Let's face it, Federer has done GREAT

[GameSampras]

this is the most positive thing i've seen you write.. is everything ok?

Id love to share his optimism and enthusiasm.. But damnit.. Its a still a 2 man show at the slams. LOL. 2009 doesnt look any different either. I see Fed-Nadal finals going all the way through the 2009 season even the USO

 

[icedevil0289]

Id love to share his optimism and enthusiasm.. But damnit.. Its a still a 2 man show at the slams. LOL. 2009 doesnt look any different either. I see Fed-Nadal finals going all the way through the 2009 season even the USO

well if its pretty much fed-nadal finals all the way through, then veroniquem has even more reason to be happy because chances are nadal will win those matches.

 

[egn]

Did anyone notice how Wimbledon tanked it in 2006 when Roddick got bounced early lol. It was like Fed vs Nadal who cares..yet now Fed v. Nadal is apparently saving tennis? I would not judge american viewership as a whole. I barely watch tv and for tennis I watch it online, because american coverage sucks, is awful and on occasion provides some of the most annoying commentary ever and muting takes away from some of it..I like sounds. Therefore I resort to the internet!

 

[LanEvo]

Federer definately is not done with his career yet id say, id say he'll retire at 34 or 36 one of those ages

 

[egn]

Federer definately is not done with his career yet id say, id say he'll retire at 34 or 36 one of those ages

No. Please. For his sake he should call it quits around 30 or 32. He is not going to be top form between 32-36 and I would really not want to see another 35 year old guy attempting to be the top player. It was sad seeing Agassi from 04-06 still trying to play in the top. He was going on a good run every 5 or 6 tournaments. It was very upsetting. It is not that at 30-35 he will not be capable of being a great player Federer it is just he will become way more inconsistent and probably will not be as pretty. He will get a good run now and then and it will keep his ranking up, but as a whole it will be quite ugly.

 

[GameSampras]

Fed will be done no later than 30 years of age I bet. Maybe even 29 years of age, depending on how this next season or two go for him. Fed's ego is too big. HE wont continue to play when he is limping around the court, way passed his prime. If he is no longer capable of winning a slam or cannot be the top 1 or 2 in the world he wont player. Not with that ego of his.

It already appears he is losing focus on the game. I highly doubt Fed has been putting in the time on tennis like he used to.

 

[egn]

Fed will be done no later than 30 years of age I bet. Maybe even 29 years of age, depending on how this next season or two go for him. Fed's ego is too big. HE wont continue to play when he is limping around the court, way passed his prime. If he is no longer capable of winning a slam or cannot be the top 1 or 2 in the world he wont player. Not with that ego of his.

It already appears he is losing focus on the game. I highly doubt Fed has been putting in the time on tennis like he used to.

Yea I second that. He has too much pride. Years of being the big man, the one on top, the force to be reckoned with. Similar to Borg in some regards it really gets to you, it really does become all about being no.1 and really nothing else matters. Fed has other things to look forward to, he has a wife, a kid on the way, and enough money that he can do other things now. Fed is in for retirement sooner than I feel most people think, including Fed himself.

 

[GameSampras]

Yea I second that. He has too much pride. Years of being the big man, the one on top, the force to be reckoned with. Similar to Borg in some regards it really gets to you, it really does become all about being no.1 and really nothing else matters. Fed has other things to look forward to, he has a wife, a kid on the way, and enough money that he can do other things now. Fed is in for retirement sooner than I feel most people think, including Fed himself.

LOL.. Wish that was all I had to look forward to instead of working crappy jobs until im dead Ahhh.. to be a millionaire

 

[GameSampras]

You're a ******. Look at his last 18 GS finishes.....

And the last 3 of the 4 slams finals he has been in he has lost to the same player over and over again. No one remembers 2nd place. The point is, he isnt getting the job done anymore at the big stage. USO is the only slam he is managing anymore to win. He has lost his handle at every other slam.. Well he never had it at the French.. But anyways

 

[helloworld]

You're a ******. Look at his last 18 GS finishes.....

What's so ******** about other people's opinion? Open up, dude.

 

[imalil2gangsta4u]

i dont think federer will keep playing if hes not at his best during his 30s.

 

[egn]

You're a ******. Look at his last 18 GS finishes.....

He said fast...meaning quickly compare his last 8 to his 8 prior to that. Also note who all those final losses came against. Both of his points are backed up.

 

[grafselesfan]

It is BS. Nadal isnt bringing higher viewership, at least not in the USA

link:http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209

So see how it hits rock bottom in 2006, and once people saw Nadal doing better and becoming a threat to Federer the YAWN on grass it starts picking up again since. Thanks for proving my point. Of course it wont fly overnight. It will take time for Federer, Murray, and Djokovic to build popularity back up from the overrated boring Federer killing it for several years.

 

[helloworld]

So see how it hits rock bottom in 2006, and once people saw Nadal doing better and becoming a threat to Federer the YAWN on grass it starts picking up again since. Thanks for proving my point. Of course it wont fly overnight. It will take time for Federer, Murray, and Djokovic to build popularity back up from the overrated boring Federer killing it for several years.

Lol, the rating during Federer's reign is the lowest ever. Federer basically killed tennis.

 

[The-Champ]

Hes still managing deep runs yes.. But his days of winning may be over as long as Nadal is around and Murray continues to improve and finally does something at the slams

Murray? The same Murray who got killed at the USO-final? Nobody expected Sampras to win that 2002 USO, remember what happened? Although I felt he was quite fortunate it wasn't Hewitt on the other side of the net. Hewitt was a better match-up for Sampras than Agassi. Sometimes you just need a little luck, and it can happen to Federer as well.






What the hell is wrong with people? Roger won the USO a few months ago and all of a sudden, he wont win another slam? What if he wins the last 2?

 

[helloworld]

Murray? The same Murray who got killed at the USO-final? Nobody expected Sampras to win that 2002 USO, remember what happened? Although I felt he was quite fortunate it wasn't Hewitt on the other side of the net. Hewitt was a better match-up for Sampras than Agassi. Sometimes you just need a little luck, and it can happen to Federer as well.






What the hell is wrong with people? Roger won the USO a few months ago and all of a sudden, he wont win another slam? What if he wins the last 2?

Doesn't matter who the opponent was. Sampras was on fire in that final. If Hewitt was good enough, he wouldn't have lost to Andre in the semis.

 

[egn]

Lol, the rating during Federer's reign is the lowest ever. Federer basically killed tennis.

Real reason for 2006 death. Roddick did not make the finals. Lets be realistic here neither Nadal or Fed had anything to do with it. Americans watched in 04 and 05 because of Roddick.

 

[The-Champ]

Doesn't matter who the opponent was. Sampras was on fire in that final. If Hewitt was good enough, he wouldn't have lost to Andre in the semis.

It's a match-up thing. Hewitt liked playing Sampras because he could pass him left and right, and was an excellent returner. Andre on the other hand, never approached the net. That semi-final between AA and Hewitt was one of the best AA performance I've ever seen.

 

[helloworld]

It's a match-up thing. Hewitt liked playing Sampras because he could pass him left and right, and was an excellent returner. Andre on the other hand, never approached the net. That semi-final between AA and Hewitt was one of the best AA performance I've ever seen.

So Andre Agassi, one of the best returner ever with laser-like passing shot ability couldn't do that as well?? By your logic, Andre should be the one who is a good match up for Sampras.

 

[VivalaVida]

So see how it hits rock bottom in 2006, and once people saw Nadal doing better and becoming a threat to Federer the YAWN on grass it starts picking up again since. Thanks for proving my point. Of course it wont fly overnight. It will take time for Federer, Murray, and Djokovic to build popularity back up from the overrated boring Federer killing it for several years.

I didnt prove your point. I gave the stats for one match in one tournament, Wimbledon 2006. These are US ratings for the final only. The ratings plummeted because American hopes: Blake and Roddick made pathetic showings and lost early. Nadal and Federer have nothing to do with anything, Nadal can win 10 GS straight and it wont have a massive effect on the US ratings. The US is not producing amazing players anymore unfortunately and our ratings have taken a massive hit.

 

[edberg505]

Doesn't matter who the opponent was. Sampras was on fire in that final. If Hewitt was good enough, he wouldn't have lost to Andre in the semis.

Sorry, but that's BS. I think everyone knows Agassi did Sampras a huge favour by taking Hewitt out in the semis. I was and still am a huge Sampras fan but I was hoping like crazy that Hewitt would be on the other side of the net in that final.

Real reason for 2006 death. Roddick did not make the finals. Lets be realistic here neither Nadal or Fed had anything to do with it. Americans watched in 04 and 05 because of Roddick.

Yes, let us remember that those stats are for American viewership. No Americans near the final = no Americans watching Wimbledon.

 

[edberg505]

So Andre Agassi, one of the best returner ever with laser-like passing shot ability couldn't do that as well?? By your logic, Andre should be the one who is a good match up for Sampras.

As amazing a return Agassi was he sometimes took the all or nothing approach when it came to returns. It's not a huge surprise to see that Pim-Pim fire 50+ aces past him at the 05 AO. The difference between Agassi's returns and Hewitt's returns is Hewitt makes the shot from his return extremely difficult to handle. A lot of Hewitt's returns would land at Pete's feet, Pete volley's up and the next shot is academic. Hewitt just put a lot of returns back in play in a very difficult position for Pete to volley.

 

[VivalaVida]

Sorry, but that's BS. I think everyone knows Agassi did Sampras a huge favour by taking Hewitt out in the semis. I was and still am a huge Sampras fan but I was hoping like crazy that Hewitt would be on the other side of the net in that final.



Yes, let us remember that those stats are for American viewership. No Americans near the final = no Americans watching Wimbledon.

agreed. Many people here are blaming the devil himself, Federer, for single handedly ruining tennis, but dont worry the lord and savior Rafael Nadal will be here to take tennis to better days.

 

[Patrick_St]

Actually TV ratings were plumeting during the Federer dominance and have shot up since Nadal rose to the top. Tennis was boring with Federer on top, now that he has been pushed to the side by younger and more exciting talents it is very exciting.

That doesn't have to do solely with Nadal or Federer. It has to do with the great rivalry that was created between the two of them. Rivalries make sports more entertaining.

As for the original post, yes, I agree. However, it is a bit early to make this post, since Federer is not done with his career yet. He still has a few years left. Once he is retired, then you should make a post like this.

 

[COPEY]

I think it's dangerous to start writing off Federer at this point. Not everyone's doing it, of course, but to suggest he's all but done is maybe wishful thinking by some who don't want him to succeed for one reason or another.

Like others have said, this year should be pretty interesting. Even though the overwhelming consensus is that Nadal will take the French, I've never been a believer in the so-called "sure thing". An untimely exit by Nadal and/or Murray opens the door for Fed in any Slam, but even without such "luck" he's still extremely dangerous...dangerous enough to where if either of the aforementioned players aren't on their game he has the ability to take them out.

Anyway, I'm just looking forward to seeing how it all unfolds!

 

[thalivest]

That doesn't have to do solely with Nadal or Federer. It has to do with the great rivalry that was created between the two of them. Rivalries make sports more entertaining.

What amazing rivalry. Federer is Nadal's doormat. Obviously an amazing rivalry between Federer and Nadal isnt helping TV ratings as one doesnt even exist.

 

[helloworld]

As amazing a return Agassi was he sometimes took the all or nothing approach when it came to returns. It's not a huge surprise to see that Pim-Pim fire 50+ aces past him at the 05 AO. The difference between Agassi's returns and Hewitt's returns is Hewitt makes the shot from his return extremely difficult to handle. A lot of Hewitt's returns would land at Pete's feet, Pete volley's up and the next shot is academic. Hewitt just put a lot of returns back in play in a very difficult position for Pete to volley.

You're still not correct, but closer than the-chump. Hewitt is an ultimate counter puncher. He is the master of using the opponent's pace and direct it at his will. Sampras is the epitome of offensive tennis, therefore it shouldn't be hard to see that purely offensive tennis will have trouble against great counterpunchers. This is not very difficult to see, but none of you made the right attempt to analyze the situation here. It's not the return or passing shot ability. It's the nature of Hewitt's strengths that fits right into Sampras's weakness.

 

[helloworld]

Sorry, but that's BS. I think everyone knows Agassi did Sampras a huge favour by taking Hewitt out in the semis. I was and still am a huge Sampras fan but I was hoping like crazy that Hewitt would be on the other side of the net in that final.

What is wrong with you? You are a Sampras fan and yet you wish Hewitt was in the final?

 

[grafselesfan]

Hewitt actually prefers when players come in against him almost all the time. He doesnt have the power to hit through people from the backcourt, or even the most consistency there. He is an amazing counterpuncher, passes extremely well, and returns best when he has a target as well. He likes to use peoples pace againsts them but does it best when they are charging forward and he is getting a rythym against that. I think when he first reached the time in mid-late 2001 players kept thinking they had to attack all out for awhile to have a shot vs him. Even up and coming in 2000 attackers had more trouble with him since they didnt quite know how to approach him yet. I do think though players began to figure him out early in 2003. Dont give him a target constantly by charging the net point after point. Mix it up more, stay back often, then come in when he doesnt expect it. Once that happened he was never able to have the same success. I think Sampras would have figured it out too eventually, the same way Federer, an old Agassi (he lost 3 in a row in late 2001-mid 2002 then started beating him again), Roddick, and others figured him out.

 

[Patrick_St]

What amazing rivalry. Federer is Nadal's doormat. Obviously an amazing rivalry between Federer and Nadal isnt helping TV ratings as one doesnt even exist.

Even if Nadal has gotten the better of Federer there is still a rivalry. When you think of the finals of a grand slam tournament the two people you imagine playing are Federer and Nadal. They have met each other in the finals of every major and seem to be the only two players that make it to the finals now. There is indeed a great rivalry between the two.

 

[edberg505]

What is wrong with you? You are a Sampras fan and yet you wish Hewitt was in the final?

Mistake, should have been wasn't. I couldn't stand Hewitt which made that loss to Hewitt in the previous year's final all the more tough to swallow. So naturally when I saw Federer just dismantle Hewitt in the 2004 final it brought a smile to my face.

 

[helloworld]

Mistake, should have been wasn't. I couldn't stand Hewitt which made that loss to Hewitt in the previous year's final all the more tough to swallow. So naturally when I saw Federer just dismantle Hewitt in the 2004 final it brought a smile to my face.

I remember that match. The match clearly exposed Hewitt's weakness to generate pace against Federer's strength, court coverage. Hewitt was practically helpless as he couldn't generate enough pace to outmaneuver Federer, while Federer refused to make unforced errors like he used to in his younger days.

 

[grafselesfan]

What amazing rivalry. Federer is Nadal's doormat. Obviously an amazing rivalry between Federer and Nadal isnt helping TV ratings as one doesnt even exist.

I agree there is no rivalry. Nadal is master, Federer is slave.

 

[VivalaVida]

What amazing rivalry. Federer is Nadal's doormat. Obviously an amazing rivalry between Federer and Nadal isnt helping TV ratings as one doesnt even exist.

agreed. No rivalry but atleast they have epic matches right. I mean 2004 people talked about this Roddick and Federer rivalry and that always made me laugh. :lol:

 

[Chopin]

agreed. No rivalry but atleast they have epic matches right. I mean 2004 people talked about this Roddick and Federer rivalry and that always made me laugh. :lol:

On clay there is no rivalry but Federer has a winning record over Nadal off of clay. Perhaps you haven't been watching tennis. Yes, Nadal has dominated the last two years, but that's how tennis works.

 

[Chopin]

Do any of your posters realize that Federer still has a winning record over Nadal off of clay?

 

[edberg505]

Hewitt actually prefers when players come in against him almost all the time. He doesnt have the power to hit through people from the backcourt, or even the most consistency there. He is an amazing counterpuncher, passes extremely well, and returns best when he has a target as well. He likes to use peoples pace againsts them but does it best when they are charging forward and he is getting a rythym against that. I think when he first reached the time in mid-late 2001 players kept thinking they had to attack all out for awhile to have a shot vs him. Even up and coming in 2000 attackers had more trouble with him since they didnt quite know how to approach him yet. I do think though players began to figure him out early in 2003. Dont give him a target constantly by charging the net point after point. Mix it up more, stay back often, then come in when he doesnt expect it. Once that happened he was never able to have the same success. I think Sampras would have figured it out too eventually, the same way Federer, an old Agassi (he lost 3 in a row in late 2001-mid 2002 then started beating him again), Roddick, and others figured him out.

Apparently people didn't seem to get the memo as he was in the finals of the US Open and the AO. In fact I think Hewitt had some kind of streak for losing to the eventual slam winner in the slams for a while.

 

[helloworld]

Hewitt actually prefers when players come in against him almost all the time. He doesnt have the power to hit through people from the backcourt, or even the most consistency there. He is an amazing counterpuncher, passes extremely well, and returns best when he has a target as well. He likes to use peoples pace againsts them but does it best when they are charging forward and he is getting a rythym against that. I think when he first reached the time in mid-late 2001 players kept thinking they had to attack all out for awhile to have a shot vs him. Even up and coming in 2000 attackers had more trouble with him since they didnt quite know how to approach him yet. I do think though players began to figure him out early in 2003. Dont give him a target constantly by charging the net point after point. Mix it up more, stay back often, then come in when he doesnt expect it. Once that happened he was never able to have the same success. I think Sampras would have figured it out too eventually, the same way Federer, an old Agassi (he lost 3 in a row in late 2001-mid 2002 then started beating him again), Roddick, and others figured him out.

I think you sum it up pretty well.

 

[VivalaVida]

Do any of your posters realize that Federer still has a winning record over Nadal off of clay?

I have been watching tennis thank you very much. Maybe the reality hasn't hit home for you yet, but 13-6 is not a rivalry. Federer got whooped on clay, grass, and most recently hard courts by Nadal. In grand slams, nadal has won 6 of the 8 meetings. There is no rivalry. I am a big fed fan myself but it is a fact. Nadal owns Federer.

btw- Federer and Nadal are tied on HC 3-3. Fed has the edge 2-1 on grass.

 

[AprilFool]

I have been watching tennis thank you very much. Maybe the reality hasn't hit home for you yet, but 13-6 is not a rivalry. Federer got whooped on clay, grass, and most recently hard courts by Nadal. In grand slams, nadal has won 6 of the 8 meetings. There is no rivalry. I am a big fed fan myself but it is a fact. Nadal owns Federer.

btw- Federer and Nadal are tied on HC 3-3. Fed has the edge 2-1 on grass.

You forgot to mention the previous grass matches that Fed beat Nadal in. To say that Nadal whoops Fed on grass is a bit ludicrous, with all due respect.
And the '08 match was decided by a point or two and could have just as easily gone in Fed's favour.

As long as Federer has the talent to beat Nadal, which he has in spades, it's a rivalry.

 

[helloworld]

You forgot to mention the previous grass matches that Fed beat Nadal in. To say that Nadal whoops Fed on grass is a bit ludicrous, with all due respect.
And the '08 match was decided by a point or two and could have just as easily gone in Fed's favour.

As long as Federer has the talent to beat Nadal, which he has in spades, it's a rivalry.

So as long as Marat Safin has the talent to compete with the top guys, he is the rival to Nadal and Federer??

 

[grafselesfan]

Do any of your posters realize that Federer still has a winning record over Nadal off of clay?

Two can play at that game. Nadal's worst surface by far is indoors. So we can then say Nadal has a 14-4 record vs Federer off of indoors. Certainly alot better than the 5-4 record Federer has off of clay. Anyway the next time Federer and Nadal play on a non clay surface you can kiss goodbye to that useless stat. Heck at this point, the direction both guys are going, probably even if it is indoors.

 

[edberg505]

Two can play at that game. Nadal's worst surface by far is indoors. So we can then say Nadal has a 14-4 record vs Federer off of indoors. Certainly alot better than the 5-4 record Federer has off of clay. Anyway the next time Federer and Nadal play on a non clay surface you can kiss goodbye to that useless stat. Heck at this point, the direction both guys are going, probably even if it is indoors.

You seem pretty confident of that happening. Would you bet your life on it?

 

[Chelsea_Kiwi]

Two can play at that game. Nadal's worst surface by far is indoors. So we can then say Nadal has a 14-4 record vs Federer off of indoors. Certainly alot better than the 5-4 record Federer has off of clay. Anyway the next time Federer and Nadal play on a non clay surface you can kiss goodbye to that useless stat. Heck at this point, the direction both guys are going, probably even if it is indoors.

You really don't think before you post do you? You are trying to compare a surface where they have played 10 times, Federers worst surface and Nadal best to Nadals worst and Federer second worst where they have played only once I think. His comparison is very relevent.

A user on here said the other day the H2H would look a hell of a lot different if Nadal was as good as Federer and reached HC finals more often and that is very true.

 

[helloworld]

You really don't think before you post do you? You are trying to compare a surface where they have played 10 times, Federers worst surface and Nadal best to Nadals worst and Federer second worst where they have played only once I think. His comparison is very relevent.

A user on here said the other day the H2H would look a hell of a lot different if Nadal was as good as Federer and reached HC finals more often and that is very true.

I tend to disagree. Their overall H2H would still be overwhelm by Nadal's dominating result on clay. For example, suppose Nadal were able to make 3 extra hard court finals to play with Federer. Let's make it a worst case here and assume that he lost on all three finals. The H2H would be 13-9, which still heavily favors Nadal. As the current goes, the surface would be an irrelevant issue soon as Nadal can now beat Federer on all surfaces.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Lol, the rating during Federer's reign is the lowest ever. Federer basically killed tennis.

He he, Federer basically killed tennis...

 

[thalivest]

Two can play at that game. Nadal's worst surface by far is indoors. So we can then say Nadal has a 14-4 record vs Federer off of indoors. Certainly alot better than the 5-4 record Federer has off of clay. Anyway the next time Federer and Nadal play on a non clay surface you can kiss goodbye to that useless stat. Heck at this point, the direction both guys are going, probably even if it is indoors.

Excellent post. Totally agree.

 

[thalivest]

You really don't think before you post do you? You are trying to compare a surface where they have played 10 times, Federers worst surface and Nadal best to Nadals worst and Federer second worst where they have played only once I think. His comparison is very relevent.

A user on here said the other day the H2H would look a hell of a lot different if Nadal was as good as Federer and reached HC finals more often and that is very true.

You *******s are really desperate for any straw to grasp onto at this point arent you. How is completely eliminating Federer's worst surface and Nadal's best and then only considering the remaining head to head fair. That would be like removing Nadal's best attribute, Federer's worst and then putting them on court together. Nonsense. The fact that eliminating Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst you still have only a 5-4 lead for Federer shows that Nadal has been superior in their head to head performance. Nadal has been very competitive with Federer on every surface. Federer cant compete respectably vs Nadal on clay.

 

[Josherer]

Its a shame for Federer but he falls short of Pete Sampras in many departments.

How about you wait till his career is over.

 

[thalivest]

How about you wait till his career is over.

For all intents and purposes his career is over.