davey25 said:
If we believe Rabbit's post Rosewall in his prime did everything better than Federer in his prime. That is interesting and not true.
Well, these boards are about opinions. And, to listen to some of the guys who've been around the game for more years than me, Rosewall's groundstrokes were good enough to win the French and reach the finals of Wimbledon. With regard to his career, Rosewall won his first Grand Slam in 1953 and reached the finals of both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in 1974 losing both to Connors in what is widely considered his best year. Checking my math, that is a stretch of 21 years, meaning that Rosewall won the French when he was 18 and reached the finals of his last two when he was 39. Rosewall's backhand is widely regarded as one of, if not the best in the history of the sport. Groundstrokes largely account for winning the French which Rosewall did twice. Federer has yet to win the French or advance deep in the tournament. IMO, he must do both in order to pass Sampras on the list. And, just for the record, Rosewall has 8 slam titles, 4 Aussie, 2 French, and 2 Opens.
Further, your conclusion is incorrect. Volleys and groundstrokes do not constitute a complete game. Federer's serve and Rosewall's serve are not even in the same class. Rosewall's serve basically allowed him to put the ball in play, it was not a weapon. Federer has better foot speed than Rosewall. Federer is bigger and stronger than Rosewall. Rosewall was simply awesome off the ground and a better player at net than Federer IMO. IMO, Rosewall had a better return of serve than Federer, but that may change if Federer improves.
davey25 said:
Personally I think Conner's groundstrokes could be beaten by more than most assume including Roger. His forehand was very vurnerable compared to the best groundstrokers.
I believe I said Connors in his prime. I assume we're talking about the same player here. Connors in his prime hit his groundstorkes every bit as hard as anyone today. Watch his finals against Rosewall in 74 or his match against Borg on clay at Forest Hills in 76 (which was also a final). I have done both recently and his ball speed would match the majority of today's players, Federer included. Connors strokes lacked the topspin that Federer's do, but he took the ball earlier and that in combination with the flat ball he hit robbed his opponents of time.
davey25 said:
Personally I think a developed Borg exposed his abilities, and a variety of players figuring out his style exposed his abilities as being less than ever assumed. Of course that could happen to Roger but not as of yet.
...a developed Borg exposed his abilities... I don't know what that means. Borg won five (5) consecutive Wimbledon titles and six (6) overall French titles. He lost at the French to two people in his whole career meaning that he quit playing the French after winning it. He did so to concentrate his efforts on Wimbledon. Further, this means that he won the French and Wimbledon back to back on more than one occassion. Borg quit playing Wimbledon when he lost, the first loss after his consecutive victories to McEnroe.
I agree that Borg's abilities were exposed. They exposed what is generally considered the best athlete to ever step on a tennis court. They exposed what is still the highest winning percentage in entered Grand Slams of any player. They exposed a player who won consistently against a field of what is now Hall of Fame players. Granted, Borg left the game at 26, but to me, this makes his achievements even greater. The man won 11 Grand Slams by the time he had turned 25! He also won all of his grand slams on the two most diverse surfaces in the game. That speaks volumes about the ability of his game to adapt. Please don't even start with the level of competition because if anything, there were more better players at the top of the game then than now.
davey25 said:
It is also interesting he says Wilander's year was better since he won 3 slams and made on quarter, to Federer's 3 slams and one 3rd round; while McEnroe's was better since he had the best overall tournament record, even with only 2 slams(it was his fault missing the 84 Australian whether it was DQ, chose, or careless injury, I have read it was a combination of the 3 and if he wasnt motivated because of missing winning the 84 French that was his choice/fault too). So in one case it the slam record that counts, but in one case it is the overall tournament record. If one combines both though Federer had a better year than both of them. Especially when you factor in he did not lose any finals or lose to anybody in the top 10 at the time he played them.
Your logic escapes me completely. The history of tennis is based on grand slam results. If you want to compare the best year ever, we can do that as well.
First, let's compare Wilander's 88 to Federer's 04 in Grand Slam results. Both won the Aussie.....Wilander won the French and Federer got put out in the 3rd round....Wilander got to the quarters of Wimbledon and Federer won it...both won the U.S. Opens. Last time I checked, the quarters are further into a tournament than a 3rd round. Wilander lost to Mecir who took the eventual winner, Edberg to 4 sets. Federer lost to Kuerten who then lost to Nalbandian in the quarters, two rounds later. So, Wilander won two more rounds than Federer in each of their 3/4 years.
McEnroe's best year was better than (to date) Federer's best year. 82-3 is a better overall mark, plain and simple.
Let me say that I am a huge Federer fan. He has had a spectacular two-year run. But, two years does not make someone the best to ever step on the court in every category. Let's see if he can do it for 5 or 6 more years. If he can, and he can win the French, then I'll be the first to proclaim him as
one of the best ever. If he wins the true Grand Slam, all four in one calendar year, then I'll say he's probably better than Laver.
To listen to you and
Rickson, Federer will win the Grand Slam every year from here on out. You'd better stop and consider a couple of things. First, Federer found out this year he's not made of steel, he tore his thigh muscle. Should he become susceptible to injury, like the Williams, then his potential is nil. Both of the Williams girls are better at every aspect of the game than their contemporaries (just ask them), but they can't stay healthy. Should Federer succomb to the same problem, then he's going to be just another player on the tour with some good results and some bad results. Second, the money in the game today may cause Federer to become unmotivated. Not everyone in the game is concerned with their historical mark, just ask another (probably more) talented player, Rios. Yes, I think Rios is more talented than Federer. The difference between the two is motivation, plain and simple. Federer has not displayed the singlemindedness that made Lendl and Sampras great. He has displayed the talent of some other players like McEnroe, Nastase, and Rios. This makes them a joy to watch, but none of them could keep that level up consistently over the life of their career. Federer has yet to demonstrate any different IMO.
SpecialK would be proud of this post.