?). He is able to spot an opening like no others and able to hit good shots to exploit this opening. This is talent. No one can teach this. He is able to maximise his complete and balance game and plays very smart tennis.TennisandMusic said:
Having said that, I agree that an agressive attacking player who can rush Federer will be able to give him a big challenge, but Federer will still be able to hold his ground against any player from any era.
L
laurie
Guest
Agree with Sarpmas.
DashaandSafin
Hall of Fame
To the OP:
Maybe if you stop calling everyone uneducated 12 year olds, you'll get more mature responses.
Maybe if you stop calling everyone uneducated 12 year olds, you'll get more mature responses.
Y
Yoli
Guest
Do you prefer Mozart over Vivaldi, Wagner over Beethoven? Who do you think should be the GOAT of all composers? The Beatles, perhaps? Why do we always have to find the GOAT of everything? Who is better, Gretzky or Orr? Why can we not just enjoy greatness when we see it. There will always be different styles, be it in Tennis or music. Federer is one of a kind…there never has been one like him before, and there will never be another one like him. Just like there will never be another Agassi. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. If someone does not want to watch the Fed play, they do not have to. That is your personal choice. Personally, I love to watch him. He amazes me every time. I also loved Pete Sampras, but I would never try to figure out who was better Roger or Peter. Who cares? I consider myself lucky having seen them both play.
Federer is a great player, no doubt. But I think his lack of any rivals really undermines his greatness. He's never pushed, because most of the top players today are mentally weak. There was a really telling exchange after the US OPen. Andy said something like, "If I lose to him in 8 finals that's fine." And Connors was watching and he got livid, and said, "No, it's not." Connors, after getting his ass kicked by Borg in the 78 Wimbledon final, came off and said "I'll follow that ******* to the ends of the earth." Now you have some like Blake saying, "I don't know what to do to beat him. You have to have your best day and hope he has an off day." People mostly lose to Federer before they even go on the court. No one in the men's game has the passion to win just for winning's sake. Now it's all about the $$$.
I'll also say that the posters here who claim Fed is a great net player and can do it but just doesn't want to make me laugh. Fed is a mid-level volleyer at best. He misses routine volleys in every match. He doesn't go to net because he's not really comfortable up there. A great volleyer is someone like McEnroe, Edberg, or Rafter, who could make your jaw drop with their anticipation and skill. Connors was a better volleyer than Federer as well, and Connors, while good, had nothing on the three I just mentioned. Sampras and Becker also put Fed's volleying skills to shame.
I'll also say that the posters here who claim Fed is a great net player and can do it but just doesn't want to make me laugh. Fed is a mid-level volleyer at best. He misses routine volleys in every match. He doesn't go to net because he's not really comfortable up there. A great volleyer is someone like McEnroe, Edberg, or Rafter, who could make your jaw drop with their anticipation and skill. Connors was a better volleyer than Federer as well, and Connors, while good, had nothing on the three I just mentioned. Sampras and Becker also put Fed's volleying skills to shame.
alfa164164
Professional
Points of agreement:
There is less variety in today's game and therefore less interesting OVERALL.
Personally, there are fewer and fewer players I am interested in watching when I go to a tennis tournament these days.
Federer does not have the attacking player's like Stich, Becker, Krajicek, Edberg, etc. that Sampras had - but that is due to the change in equipment and court surfaces.
Federer is not "leagues" ahead of every one else, he has many close matches, however, he seems to win almost everyone of them - that is incredibly impressive.
Points of disagreement:
Federer is a genius, regardless of era. If you cannot at least see his talent then something is missing.
There is less variety in today's game and therefore less interesting OVERALL.
Personally, there are fewer and fewer players I am interested in watching when I go to a tennis tournament these days.
Federer does not have the attacking player's like Stich, Becker, Krajicek, Edberg, etc. that Sampras had - but that is due to the change in equipment and court surfaces.
Federer is not "leagues" ahead of every one else, he has many close matches, however, he seems to win almost everyone of them - that is incredibly impressive.
Points of disagreement:
Federer is a genius, regardless of era. If you cannot at least see his talent then something is missing.
I do see T+M's point, but at least for me, I've felt that way since the mid-90s. I'd love to have seen Agassi and Sampras play in the wooden racket era. Agassi taking balls on the rise with a wooden racket would have been a lot of fun to watch.
But every generation since the late 80s have said that the racket technology has ruined tennis. It has at least help changed or even define a style of game for each era. And, so, not only is it difficult to compare era, it's also difficult to enjoy one era equally with others.
Federer is in a unique situation, because he's simultaneously the best ball striker and one of the best pure defensive players of his generation. That combination does transcend era.
But every generation since the late 80s have said that the racket technology has ruined tennis. It has at least help changed or even define a style of game for each era. And, so, not only is it difficult to compare era, it's also difficult to enjoy one era equally with others.
Federer is in a unique situation, because he's simultaneously the best ball striker and one of the best pure defensive players of his generation. That combination does transcend era.
BigServer1
Legend
TennisandMusic said:
i think that you and anointedone could have a long conversation about how unimpressive federer is.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
I see you guys have been keeping the trolls - aka the OP - well fed while I was gone...
So it's Fed's fault that Safin is a head case? That Team Roddick didn't teach him to hit a decent backhand, to volley? And both could be better if they'd cut back on the skirt chasing and get in better shape? All Fed's fault? If Goran hadn't been such a nutjob maybe Sampras only gets 1 or 2 Wimby's? Philippoussis blows up his knee up a set and a break - if his knee holds up maybe he wins the match and owns Sampras and Wimby from then on? Who know? But more importantly, who cares? But if you're going to go that way then I'd say the depth of the men's game is even better than it was 15 yrs ago - top seeds have to be more careful no to get clipped in a 1st or 2nd round match - think Dr. Ivo serving Hewitt, the defending champ off Center Court at Wimby or Gilles Muller getting 3 tiebreakers off Roddick in the 1st round of the US Open.
You play who the tournament director tells you to.Arafel said:
So it's Fed's fault that Safin is a head case? That Team Roddick didn't teach him to hit a decent backhand, to volley? And both could be better if they'd cut back on the skirt chasing and get in better shape? All Fed's fault? If Goran hadn't been such a nutjob maybe Sampras only gets 1 or 2 Wimby's? Philippoussis blows up his knee up a set and a break - if his knee holds up maybe he wins the match and owns Sampras and Wimby from then on? Who know? But more importantly, who cares? But if you're going to go that way then I'd say the depth of the men's game is even better than it was 15 yrs ago - top seeds have to be more careful no to get clipped in a 1st or 2nd round match - think Dr. Ivo serving Hewitt, the defending champ off Center Court at Wimby or Gilles Muller getting 3 tiebreakers off Roddick in the 1st round of the US Open.
Rickson
G.O.A.T.
Federer is a good volleyer, but he doesn't use true approach shots. True volleyers set up their volleys with deep, low bouncing approach shots, but Federer comes to net as an insurance policy after he hits a would be winner or a powerful forehand. If Federer would hit more true approach shots, which he does once in a while when he comes to net following his backhand slice, he'll become more proficient at the net, but if he continues to come forward as an insurance policy, he'll never be considered a true volleyer.Arafel said:
prosealster
Professional
West Coast Ace said:
agree
Steve Huff
G.O.A.T.
I've never had the priviledge to play him. But, I read about him in magazines, watch him play on TV, and hear what other players have to say about him. He acts like a gentleman on the court too. I'm pretty impressed so far.
Now, what was your name, I didn't catch it? I probably haven't seen it anyway, and most assuredly haven't heard other top players raving about how good you are. I'm not, and probably won't be any time soon, impressed by your results. I know, you probably have the game to beat Fed, but I want to read about it happening or actually see it happen before I tell you how impressed I am with your game.
Actually, about anyone that makes it to the top 100 in tennis, I'm pretty impressed with. They have game. Being #1--they have a LOT of game.
Now, what was your name, I didn't catch it? I probably haven't seen it anyway, and most assuredly haven't heard other top players raving about how good you are. I'm not, and probably won't be any time soon, impressed by your results. I know, you probably have the game to beat Fed, but I want to read about it happening or actually see it happen before I tell you how impressed I am with your game.
Actually, about anyone that makes it to the top 100 in tennis, I'm pretty impressed with. They have game. Being #1--they have a LOT of game.
FedFan_2007
Banned
Yeah there's truly nothing impressive about this Federer guy. Weak forehand, backhand, serve, poor movement, sloppy footwork. I mean how the hell with all that lack of talent does the guy manage to win 9 slams? Please, someone TELL ME!!!!
Punisha
Professional
i cant believe u dont think federer is brilliant...
u must be a 1.5 level player or something
at the speed the pros hit the ball... probably fast as or faster than your serve on rallying strokes, what he does is amazing.
The shots he pulls of time and time again, i mean look at all the other pros now days... u may get the occasional amazing shot but with federer its consistant. Anyone see the footage of him hitting a smash winner on the run off roddicks smash. The around the net post in the AO, through the legs at USO... god knows how many times hes hit shots like this. Check youtube man, he hits more of these amazing shots than all other pros together. He is miles ahead of nadal in this sense that nadals most amazing rallies are whre he just chases the ball around like a stupid dog for ever. Where as federer gets to the first ball and hits a winner.
Talent is something you have to respect, especially when you prolly just play old man hack tennis. Have you realised hes hitting top spin yet?
Anyway the only time you would see Sampras hit an amazing shot was that running forehand or a volley. That was all he had compared to federer who can do anything...
u must be a 1.5 level player or something
at the speed the pros hit the ball... probably fast as or faster than your serve on rallying strokes, what he does is amazing.
The shots he pulls of time and time again, i mean look at all the other pros now days... u may get the occasional amazing shot but with federer its consistant. Anyone see the footage of him hitting a smash winner on the run off roddicks smash. The around the net post in the AO, through the legs at USO... god knows how many times hes hit shots like this. Check youtube man, he hits more of these amazing shots than all other pros together. He is miles ahead of nadal in this sense that nadals most amazing rallies are whre he just chases the ball around like a stupid dog for ever. Where as federer gets to the first ball and hits a winner.
Talent is something you have to respect, especially when you prolly just play old man hack tennis. Have you realised hes hitting top spin yet?
Anyway the only time you would see Sampras hit an amazing shot was that running forehand or a volley. That was all he had compared to federer who can do anything...
even though i get bored with federer's constant wins, the guy is brilliant. just because you play 4 to 5 days a week and you have been around several decades and watched "tennis dvds", doesnt exactly make you the expert on quality tennis. i mean, there are a lot of great and talented players out on tour right now, and fed can come out sick/tired and still beat them. he has so many creative tools and weapons.
crazylevity
Hall of Fame
I've just read thru all 6 pages of this thread, and the OP left at page 2. Haha.
bluegrasser
Hall of Fame
TennisandMusic said:
Ok, I'll chime in. I started playing in the mid 70's and saw many great players live, as well as on the tube. The reason Federer is so great is, he has the ability to change his game to beat you - how ? by changing speeds, mixing it up by hitting angles, coming to the net, slice, top, he has all the shots and he's thinking out there, not just bashing away.
IMO, the only players that would give Federer trouble would be - Sampras, maybe Laver with the right equipment. I do agree with you that the game is different with the increase in power and all, and many players just bash away, and it does make for bad TV viewing, but Federer is different and interesting to watch.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
TennisandMusic said:
Outright lie. Agassi smoked Sampras from the baseline, even in matches he lost to Sampras, and that is a fact I have already proven with statistics in another thread.
People get delusional about Sampras. The guy was not very consistent from the baseline.
35ft6
Legend
This topic reminds me of a thread I saw at another board titled "worst film directors." A few people posted "Steven Spielberg." I guess that's one way of tricking simple minded people that you're smart, by going completely against the obvious. I happen to think Shaq is very very short, but I'm a genius like that.
drakulie said:
You must be remembering Sampras of after he got herniated disc.
He lost the edge in his ground game after that.
As Agassi said he started to play more in the middle after that.
Agassi surely had better ground game than Sampras' but Sampras
is no sluch in that departments. I own every single matches between
Sampras and Agassi on tapes. Actually they show true color of both
players. Agassi the best returnner in history. Sampras the beaseliner
with the best serve in history. Sampras' volleys do not really work
against Agassi. In fact, no serve and volleyer can win against Agassi
as Fred Stolle once said. Sampras won against Agassi with serves
and baseline points...
Sampras was a baseliner who did a helluva acting job as a serve-and volleyer
at Wimbledon.
Roger is Boring
Rookie
TennisandMusic said:
I 100% agree with you. federer is dominating only because this is such a weak era of talent.Thankfully there is NADAL who can stop him and make tennis interesting again!
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
fastdunn said:
Interesting. A little bit of an overstatement, but I totally see your point. Re: the way he took down Agassi, I agree 100%. It was with unrelenting serve pressure and risk-taking from the baseline and midcourt. And some of the searing backhand down the lines stood out for me, too, since Pete was not known for his BH. The times Agassi beat Pete, it was when Pete's baseline game was not white-hot.
Yeah, a key thing is that Agassi's grinding style is to make the guy move back and forth. Problem is, you don't want to make Sampras move to his right. Ever.
With that being said, I think Drakulie pulled out stats where even in games where Sampras won, Agassi had more winners and less errors on groundstrokes. But obviously the margin wasn't wide enough to overcome Sampras's service numbers.
With that being said, I think Drakulie pulled out stats where even in games where Sampras won, Agassi had more winners and less errors on groundstrokes. But obviously the margin wasn't wide enough to overcome Sampras's service numbers.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Jean-Luc Godard thinks Spielberg is a bad director. I don't agree, but he certainly isn't trying to make anyone think he's smart.
edmondsm
Legend
I think its silly to think that the entire tennis world has fallen and one guy has benefited from it. Why is it so hard to believe that the guy was just born with and/or developed things like superior hand-to-eye coordination, lateral movement, ice-water for blood, the wickedest forehand ever seen, unreadable serve. I agree that the era of big attacking tennis is gone because its just to easy to beat that game from the baseline and Fed just happens to be the best from there.
By the way, I've seen old videos of Borg, Conners, McEnroe and I don't see what is so superior about that era compared to the current. You have a classic case of the desire for parody, it's just not gonna happen for a while. If Federer had never been born and Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Nadal were splitting the slams up then you'd be interested. But as is you're going to stop watching tennis and the sport will have one less fairweather fan.
By the way, I've seen old videos of Borg, Conners, McEnroe and I don't see what is so superior about that era compared to the current. You have a classic case of the desire for parody, it's just not gonna happen for a while. If Federer had never been born and Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Nadal were splitting the slams up then you'd be interested. But as is you're going to stop watching tennis and the sport will have one less fairweather fan.
javier sergio
Professional
Have you ever played tennis??????
TennisandMusic said:
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
I'm with you. I wouldn't waste any more time researching it - they won't accept it. They'll cite injuries - the herniated disc (which he had, completely recovered from, and came back - it didn't linger, magically only affecting his groundies and not his serve - if he hadn't completely recuperated he would have been forced to retire - or his serve would have been affected too. Then there's the blood-iron deficiency - which only was brought up late in his career when he started getting beaten - sad.drakulie said:
The Sampras kool aid drinkers are in denial about how mediocre Sampras would have been if he'd had a serve comparable to Chang, Courier or Agassi. Easy to go for winners with a running forehand when you know you have your serve to fall back on.
I also include the return of serve with groundstrokes. And Sampras was not a good returner. Ever.
Anyway.....back to the original discussion....It seems to me that the surest way to tell whether or not a player is good, not only in his generation, but in relation to other generations, is to hear what previous players say about them. For example, Johnny Mac, Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, Jimmy Connors, Andre Agassi, Cliff Drysdale, etc. have all said on the record that they think that if Federer isn't already the best player ever, he's well on his way. Of course Sampras didn't say unequivocally that Federer is the GOAT, but he has said on numerous occasions that he thinks that he's definately in the running.
The fact that great players from other generations (including the present one of course) have said that Federer is one of the best of all time should settle the argument.
The fact that great players from other generations (including the present one of course) have said that Federer is one of the best of all time should settle the argument.
slice bh compliment said:
The "acting job" comment wasn't my original. I think Mary carillo
refered it as someone else's quote. I personally think it best describes
Sampras' game.
slice bh compliment said:
Yep. Not many people know this. Agassi obviously won more baseline
points well becasue he should. But Sampras couldn't really Serve-AND-volley
as effectively as with others. He basically went for two 1st serves and
exploit Agassi's lateral movements with explosive groundies...
Agassi won more rallies but Sampras went aggressive on groundies
on key points like break points...
Dark Victory
Rookie
I don't think that highly of Federer's competition and I'd personally pick Pete to beat him head-to-head in a prime-for-prime match up. But to say that Federer isn't the least bit impressive is, simply idiotic.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
fastdunn said:
I'm not "remembering" anything. You are "remembering" a total falsehood.
I purposely picked matches that Sampras won, in order to prove he could not beat Agassi from the baseline, and his ground game was not as "good" as people like you would like to "remember".
I sat there and watched 11 total Sampras mathces between the years of 1993 to 2001, and then posted the statistics for all to see.
In NONE of them did he win the ground war. NONE. His ground game was filled with errors on both the forehand and backhand side, with limited winners compared to error ratio. Here is the link.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=123073&page=20&highlight=sampras+ground+game
fastdunn said:
Guess you have never put them to use and actually seen them.
fastdunn said:
This is geting more ridiculous. The reason Sampras was able to beat Agassi is precisely because of his net game, and the Best Serve in History.
Maybe you could invite Fred Stolle to your house to break in those matches you have on tape.
fastdunn said:
LOL
haerdalis
Hall of Fame
Sampras used his serve and volley game to hold serve 9 times out of 10 and his ground game to break 1 out of 5. I seriously doubt Sampras would see himself as better than Agassi off the ground, why else would he chip and charge and hit attacking shots?
I totally agree that it is very unlikely with the number of pro's in todays game that the standard is at an alltime low. More likely that Federer is exceptional and it sure looks that way. The one thing working in his favour is the lack of contrasting styles that todays tennis has brought on.
I totally agree that it is very unlikely with the number of pro's in todays game that the standard is at an alltime low. More likely that Federer is exceptional and it sure looks that way. The one thing working in his favour is the lack of contrasting styles that todays tennis has brought on.
Robbie_1988
Semi-Pro
My answer to the question that is this thread's name: Yes
