NO question...Federer best ever

[Coria]

I've watched so many Sampras matches. I watched Borg and Mac at their best. Federer has an overall more complete and spectacular game than any of them. And he will surpass Sampras' record of slams.

But even though he has to win more majors to equal Sampras' mark, he has already come close to Sampras' lifetime tournament wins--and the man is 25 years old. His topspin and slice backhand are better than Pete's. His drop shots are better than Pete's. His use of angles are better than Pete's. His passing shots are better than Pete's. His court coverage is better than Pete's and as good as Borg's.

His ability to change the spin, pace and depth of his shotmaking is better than Pete's. His volley is just about as good as Mac's.

Only Pete's first serve was better--which he rode to victory after victory. But Federer as a better return game and wins more OVERALL points in matches than Pete because he is more consistently competitive when he returns--unlike Pete so many time when he would not even come close to breaking and win in tiebreakers or go for broke in one return game and win it.

Federer simply is the most talented player to EVER walk the face of the earth--bar none. And if you don't believe that, you really don't know the game. I know that will tick some off, but it's the truth. We are all fortunate enough to be watching the greatest player who may EVER play this game.

 

[Ljubicic for number1]

I hate the guy but I must admit he is great, but I'm just not convinced he has any competition is this era. But there is no use going there again.

 

[Mick]

I hate the guy but I must admit he is great, but I'm just not convinced he has any competition is this era. But there is no use going there again.

Nadal used to give him problems but it seems he worked that out. It would be interesting to see how Federer would do against Nadal if they faced each other on a clay court next year.

 

[Rhino]

I totally agree with you Coria, Fed is a level above Sampras in most areas.
All this talk of him not having "any competition is this era" is rubbish. He makes the competition look bad. It's a psychological thing - people see that his competition are not regular slam winners so they can't put the Ljubos, the Nalbandians, Roddicks, Davydenkos, Hewitts, Safins, etc up there with Pete's competition, but if it were not for Roger they would have shared his 9 slams and be looking a whole lot better.
Unless Federer has a terrible injury or just decides to stop, then it's pretty obvious he will break all of Pete's records.

 

[NamRanger]

I totally agree with you Coria, Fed is a level above Sampras in most areas.
All this talk of him not having "any competition is this era" is rubbish. He makes the competition look bad. It's a psychological thing - people see that his competition are not regular slam winners so they can't put the Ljubos, the Nalbandians, Roddicks, Davydenkos, Hewitts, Safins, etc up there with Pete's competition, but if it were not for Roger they would have shared his 9 slams and be looking a whole lot better.
Unless Federer has a terrible injury or just decides to stop, then it's pretty obvious he will break all of Pete's records.

Agassi tested Federer at the 2005 U.S. Open final severly. That is how Agassi played in his prime. Sampras was better then that. Now, put the two together.

 

[TheMagicRacquet]

Couldn't agree more.

The "Federer has weak competition" is a stupid argument. Put Roger in Sampras' era and he would've been one of the (if not THE) dominating forces.

 

[Mick]

Agassi tested Federer at the 2005 U.S. Open final severly. That is how Agassi played in his prime. Sampras was better then that. Now, put the two together.

Yeah but in Tennis if player A plays well against player B and player C plays better than player A, it does not mean that player C could beat player B.

substitute
A for Nadal or Agassi
B for Federer
C for Blake or Sampras

 

[NamRanger]

Yeah but in Tennis if player A plays well against player B and player C plays better than player A, it does not mean that player C could beat player B.

substitute
A for Nadal or Agassi
B for Federer
C for Blake or Sampras

True, but Agassi in his prime was what Sampras had to play against all the time. Sampras had to play against the likes of Gustavo Kuerten (IMO is better then Nadal), Carlos Moya in his prime, Richard K., Goran I., Tim Henman in his prime, Patrick Rafter, Michael Chang, and a whole slew of other top 20 players, let alone top 10 players, who could compete with him. Sampras had much tougher competition overall. He played against more then just baseliners. He played against baseliners who were creative and crafty like Santoro and Guga, precision baseliners like Agassi and Kafelnikov, and he played some of the best S&V players of the 90s such as Henman and Rafter. He had way more depth and they were defintely just as good as some of the top 10 of today's game in their primes.

 

[Ljubicic for number1]

Common guys when you see guys like,
Ljubi "no forehand"
a severly over weight Nalbandian
a Roddick with "nothing after the serve"
a Daveydenko "fine player but not got the head"
a Robredo "solid at best"
a Blake "flashy but on or off"
A Ancic "star of the future"

Most of these guys are holding down top 10 positions year long, now compare that to.
Andre Aggasi
Jim Courier
Boris Becker
Stefan Edberg
Michael Stich
Goran Ivanisavic
Michael Chang
Pat Rafter
Thomas Muster

Some of the all time greats.

Some how todays players just dont stack up in my eyes.

I would rate Fed third at this point in his carrer behind Pete and Andre "seeing as Andre won 8 slams including all 4 in the same era as Pete.

Fed may well become the greatest or he may well fade away, only time will tell.

But Pete will always be number 1 for me simply because of the class field he competed against.

 

[35ft6]

Agassi tested Federer at the 2005 U.S. Open final severly. That is how Agassi played in his prime. Sampras was better then that. Now, put the two together.

Fed beat Sampras. Put that one together.

 

[NamRanger]

Fed beat Sampras. Put that one together.

Federer beat an aging Sampras that had lost of the drive to win in a close 5 set match which he nearly lost. How is that even fair? You took Federer at his best (in his younger years) and put him against Sampras basically at his worst. Federer barely got out of that. You can't make unfair judgements like that. You can say Sampras is better then Agassi because not only did he beat him multiple times when both were in their primes, but also because he had better and more consistent results.



So now what. I could say Nadal is better then Federer because he's beaten him 6-3. Nice try.

 

[Alejandro D]

As everything else, tennis evolves. Players get better, faster and stronger year after year. Federer would beat Lacoste, Laver, Borg or Sampras at their best. His consistency in winning match after match, title after title over the years is what defines an extraordinary player. And he's getting better even in clay. So don't be surprised if he wins the Grand Slam.
What we'll never know is what'd happened if Federer, Sampras, Borg. Laver, etc., had played in the same era.

 

[crazylevity]

Common guys when you see guys like,
Ljubi "no forehand"
a severly over weight Nalbandian
a Roddick with "nothing after the serve"
a Daveydenko "fine player but not got the head"
a Robredo "solid at best"
a Blake "flashy but on or off"
A Ancic "star of the future"

Most of these guys are holding down top 10 positions year long, now compare that to.
Andre Aggasi
Jim Courier
Boris Becker
Stefan Edberg
Michael Stich
Goran Ivanisavic
Michael Chang
Pat Rafter
Thomas Muster

Some of the all time greats.

Some how todays players just dont stack up in my eyes.

I would rate Fed third at this point in his carrer behind Pete and Andre "seeing as Andre won 8 slams including all 4 in the same era as Pete.

Fed may well become the greatest or he may well fade away, only time will tell.

But Pete will always be number 1 for me simply because of the class field he competed against.

Some of the statements you made were very very sweeping. Roddick-nothing without the serve: Not if you've just finished watching TMC.

If you look at the players you listed in Sampras' prime, you could just as easily make such sweeping statements. For example, Agassi-no net game, Courier-nothing without the inside out forehand, etc.

 

[Rafa's best friend]

He is one of the Greats for sure and supposed to be a nice guy(don't know him personally), BUT as long as that French open is missing from his RESEME, he may fall short against likes of Laver...

 

[phat]

Federer is the best now..... Pete was the best than. But I enjoyed watching Federer more because he is just a much more all-around player than Sampras was. BTW using their opponents to compare the 2 greats is useless because they were really heads & shoulders above everyone else (except Agassi & Nadal).

 

[Rhino]

Here is a list of the current top 10 and next to their name is their head to head against Federer:

Nadal: 6 - 3
Davydenko: 0 - 8
Blake 0 - 6
Ljubicic 3 - 11
Roddick 1 - 12
Robredo 0 - 6
Nalbandian 6 - 8
Ancic 1 - 4
Gonzalez 0 - 9

So Federer has played the rest of the top ten 84 times, and only lost 17 times. He wins about 80% of his matches against them.

If we go back exactly 10 years to November 1996 and see how Pete performed against the then top ten, with head to heads as they were at that time:

Chang 7 - 11
Kafelnikov 2 - 6
Ivanisevic 6 - 10
Muster 1 - 6
Becker 7 - 10
Krajicek 3 - 2
Agassi 8 - 12
Enqvist 1 - 6
Ferreira 3 - 4

So by then Sampras had played his current top ten 105 times, losing 38 times. He was winning about 64% of his matches against them.

I know this concludes nothing, I was just bored.

 

[crazylevity]

This concludes Federer is more dominant; however it does not address the original question of the QUALITY of the opposition. That I feel is nigh impossible to answer, and one can argue till the cows come home and there will still be people who find their argument wanting.

 

[peluzon]

Roger is better than Pete

 

[Mick]

Agassi rates Federer the best
12/09/2005

"Pete (Sampras) was great, no question," he said. "But there was a place to get to with Pete. It could be on your terms.

"There's no such place with Roger. I think he's the best I've played against."

-- Andre Agassi

__________________________

Agassi's comments that he was better than Sampras did raise an eyebrow from Federer when he followed him at the post-final press conference.

"Him saying that, I'm a little suprised," he said. "But I don't think he would be lying in here.

"It's fantastic to be compared to all the players he's played throughout his career. We're talking about the best - some are the best in the world of all time.

"And it's still going and I still have chances to improve."

-- Roger Federer


source: http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Tennis/0,,2-9-1517_1768884,00.html

 

[Rhino]

This concludes Federer is more dominant; however it does not address the original question of the QUALITY of the opposition. That I feel is nigh impossible to answer, and one can argue till the cows come home and there will still be people who find their argument wanting.

I agree, it is impossible to compare the quality of the two top tens - thats what I meant when I said it concludes nothing. Only a time machine could solve this arguement. Then we could have some cool matches like Nadal vs. 1996 Kafelnikov! Personally I don't think the current top 10 is worse than the 1996 one in terms of quality shots/game, but we can never be sure.

 

[35ft6]

Federer beat an aging Sampras that had lost of the drive to win in a close 5 set match which he nearly lost. How is that even fair?

And Federer wasn't near his peak either.

You took Federer at his best (in his younger years) and put him against Sampras basically at his worst.

Come on. That wasn't Federer at his best. He was ranked 15 then. How are you going to say Federer was better in 2001?

So now what. I could say Nadal is better then Federer because he's beaten him 6-3. Nice try.

My point is that you don't have to make indirect comparisons using 2 or 3 degrees of separation, they've actually played each other. It's not like we're comparing Bjorn Borg to Nadal, we're talking about two players whose careers intersected and who have actually played each other. Neither was at their peak, but that match allows us to talk about this without having to leave it completely within the realm of speculation.

 

[Rafa's best friend]

Til he wins that French open, he will always fall short to Laver.

 

[bribeiro]

Both Nadal and Blake claim fed is the best ever

From Nadal's interview:
I am playing against the No. 1, and against the best No. 1, no? For me, is the best No. 1 in the history

Blake's interview:

But obviously it's a tough task. He's the best player in the world - possibly ever.

 

[loner1984]

Federer is not of this world.

 

[35ft6]

Til he wins that French open, he will always fall short to Laver.

Don't forget Fred Perry and Roy Emerson. Sarcasm.

It was easier to win the French back in Laver's day. End of story.

 

[haerdalis]

Federer quite likely plays the best tennis ever but until he surpasses Sampras slam record or wins the french or a true grandslam he is not the greatest tennisplayer ever.
It looks right now as if he will do this but he hasnt done it yet.

 

[loner1984]

Fed should start playing with two handed backhand and use a two-handed slice forehand (like Santoro) to level the playing field. The guy is just totally dominating the field.

On the serious note though, I'd like to see him play more doubles and possibly win some slams. Any suggestions on who he should team up with?

 

[Rafa's best friend]

Fed should start playing with two handed backhand and use a two-handed slice forehand (like Santoro) to level the playing field. The guy is just totally dominating the field.

On the serious note though, I'd like to see him play more doubles and possibly win some slams. Any suggestions on who he should team up with?

he should team up with John Mcenroe, he is available anytime, only for tennis though...

 

[Rafa's best friend]

From Nadal's interview:
I am playing against the No. 1, and against the best No. 1, no? For me, is the best No. 1 in the history

Blake's interview:

But obviously it's a tough task. He's the best player in the world - possibly ever.

rafa is just saying tahat he knows fed is his pigeonon clay

 

[bribeiro]

rafa is just saying tahat he knows fed is his pigeonon clay

read my sig lol

 

[Rafa's best friend]

read my sig lol

he is talking about hard courts and grass not clay courts

 

[Feña14]

Federer is the most talented player ever to play the game imo with Pancho probably coming home in second. Federer knows how to beat absolutely anyone, and if he was at the peak of his talents 10 years ago then I have the utmost confidence in him being better than Sampras.

I've said it before and i'll say it again, I was a huge Sampras fan and thought he was the best ever but in this day and age.. I have to admit.. Federer is more talented and an all round better player in my eyes. The best performance by Sampras, which he has said himself, was against Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final. How many times have you seen Federer hand out those kind of performances? Federer seems to do it 5-10 times a year but Sampras didn't.

 

[boojay]

Federer is not of this world.

i just found his ship.

it has this strange "S" logo on it

 

[anirut]

A great tennis player WILL NOT rely on court surface to win, but will rely on himself to adapt to the surface to win.

That's all I have to say about all this Nadal-will-beat-Fed-on-clay one-dimensional thinking.

 

[Rafa's best friend]

From Nadal's interview:
I am playing against the No. 1, and against the best No. 1, no? For me, is the best No. 1 in the history

Blake's interview:

But obviously it's a tough task. He's the best player in the world - possibly ever.

I thought from this pic you have, you were a big time RAFA fan and not a Fed fan, but how wrong i was......

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Federer becoming GOAT

I am annoyed by those tennis enthuasists who believe that for Roger Federer to become the greatest of all time he must win more grand slam championships than Pete Sampras. Although, Sampras' 14 grand slam championships are axiomatically impressive, his comparatively poor results on clay challenge the belief that he is the GOAT. (I am not sure how impressive Sampras' six consecutive years being number one is, as there have been four other players who were number one for at least three consecutive years.)

I wonder, if hypothetically, Federer won the French Open and Wimbledon in 2007 and 2008, then retired, with "only" 13 grand slam championships, would he be considered the GOAT. I would have to think so.

 

[Feña14]

I think he will only be truly appreciated by people when he is retired. Imagine say, looking back at his performance today on DVD in 20 years time. Your just going to be blown away. Federer is an artist and we all know that they are only truly appreciated once they are gone.

It's a shame that some people fail to enjoy Roger's brilliance. He isn't going to be around forever so enjoy him while you can.

As far as him being GOAT. I think he does need to win 14 or more slams, if he gets the French aswell then I feel there will be nobody else to compare him to. At the moment it's between Sampras and Laver but if Federer can go past 14 or get 14 with a French then he will be the GOAT.

Exciting times ahead.

 

[drakulie]

I've watched so many Sampras matches. I watched Borg and Mac at their best. Federer has an overall more complete and spectacular game than any of them. And he will surpass Sampras' record of slams.

But even though he has to win more majors to equal Sampras' mark, he has already come close to Sampras' lifetime tournament wins--and the man is 25 years old. His topspin and slice backhand are better than Pete's. His drop shots are better than Pete's. His use of angles are better than Pete's. His passing shots are better than Pete's. His court coverage is better than Pete's and as good as Borg's.

His ability to change the spin, pace and depth of his shotmaking is better than Pete's. His volley is just about as good as Mac's.

Only Pete's first serve was better--which he rode to victory after victory. But Federer as a better return game and wins more OVERALL points in matches than Pete because he is more consistently competitive when he returns--unlike Pete so many time when he would not even come close to breaking and win in tiebreakers or go for broke in one return game and win it.

Federer simply is the most talented player to EVER walk the face of the earth--bar none. And if you don't believe that, you really don't know the game. I know that will tick some off, but it's the truth. We are all fortunate enough to be watching the greatest player who may EVER play this game.

Well said! I agree.

 

[sureshs]

Common guys when you see guys like,
Ljubi "no forehand"
a severly over weight Nalbandian
a Roddick with "nothing after the serve"
a Daveydenko "fine player but not got the head"
a Robredo "solid at best"
a Blake "flashy but on or off"
A Ancic "star of the future"

Most of these guys are holding down top 10 positions year long, now compare that to.
Andre Aggasi
Jim Courier
Boris Becker
Stefan Edberg
Michael Stich
Goran Ivanisavic
Michael Chang
Pat Rafter
Thomas Muster

Some of the all time greats.

Some how todays players just dont stack up in my eyes.

I would rate Fed third at this point in his carrer behind Pete and Andre "seeing as Andre won 8 slams including all 4 in the same era as Pete.

Fed may well become the greatest or he may well fade away, only time will tell.

But Pete will always be number 1 for me simply because of the class field he competed against.

These all-time greats looked great because they played each other. They would find it hard to compete at the level the game is played today. As Andre said, he could handle Pete but Federer - no way. That shows how there is a quantum jump in level of play these days compared to when those guys were playing.

 

[sureshs]

I am annoyed by those tennis enthuasists who believe that for Roger Federer to become the greatest of all time he must win more grand slam championships than Pete Sampras. Although, Sampras' 14 grand slam championships are axiomatically impressive, his comparatively poor results on clay challenge the belief that he is the GOAT. (I am not sure how impressive Sampras' six consecutive years being number one is, as there have been four other players who were number one for at least three consecutive years.)

I wonder, if hypothetically, Federer won the French Open and Wimbledon in 2007 and 2008, then retired, with "only" 13 grand slam championships, would he be considered the GOAT. I would have to think so.

Sampras can never be the GOAT. Agassi is already above him with all Slams, not to even start talking about Laver.

 

[capriatifanatic]

Agassi tested Federer at the 2005 U.S. Open final severly. That is how Agassi played in his prime. Sampras was better then that. Now, put the two together.

Agassi was 0-8 vs Federer from late 2003 to the end of 2005. Half of the matches were straight sets. If you honestly think Agassi and Federer were very close as players at that point you are a moron.

 

[capriatifanatic]

Federer beat an aging Sampras that had lost of the drive to win in a close 5 set match which he nearly lost. How is that even fair? You took Federer at his best (in his younger years) and put him against Sampras basically at his worst. Federer barely got out of that.

You really are a sad sack of brainless ****. Federer was not at his best either when he played Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon, not even close. He was not even in the top 10 and would lose in the 4th round or sooner of his next 7slams moron.

 

[chaognosis]

Federer is the best I have seen play, and his performance over the past three years has been (clearly) the most dominant such period by any player in the Open Era. However, I cannot yet rank him with Laver. Like Federer, Laver could hit any shot and win on any surface. Unlike Federer, Laver actually DID win the biggest titles on every surface--most notably in 1969, when he achieved the only true Grand Slam by a male player in the Open Era. If Federer wins the French Open, I think he will solidify his position over Sampras, Borg, et al, and move onto the top level alongside Laver. But to be the true, undisputed GOAT, Federer has to match Laver's feat of winning the Grand Slam.

 

[joe sch]

I've watched so many Sampras matches. I watched Borg and Mac at their best. Federer has an overall more complete and spectacular game than any of them. And he will surpass Sampras' record of slams.

But even though he has to win more majors to equal Sampras' mark, he has already come close to Sampras' lifetime tournament wins--and the man is 25 years old. His topspin and slice backhand are better than Pete's. His drop shots are better than Pete's. His use of angles are better than Pete's. His passing shots are better than Pete's. His court coverage is better than Pete's and as good as Borg's.

His ability to change the spin, pace and depth of his shotmaking is better than Pete's. His volley is just about as good as Mac's.

Only Pete's first serve was better--which he rode to victory after victory. But Federer as a better return game and wins more OVERALL points in matches than Pete because he is more consistently competitive when he returns--unlike Pete so many time when he would not even come close to breaking and win in tiebreakers or go for broke in one return game and win it.

Federer simply is the most talented player to EVER walk the face of the earth--bar none. And if you don't believe that, you really don't know the game. I know that will tick some off, but it's the truth. We are all fortunate enough to be watching the greatest player who may EVER play this game.

Have you watched Laver, Gonzales, Kramer, Budge, Vines, or Tilden ???

If not, how can you state that he is the best ever ?

This is the big problem with making "ever" type of statements. You cant even base this assessment on the open tennis records book. I think Federer will break Sampras records and be the best player of the open era but even Laver would have won more lots more slams and maybe another grand slam. Wonder if Federer will even win 1 grand slam ?

 

[Mikael]

I fully agree with the idea that:

- Federer is playing the best tennis ever, and consequently, dominating like no one has ever dominated.

- BUT, he is not the best player ever yet, because he hasn't won enough grand slams and titles.

It's very tempting to conclude that Federer is the GOAT simply because he has dazzled us for the last 3 years with phenomenal results, and appears invincible. But, we have to remember... 3 years isn't enough. If he can do it for 2 more years then he will have gotten about 6 more slams, bringing the total to 15. That would make him the GOAT. But he still has a moutain to climb. I thought it was interesting to read in that recent interview of him that he doubts his own ability to match his 2006 performance next year. He's 25 after all. I think his level of dominance will drop, and it will take him longer than 2 years to reach Sampras' mark. I'm betting on 4...

 

[bribeiro]

I thought that when laver won the grandlslam, he didn't win it on all surfaces, I thought the only players to win grandslams in all surfaces were jimbo and agassi, no?

 

[The tennis guy]

Agassi was 0-8 vs Federer from late 2003 to the end of 2005. Half of the matches were straight sets. If you honestly think Agassi and Federer were very close as players at that point you are a moron.

Exactly, moron like the one you are refering to can only pick one or two matches that fit into their "theory" while ignore other matches.

 

[Watcher]

Nope. If Federer retired tomorrow, his career would not be enough to make him the greatest of all time.

Does he have a good shot at BECOMING, EVENTUALLY, the best of all time? More than any other active player. But he isn't right now. Not by a long shot.

 

[oberyn]

This concludes Federer is more dominant; however it does not address the original question of the QUALITY of the opposition. That I feel is nigh impossible to answer, and one can argue till the cows come home and there will still be people who find their argument wanting.

You're right, it's an impossible question to answer. One group is not playing the other group head-to-head. Federer's dominance over his competition compared to Sampras' dominance over his competition really says next to nothing about the comparative quality of either's competition.

I've said it before, the logical extension of the argument that Fed's greatness is diminished because his competition is weak means that Fed will only start looking better when he loses more, thereby giving his competition more Slams, more Masters series titles, etc. (rolls eyes)

 

[Bjorn99]

Laver was, like Federer, a truly unique player. He hit topsin in a an era where everyone hit flat, and hit flat well.

Federer comes out, and starts beating two handed backhand players, in an era where everyone who was anybody, hits two handers.


Borg comes out and plays like a ping pong player in an era where players are all hitting one handed.


Mcenroe comes out and plays like a guy who farted around and hit trick shots all day(which according to his coach, he did)


Sampras came out and became a mix of about five geniuses.



Tilden moved like Federer and was way bigger than everyone else.



So if you ask me, they were all the greatest. Because they dared to be different. Just like my two guys, who COULD, maybe, become better than all of the above. And they are very different again. What makes a champion great is finding something technically superior and UNIQUE, whilst everyone else is busy copying the latest champ. And sticking with it, while everyone laughs for the first two years, and then becomes wildly jealous after they see that the unique stance is paying off.