Federer Task to be the GOAT

Status
Not open for further replies.

zagor

Bionic Poster
Oh and BTW. Happy birthday KSBH(Karolina Sprem's Backhand as Sentinel would say :)),all the best wishes from me.
 

aphex

Banned
Laver,maybe? Despite his height even his serve was pretty good,his volleys were obviously sublime since he had so much succes on grass and to go toe-to-toe with someone as great as Rosewall on clay he had to have great groundies as well.But I do think Federer is a very complete player,his BH is a weakness against Nadal but otherwise Fed's BH is very good for point construction,he can create great angles with it,has a very good BH slice and his passing shots off that side are great as well.Fed's BH is not a winner machine(like say Kuerten's,Gasquet's or Korda's),but you'd be surprised how often does he use it to force a ball he can attack or put away with hs FH.

you talk of federer as being incomplete because he has a losing record on ONE surface to nadal and yet you consider the man, who at the peak of his carreer got a beatdown from a 41 year old gonzales as being complete ??
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
you talk of federer as being incomplete because he has a losing record on ONE surface to nadal and yet you consider the man, who at the peak of his carreer got a beatdown from a 41 year old gonzales as being complete ??

Nope didn't say that,I think Fed is a complete player and I consider his BH to be a very good shot,especially on lower bouncing surfaces.

I also said from what I read that Laver was probably a very complete player considering his success but I watched Fed during his prime and since that's not the case with Laver(I only watched him on youtube)I can only speculate.
 

aphex

Banned
oh, ok---just wanted to show that h2h has nothing to do with being complete
(i a previous post someone said that because he has a losing record to nadal, he's incomplete)
 

David L

Hall of Fame
oh, ok---just wanted to show that h2h has nothing to do with being complete
(i a previous post someone said that because he has a losing record to nadal, he's incomplete)
For me, Federer is the most complete player in the history of the game. Like Jack Kramer, I have never seen another player who could do so many things on a tennis court.

Have you ever come across Bollettieri's assessments below?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...nt-to-be-the-greatest-player-ever-546216.html

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=15055&ne_id=7755996&type=realaudio
 
Last edited:

aphex

Banned
For me, Federer is the most complete player in the history of the game. Like Jack Kramer, I have never seen another player who could do so many things on a tennis court.

Have you ever come across Bollettieri's assessments below?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...nt-to-be-the-greatest-player-ever-546216.html

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=15055&ne_id=7755996&type=realaudio

thanks for the interesting read!

they don't call him the maestro for nothing-he has every instrument (stroke) at his disposal and can use them at will...
 

ksbh

Banned
Zagor & Sentinel ... you 2 are the epitome of gentlemanliness! :)

Of all the people in the forum, including the Nadal fans, it's 2 Federer fans that wish me Happy B'day! Says a lot about you two. Much love & respects, dear fellow posters.

Oh and BTW. Happy birthday KSBH(Karolina Sprem's Backhand as Sentinel would say :)),all the best wishes from me.
 

David L

Hall of Fame
Laver,maybe? Despite his height even his serve was pretty good,his volleys were obviously sublime since he had so much succes on grass and to go toe-to-toe with someone as great as Rosewall on clay he had to have great groundies as well.But I do think Federer is a very complete player,his BH is a weakness against Nadal but otherwise Fed's BH is very good for point construction,he can create great angles with it,has a very good BH slice and his passing shots off that side are great as well.Fed's BH is not a winner machine(like say Kuerten's,Gasquet's or Korda's),but you'd be surprised how often does he use it to force a ball he can attack or put away with hs FH.
I don't think Federer's backhand is the problem against Nadal on clay. This is a cliché and myth perpetuated on these boards. Even Federer's forehand finds it difficult to penetrate Nadal's defences on clay and we saw what Nadal did to Djokovic. You'll notice Federer can rally fine with Nadal, he is not overwhelmed at all, but Nadal is so consistent and moves so well it is difficult to get through him. His biggest weapon is his movement and retrieving ability. If he still had his strokes, but moved like almost any other player on clay, Federer would do significantly better against him.
 
This may have already been said, but I think for Fed to be considered as the greatest of all time, he needs to be able to regain the number one ranking and prove that he can be knocked down and still climb back to the top. When he was on top, it was almost like there was no one that could challenge him. Now that he has some major competition at the top of the game, we will see where his heart truly is. To be the GOAT, he has to show some real fighting spirit.
 
T

ThugNasty

Guest
Zagor & Sentinel ... you 2 are the epitome of gentlemanliness! :)

Of all the people in the forum, including the Nadal fans, it's 2 Federer fans that wish me Happy B'day! Says a lot about you two. Much love & respects, dear fellow posters.
Hey KSBH! Happy Birthday! hope you have a great day.
 

P_Agony

Banned
Agony ... that was a breathtaking array of backhands from Federer. Thanks for the link. Despite all the Federer-bashing that I engage in, I have admitted several times that he is a brilliant player par excellence!

However I'm yet to see a 'complete' tennis player with absolutely no weaknesses. Such a player would be unbeatable. Has Federer been unbeatable? Pretty much except against one player but that player has beaten Federer enough times on the biggest stages to convince me that Federer isn't complete. You know which player I'm referring to.

Well, as I see it, a complete player is by no means a perfect player. There is no perfect player as each player has his bad matchup who can beat him. Federer's backhand is not perfect, and it clearly breaks down against Nadal on clay and as we have seen latley it's not only on clay and it's not only against Nadal. However, it's still a very poerful weapon. First, Federer has the best backhand slice in the world. He can do anything with it. His top spin backhand, when on, is not only a beautiful shot to watch, but also very effective. Yes, it can break down and yes it's someimes too short and not powerful enough, but it's still an amzaing shot, and when Fed was in his prime, it was almost as good as his forehand. You want to see a bad backhand, look at Andreev's - that's bad.
 

bolo

G.O.A.T.
This may have already been said, but I think for Fed to be considered as the greatest of all time, he needs to be able to regain the number one ranking and prove that he can be knocked down and still climb back to the top. When he was on top, it was almost like there was no one that could challenge him. Now that he has some major competition at the top of the game, we will see where his heart truly is. To be the GOAT, he has to show some real fighting spirit.

Talent can compensate for fighting spirit. In the end all that really matters is how your game translates into wins.
 

GameSampras

Banned
And in terms of competition, I think many would agree early-mid 90s probably had a tougher upper echelon competition of quality players then Roger's 04-07 era and today as well. The overrall depth from rank 1-50 or 100 may be tougher, but the top 10 there is no comparison IMO. The early to mid 90s had a steeper tougher top 10 array of talent
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
I don't think Federer's backhand is the problem against Nadal on clay. This is a cliché and myth perpetuated on these boards. Even Federer's forehand finds it difficult to penetrate Nadal's defences on clay and we saw what Nadal did to Djokovic. You'll notice Federer can rally fine with Nadal, he is not overwhelmed at all, but Nadal is so consistent and moves so well it is difficult to get through him. His biggest weapon is his movement and retrieving ability. If he still had his strokes, but moved like almost any other player on clay, Federer would do significantly better against him.
\

It is and it isn't. Federer's bh is one of the best, most versatile on tour. However, within the framework of his game it is his WEAKER side. That doesn't mean it sucks. Federer's game is primarily biased toward patience and consistency to a large degree. At his dominant best, Fed would outwait every other player on tour, outwait his opponents hotstreaks, would retreat to a higher safety mode when he hit a short lived rough patch during matches, creating the impression in the opponents mind that their own A game wasn't going to work, resistance was futile and paint them into a corner, faced with only two choices, a bad one or a worse one: overplay their A game [bringing tanking into the mix] or playing their B game, an alternative in today's day and age, that really doesn't exist. Then Fed can pass very well, so when the vast majority of opponents throw caution to the wind, frustrated by Fed's ability to control them from the baseline, and decide to employ their mediorce [and generally worse] transition and net games they get smoked. Again creating the thought in the opponent's mind that Agassi describe "there's nowhere to go". Tennis' version of a "Catch 22", that many opponent's who had the displeasure of suffering in the past, or watched from the sideline prior to, then entered matches with, hence, the palpable feeling that onlookers had that a lot of good players started matches v. Fed, already looking defeated.

That goes away with Nadal.

For Nadal it is equal parts of three qualities. His own patience, his relentlessness and that singular ability to get the ball up in the only place Fed can't hurt him. And that third element is very real, and far from cliche.

Tennis: Nadal's New Spin
By EBEN HARRELL / PARIS
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2009


All athletes develop their own mix of style and technique. But Nadal's peculiarity is quantifiable. San Francisco–based tennis researcher John Yandell has used video-capture technology to record the topspin of Nadal's forehand. He found that Nadal's shot rotates at an average of 3,200 times a minute. Andre Agassi, one of the game's great shotmakers, generated 1,900 rotations per minute in his prime, and current world No. 2 Roger Federer, whose forehand is considered among the game's best, generates 2,700. As U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe has said of Nadal, "His normal safe forehand is the toughest shot in the world."

Later in the same article, regarding Uncle Toni's "tinkering" with Nadal's game during this, just passed off-season, making him "more conventional", and shorten the grind, point to point and in the long term, that Nadal subjects himself to:

Nadal will never lose certain aspects of what makes him so effective: his pugilist spirit, and the ability to impose his muscular game on more talented players. But so much of his success stems from his resistance to tradition that Toni's plan to make his charge more orthodox may dim Nadal's aura among fellow pros. When I asked the American player Andy Roddick about the changes, he couldn't believe that Nadal would voluntarily reduce the spin on his forehand. "One of the things that is difficult about facing [Nadal] is the extreme topspin he gets on the ball," Roddick told TIME. "If it's true, I don't think it would make him more effective."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870373-2,00.html


Federer plays down talk of rivalry with Nadal
Posted on: Friday, 10 March 2006, 23:52 CST

"I think it would be impossible for anybody to dominate in the past two years the way Roger did," Agassi said.

"It's great to see that the one person that closes to him in the rankings is his most difficult matchup. Nadal can hit that one shot that everybody wishes they can hit against Roger and that's getting the ball up to his backhand side.

"It's isn't brain surgery. Nobody likes it up there. That's the only area that Roger doesn't hurt you with.
So it's great to see a matchup that lends for a rivalry for a long time to come."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/sports/424094/federer_plays_down_talk_of_rivalry_with_nadal/

5
 
Last edited:

FiveO

Hall of Fame
Nadal can do it while remaining well inside his own safety and comfort zone and his fh is a large part of it, in that its absolute safest target dovetails perfectly to the only spot where Fed can't hurt him.

So Nadal can outwait even Federer, stymie and frustrate him with that ability.

IMO it has become compounded by the fact that Fed, who had clearly demonstrated his ability to transition to and play from the net earlier in his career has allowed those abilities to atrophy during his period of dominance.

His approach game has deteriorated. Too many of his approaches are hit with excessive topspin and are poorly directed often landing nearer the service line than the baseline and well inside the sideline.

Fed also appears to be in a quandry now as to where to go with the approach v. Nadal. It isn't automatic anymore, he doesn't commit to the shot as he once had, and it almost seems he is trying to "outguess" Nadal, predicating his direction choice on where Nadal will break to. Fed also hasn't/doesn't do it often enough to make the "dtl line 90% of the time" approach axiom, work for him in terms of percentages.

Nadal's fh and his ability to get it up on Fed's bh with the safest margin for error, whether brimming with confidence or when tight is a huge factor in this match-up.

5
 

ksbh

Banned
Thanks Thug! Yes, it's been a great day so far ... I spent an hour shovelling all the snow from my driveway and it's just beginning to snow again! LOL!

Have a great day yourself, my friend.

Hey KSBH! Happy Birthday! hope you have a great day.
 

David L

Hall of Fame
I'm not saying it's child's play dealing with Nadal's ball, just that it's not the primary difficulty Federer has with his game, it's his movement and retrieving. Furthermore, the combination of Nadal's game on clay, creates the same problem for everyone, so it's not unique to Federer. We are most likely talking about the GOAT claycouter after all.

You'll notice the players have little difficulty rallying with Nadal, even Donald Young was holding his own in most of their rallies. The problems arise when you try to outmanoeuvre him or outlast his consistency. Especially on clay, he's more likely to outmanoeuvre you (because he moves better than anyone on that surface, plus has the unique open stance on the backhand), be more consistent than you (because of his high margin for error) or outlast you (because of his endurance). These are professional players, they have no trouble dealing with the heaviest of balls if they can get to it. All of them hit a heavy ball in one form or another, so Nadal's ball is amongst the least of their concerns when it comes to him. Sure it's not the easiest ball to attack with a one-hander, but Federer deals with it pretty comfortably, it's just very difficult to get Nadal out of position and match his consistency on clay.

A British commentator, Chris Bailey, described Federer's backhand as the weaker strength and I think this is apt. It's a strength, it's just not as strong as his forehand, which is ridiculous. This is common to all players. All players will have a stronger side and Federer is no different.
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
I would submit that if you took either one away from Nadal, either his tenacity/willingness or his singular ability off the fh side, he would fall back to the middle of the pack.

Trade his fh for AA's, Roddick's, Blake's, Gonzo's or whoever else, perhaps except for Fed's and Nadal starts to look a lot more like Ferrer, Davydenko, et al, and simplifies Fed's solution of him.

IMO everything is amplified because Nadal troubles Fed in this way. As AA said "It isn't brain surgery" no one likes the ball up there. When Nadal does it to anyone else he is merely "the better player" when he does it to Fed, the explanation, for some onlookers, I think NEEDS to be more complicated than that.

IMO its pretty straight forward.

5
 

David L

Hall of Fame
I would submit that if you took either one away from Nadal, either his tenacity/willingness or his singular ability off the fh side, he would fall back to the middle of the pack.

Trade his fh for AA's, Roddick's, Blake's, Gonzo's or whoever else, perhaps except for Fed's and Nadal starts to look a lot more like Ferrer, Davydenko, et al, and simplifies Fed's solution of him.

IMO everything is amplified because Nadal troubles Fed in this way. As AA said "It isn't brain surgery" no one likes the ball up there. When Nadal does it to anyone else he is merely "the better player" when he does it to Fed, the explanation, for some onlookers, I think NEEDS to be more complicated than that.

IMO its pretty straight forward.

5
Like I said, it's a factor, but I don't think the biggest. Even as we are, Federer has had many close matches with Nadal on clay and engaged in many extensive rallies. He has only beaten him once, but had the upper hand on many other occasions and may have got a few more wins if the imponderables had been a little different. We could just as easily hypothesize how well Federer would fair if we made Nadal a step slower, but with the same strokes. Give him the movement of Soderling or Roddick, even someone who likes clay like Robredo. Given Federer has been so close on many occasions in the past, this would be enough to make the difference.
 

David L

Hall of Fame
Nadal can do it while remaining well inside his own safety and comfort zone and his fh is a large part of it, in that its absolute safest target dovetails perfectly to the only spot where Fed can't hurt him.

So Nadal can outwait even Federer, stymie and frustrate him with that ability.

IMO it has become compounded by the fact that Fed, who had clearly demonstrated his ability to transition to and play from the net earlier in his career has allowed those abilities to atrophy during his period of dominance.

His approach game has deteriorated. Too many of his approaches are hit with excessive topspin and are poorly directed often landing nearer the service line than the baseline and well inside the sideline.

Fed also appears to be in a quandry now as to where to go with the approach v. Nadal. It isn't automatic anymore, he doesn't commit to the shot as he once had, and it almost seems he is trying to "outguess" Nadal, predicating his direction choice on where Nadal will break to. Fed also hasn't/doesn't do it often enough to make the "dtl line 90% of the time" approach axiom, work for him in terms of percentages.

Nadal's fh and his ability to get it up on Fed's bh with the safest margin for error, whether brimming with confidence or when tight is a huge factor in this match-up.

5
Personally, I don't think the way to beat Nadal is to rush the net, look what happened in the last French Open final. Obviously it's good to mix it up, but I think you have to be prepared to do battle. Nadal loves to chase balls, so I think a good strategy would be to try and dictate from the baseline with patient but aggressive play. Get him to run more than you throughout the match, rather than looking for quick winners. Nadal is human and if you can get him to run more than you, you could outlast him. Naturally, for this you have to make sure you are as fit or fitter. We have seen Nadal when he is tired and he is much more manageable when this is the case. Federer, Mathieu, Hewitt, Davydenko, even Nieminen have demonstrated how you can pressure Nadal by playing aggressively from the baseline on clay, then you could change it up when it suited you.

I heard a story about Rocky Marciano (don't know if it's true), where he apparently defeated an opponent by simply punching their arms until the arms were so fatigued they could no longer be held up to protect the opponent, after which Marciano knocked them out. Could the same idea work in a tennis match? It would be interesting to try.
 
Last edited:
Federer is already the GOAT. He would be the unsurpassed GOAT if he can improve his H2H record against Nadal. :) Federer needs to sit down and analyze Nadal's game and tactics more, perhaps with a few more people, well, Jose should not be one of them. :twisted:

We know Nadal like to pin Federer down on his BH, Federer should mix up his reply, few slices and few topspin cross court, more importantly, slice down the line more to Nadal's 2hbh. No 2hbder likes to bend down and scoop up the ball specially for the whole match, that is why Nadal goes the extra distance to try to punish Federer for slicing the ball back everytime, the aim is to discourage Federer for mixing up his backhand to make Federer one dimensionall on his backhand. And we know Nadal like to go cross court on both wings, so a slice down the line to Nadal's BH when Nadal has to move, most of the time, Nadal would hit it cross court to Federer's FH, and if Federer can anticipate that, he can step up and drill the down line FH winner or at least put Nadal on the run instead of being pin down on the BH. If Nadal's reply is the down the line to Federer's BH, Federer can run around and hit the inside out FH cross court to Nadal's FH, that would make Nadal scramble. Most likely Nadal's next shot would be cross court to Federer's BH, that reply should be weak since he is on the run, at that point, Federer can drill the down the line BH winner.

Nadal like target at the net. Strategically Federer should come to the net on a strong FH approach, or Nadal is on the run, and just finish the point at the net. :)
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
At the risk of this exchange going circular, you cite the example of trading Nadal's court coverage for other's without that ability. That premise cuts both ways, except that you have living examples to draw from. Firstly slower guys without that weapon don't truly trouble Fed. Slower guys with another weapon, right handers with very strong dtl the bh's, i.e. a sharp Safin and Nalbandian, oth, do.

There are also very fast, tenacious grinders out there, i.e. Ferrer, Davydenko, who lack that ability to get the ball up on Fed's bh side, who don't trouble him.

So, again, take Nadal's fh away, exchange for anyone but Fed's and Nadal becomes an ordinary player. It's why his opponents mention it and IMO the biggest element which separates Nadal from the "run of the mill" pack. Nadal has that weapon and he is what he is, but without it he would most likely be just that, a pack member, looking up.

5
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
At the risk of this exchange going circular, you cite the example of trading Nadal's court coverage for other's without that ability. That premise cuts both ways, except that you have living examples to draw from. Firstly slower guys without that weapon don't truly trouble Fed. Slower guys with another weapon, right handers with very strong dtl the bh's, i.e. a sharp Safin and Nalbandian, oth, do.

There are also very fast, tenacious grinders out there, i.e. Ferrer, Davydenko, who lack that ability to get the ball up on Fed's bh side, who don't trouble him.

So, again, take Nadal's fh away, exchange for anyone but Fed's and Nadal becomes an ordinary player. It's why his opponents mention it and IMO the biggest element which separates Nadal from the "run of the mill" pack. Nadal has that weapon and he is what he is, but without it he would most likely be just that, a pack member, looking up.

5

Nalbandian is certainly not slow(he's actually deceptively fast)and Safin is something like 2-9 against Federer and in his one sole slam victory against Federer he had to save a MP so don't think he's the best example.Better example than Safin would be Murray IMO.
 
Federer, practice your down the line slice and topspin, you will see good result. :) Perhaps should change the slice a little, make it faster and more penetrating like Graf's. The slice moment should be more forward/in front instead of down.
 

David L

Hall of Fame
At the risk of this exchange going circular, you cite the example of trading Nadal's court coverage for other's without that ability. That premise cuts both ways, except that you have living examples to draw from. Firstly slower guys without that weapon don't truly trouble Fed. Slower guys with another weapon, right handers with very strong dtl the bh's, i.e. a sharp Safin and Nalbandian, oth, do.

There are also very fast, tenacious grinders out there, i.e. Ferrer, Davydenko, who lack that ability to get the ball up on Fed's bh side, who don't trouble him.

So, again, take Nadal's fh away, exchange for anyone but Fed's and Nadal becomes an ordinary player. It's why his opponents mention it and IMO the biggest element which separates Nadal from the "run of the mill" pack. Nadal has that weapon and he is what he is, but without it he would most likely be just that, a pack member, looking up.

5
When you get down to it, if you took any number of things away from Nadal or any other player for that matter, beating them would become an easier proposition. It's a combination of things which make Nadal difficult, but to isolate the forehand as the one thing or main thing, I don't believe is accurate. Federer is always in the rallies, he just struggles to push through Nadal on clay, then runs out of patience. I mean, you can see some of the troubles he has encountered against other great movers/retrievers like Simon, Canas and Murray, and this is on hardcourt. On clay it will be even worse because Nadal's movement and poise seem to only improve on that surface, while Federer will be losing half a step because of the lack of traction. Then he has to deal with the fact his serve and strokes penetrate less and so you have the match-up falling more into Nadal's lap.

I actually think Nalbandian is excellent in the movement/anticipation department, as well as being an all-round great player and Safin is a good player in his own right too, both however have lost most of their recent encounters with Federer. Nalbandian has lost 10 of the last 13 meetings and Safin is 2-9 down overall. Ferrer and Davydenko, while good movers, move no way near as well as Nadal, especially on clay and don't play with his consistency or margin for error. Players with almost 'mediocre' groundstrokes however, but with great retrieving ability, like Murray, Simon and Canas, have been able to try Federer's patience with their defence and ultimately win, on hardcourt no less. This to me seems to be Federer's biggest challenge with Nadal on clay.
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
Nalbandian is certainly not slow(he's actually deceptively fast)and Safin is something like 2-9 against Federer and in his one sole slam victory against Federer he had to save a MP so don't think he's the best example.Better example than Safin would be Murray IMO.

When you get down to it, if you took any number of things away from Nadal or any other player for that matter, beating them would become an easier proposition. It's a combination of things which make Nadal difficult, but to isolate the forehand as the one thing or main thing, I don't believe is accurate. Federer is always in the rallies, he just struggles to push through Nadal on clay, then runs out of patience. I mean, you can see some of the troubles he has encountered against other great movers/retrievers like Simon, Canas and Murray, and this is on hardcourt. On clay it will be even worse because Nadal's movement and poise seem to only improve on that surface, while Federer will be losing half a step because of the lack of traction. Then he has to deal with the fact his serve and strokes penetrate less and so you have the match-up falling more into Nadal's lap.

I actually think Nalbandian is excellent in the movement/anticipation department, as well as being an all-round great player and Safin is a good player in his own right too, both however have lost most of their recent encounters with Federer. Nalbandian has lost 10 of the last 13 meetings and Safin is 2-9 down overall. Ferrer and Davydenko, while good movers, move no way near as well as Nadal, especially on clay and don't play with his consistency or margin for error. Players with almost 'mediocre' groundstrokes however, but with great retrieving ability, like Murray, Simon and Canas, have been able to try Federer's patience with their defence and ultimately win, on hardcourt no less. This to me seems to be Federer's biggest challenge with Nadal on clay.

"Slower" as in slower than Nadal.

We're discussing a guy who has given Fed fits on everything since his arrival on tour, not just the last 12 months where Simon and Murray got all or the bulk of their wins. Canas is another guy on the list of dtl bh weapons, similar to those of a hobbled Kuerten that routined Fed at RG in 2004.

As far as the critique of how to beat Nadal, attacking in that manner is not the blueprint for every player v. Rafa, but there is a long enough track record between Fed and Nadal to identify the fact that Nadal's singular ability to continually pound the ball up and away to Fed's bh as the deciding factor and it is less likely that Fed will improve his all ready very good bh, so I don't know what you suggest he do. Fed isn't being pinned there by Nadal's court coverage he is being pinned there by the ball Nadal hits. No one else can do that to Fed, actually no one else can do that, period.

Other than that we'll have to agree to disagree.

5
 
Last edited:

World Beater

Hall of Fame
"Slower" as in slower than Nadal.

We're discussing a guy who has given Fed fits on everything since his arrival on tour, not just the last 12 months where Simon and Murray got all or the bulk of their wins. Canas is another guy on the list of dtl bh weapons, similar to those of a hobbled Kuerten that routined Fed at RG in 2004.

As far as the critique of how to beat Nadal, attacking in that manner is not the blueprint for every player v. Rafa, but there is a long enough track record between Fed and Nadal to identify the fact that Nadal's singular ability to continually pound the ball up and away to Fed's bh as the deciding factor and it is less likely that Fed will improve his all ready very good bh, so I don't know what you suggest he do. Fed isn't being pinned there by Nadal's court coverage he is being pinned there by the ball Nadal hits. No one else can do that to Fed, actually no one else can do that, period.

Other than that we'll have to agree to disagree.

5


good points but i would also add to the bolded part that noboy defends or retrieves as well as nadal. not canas, not murray, hewitt etc
nadal can hit winners from defensive positions that nobody else in the world can.

so its two things. nadal can turn an advantage in a rally for federer to a neutral one through his left fh by hitting fed's bh high.

second is that nadal can defend and pass federer from almost anywhere.
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
good points but i would also add to the bolded part that noboy defends or retrieves as well as nadal. not canas, not murray, hewitt etc
nadal can hit winners from defensive positions that nobody else in the world can.

so its two things. nadal can turn an advantage in a rally for federer to a neutral one through his left fh by hitting fed's bh high.

second is that nadal can defend and pass federer from almost anywhere.


Fair points but I think that second part is allowed by how far Fed's transition game has slipped. Nadal can pass for sure, but it's alot easier off poor approaches and as I alluded to in an earlier post, Fed's transition game has slipped markedly from disuse and isn't the player type to employ it with the frequency required to shift percentages in his favor. This is what I believe Fed can shore up and use effectively, not exclusively, but with much more frequency than he does now.

5
 

380pistol

Banned
Yes but they still remain opinions,an educated opinions since they come from former or current players but it's not like pros can't make mistakes.I also heard players like Andre Agassi,Jim Courier,Kramer,Rios,Bruguera,Wilander(the biggest flip flopper),Henman,Safin,Roddick etc. say Fed is best ever or similar,I even remember Mcenroe saying before FO 2006 that if Fed wins it,he's the GOAT.I will find you the links of the ones I read on internet later if you want.But while I respect their opinion(s)I can still from my own.I think both Federer and Sampras are obviously amazing players(although as I said I'll wait before Fed is completely done with his career before comparing them as I think that's fair)but I'm personally most impressed by Borg's achievements,the guy went from winning clay by grinding people down to playing serve and volley at Wimbledon.Back then those surfaces were complete polar opposites(unlike now)so that was the ultimate test of player's adaptability and nobody passed that test as well as Borg.To holds such dominating records like 5 Wimbledons in a row and 6 overall FOs on such opposite surfaces is nothing short of spectacular for me so I personally put him above both Sampras and Federer(for nowsince Fed isn't done yet but I dout that'll change in the future).Sure he didn't win USO but he reached 4 finals there and lost to some of the best USO players ever in Jimbo and Mcenroe,that's a great resume in your worst slam as far as I'm concerned.Another blemish(sp?) on his career is that he also retired early but what most people here don't seem realize is that Borg was an early bloomer and won a major each year since 1974-1981,that's some solid period of playing at a very high level.Maybe slightly off topic but since we're talking about GOATs,Borg's the one for me.

I agree that they are opinions, an educated ones and that, from people who understand the game better than most. But if we took three of the best from the 1990's you'd get this.....

Becker says Pete, Andre says Federer and Sampras says Laver. Are they all not educated??? Who's opinion holds more weight??? OK if Becker is right does that make Pete and Anre wrong??? That's all I was saying.

I love Borg to pieces and I often feel he gets left out or forgotton when these discussions arise. His French/Wimbledon may be the single greatest feat in tennis. But 3 things always bother me about Borg

A) He couldn't handle McEnroe, he lost 3 of 4 slam finals. I know matchups and all that but I felt if Borg came back he could done well in 1982, I mean an almost 30 yr old Connors beat Mac at SW19, and 22 yr old Lendl who hadn't mentall developed got him in Flushing.

B) The US Open. Among men missing one is common, but Borg played the US Open on 3 surface (well the green clay isn't really clay), I'm sure others would like to get chances at the slam the didn't win on ther surfaces.

C) Just 109 weeks and 2 years at #1. Then again the ranking system is known to be flawed at times, but those #'s don't accurately reflect The Angelic Assassin. Hewitt in this regard comes very close to Borg, and can't hold a candle to Bjorn.

I don't like mentioing these things cuz it looks like it's tarninshes Borg's resume, and it shouldn't cuz he has an outstanding one. I can't really argue against Borg, he certainly does not get the credit he desreves in GOAT discussions.


Well Pete could have some trouble in early rounds at slams even during his peak years and then raise it up a notch when he played better players,I remember he pushed by that crazy German fellow in 1995 in the first round(Kaarsten Braasch) but then again the last time before that he got pushed to five sets in Wimbledon was back in '98 against Goran so I guess it was telling that Sampras wasn't the same.As for the bolded part,I think they both played well.It's was a quality match and the one I still watch from time to time(it was nice to see Fed serve and volley)bit as I said no matter how much we argue whether Fed was closer to his prime or Sampras,bottom line is that:

a)Neither player was in his prime.

b)One match is too small of a sample to conclide how a whole potential rivalry between 2 GOAT candidates would go.

c)It wasn't changing of the guard(like how it is apparently seen by a lot of people here,wrongly IMO)since Fed didn't win Wimbledon till 2003.

Frankly,I think that for the reasons stated above,that match is somewhat overrated although it was still a high-quality match IMO,both of them served great and had good winner to error ratio.So it was a good match but as I said not really the changing of the guard so I think some people give that match too much importance.

Pete on occasion had some lengthy early rd matches, true. But this was a man who stred the year #3 and finished #13, certainly not at his best.

a) Agreed
b) Agreed
c) Agreed

All I've said about this match it's similar to Sampras/Lendl 1990 US Open. Lendl may have been playing a little better than Pete was at that stage of their careers (though Pete played well in 2001 match), and Pete wasn't in his prime yet, but Sampras played beyond his years. Same with Federer he wasn't in his prime in 2001, but on that day he played beyond his years.


I would agree since Lendl was a late bloomer that he was closer to his peak in 1990 than Sampras was in 2001 but then again Sampras was playing better in USO 1990 than Fed in Wimbledon 2001 as Pete went on to win tournament and Fed lost in quarters.But you're right about Lendl,he reached 8 USO finals in a row up until that point so Pete cut Lendl streak there but on the other hand Fed also cut Pete's streak of 4 Wimbledons in a row(and had Borg thank him).It happens even to all-time greats at some point as they get older,they get knocked out by fearless talented young guns,that's just the nature of the sport.

The main difference betwwen Sampras (1990) and Federer (2001) was that Sampras as he said "got hot for two weeks", Federer's didn't last, hence he lost to Henman in the QF.

Like Chang in 1989, his hot streak lasted just long enough to garner him the French. Federer coud play well but was inconsitent. Like a year later he played what he called one of his best claycourt matches beating Safin in the Hamburg final, then lost in the 1st rd of the French. He didn't bring it consitently as he would a couple of years later when he put it all together.


Well I never argued that Pete was in his prime,especially in 2001 and 2002.His prime was in 1993-1997 but even in 1999-2002 he could still put "some" great performances in majors(which were all he gave a damn at that point,hardly blame him for that),especially in 1999(which actually could have been a much better year if he didn't injure himself during a training with Kuerten,he was in very good form heading into USO that year) and 2000 when it took some great performances from both Agassi and Safin to stop him at AO and USO respectively and when he won Wimbledon on one leg so to speak,at FO he lost early that year but Pete never got around to being a contender there anyway(might have if Tim stayed alive but that's another topic).I still consider USO QF between Sampras and Agassi 2001 to have been one of the best matches I've ever seen but no week-in,week-out Sampras wasn't the same player he was in 1993-1997,few people will argue that.As any great champion,he could still play great in some matches,but normally as players get older those great performances became rarer and rarer,that's the way things work.Time affects even the greatest champions.

That wasn't directed at you.

It was said (by you know whom) that Pete's best performance came 1999-2002. I never once denied Pete did not put up some his greatest performance during 1999-2002. But to say his "best" performances came from that span he who said that would have to show those performance surpass his best performances from prior to 1999, and/or occurred more frequently. They couldn't so they started to talk wreckless which I was not having.

I spoke on 1999, but 2000 falls under that categor of "(blank) happens". He tore his hip flexor in 1st set of 2000 Aus Open SF, nothing against Dre cuz he played very well, and the US Open F, Safin just played out his mind, Got to give credit to them.

The 2001 Sampras/Agassi was a great match. But does Pete's performance surpass is 1990 and 1995 US Open F vs Agassi??? Maybe, maybe not. But to the guy who used this match as example of his 1999-2002 statement, he needs to show how. If not he's not really saying anything of substance.

Yes,I'm fully aware of injuries Sampras had that year,especially the one that forced him to miss USO,the back injury he sustained while practicing with Kuerten but hey not all was bad,he did meet Bridget during that break :)) so some good came from that atleast.But regadless those 2 performances against Agassi in that year(Wimbledon and TMC final)were still the best I've ever seen Sampras play(along with some others like DC '97 against Rafter and TMC final against Becker in '96,maybe even '96 USO final against Chang).Mind you,I mean those 2 matches,not the whole year obviously.

See this a reasonable statement. I never once questioned Pete's 1999 Wimbledom and YEC F performances. Or even his 2001 and 2002 (well the 1st 2.5 sets anyway). But like you said Davis Cup, 1996 YEC F etc. So dude needs to explain how those are superior to anything Pete played prior to 1999HIS words.

Off the top of my head I giave you Pete 10 greates single match performances only one would come from after 1999 (the 1999 Wimbldeon F). Not saying he didn't put up great performances 1999-2002, or they're not top 10 worthy, it's just when he said what he said and had nothing to support it, I felt he just needed to be quiet.
 

380pistol

Banned
At the risk of this exchange going circular, you cite the example of trading Nadal's court coverage for other's without that ability. That premise cuts both ways, except that you have living examples to draw from. Firstly slower guys without that weapon don't truly trouble Fed. Slower guys with another weapon, right handers with very strong dtl the bh's, i.e. a sharp Safin and Nalbandian, oth, do.

There are also very fast, tenacious grinders out there, i.e. Ferrer, Davydenko, who lack that ability to get the ball up on Fed's bh side, who don't trouble him.

So, again, take Nadal's fh away, exchange for anyone but Fed's and Nadal becomes an ordinary player. It's why his opponents mention it and IMO the biggest element which separates Nadal from the "run of the mill" pack. Nadal has that weapon and he is what he is, but without it he would most likely be just that, a pack member, looking up.

5

Well said. Many don't understand Nadal will always trouble Roger regardless off surface, much in the same way Agassi into his mid 30's was playing Roger tough. Tennis is linear with boxing in the sense styles make fights, and Federer's style does not mesh well with Nadal's.

For instance we live in a world where 85%+ are right handed, meaning the 85% of the world is domnant to their right side. 90%+ of tennis players are right handed, and 95% of tennis players are dominant to their forehand side. The last 30 yras how many notable players have been dominant with their backhand side??? Connors, Wilander, Edberg, Agassi, Kuerten, Safin, Nalbandian, and maybe Djokovic and Gasquet. Federer's best shot is the inside out forehand, which attacks the left side of his opponent, 95%+ of the time that' the weaker side. But with Nadal it goes at his strength.

What makes it worse is Nadal can take his strenght and go at the weakest part of Federer's arsenal, his backhand. So while Federer is going strength vs strength, Rafa is going strength vs weakness.

Two.... Federer plays east to west. Nadal is too fast, is such a great athlete and defends so well, this makes it a difficult task. Roger would be better served to play north and south and push Nadal back, but his natural style is east to west (side to side). Using angles, court geometry... but that's something Nadal can deal with better than most.

Consitency. Nadal is too consisent. Federer's game is built on shot making, artistry, while Rafa is built to last. Federer is the one who when the two match up looks to end the point (he normally nds up with more winners and unforced errors than Nadal). But due to Nadal's speed, defensive abilities, and what he's able to do even while defending, causes Federer to go for mare thus his higher winner and unforced eerror count. Staying and rallying, and waiting for Nadal to blink is not a good option as that is one of Rafa's hallmarks, and Fed's backhand becomes a liability.

Like 5 said is not only Nadal's style, but he also possesse the abiltit How many many times has Nadal worked over Federer's backhand then ended the point with an inside out forehand???

It's not a slight on Roger, it's just match up thing. I tried to explain this regarding Federer/Agassi, but of course, most are blinded and or don't listen.
 

DoubleDeuce

Hall of Fame
380pistols
Consitency. Nadal is too consisent. Federer's game is built on shot making, artistry, while Rafa is built to last.

I found this comment rather odd. Built to last? Federer's Shot making is not gonna last?

You appear to be clinging to Nadal hoping he will save your guy Pete.

Everything about Federer has last longer so far, and I bet he'll last longer in history also. More than either Nadal or Sampras, like it or not.
 

David L

Hall of Fame
"Slower" as in slower than Nadal.

We're discussing a guy who has given Fed fits on everything since his arrival on tour, not just the last 12 months where Simon and Murray got all or the bulk of their wins. Canas is another guy on the list of dtl bh weapons, similar to those of a hobbled Kuerten that routined Fed at RG in 2004.

As far as the critique of how to beat Nadal, attacking in that manner is not the blueprint for every player v. Rafa, but there is a long enough track record between Fed and Nadal to identify the fact that Nadal's singular ability to continually pound the ball up and away to Fed's bh as the deciding factor and it is less likely that Fed will improve his all ready very good bh, so I don't know what you suggest he do. Fed isn't being pinned there by Nadal's court coverage he is being pinned there by the ball Nadal hits. No one else can do that to Fed, actually no one else can do that, period.

Other than that we'll have to agree to disagree.

5
Yes, we'll have to agree to differ. I personally feel Federer has been good from the baseline in most of their clay encounters. I never really got the impression he was under duress, just that Nadal was the better mover on clay and the better player on that surface generally. Sure he targets the backhand, especially on the serve, but Federer has always been in those matches, apart from the last time they played when he tried to attack more. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how things progress.
 

grafrules

Banned
Well said. Many don't understand Nadal will always trouble Roger regardless off surface, much in the same way Agassi into his mid 30's was playing Roger tough.

Agassi from 2003-2005 ages 33-35 went 0-8 vs Federer, was just destroyed in half of those matches, and sets won were 20-5 in Federer's favor. If that is "playing someone tough" I would hate to see what a one sided battle is. I guess you think Roddick and Hewitt were playing Federer tough from 2003-2005 too, they had about the same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer after all, well maybe they did a bit better since they each actually got a win.
 
Last edited:

380pistol

Banned
380pistols

I found this comment rather odd. Built to last? Federer's Shot making is not gonna last?

You appear to be clinging to Nadal hoping he will save your guy Pete.

Everything about Federer has last longer so far, and I bet he'll last longer in history also. More than either Nadal or Sampras, like it or not.

When I said "built to last", I meant in a rally (a singular point), Nadal can outlast Federer. Roger's the type who after a while (certain # of strokes) will moreso look to end the point on his own terms, work the point, go for a winner, and at times come in. Nadal is more content to rally believing the opponent will make an error before him. Federer's not the type to just sit and rally thinking his opp wil blink before him, after a while he'll take matters into his own hands whether he wins or loses the point. That's what I meant about "built to last", not that all of sudden Fed's shotmaking will go. Hence I even went as far to explain as this is why in the majority of their encounters, Roger ends up with more winners and unforced errors.

That part was about Roger and Rafa's respective playing ideologies, not playing abilites. But I do find it funny in general analogy about the respective games o Nadal and Federer, you mention Pete, and the talk about about my insecurities about him. Speaks volumes!!!
 
Last edited:

380pistol

Banned
Agassi from 2003-2005 ages 33-35 went 0-8 vs Federer, was just destroyed in half of those matches, and sets won were 20-5 in Federer's favor. If that is "playing someone tough" I would hate to see what a one sided battle is. I guess you think Roddick and Hewitt were playing Federer tough from 2003-2005 too, they had about the same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer after all, well maybe they did a bit better since they each actually got a win.

Federer destroyed Agassi in half of those matches. But those half came in.....
-November 2003
-January 2005
-March 2005
-April 2005

3 of those 4 came when Agassi was appraching his 35th b-day. Keep in mind Federer didn't beat Agassi until very late 2003. So lets's not say 2003 loosely, as if it happened in early in 2003. It was November 2003!!! The other 4 were.....
-7-6 in the 3rd (9-7 in the tie breaker, Dre had a match point)
-6-4 in the 3rd (Federer broke at 4-4)
-5 sets over 2 days
-Agassi led 3-6,6-2,4-2 30-0

Say what you say this was not the best of Agassi at 33-35, he back problems in the 2005 US Open encounter, and after the 3 beatdowns Roger gave Agassi in 2005, Dre ended up crawling out of the French Open and missing Wimbledon.

And do you (or anyone consider).....
-that from Miami 2004 (after losing to Roger in Indian Wells SF) to Canada 2004 Agassi went 5-6???
-that in 2005 the only vicories he had over top 10 players were 2 over Gaudio and one over Coria, all on hard???

So what Agassi was Federer really getting??? Yet he struggled 50% of the time.

As far as Roddick.....
From November 2003 to September 2005 (the time where Fed went 8-0) vs Agassi Roger went.....
-6-0 vs Andy
-won 14 of 15 sets

Hewitt (Nov 2003 - Sept 2005), well Federer went....
-9-0
-won 24 of 27 sets
-Lleyton ate 5 bagels

So Agassi won 5 sets in his 8 matches (24 sets) while Roddick/Hewitt won a combined 4 sets in 15 matches (42 sets).

Roddick and Hewitt were far closer to their primes an physical playing peaks than Agassi was during this time. Outside of the 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick/Hewitt didn't really push Federer or really threaten him. 1 of 15. Yet on 4 distinctive occasion Agass at 33+ gave Roger all he could handle.

So the Agassi - Roddick/Hewitt is clearly not an accurate one, as it shows Roddick and Hewitt did not have the "same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer".

And what win did Roddick or Hewitt have over Federer from November 2003 to September 2005???
 

GameSampras

Banned
Federer destroyed Agassi in half of those matches. But those half came in.....
-November 2003
-January 2005
-March 2005
-April 2005

3 of those 4 came when Agassi was appraching his 35th b-day. Keep in mind Federer didn't beat Agassi until very late 2003. So lets's not say 2003 loosely, as if it happened in early in 2003. It was November 2003!!! The other 4 were.....
-7-6 in the 3rd (9-7 in the tie breaker, Dre had a match point)
-6-4 in the 3rd (Federer broke at 4-4)
-5 sets over 2 days
-Agassi led 3-6,6-2,4-2 30-0

Say what you say this was not the best of Agassi at 33-35, he back problems in the 2005 US Open encounter, and after the 3 beatdowns Roger gave Agassi in 2005, Dre ended up crawling out of the French Open and missing Wimbledon.

And do you (or anyone consider).....
-that from Miami 2004 (after losing to Roger in Indian Wells SF) to Canada 2004 Agassi went 5-6???
-that in 2005 the only vicories he had over top 10 players were 2 over Gaudio and one over Coria, all on hard???

So what Agassi was Federer really getting??? Yet he struggled 50% of the time.

As far as Roddick.....
From November 2003 to September 2005 (the time where Fed went 8-0) vs Agassi Roger went.....
-6-0 vs Andy
-won 14 of 15 sets

Hewitt (Nov 2003 - Sept 2005), well Federer went....
-9-0
-won 24 of 27 sets
-Lleyton ate 5 bagels

So Agassi won 5 sets in his 8 matches (24 sets) while Roddick/Hewitt won a combined 4 sets in 15 matches (42 sets).

Roddick and Hewitt were far closer to their primes an physical playing peaks than Agassi was during this time. Outside of the 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick/Hewitt didn't really push Federer or really threaten him. 1 of 15. Yet on 4 distinctive occasion Agass at 33+ gave Roger all he could handle.

So the Agassi - Roddick/Hewitt is clearly not an accurate one, as it shows Roddick and Hewitt did not have the "same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer".

And what win did Roddick or Hewitt have over Federer from November 2003 to September 2005???

You are just a fountain of information 380 Pistol. LOL. Way to put things into perspective. Thats my biggest problem with alot of people especially Fed fans who want to look back at the past with the Rosey tinted-Fed Glasses on.. Not very objective when you look at the situation with Andre. Fed's wins were AFTER Andre's 33rd birthday. If the roles were reversed and Roger was 33 and older, then what.


Looking back.. Agassi was the only player outside of Nadal, Nalbandian at times, definitely not the slams and Safin at the Australia who gave Fed more problems than the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc ever did. This was way passed his prime, injured Andre as well. Thats speaks volumes IMO
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
To start with, in order to be considered GOAT, he needs to win 2 Grand Slams before we even start talking. He currently has 0 Grand Slams. I know he has won some majors but before it can be said he won a Grand Slam he needs all 4 in a calendar year. Rod Laver is so far out in front as the GOAT, no further discussion is warranted. 2 Grand Slams years apart.

Yep. Ditto!
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
It's not a slight on Roger, it's just match up thing. I tried to explain this regarding Federer/Agassi, but of course, most are blinded and or don't listen.

LOL @ blinded and or don't listen ! :) If federer is in the zone, there isn't too much that agassi can do against him since he hits flat , right into federer's strike zone. Which is one of the reasons why I think agassi said that there was nowhere to go against federer when he was on or something similar to that.

Only if federer is slightly off, then only the UE count from federer would increase and agassi would have more chances. Agassi is NOT a bad matchup for federer.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
You are just a fountain of information 380 Pistol. LOL. Way to put things into perspective. Thats my biggest problem with alot of people especially Fed fans who want to look back at the past with the Rosey tinted-Fed Glasses on.. Not very objective when you look at the situation with Andre. Fed's wins were AFTER Andre's 33rd birthday. If the roles were reversed and Roger was 33 and older, then what.


Looking back.. Agassi was the only player outside of Nadal, Nalbandian at times, definitely not the slams and Safin at the Australia who gave Fed more problems than the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc ever did. This was way passed his prime, injured Andre as well. Thats speaks volumes IMO



There were only a handful of matches that Agassi was competitive in. The majority of them were due to weather conditions (US Open 04), Federer doing his routine lolly gaggle routine in the middle of a match (US Open 05), or Federer doing his routine shank a billion shots in a row (Indian Wells SF).


Otherwise, Federer dominated Agassi from pretty much all parts of the court.
 

War Safin!

Professional
After all discussion in this forum about if Federer is or is not the GOAT.

According to you what need to do Federer to be considered with out any doubt the GOAT?.

Regards.
Beat Nadal at this year's AusO.

Forget the French, if he ties 14 slams by beating Nadal in 2 weeks then that makes him 'THE G.O.A.T.'
 

fastdunn

Legend
I think Federer has pretty good chance to top Sampras' achievements.

But that doesn't mean Federer will be everyone's GOAT forever( open era only by the way ).

Under current homogenious ATP conditions, ATP might be able to produce a new champion who can better Federer's achievement.

Federer and Sampras' legacy will be re-interpreted again and again in the future, IMHO.
 

Otherside

Semi-Pro
look at him go in the Blake match at the USO-06
Hewitt final USO -04

Thats all I need to see to give him the GOAT title. Its a thing of beauty to watch him on court, the level he can play at is in my mind unmatched and the estetchics makes it unreal.

I'd like to shake his hand and thank him for some of the shots he has made over the year=)

Peter
 

War Safin!

Professional
look at him go in the Blake match at the USO-06
Hewitt final USO -04

Thats all I need to see to give him the GOAT title. Its a thing of beauty to watch him on court, the level he can play at is in my mind unmatched and the estetchics makes it unreal.

I'd like to shake his hand and thank him for some of the shots he has made over the year=)

Peter
Yeah, the USO final '04 was pretty impressive.
What was Hewitt back then? Top 5?
Federer beat Hewitt like he stole something from him...
 

Otherside

Semi-Pro
Yeah, the USO final '04 was pretty impressive.
What was Hewitt back then? Top 5?
Federer beat Hewitt like he stole something from him...

yeah he was 5, 3rd after the Open I believe?

I remember when the commentators Mac and someone else allready in that match said that it was the best tennis ever played. "he has such perfect form on the forehand, In ten years people will look back at that forehand, It's textbook material" something like that was said=)
 

380pistol

Banned
LOL @ blinded and or don't listen ! :) If federer is in the zone, there isn't too much that agassi can do against him since he hits flat , right into federer's strike zone. Which is one of the reasons why I think agassi said that there was nowhere to go against federer when he was on or something similar to that.

Only if federer is slightly off, then only the UE count from federer would increase and agassi would have more chances. Agassi is NOT a bad matchup for federer.

The bolded parts are the clearly illustrate why this post does need even warrant a response!!!!!
 

380pistol

Banned
Agassi from 2003-2005 ages 33-35 went 0-8 vs Federer, was just destroyed in half of those matches, and sets won were 20-5 in Federer's favor. If that is "playing someone tough" I would hate to see what a one sided battle is. I guess you think Roddick and Hewitt were playing Federer tough from 2003-2005 too, they had about the same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer after all, well maybe they did a bit better since they each actually got a win.

Federer destroyed Agassi in half of those matches. But those half came in.....
-November 2003
-January 2005
-March 2005
-April 2005

3 of those 4 came when Agassi was appraching his 35th b-day. Keep in mind Federer didn't beat Agassi until very late 2003. So lets's not say 2003 loosely, as if it happened in early in 2003. It was November 2003!!! The other 4 were.....
-7-6 in the 3rd (9-7 in the tie breaker, Dre had a match point)
-6-4 in the 3rd (Federer broke at 4-4)
-5 sets over 2 days
-Agassi led 3-6,6-2,4-2 30-0

Say what you say this was not the best of Agassi at 33-35, he back problems in the 2005 US Open encounter, and after the 3 beatdowns Roger gave Agassi in 2005, Dre ended up crawling out of the French Open and missing Wimbledon.

And do you (or anyone consider).....
-that from Miami 2004 (after losing to Roger in Indian Wells SF) to Canada 2004 Agassi went 5-6???
-that in 2005 the only vicories he had over top 10 players were 2 over Gaudio and one over Coria, all on hard???

So what Agassi was Federer really getting??? Yet he struggled 50% of the time.

As far as Roddick.....
From November 2003 to September 2005 (the time where Fed went 8-0) vs Agassi Roger went.....
-6-0 vs Andy
-won 14 of 15 sets

Hewitt (Nov 2003 - Sept 2005), well Federer went....
-9-0
-won 24 of 27 sets
-Lleyton ate 5 bagels

So Agassi won 5 sets in his 8 matches (24 sets) while Roddick/Hewitt won a combined 4 sets in 15 matches (42 sets).

Roddick and Hewitt were far closer to their primes an physical playing peaks than Agassi was during this time. Outside of the 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick/Hewitt didn't really push Federer or really threaten him. 1 of 15. Yet on 4 distinctive occasion Agass at 33+ gave Roger all he could handle.

So the Agassi - Roddick/Hewitt is clearly not an accurate one, as it shows Roddick and Hewitt did not have the "same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer".

And what win did Roddick or Hewitt have over Federer from November 2003 to September 2005???

You are just a fountain of information 380 Pistol. LOL. Way to put things into perspective. Thats my biggest problem with alot of people especially Fed fans who want to look back at the past with the Rosey tinted-Fed Glasses on.. Not very objective when you look at the situation with Andre. Fed's wins were AFTER Andre's 33rd birthday. If the roles were reversed and Roger was 33 and older, then what.


Looking back.. Agassi was the only player outside of Nadal, Nalbandian at times, definitely not the slams and Safin at the Australia who gave Fed more problems than the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc ever did. This was way passed his prime, injured Andre as well. Thats speaks volumes IMO

I just broke down Agassi's performances vs Roger and Hewiit and Roddicks over the same time period. I know it's objective and fact based. Other will say whatever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top