Federer: Becker and Lendl would've killed him.

BigboyDan

Semi-Pro
And Sampras, in his prime, 7 out of 10 times. Today is the first time that I've seen Federer play a match, before just highlights. Average serve, no real speed; can't serve and volley. No real backhand volley. No real weapon off his backhand period; especially exploited when he goes into the doubles lane. Has no overhead winner. He's quick but not fast from side-to-side. Loses confidence in certain shots; indecisive at times; can be overpowered by opponents groundstrokes. Man, I feel had by posters here.

Men's tennis has fallen if he's currently the best...
 
Watching him today I can see why you feel that way. If today was how he ever played I would agree. Today is not the real Roger though, it is a 60% Roger at best.
 

Grimjack

Banned
BigboyDan said:
Today is the first time that I've seen Federer play a match, before just highlights.
That's all you needed to say. Most days for the past 2 years, he's been nothing but highlights.

Ever see Becker on an off day? There wasn't a more miserable pro player on the planet. When his head got out of his game, he could string together runs of unforced errors that would make a Williams sister blush.
 
S

splink779

Guest
I would not make any statements after seeing him only once. He played crappy today, but still pulled it off, a true testament to greatness.
 

Nyl

Rookie
wow, for the past 2-3 years u'vent seen roger played a match ? that's impressive

yes, indeed he played a crappy match at the beginning, but he mixed up his shots pretty well since the third set. the stats pretty much says how well he is. if one is still skeptical about his ability... wut about his winning streak against agassi ? go read agassi's comment on federer n u'll understand what a player he is.
 

Chadwixx

Banned
i guess the ability to win on a bad day only impresses those who play tennis.

btw he beat sampras on sampras's best surface as a tennager. go back and watch the match, he actually played better today.
 

foetz

Rookie
IMO federer-agassi was the best match i've seen for quite a long time.
the final today was not at this level by far.
 

ShooterMcMarco

Hall of Fame
you forget to remember that fed hasn't played a lefty (especially one as talented as nadal) for a long time. he had to get used to the way the ball spun. even though it almost cost him the match, making the adjustment was just what he needed to pull the match out. i've never seen fed hit so many unforced errors before, so many rim shots and mishits. nadal played great and almost won in straights.
 

tom-selleck

Professional
BigboyDan said:
And Sampras, in his prime, 7 out of 10 times. Today is the first time that I've seen Federer play a match, before just highlights. Average serve, no real speed; can't serve and volley. No real backhand volley. No real weapon off his backhand period; especially exploited when he goes into the doubles lane. Has no overhead winner. He's quick but not fast from side-to-side. Loses confidence in certain shots; indecisive at times; can be overpowered by opponents groundstrokes. Man, I feel had by posters here.

Men's tennis has fallen if he's currently the best...
can i have the last 90 seconds of my life back??? you've never seen him play and you start this thread..... have you seen sampras or lendl or becker play either?
 

Type40

Semi-Pro
Federer's come back today was a mark of greatness, however, it hoswed that he can be vulnerable to a very good lefty, and maybe he hasn't had to face too many of those.
I think McEnroe would have given Federer nightmares.
Had it been a 3 setter today, Fed would have lost, that must be on his mind tonight.
 

BigboyDan

Semi-Pro
tom-selleck said:
... have you seen sampras or lendl or becker play either?
Yes. I was AT Wimbledon (North baseline 25 rows up) in 1985 when an 18 year-old Becker won it. I've seen Lendl (Sampras and Becker too) play many dozens of times in person and on television. Until today what I've seen of Federer has been on television highlights; today is the first time that I have seen him over a full match from start to finish.

And, I play tennis five days a week as the tennis director at our club.
 

tom-selleck

Professional
BigboyDan said:
Yes. I was AT Wimbledon (North baseline 25 rows up) in 1985 when an 18 year-old Becker won it. I've seen Lendl (Sampras and Becker too) play many dozens of times in person and on television. Until today what I've seen of Federer has been on television highlights; today is the first time that I have seen him over a full match from start to finish.

And, I play tennis five days a week as the tennis director at our club.
sorry if i was a little harsh, but that was federer's weakest play i've seen in two years.... guy hasn't lost a final in a year and a half or something and has lost one match (he had a match point though) since the olympics last year.... try to get a tape of federer vs. agassi from friday night OR federer vs. hewitt from palm springs two weeks ago, unbelievable stuff.......... i think federer had huge trouble with lefty and foot blisters today.

i think he would kill sampras/lendl/becker at the US Open... becker at wimbledon would be interesting, but haven't they changed the balls since then cause becker's aces used to go into stands and it's something i never see anymore.
 
You should watch Fed-Roddick and Fed-Flipper from Wimbledon 2003, or Fed-Hewitt at USO 2004.

Federer would eat Lendl alive.
 

|SLICER|

New User
lol

Fed is very fast shifting on the baseline, has a great serve game, has a killer BH passing shot.

This was a terrible outing for Fed, and he prolly would have lost had he been playing one of the big 3 behind him.

I don't see anything wrong with mens tennis aside from the constant injuries striking the top 20.
 

finchy

Professional
BigboyDan said:
And Sampras, in his prime, 7 out of 10 times. Today is the first time that I've seen Federer play a match, before just highlights. Average serve, no real speed; can't serve and volley. No real backhand volley. No real weapon off his backhand period; especially exploited when he goes into the doubles lane. Has no overhead winner. He's quick but not fast from side-to-side. Loses confidence in certain shots; indecisive at times; can be overpowered by opponents groundstrokes. Man, I feel had by posters here.

Men's tennis has fallen if he's currently the best...
well if this is only the first time you have seen him play, then you dont even have the right to say that he sucks. this was far from his best, and he still won the final, i think thats alot in itself.

why dont you watch some more of his matches and THEN come post what you think about him. i surely wasted 3 minutes of my life reading this post....
 

BigboyDan

Semi-Pro
Reading comprehension: I never said that "he sucks". It's just that Federer simply does NOT have certain shots; it's like a scouting report, I saw what I saw. Heck, I hope that he wins the Gran Slam.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
prince said:
maybe you need to switch to golf .
Excellent. Or bowling or lawn darts.

BigBoy: as director of tennis aren't you doing a lot of PR and marketing? You're not evaluation players games are you? And sitting in the crowd at Wimby doesn't make you an expert. I've been to 3 of the 4 Slams and the season ending Master Cup in Sydney in 2000 - all that means is I'm a fan of the game and blessed that I make enough money to be able to travel. I know tennis because I play to a 4.5. What's our ranking?

You watched one match, came to this board and started spouting off. You're pretty much getting what you deserve. Like Jim Rome's (the sports radio guru) website says "just because you can hit the 'Send' key doesn't mean you should."
 

BigboyDan

Semi-Pro
Wow! A lot of posters here feel that they have the right to tell others what to do.

The fact that a middle-aged Agassi can still hang with the best in the world at a Masters event should tell you something. I mean, if Federer and a bunch of Eurotrash rugrats are currently the best... sheesh.

And, why DO they get injured so much?
 

Fedubai

Semi-Pro
You need to watch Federer-Hewitt at the US Open last year. For whatever reason (we all have different opinions on it) he wasn't at his best. Nadal has something to do with that, I think it's safe to say.

I wouldn't just judge him on one match...
 

Marius_Hancu

Talk Tennis Guru
foetz said:
IMO federer-agassi was the best match i've seen for quite a long time.
This wasn't the best match between them won by Fed. That's the Master's Cup 2003, Round Robin. The last one pales in comparison with that one in all respects.
 

Coria

Banned
Big Boy hasn't been paying attention very well. Federer was not on his game the first two and one half sets. This guy has a better all around game than any player I've ever seen.
 

Fedubai

Semi-Pro
I just read on TennisWeek that Federer made only 18 of his 71 UE's in the final two sets...so in the first 3 sets, that's 53 UE's...wow.
 

Brettolius

Professional
how about this then, tennis director- i don't believe you. play five days a week, director at a club, undoubtedly then kids are coming up to you, show me how to hit a bh like fed, show me fed's forehand. if this is the first time you've seen fed play, then you are like your post- completely out of touch. which shouldn't be the case, tennis director, pwah. maybe you need to climb out of 1986. perhaps even read some quoted mac and your boy becker have said about the fed.

after typing all that, i realized you were successful, troll.
 

BigboyDan

Semi-Pro
Brettolius,

Learn to speak English, learn to read English.

There are no children at my club - eighteen and over. I stopped watching professional tennis around 1990 or so, only caught today's match because I couldn't play (I'm home sick with a mild fever.)

Federer has several professional weaknesses in his game, someone should be able to exploit them. Then again, if Nadal is representative of what his competition is...
 

Fedubai

Semi-Pro
Wow...you are judging him on one match? I've watched a lot of Federer, sir, and let me tell you--if you think that's his best tennis, you haven't watched him enough. Can't believe you are tuning in on this conversation after having watched only one of his matches...
 

donnyz89

Hall of Fame
Pre, or post, wood racquets?

John would have held serve, and then when receiving Federer, he would wait for that one shot, on that one point, in that one game, and break. In the "old days" winning 6-4 was expected, as at that time adult men were expected to hold their serves.
thats from another thread, from bigboydan, i think he just is having trouble accepting the tennis of today.
 

Brettolius

Professional
dude, you are nothing but a troll. over the age of 18 only...what's the name of this place, big boy? you're so full of crap. read my english there? several professional weaknesses huh? bigboydan is just the man to exploit them, thank god you know, 'cause the rest of the atp can't figure it out. call up andre, i'm sure he'd love to know.
 

donnyz89

Hall of Fame
He must be some 40 yr old guy that tried tennis in his past and failed miserabily and now he is just sitting on his ass all day complaining about todays pro tennis, he must feel like even he can win a grand slam today.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
BigboyDan said:
Wow! A lot of posters here feel that they have the right to tell others what to do.

The fact that a middle-aged Agassi can still hang with the best in the world at a Masters event should tell you something. I mean, if Federer and a bunch of Eurotrash rugrats are currently the best... sheesh.

And, why DO they get injured so much?
BigBoy, now you're just embarrassing yourself - time to quit. You call them 'Eurotrash'? I hope you don't get insulted if I call you a TEXAS HILLBILLY! Thanks for perpetuating the myth of the jingoistic American sports fan. Have you been hanging around with that twit who promotes the tournaments over in Houston.

Then in another post you admit that you haven't been watching since 1990. Why don't you just start every sentence with "I have No Frame of Reference but..." Sad.

An even older Jimmy Conners could 'hang' with players 15 yrs younger than him. That didn't give anyone a reason to disparage an entire generation of players. Andre is a rarity - he has incredible physical and mental fitness and bolstered his serve. And he still has the best return of serve in the game.
 

katarddx

Semi-Pro
BigboyDan said:
And Sampras, in his prime, 7 out of 10 times. Today is the first time that I've seen Federer play a match, before just highlights. Average serve, no real speed; can't serve and volley. No real backhand volley. No real weapon off his backhand period; especially exploited when he goes into the doubles lane. Has no overhead winner. He's quick but not fast from side-to-side. Loses confidence in certain shots; indecisive at times; can be overpowered by opponents groundstrokes. Man, I feel had by posters here.

Men's tennis has fallen if he's currently the best...
You are kidding, right?
 

donnyz89

Hall of Fame
bigboydan... unless you were some kind of super tennis prodigy in the past and some kind of sickness stopped u from taking over the tennis world then i suggest you stop trashing tennis because its completely redicules, but i guess I can understand this coming from someone who supposedly spend so much time on tennis but have no time to watch any.
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
I think you posters shold stop making fun of this guy.

I have heard he is actually a somewhat reputable pro and Club Director at the Central Idaho Tennis Academy for Deaf and Blind Children of the 80s.
 

Fedubai

Semi-Pro
Let me be clear: I am not making fun of him. I would never do that...I'm just talking about his quick judgment of Federer. It's nothing personal. Just saying it's a little quick. He's basically trashing Federer's game after one match.
 

Grimjack

Banned
Shaolin said:
I think you posters shold stop making fun of this guy.

I have heard he is actually a somewhat reputable pro and Club Director at the Central Idaho Tennis Academy for Deaf and Blind Children of the 80s.
Poor kids who never knew the joy of a Duran Duran video.
 

larrhall

Semi-Pro
Funny thread. In absolute terms Federer shines above the players mentioned. Becker was erratic beyond belief. Lendl was a pure pattern player, incredibly fit and skilled, but without imagination. To have a chance against Fed you must have talent, skill, confidence, weapons and imagination. I remember he once described JC Ferrero as having a 'simple' game. Of course Ferrero has a great game, but what Federer appeared to mean was 'he plays patterns; I'll vary my game and pull him out of his comfort zone.'

What does Fed have, besides a quick brain that lets him analyze and adjust while grasping his opponent's approach early on?

1. Amazing speed
2. A stupendous forehand
3. A reliable, powerful backhand (topspin) with immense variety (underspin) and the ability to half-volley it (as Drysdale said). Never has been another player who could half-volley a one-handed backhand with all different angles and paces...never;
4. A consistent, pinpoint serve
5. the ability to ace opponents on demand
6. Great defense (see speed)
7. The ability to invent shots
8. Extremely strong wrists (see John McEnroe)
9. Great form on most volleys, a bit erratic
10. Reservoirs of confidence.

Other than that, he's just an average player...
 

joeman957

Rookie
Just ignore BigboyDan, ignorant opinions shouldn't be taken seriously. I suggest that Dan should watch Federer more than ONCE before making a thread like this.
 

Grimjack

Banned
Brettolius said:
i will say it again. you are a troll.
At least "disgruntled old guy disgusted with the sorry state of the game" is good bait. I like his shtick. I can dance to it. I give it an 89.
 

Chadwixx

Banned
ppl have to remember federer is in the middle of a great streak. not every match in a 80-1 streak is gonna be great. to fight it out like fed did was an accomplisment in it self. im sure after he loses a match or two he will put together a perfect match again.

its not really bigboydans fault he hasnt seen much of federer, after all he lives in the usa where they dont show many non american matches, unless ur lucky enough to have the tennis channel.
 

BigboyDan

Semi-Pro
Chadwixx said:
...its not really bigboydans fault he hasnt seen much of federer, after all he lives in the usa where they dont show many non american matches, unless ur lucky enough to have the tennis channel.
This is completely true. Today's match was the first final of any ATP event on an American broadcast network since the 2004 US Open. I've seen many highlights of Federer, usually him making great shots during a routine win. What I saw today did not impress me overly, Nadal should have won in three if not four; I will make an effort to watch Federer at Wimbledon, though... if I wake up early enough... or don't have a game myself...
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
BigboyDan said:
Funny how many here are willing to insult other posters for their opinions; you're violating the Terms of Service, kids.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=18225

Federer's game weaknesses are there to be seen by anyone, easily seen in today's five-set match. That fact that he evidently wins with those weaknesses is the point.
I'm sorry if you're insulted that we're pointing out that you come here, admit you don't know much about the current state of the men's pro game, and make a bunch of broadbrush generalizations about the game and today's best player after watching ONE MATCH. Maybe you suffer from some thin skin disease. In which case, participating on an internet message board is probably not a good idea.

You and Johnny Mac can bray at the moon all you want about the return of wood - it's still not going to happen.

Maybe you'd be better off starting your own message board to hark back to the Good Old Days. I enjoyed the tennis of the 80's - and 70's too - but they're gone. Today's game is what we have - if you don't like it, move on. Good luck to you and your club.
 

Phil

Hall of Fame
These who-would-beat-who-in-some-other-era threads are somewhat absurd, but they basically fill out the pro player discussion section, so...I'll bite. Federer would have beaten Becker 8 of 10 times, with Becker taking out a pistol during the changeover of the 11th match and putting himself out of his own misery. Federer would have beaten Lendl 8 of 10 times, but Lendl wasn't the suicidal type, so he would ask for an 11th match and a chance to "even" the score at 27%. Federer would have beaten Pete Sampras (the #1 Pete, not the guy Federer beat at Wimby) in 2001 MAYBE 4 out of 10 times. You can figure out why.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Well said Phil. Becker definitely had too much success too soon. He'd never dig in and win a match like RF pulled out today. Lendl's game was too repetitive - RF would have stredded him - you might be a little charitable saying he'd get 2 - more like 1. Sampras could be 4, 5, or 6. RF returns Roddick's serve very well. He might do better with Pete's serve than you think. In which case it would be tough sledding for Pete. And we may not be seeing the best of RF yet - his net game could still get better. Time will tell. And all of us, except BigDan who saw his ONE MATCH and now knows all, will enjoy watching RF's game in the future.
 

Marius_Hancu

Talk Tennis Guru
West Coast Ace said:
Well said Phil. Becker definitely had too much success too soon. He'd never dig in and win a match like RF pulled out today.
Simply false.

GER V USA WGPO, Carpet, RR
1987, Becker b. McEnroe
4-6 15-13 8-10 6-2 6-2
in a match which lasted over 6hrs.
 

VictorS.

Professional
West Coast Ace said:
Well said Phil. Becker definitely had too much success too soon. He'd never dig in and win a match like RF pulled out today. Lendl's game was too repetitive - RF would have stredded him - you might be a little charitable saying he'd get 2 - more like 1. Sampras could be 4, 5, or 6. RF returns Roddick's serve very well. He might do better with Pete's serve than you think. In which case it would be tough sledding for Pete. And we may not be seeing the best of RF yet - his net game could still get better. Time will tell. And all of us, except BigDan who saw his ONE MATCH and now knows all, will enjoy watching RF's game in the future.

I disagree. Lendl was a machine. But he had so much power behind his groundstrokes. Have you noticed how a guy like Ljubicic is giving Federer some problems? Lendl's backhand was just as good and his forehand is definitely on a similar level as Federer's. Federer is without a doubt a more natural player, but I think Lendl would easily be the second best player right now in the world if he were to play today.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
BigboyDan said:
And Sampras, in his prime, 7 out of 10 times. Today is the first time that I've seen Federer play a match, before just highlights. Average serve, no real speed; can't serve and volley. No real backhand volley. No real weapon off his backhand period; especially exploited when he goes into the doubles lane. Has no overhead winner. He's quick but not fast from side-to-side. Loses confidence in certain shots; indecisive at times; can be overpowered by opponents groundstrokes. Man, I feel had by posters here.

Men's tennis has fallen if he's currently the best...
All I can say is what's stated below in my sig.

I've been watching tennis for 30 years and Federer is the most amazing player I have EVER seen. He seems to be able to hit any shot from anywhere on the court. Truly phenomenal. I think he would have destroyed Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Vilas - you name it.
 
Top