Am I the only one not impressed by Federer?

[flying24]

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 dont agree with you. I dont think Federer is the best volleyer ever, but I do think he is a very good volleyer, and easily better then Connors as a volleyer.

 

[35ft6]

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.

No way. Those guys don't know what they're talking about. I'd rather listen to a 4.0 player on this message board.:mrgreen:

 

[35ft6]

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.

I know he's blamed Spielberg for a lot of things, but I doubt if you asked him "is Spielberg a bad director" he would give an unequivocal "yes." Spielberg is his windmill. I think Godard feels a lot of bitterness, and I also think he's got some legitimate reasons for despising how Hollywood operates, but it's strange how he's displaced all his frustrations onto Spielberg.

 

[CanadianChic]

The only thing I will contribute is this - the Federer forehand, the Federer serve, the Federer first return volley - blah, blah, blah. The man is amazing!! Not only does he make the sport appear effortless (you're hard-pressed to see this man break into a sweat or lose his cool at the ref's, his opponents, his raquet, the crowd, etc.), but he always seems to be doing something worthwhile on his off-time.
Really guys, tennis is a great sport, but really it is not heroism in it's true form. No cures for diseases, no new life saving surgery equipment here - how many players can stand up and say "hey, I saved a life today, what did you order for lunch?" Not that tennis is not worthwhile, it is for the entertainment value, yet at the end of the day, how many players can honestly look at their achievements with pride? Not the stats or the quotes or the bio in the latest issue of SI, but honest "I can sleep well at night kind of integrity?"
The one thing I will say for the man, regardless of his play, his constant comparisons to Sampras ad nauseum, etc., - the guy has class. He has taken it upon himself to speak many languages so as not to disingratiate himself to foreign dignitaries, people and customs, he treats his girlfriend with respect, and he conducts himself with a higher standard of excellence. He gives of his time and money so generously and not all players can say that as they're paying their hired help minimum wages to keep their car collections in ship shape. No need to mention names on that one. LOL I'm not saying that Federer hasn't accrued his own vast collection or that material wealth is not important to him. He simply stands a little taller than the rest of them on the pedestal of role models. I say hats off to Federer, and although he's certainly not my favourite, I will always pay him due respect. CC

 

[Deleted member 6835]

I want real reasoning not responses like "you're an idiot" or "you must not play much."

but those responses are the TRUTH

 

[TennezSport]

Wait

Then there's the blood-iron deficiency - which only was brought up late in his career when he started getting beaten - sad.

No matter what you think of Pete the blood issue is very real for him. He has always had it and his father has the same issue. This is a very well documented blood disorder that is inherited with people of Greek descent. Pete fought hard all his tennis life to keep that out of the news as he thought it would give his oppenents a weapon against him. It's also why he looked like he was tanking at times. Where do you think the "Pete is just laying low till the 4 all score and then he strikes" comment came from. Pete had to properly manage the problem. This to me, adds to his ability to dominate his generation.

TS

 

[Moose Malloy]

Then there's the blood-iron deficiency - which only was brought up late in his career when he started getting beaten - sad

The news of his anemia only broke after the 1996 US Open(Corretja match) Sampras was not pleased & refused to talk to the writer of the article from then on. He didn't want anyone to know(most athletes don't want their competitors to know about their weakness)
Anytime it was brought up in a press conference, he quickly dismissed it, saying it was not a factor at all.

Just watching the guy, you could tell there was something wrong with him. He always had a physical trainer(Pat Etcheberry was one of the hardest trainers around) so you know he was in great shape(no body fat, pretty defined for a tennis player)
That he looked like he was about to die on court so many times, even in matches that weren't that long or played in particularly hot conditions, showed that it was a factor in his career.

 

[superman1]

It definitely was a factor. It explains why sometimes if he was down in a match, he would just give up the final set. I'm thinking AO 2000 SF against Agassi and 2001 Indian Wells final against Agassi. He just had nothing left.

 

[flyboy1]

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.

You mean like when Roger beat Pete at Wimbledon