Federer CLEARLY the greatest ever now!

FO Conspiracy.........

In an intense investigation by the ITF, it was recently discovered that there indeed was a conspiracy at the FFT and the FO organizers against Nadal at this years FO.

It seems that the plot began to take shape after this year’s Australian Open when Federer broke down at the ceremony. The FFT, whose members still remember the Spanish Inquisition, decided that Nadal should not win the FO this year and want to make sure that Fed made history at Nadals best tournament.

Special arrangements were made with Soderling and instructions were reportedly delivered to Soderling in the best way to defeat Nadal. To guarantee success, wind vents were placed at strategic points around court Chatrier to always blow in Nadals face and remove the top surface on his side of the court as this made the court play more like a HC on Rafa's side. The balls were also specially selected to be lighter when Nadal hit them to make control more difficult for him.

Additionally, it was also reported that while in Madrid Ninjas were hired to enter Nadal’s room and night and perform acupuncture on his knees to inflame his chronic patella tendonitis without his knowledge. Rafa did mention on several occasions of having vivid dreams of masked men with RF logos chasing him on the terre bateau.

(NOTE: For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, this article was a sarcastic joke) Congrats to Fed; history has another great chapter.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:
 
boredone3456 said:
Lol you are truly funny...Fed has lost 5 slam finals as has already been pointed out to you.

I already admitted it was 5, not 3. Do you read the whole thread?

He has lost in slam competition to Safin, Djokovic and Ancic as well. so thats 4 guys including Nadal unless I am counting incorrectly? Not to mention being taken the full ride by guys like Haas, Berdych, Del Potro...its not like Fed has steamrolled everyone with bagels, he is not immortal you know.

Never said Federer was "immortal". Did you mention that Fed was 19 or 20when he lost to Ancic? Did you mention that he lost 7-5 in the FIFTH set to Safin in Aussie semis--who went on to win the Australian? did you mention that DelPotro is considered to be among the top 3-4 clay courters in the world now?


As for Laver, are you seriously suggesting that Rosewall, Emerson, and Newcombe are worse slam competition than Hewitt, well past prime Agassi, Soderling, Bagdatis (I know I spelled his name wrong), just to name a few? Because if you are I really think you are quite ignorant of things. As for Laver, he also missed several competitive years going Pro, and was not allowed to play grand slams during those years because he gave up his amatuer status, do you not think he could have won more slams in those years?

Agassi was not past his prime. He won the Australian Open in '02 and '03. He was a US Open finalist in '02 and '05. Hewitt was phenomenol from '01 to '04. Soderling just BEAT NADAL and then beat GONZOLEZ!! You are also not mentioning Federer's two victories over Nadal in Wimbledon finals. And last year, Nadal had to go to 9-7 in the fifth set to finally break Roger's streak. You also forget how good Roddick has been at various times--good enough to get to US Open finals, win one, get to two Wimbledon finals. Federer has also consistently schooled Davedenko, Berdych, Haas and other great players. He's taken care of everybody but Rafa on clay. Even there, he has two wins over Rafa on clay.

also, Greatest is not about who could travel back and forth in time and beat other people, it is about performance vs their rivals and taking in other factors, Borg on clay accomplished quite a lot and I think you would be surprised, having watched footage on Borg he would probably do well against Nadal, although you seem to be saying Nadal would wipe the court with Borg. As for Borg having no Clay court competition, do names like Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander and Guillermo Vilas mean anything....they were no sloaches at all on clay and Vilas held the record for most consecutive clay court wins before Nadal. I think you really need a clue Nadal really hs 1 clay rival..whom he owns on the surface, Borg had a handful.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Nadal would wipe the court with Borg. But I do think he'd be too strong physically for Bjorn. He hits even deeper than Bjorn with more pace and even more spin. He also is a better volleyer and drop shotter than Borg. Also, did you forget Bjorn RETIRED at the beginning of '82, when Wilander and Lendl were just starting out??? He never had to play Lendl or Wilander at their peak from '83-'90!!!!!!!!!!! do you even know what you're talking about????
 
AndreFan said:
I'm not saying Nadal would wipe the court with Borg. But I do think he'd be too strong physically for Bjorn. He hits even deeper than Bjorn with more pace and even more spin. He also is a better volleyer and drop shotter than Borg. Also, did you forget Bjorn RETIRED at the beginning of '82, when Wilander and Lendl were just starting out??? He never had to play Lendl or Wilander at their peak from '83-'90!!!!!!!!!!! do you even know what you're talking about????
Click to expand...

First of all I said Fed lost, the scores being whatever they were a loss is a loss, i was proving your argument of how only Nadal was beating Fed in big events, which is not true at all and you know it.

Second, you make a big deal of how Borg never had to play a peak lendl, do you not remember who Borg had to beat in his last French Title in 1981, Lendl and it took him 5 sets to do it, and since you say this is pre prime Lendl what exactly do you make of that? wilander, he was still a threat then, and you never did answer my question regarding Vilas, who was quite a strong clat courter back then.

You bring up beating Soderling this year for the French, please Soderling played his worst match of the entire fortnight in that final, the 1st set Soderling was playing like a lost puppy, he was playing his first slam final and playing terribly even after he raised his game in the second set. As has also been pointed out to you beating the person Who beat Nadal is not the same as beating Nadal. Soderling than beat gonzalez, who gagged big time after getting back in the match and was playing in his first ever French open Semi. Fed beat Soderling, ok Soderling beat Nadal, that doesn't equal Fed actually beating Nadal himself. Del Potro, yeah he is a top clay courter in the world now, ok, fed struggles against the 3 or 4th ranked clay courter and is virtually dominated on clay by the best in the world of the last few years on clay.

You also missed another of my points, I said clearly that Nadal dominated his one nearest clay court rival on clay, his nearest Rival is Fed and on clay Rafa pretty much dominates him. Fed beat Nadal at Wimbledon, and last I check Wimbledon is played on grass, not clay Also, you seem to taunt me by saying Nadal needed 9-7 in the 5th last year, Fed needed Nadal to barely be able to walk to beat him at Wimbledon the year before, to win the last 2 slams he won Fed needed to have Nadal lose first. If the men played there slams to best of 3 Fed would have lost Wimbledon last year in straights, and he would have been out of this years french in the 4th round.

Agassi by 2005 was well past his prime, he was past it really starting in 2004 and was playing for love of the game and his fans, he had a grand Hurrah, and a much deserved one at the US Open in 2005 but he was well past his prime and after that was not able to consistantly deliver the form that got him there at all.

Also, I was comparing Hewitt and others I mentioned to Lavers competition, and as good as they were during those years you pointed out, Lavers prime competition was a lot closer to Lavers level (some are also all time greats) than any of Fed's rivals consistantly were until the emergence of Rafa Nadal, which was my point which you obviously missed. Fed had little to challenge him like other greats did, mentally they all folded to him until Nadal came along and refused to. You say i don't know what I'm talking about, you didn't even seem to read what I was talking about, i'll leave it at this, because i am not going to waste my time anymore.
 
Fed is not the greatest ever

I am a fan of federer but you must look at the competition that he has had compared to sampras. For me sampras had to beat better players and more of them than federer has. The competition for federer has only really come in the last 2 years and only from the likes of nadal and murray. Whereas sampras had to beat the likes of Agassi, Rafter, Courier etc. So for me sampras is still the greatest player ever and i think fed will have to get 15 slams before he really rivals sampras.
 
I think this has been a funny thread to read. You guys are all heated about a debate that will never end. Really look at it this way. There will never be a definitave GOAT. There are numerous people that were the best of there time and Fed certainly fits that mold but there is no one GOAT it's just not a notion that consensus can agree on.
 
"Second, you make a big deal of how Borg never had to play a peak lendl, do you not remember who Borg had to beat in his last French Title in 1981, Lendl and it took him 5 sets to do it, and since you say this is pre prime Lendl what exactly do you make of that? wilander, he was still a threat then, and you never did answer my question regarding Vilas, who was quite a strong clat courter back then."

Lendl did not truly begin believing in himself until he won his first major in his comeback against McEnroe in '84 French. In '82 and '83, he played poorly against Connors in both US Open finals. Lendl truly became LENDL from mid '84 on. That's when he became an absolute machine for about 5-6 years.


You bring up beating Soderling this year for the French, please Soderling played his worst match of the entire fortnight in that final, the 1st set Soderling was playing like a lost puppy, he was playing his first slam final and playing terribly even after he raised his game in the second set. As has also been pointed out to you beating the person Who beat Nadal is not the same as beating Nadal. Soderling than beat gonzalez, who gagged big time after getting back in the match and was playing in his first ever French open Semi. Fed beat Soderling, ok Soderling beat Nadal, that doesn't equal Fed actually beating Nadal himself. Del Potro, yeah he is a top clay courter in the world now, ok, fed struggles against the 3 or 4th ranked clay courter and is virtually dominated on clay by the best in the world of the last few years on clay.

I don't know what the he#@ your point is here. You just ramble on trying to minimize Federer's play. He didn't play his best but STILL won. He played unbelievable clutch tennis with all that pressure on him.

"You also missed another of my points, I said clearly that Nadal dominated his one nearest clay court rival on clay, his nearest Rival is Fed and on clay Rafa pretty much dominates him. Fed beat Nadal at Wimbledon, and last I check Wimbledon is played on grass, not clay Also, you seem to taunt me by saying Nadal needed 9-7 in the 5th last year, Fed needed Nadal to barely be able to walk to beat him at Wimbledon the year before, to win the last 2 slams he won Fed needed to have Nadal lose first. If the men played there slams to best of 3 Fed would have lost Wimbledon last year in straights, and he would have been out of this years french in the 4th round."

Not totally true. Federer reeled off 4 straight games in the fifth set in an absolutely stunning rise in level of play. Nadal never had a chance and stated afterward that Federer played brilliantly in that fifth set. Your point is ridiculous about three sets vs. five. Yeah, if the Capitals played the Penguins in a best of five series this year, they win. But, it was 7 games. Stupid point.


"Agassi by 2005 was well past his prime, he was past it really starting in 2004 and was playing for love of the game and his fans, he had a grand Hurrah, and a much deserved one at the US Open in 2005 but he was well past his prime and after that was not able to consistantly deliver the form that got him there at all. "

Think about how ridiculous you sound saying Andre was WELL past his prime when he got to the FINALS of the US freaking Open. Yes, he had slowed a bit and could not play back to back as well. But, on any given day, he could still play top 5 tennis and PROVED it at the Open.

"Also, I was comparing Hewitt and others I mentioned to Lavers competition, and as good as they were during those years you pointed out, Lavers prime competition was a lot closer to Lavers level (some are also all time greats) than any of Fed's rivals consistantly were until the emergence of Rafa Nadal, which was my point which you obviously missed. Fed had little to challenge him like other greats did, mentally they all folded to him until Nadal came along and refused to. You say i don't know what I'm talking about, you didn't even seem to read what I was talking about, i'll leave it at this, because i am not going to waste my time anymore.[/QUOTE]

Guys like Doko, Murray, Roddick, Davedenko, Safin, Hewitt in his prime, and many others. These guys are all better than Laver's competition. They are stronger, more fit, more explosive, bigger serves, better fitness. Federer has overcome every challenge thrown his way except beating Rafa at French. But, he still won a French. You can never take that back. His French record since 2005 is 30-4!!!--his worse grand slam to play.
 
TennezSport said:
In an intense investigation by the ITF, it was recently discovered that there indeed was a conspiracy at the FFT and the FO organizers against Nadal at this years FO.

It seems that the plot began to take shape after this year’s Australian Open when Federer broke down at the ceremony. The FFT, whose members still remember the Spanish Inquisition, decided that Nadal should not win the FO this year and want to make sure that Fed made history at Nadals best tournament.

Special arrangements were made with Soderling and instructions were reportedly delivered to Soderling in the best way to defeat Nadal. To guarantee success, wind vents were placed at strategic points around court Chatrier to always blow in Nadals face and remove the top surface on his side of the court as this made the court play more like a HC on Rafa's side. The balls were also specially selected to be lighter when Nadal hit them to make control more difficult for him.

Additionally, it was also reported that while in Madrid Ninjas were hired to enter Nadal’s room and night and perform acupuncture on his knees to inflame his chronic patella tendonitis without his knowledge. Rafa did mention on several occasions of having vivid dreams of masked men with RF logos chasing him on the terre bateau.

(NOTE: For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, this article was a sarcastic joke) Congrats to Fed; history has another great chapter.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:
Click to expand...

This was priceless, TS! Thanks for the laughs!:mrgreen:
 
What did Laver do in the meantime?

AndreFan said:
Laver went a bunch of years without winning even one major. Yes, the two calendar slams are incredible, but what about all the other years??? Federer has been MORE CONSISTENT than Laver,...
Click to expand...


All the other years?

How about being number 1 in the world for 5 of the 6 years in between?

Laver's first slam was in 1962. By the end of 1963 he was number 2 in the world. 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 he was number 1 in the world. 1969 came the Pro Grand Slam. He wasn't number 1 in the world for nothing. It came from winning a huge number of tournaments.

Regarding consistency - being number 1, 5 out of 6 years between the two Grand Slams counts for being fairly consistent. Also don't forget his Pro Grand Slam of 1967. 1967 IMHO counts as the most dominant year of any male player in history.

Having said that I am a huge Federer fan. I love is style of play and his approach to the game.
 
People remark about Federer making all of these consecutive major finals - 15 of 16 I'm reading - but it's not really all that unprecedented. Laver, of course, was making one final after another in pro major competition as was Rosewall. But these are not grand slam finals, as amateurs played in those until the open era. The important events of those times are not events that survive to this day.

However, even if we look at the open era, we'll find that Bjorn Borg made the final in 14 of 16 grand slam events entered between 1976 and 1981. However he did not enter the Australian at any time in that stretch for reasons I'm sure known by many.

Borg's two losses in that stretch are: 4th round defeat at the 1977 US Open to Stockton; Borg led, but retired due to an injury (RET). As well as that shocking defeat to Tanner in the QF of the 1979 US Open.

So, perhaps not as impressive as Federer's streak, but pretty close.

Federer's records, as incredible as they are, are not untouchable. All things considered, they seem better than they are, because most people are so ignorant of the greatness of past superstars.
 
Blade0324 said:
I think this has been a funny thread to read. You guys are all heated about a debate that will never end. Really look at it this way. There will never be a definitave GOAT. There are numerous people that were the best of there time and Fed certainly fits that mold but there is no one GOAT it's just not a notion that consensus can agree on.
Click to expand...

Agreed but let them debate, it makes them feel better. The GOAT assumes that they're immortal and will be greater than some other prodigy 50 years from now.
 
Federer is 14-5 not 14-3 - still great though

AndreFan said:
First of all, Laver lost 7 grand slam finals. Federer has lost three. Laver went 11-7 in grand slam finals. Federer is 14-3
Click to expand...


Federer has lost 5 - 3 French Opens and 1 Australian Open and 1 Wimbledon.

Not that that is bad. It an achievement even making a final.

I see a 14-5 lifetime record as being superior to a 14-3 lifetime record. The percentages are worse, but it recognises that even making a final is an achievment in itself. Say the 5 losses were tournament A, B, C, D & E. If instead of making the final in all of those tournament the record was:

A-Final
B-Final
C-Final
D-Lost 1st round
E-Lost 1st round.

In that case the record would be 14-3 - but superior? I don't think so.
 
CyBorg said:
However, even if we look at the open era, we'll find that Bjorn Borg made the final in 14 of 16 grand slam events entered between 1976 and 1981. However he did not enter the Australian at any time in that stretch for reasons I'm sure known by many.

Borg's two losses in that stretch are: 4th round defeat at the 1977 US Open to Stockton; Borg led, but retired due to an injury (RET). As well as that shocking defeat to Tanner in the QF of the 1979 US Open.
So, perhaps not as impressive as Federer's streak, but pretty close.

Federer's records, as incredible as they are, are not untouchable. All things considered, they seem better than they are, because most people are so ignorant of the greatness of past superstars.
Click to expand...
You forgot that Borg also lost in the QF of the 1976 French Open to Panatta.
 
CyBorg said:
People remark about Federer making all of these consecutive major finals - 15 of 16 I'm reading - but it's not really all that unprecedented. Laver, of course, was making one final after another in pro major competition as was Rosewall. But these are not grand slam finals, as amateurs played in those until the open era. The important events of those times are not events that survive to this day.

However, even if we look at the open era, we'll find that Bjorn Borg made the final in 14 of 16 grand slam events entered between 1976 and 1981. However he did not enter the Australian at any time in that stretch for reasons I'm sure known by many.

Borg's two losses in that stretch are: 4th round defeat at the 1977 US Open to Stockton; Borg led, but retired due to an injury (RET). As well as that shocking defeat to Tanner in the QF of the 1979 US Open.

So, perhaps not as impressive as Federer's streak, but pretty close.

Federer's records, as incredible as they are, are not untouchable. All things considered, they seem better than they are, because most people are so ignorant of the greatness of past superstars.
Click to expand...

Federer has (at least) THREE separate major records - for wins, finals and semi-finals. Let's examine each of them in turn in relation to what others achieved.

Wins - Federer won 11 majors over a 4 year period (2004-2007). This dominance is unparalled in tennis history. No one else - male or female, Open or amateur eras - has ever matched this.

Finals - Federer reached 10 consecutive Slam finals. The closest by any male player is 7 by Jack Crawford in the 1930's. The closest by any Open era male player is 5, by .... Federer, his current streak. Even if you restrict the metric to Slams entered Borg's best streak is 6, which is significantly below Federer's record.

Semi finals - Federer's record, a current streak, is 20. If wins in majors indicate dominance, semi-final appearances show consistency. Federer's nearest rival for consecutive semi final appearances is Lendl, with 9. Borg's best streak, considering only the tournaments in which he played, is 6.

I should add that in my view these achievements do not make Federer the GOAT. If I were forced to choose I would opt for Rod Laver, who has the most perfect resume of any tennis player. It's possible that if Laver had been allowed to play in majors between 1962 and 1968 he would have achieved similar success. This does not, however, detract from Federer's achievements, which are as remarkable as they are generally considered to be. No other Open era male player has come close to matching them.
 
Steve132 said:
Federer has (at least) THREE separate major records - for wins, finals and semi-finals. Let's examine each of them in turn in relation to what others achieved.

Wins - Federer won 11 majors over a 4 year period (2004-2007). This dominance is unparalled in tennis history. No one else - male or female, Open or amateur eras - has ever matched this.
Click to expand...

Very impressive - don't get me wrong. But keep in mind that the tour has only been standardized since 1990. Until then, how many players even averaged four majors played per year? Not many.

Finals - Federer reached 10 consecutive Slam finals. The closest by any male player is 7 by Jack Crawford in the 1930's. The closest by any Open era male player is 5, by .... Federer, his current streak. Even if you restrict the metric to Slams entered Borg's best streak is 6, which is significantly below Federer's record.
Click to expand...

See above. The whole point is that Federer's record exists in a kind of vacuum, created by the standards of the ATP manufactured in 1990.
 
CyBorg said:
Very impressive - don't get me wrong. But keep in mind that the tour has only been standardized since 1990. Until then, how many players even averaged four majors played per year? Not many.



See above. The whole point is that Federer's record exists in a kind of vacuum, created by the standards of the ATP manufactured in 1990.
Click to expand...

Even if you restrict the comparison to majors entered (as opposed to all majors) Federer's records remain. Can you identify any male players who have:

1. Won 11 out of 16 consecutive majors entered?
2. Reached the finals of ten consecutive majors entered?
3. Reached the semi finals of 20 consecutive majors entered?

Federer has done all three.
 
Did Federer win 7 Wimbledon? Did Federer finish the year at number 1 for 6 straight years? Did Federer stay at number 1 for a record of 286 weeks? I guess not.
 
helloworld said:
Did Federer win 7 Wimbledon? Did Federer finish the year at number 1 for 6 straight years? Did Federer stay at number 1 for a record of 286 weeks? I guess not.
Click to expand...
Did Sampras win 5 straight US Opens? Did Sampras win 5 straight Wimbledons? Did Sampras win the Wimbledon-US Open double for 4 consecutive years? Did Sampras win 3 Australian Opens? Did Sampras win even one French Open? Did Sampras make even one French Open final, let alone 4 straight? Did Sampras make it to 19 Grand Slam finals? Did Sampras win 14 Grand Slams in less than 6 years? Did Sampras make 20 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals? Did Sampras make 15 of 17 Grand Slam finals? Was Sampras ranked #1 for a record 237 consecutive weeks? Does Sampras have an Olympic gold medal?

I rest my case.
 
Steve132 said:
Even if you restrict the comparison to majors entered (as opposed to all majors) Federer's records remain. Can you identify any male players who have:

1. Won 11 out of 16 consecutive majors entered?
2. Reached the finals of ten consecutive majors entered?
3. Reached the semi finals of 20 consecutive majors entered?

Federer has done all three.
Click to expand...

Contemporary standards don't apply to the entirely of the sport's history.

For reasons that should be obvious.
 
CyBorg said:
Yeah, that doubles gold really puts Federer over the top.
Click to expand...
Does Sampras have one? Nope.

Does Nadal have one? Nope, he lost in the first round.

Doubles is hard. Federer had to beat the #1 team of the Bryan brothers in straight sets to get to the final.

People are very proud to be an Olympic gold medalist. Both Agassi and Gilbert have said that their Olympic medals are one of the most proudest achievements of their careers. In fact, Gilbert displays his Olympic bronze medal more prominently than any other of his other trophies.
 
BreakPoint said:
Does Sampras have one? Nope.

Does Nadal have one? Nope, he lost in the first round.

Doubles is hard. Federer had to beat the #1 team of the Bryan brothers in straight sets to get to the final.

People are very proud to be an Olympic gold medalist. Both Agassi and Gilbert have said that their Olympic medals are one of the most proudest achievements of their careers. In fact, Gilbert displays his Olympic bronze medal more prominently than any other of his other trophies.
Click to expand...

Yeah - that sounds really relevant.
 
CyBorg said:
Contemporary standards don't apply to the entirely of the sport's history.

For reasons that should be obvious.
Click to expand...

if you say that, then old-time standards of yesteryear don't apply to
the entirety of the sport's ongoing history.
if what you say is true:

since, as you say, players' attendance in tournaments were not mandated back then which showed since it wasn't too common to see people actually play four majors a year, then don't the grandeur of the slams seem less grand back then when compared to today?

i would then imagine that people didn't take the slams as seriously as people do today, but wouldn't that translate to a much harder time at attaining a slam nowadays since the heightened interest, especially when compared to days long past?
 
paulorenzo said:
if you say that, then old-time standards of yesteryear don't apply to
the entirety of the sport's ongoing history.
Click to expand...

That's the point. Standards constantly change.

if what you say is true:

since, as you say, players' attendance in tournaments were not mandated back then which showed since it wasn't too common to see people actually play four majors a year, then don't the grandeur of the slams seem less grand back then when compared to today?

i would then imagine that people didn't take the slams as seriously as people do today, but wouldn't that translate to a much harder time at attaining a slam nowadays since the heightened interest, especially when compared to days long past?
Click to expand...

English, please.
 
basically what i am trying to convey is this, cyborg:

since the standards of today do not equal the standards of, say, rod laver's era (since back then players did not even play full seasonal schedules or even attempt to participate in all of the slams), wouldn't it have been easier to attain slams back then, as opposed to today?
 
paulorenzo said:
i believe what i composed is comprehendible by anyone who has a grasp on the english language.
Click to expand...

It is harder to win a major (of the grand slam) now than it was 50 years ago, because everyone is eligible to participate in majors now - unlike then. But majors were always popular.
 
CyBorg said:
It is harder to win a major (of the grand slam) now than it was 50 years ago, because everyone is eligible to participate in majors now - unlike then. But majors were always popular.
Click to expand...

retract that. why did players, as you stated in a previous post, choose not to play all 4 within a year back then?
 
paulorenzo said:
retract that. why did players, as you stated in a previous post, choose not to play all 4 within a year back then?
Click to expand...

- Until '68, pros were banned from majors and played on a separate tour than amateurs

- Also, for the first 15 or so years of the open era, majors were far behind other events in terms of giving out prize money; the Australian suffered in particular as a result
 
CyBorg said:
- Until '68, pros were banned from majors and played on a separate tour than amateurs

- Also, for the first 15 or so years of the open era, majors were far behind other events in terms of giving out prize money; the Australian suffered in particular as a result
Click to expand...

how were the majors "always popular" then?
i take it they weren't as important back then as they are now when compared to tournaments on the tour in each respective time.
this, in a way, belittles rod's accomplishments.
 
BreakPoint said:
Does Sampras have one? Nope.

Does Nadal have one? Nope, he lost in the first round.

Doubles is hard. Federer had to beat the #1 team of the Bryan brothers in straight sets to get to the final.

People are very proud to be an Olympic gold medalist. Both Agassi and Gilbert have said that their Olympic medals are one of the most proudest achievements of their careers. In fact, Gilbert displays his Olympic bronze medal more prominently than any other of his other trophies.
Click to expand...



That's probably because he has no other prominent trophies.
 
paulorenzo said:
how were the majors "always popular" then?
i take it they weren't as important back then as they are now when compared to tournaments on the tour in each respective time.
this, in a way, belittles rod's accomplishments.
Click to expand...

The grand slam was always very big and well attended, even in the amateur days. When the open era began, for the first few years all the majors were extremely well attended. Then a lot of politics began in the 70s and things got really complicated.
 
NamRanger said:
That's probably because he has no other prominent trophies.
Click to expand...
Well, he did get to #4 in the world and did win 20 titles so he does have quite a few trophies.

Agassi's Olympic gold medal is one of his most prized achievements because his father was a boxer in two Olympic Games. Agassi also became the first male player to win the Career Golden Slam, consisting of all four Grand Slam tournaments plus an Olympic gold medal. I guess Federer is the second. :)
 
Who is the best ever? is it fed? laver? sampras?

I find some of the posts on this subject a tad bit disrespectful to the past and present champions. I don't know much history when it comes to tennis and don't really watch much tennis, apart from the slams where i'm glued to the tv. However, even i can tell when guys are belittling players achievements, whether it's laver, federer or any player for that matter.

I don't know who is the best ever, maybe they should be put into tier's, i don't know. One thing is true, federer, laver or any past or present player, have achieved much more then any of the guys on this discussion board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
I do think Roger has surpassed Pete
Replies
0
Views
609
BjornBorg
B
M
In all fairness to Laver and Sampras...
2 3 4
Replies
179
Views
23K
Dedans Penthouse
Dedans Penthouse
R
Greatest display of tennis?
Replies
23
Views
2K
P_Agony
P_Agony
C
ZERO chance Fed loses now
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
Zaragoza
Z
C
Why Federer will be regarded as better than even Pete
2 3
Replies
108
Views
5K
vex
vex
Back
Top