and both suck in doubles..which lowers them so much in all time greatness
They don't suck in doubles, they just don't play it often.
that´s about the same IMO
Old fed beat Delpo at rotterdami 2012. He followed that by beating Murray at dubai, where the courts were very fast that year
After the match Murray said if conditi ons were still fast fed would be world number 1..
Söderling best results are on clay. Makes sense because he has a big fb windup
Old fed beat Tsonga and Berdych at Madrid 2012 when the conditions were like fast grass.
Fed returned a 145 mph roddick serve right at his feet during the USO.
Basically, I'm saying you're wrong.
Federer would probably never had gained the mental advantage over Roddick if the courts stayed fast. 2003-2004 Roddick is a good example, that means less trophies, less time as number 1 less confidense and so on.
Great deal of the succers of Federer is tnx to the aura he created in the 2004-2008. That was partly due slowing down the courts and the problems of his main opponents at that time and mostly because of him. Still during his career Federer almost always the fate on his side.
Basically, I am saying that you are wrong x2
and both suck in doubles..which lowers them so much in all time greatness
It's too physically demanding to compete both in single and double today. Some players even have hard time playing full time tennis without injuries or burned-out. Tennis is a lot brutal than it was in the old days.
SLD
With the more slower conditions Federer manage to overcome more easily a lot of players on the tour who were counting on a big serve and quicker ralies. This dont only include big star players like Roddick but it also include some mediocre ones like Brands, Karlovic, Rochus. From that point - he wins some matches that he couldnt have, he wins some titles, he gain confidence, he gain a lot more confidence, he reaches his best potential and oponents start ****ting them selfs when see him at the other part of the net.
Its not only Roddick, you have all the americans, Berdych, Safin, even Hewitt is more effective on faster courts. During the 90s with a perfect day on serve you could upset the very best, can you say the same after 2008 ?
So wait...sampras could dominate on fast courts but roger cant? Sampras had big servers in his day as well and he dominated Wimbledon and was very good at the uso and won a ton of HC titles. In fact he had to be good on grass and hard cuz he did nothing on clay and still finished world number one 7 times.
And this when old fed is beating the so called young guns in fast conditions? But I guess Murray doesn't know what he is talking about lol
So sampras can do it but fed wouldn't have done?
Sampras didnt have the kind of domination that Roger had. And again you miss the point. If the conditions didnt slow down, Roger wouldnt have that much wins, wouldnt gain that much confidence and he probably wouldnt be that much of a force after his 30s. Do you get my point now? Its like childhood, the better you have the bigger the chance to grow up a decent dude.
Uh no you miss the point. Sampras dominated grass and was almost as dominant on hc. The real reason sampras wasn't completely dominant is because he did nothing on clay year after year.
In other words he dominated fast courts but was useless on clay. If he was as nearly as good on slow as he was on hc and grass he coukd have been more like Federer.
So my point stands. You think sampras could dominate fast grass and hard but fed couldnt? Because we already know Roger is a better slow court player given his record since 2007 or so.
No he wouldnt because at that time the slower conditions taked a lot from his opponents while Roger adapted well to them.
Sampras didnt have the kind of domination that Roger had. And again you miss the point. If the conditions didnt slow down, Roger wouldnt have that much wins, wouldnt gain that much confidence and he probably wouldnt be that much of a force after his 30s. Do you get my point now? Its like childhood, the better you have the bigger the chance to grow up a decent dude.
On paper he could then be one of the greatest if he claims 18 or 19 slams.
personally i feel he cannot be greater than federer ever for so many reasons, some of them include that it is quite known that roger is in a different planet altogether in terms of sheer talent, for me talent is the most important factor and then comes execution. Both **** and roger have executed well but while roger had to deal with a much younger Djoker,**** and murray **** had roger who was 5 years older and was already 28 when he defeated him a 5 set marathon at Wimbledon.
**** enjoyed the same field that roger has already dominated, this was a big advantage for **** because since roger has already taken care of the entire field **** just had to take care of roger who was 5 years older than him, roger started his GS winning career very late compared to many other players, also Djoker was no where close to his form what he exhibits these days.
When people say roger is lucky they simply forget **** was super lucky that his only threat he had to deal with when he was peaking was a 5 years older roger who was already 28.
Also in-terms of consistency and not missing out slams, overall fair play,consecutive final and semifinal record, ability to defend titles in different surfaces,playing the one handed back hand like a man and not using two hands like a girl(personally i feel men should use one hand for both forehand and back hand, two handed back hand for girls because physically they are weaker), play an all round attacking game, so many things make roger the greatest ever and **** i am afraid does not have many of these qualities to be called a great except for mental strength and the ability sit inside the head against roger.