What was it like back when Federer was rising?

[Castiel]

I'm talking about june 2005 when federer just like djokovic kept dominating the field and had 5 grand slams.
Was it like the way it is now with Djokovic? all the bandwagons and stuff, and people arguing about prime, slams, h2h, rivarlies, etc..
Just curious about the pattern P;
were you aware that he was gonna get so far, what was the ratio between believers and disbelievers? would you say federer received higher expectations and praise than djokovic or the excact opposite way?
It's just intersting in my opinion the analogy between two young and skillfull tennis players with a lot of potential in the top of their game.

 

[Can't think of a name]

good question. Am interested in the responses

 

[travlerajm]

I've been following tennis since the 80's.

The first time I saw Federer play was the 2001 match where he upset Sampras.

After that match, I told all my tennis friends that he would be #1 in 3 years. That prediction wasn't exactly going out on a limb, as the young guys ahead of him at the time were Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick. All 3 of those players were very 1-dimensional, and it was clear that Federer had a more well-rounded game than they did.

So when Federer got to #1 and started winning slams, i was not surprised at all. But I did get surprised when he jumped to another level and was clearly head and shoulder above everyone else.

It wasn't until I watched him play in 2006 that I started to realize that he might be as good as prime Sampras. It was then that Federer's 2nd serve really matured and impressed enough to say that he and Sampras could be equals. Until that time, Sampras was the bar in my mind.

I don't think Djokovic has reached the level of prime Fed or prime Sampras. Yes, Djokovic may be a better returner than those guys, but his offensive game is still much inferior. There is no doubt in my mind that prime Fed would not have had much difficulty handling the current version of Djokovic.

 

[Seany]

Unfortunately not many of the TT spammers/frequent posters you see here actually followed tennis closely back then or even at all, so you wont hear many preaching just how great Federer was back then, it's just a myth to most on here.

But for those of us who watched almost every match and saw him doing the unbelievable, we need not speak too much about it or try and defend him from the band-wagoners. Because anyone who saw it, knows what they saw, knows they were very lucky to see it, and can forever have those memories of the best level of play in tennis history stored in their visual mind.

I don't care if he is called the "GOAT" or not, all I know is that nobody will ever ever ever play better tennis than what he did in 05/06/parts of 07.

 

[achokshi99]

Doing the unbelievable against baghdatis and gonzo is a little different than doing the unbelievable against nadal, fed, Murray, etc.

Unfortunately not many of the TT spammers/frequent posters you
see here actually followed tennis closely back then or even at all, so you wont hear many preaching just how great Federer was back then, it's just a myth to most on here.

But for those of us who watched almost every match and saw him doing the unbelievable, we need not speak too much about it or try and defend him from the band-wagoners. Because anyone who saw it, knows what they saw, knows they were very lucky to see it, and can forever have those memories of the best level of play in tennis history stored in their visual mind.

I don't care if he is called the "GOAT" or not, all I know is that nobody will ever ever ever play better tennis than what he did in 05/06/parts of 07.

 

[The Bawss]

Doing the unbelievable against baghdatis and gonzo is a little different than doing the unbelievable against nadal, fed, Murray, etc.

Can Fed play himself?

 

[Netspirit]

He just appears so vulnerable these days - you watch him and pray that his level does not drop. Yet it does.

Before, it felt like he was a machine. Nadal and Federer during 2005-2007 were like "Terminator 2" - liquid vs. bulky/metallic terminators.

I guess tennis level does not drop steadily with age, as many people would think.

First, a few holes (level drops) appear on the canvas here and there, they grow bigger and become more numerous, until the "B" game dominates, leaving only flashes of "A" game brilliance that become fewer and shorter with each year until they disappear completely, leaving a washed-out shadow behind.

It is those flashes that I still watch Federer's game for.

 

[bluescreen]

I would say yes, Federer had higher expectations put than Djokovic.

Commentary during some of his '05 matches already rung with the question, "could Federer be the best ever?"

I think this had a lot to do with the way Federer played. He won points--and matches--with such ridiculous shot making, while Djokovic makes it more a war of attrition (which, granted, doesn't tend to be as "glamorous" as Federer's style of play).

It'll be interesting to see how Djokovic's expectations change as he continues to step out of Federer's shadow.

 

[Seany]

Doing the unbelievable against baghdatis and gonzo is a little different than doing the unbelievable against nadal, fed, Murray, etc.

Take your garbage elsewhere, you simply don't understand tennis if you don't understand how age effects tennis, Fed dismantled his era....and you expect him to do the same to the NEXT era too? You expect too much, the fact that he has done the things he has done to the next era is a miracle in itself.

 

[achokshi99]

Can Fed play himself?

No, comparing who djoker has to go through in gs vs what fed did.

 

[Towser83]

Sadly I missed a lot of masters matches when Fed was in his prime because I didn't have cable tv for a while, so I mainly saw the Slams. But I used to go to bed knowing Federer would win.

What I did see though was incredible stuff. It was the first time in ages that a player I liked was winning, and he was winning A LOT. And it was great tennis, i kind of miss when Federer was that effortless and you knew break point down he'd come out with an ace, or from 0-40 down he'd serve 5 great first serves.

I think even by 2006 many people expected Federer to break Sampras's record 14 slams.

 

[ThoughtCrime]

Hmmm, you can have fun by going to "last" on these forums and looking at threads and posts from like 2004-2006, I find them quite interesting. I guess you can learn about public opinion by doing that.

 

[Tony48]

No, comparing who djoker has to go through in gs vs what fed did.

I agree. Gonzalez had never even been to a slam semi before he made that final.

 

[cc0509]

travlerajm;6307375]The first time I saw Federer play was the 2001 match where he upset Sampras.

After that match, I told all my tennis friends that he would be #1 in 3 years

. .


That was probably the first time I took notice of Federer too in that 2001 W Sampras match. You just knew when you saw him play in that match that he would be at the top at some point. In addition McEnroe was always talking about Federer ever since Federer won junior W I think it was. McEnroe would constantly say how talented he thought Federer was. How often do you hear McEnroe constantly talk about any junior on air unless he is asked. A lot different than most of the young guys you see today--i.e. Raonic, Tomic, etc. They seem good enough but they are no Federer that is for sure.

 

[cc0509]

Unfortunately not many of the TT spammers/frequent posters you see here actually followed tennis closely back then or even at all, so you wont hear many preaching just how great Federer was back then, it's just a myth to most on here.

But for those of us who watched almost every match and saw him doing the unbelievable, we need not speak too much about it or try and defend him from the band-wagoners. Because anyone who saw it, knows what they saw, knows they were very lucky to see it, and can forever have those memories of the best level of play in tennis history stored in their visual mind.

I don't care if he is called the "GOAT" or not, all I know is that nobody will ever ever ever play better tennis than what he did in 05/06/parts of 07.

I agree, best I have ever seen and I have seen all or most of the tennis players play live. This Federer today is a shadow of that former Federer even though he is still doing great things at age 30.

 

[Winner_DownTheLine]

Take your garbage elsewhere, you simply don't understand tennis if you don't understand how age effects tennis, Fed dismantled his era....and you expect him to do the same to the NEXT era too? You expect too much, the fact that he has done the things he has done to the next era is a miracle in itself.

I agree, Fed unlike Djokovic doesn't need 6 hours to beat his opponents.

 

[Mustard]

I'm talking about june 2005 when federer just like djokovic kept dominating the field and had 5 grand slams.

You mean after 2005 Wimbledon? It was annoying how everyone kept saying how brilliant Federer was, time after time, although the truth was that Federer domination looked set for years and years. I was much more interested in the rising Nadal, the recently crowned French Open champion, but Nadal was very much seen as just the 2005 king of clay and not too much beyond the clay-courts at that stage. Even with clay, it seemed just a matter of time before Federer would dominate there too.

Was it like the way it is now with Djokovic? all the bandwagons and stuff, and people arguing about prime, slams, h2h, rivarlies, etc..
Just curious about the pattern P;

Not so much head-to-heads in 2005, as that only came to prominence when Nadal started to beat Federer so much in 2006, but even then, many people were saying Federer was better than Sampras, even though he was way behind Sampras' 14 majors.

were you aware that he was gonna get so far, what was the ratio between believers and disbelievers?

It was after the 2004 US Open final against Hewitt that I realised Federer was going to dominate for a few years. Before that, I thought Federer was just having a good 2004 and that his bubble would soon burst. In late 2004, there seemed nobody able to stop Federer or pose a serious threat to his reign.

would you say federer received higher expectations and praise than djokovic or the excact opposite way?

Federer had way higher expectations and praise during his prime than Djokovic has had since 2011. The tennis "traditionalists" loved Federer and loved how the fighters and grinders like Hewitt were helpless to combat his artistry. Nadal started to challenge that eventually.

 

[Tony48]

I agree, Fed unlike Djokovic doesn't need 6 hours to beat his opponents.

In 6 hours Nadal would beat Fed twice twice

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

In 6 hours Nadal would beat Fed twice twice

Yet he still trails in slams. Very curious, no?

 

[Tony48]

Yet he still trails in slams. Very curious, no?

I don't care about Nadal. I'm just sayin.....

But back to the original question: I would imagine that it was the same. Crazy slam runs always make people expect more.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

I don't care about Nadal. I'm just sayin.....

But back to the original question: I would imagine that it was the same. Crazy slam runs always make people expect more.

If you didn't care about Nadal then you wouldn't have made the remark about twice in 6 hours followed by smiley face.

 

[Xizel]

I don't think Djokovic has reached the level of prime Fed or prime Sampras. Yes, Djokovic may be a better returner than those guys, but his offensive game is still much inferior. There is no doubt in my mind that prime Fed would not have had much difficulty handling the current version of Djokovic.

There's no dire need for such a thing. The courts have slowed down.

 

[FedererUberAlles]

It was pretty amazing watching it happen. Then, 2004 was when it was all obvious that he was the next big thing – as you can imagine from the slam record that year – but I don't think he had quite the shotmaking ability until he put it on display full time in 2005. And he still looked good in the few losses he had that year – it was a delight.

I think 2005 was special because he didn't crush forehands as much as in 2006 and 2007. The game to him was more about constructing the perfect point, game, set, match and tournament: hitting the right amount of spin on every single ball (or hitting it flat), mentally bludgeoning opponents, and then taking them apart so next time he played them they'd be plucked and ready to be roasted. He was in total control and he took as much advantage of it as anyone could expect. It was a sight to behold.

 

[Tony48]

If you didn't care about Nadal then you wouldn't have made the remark about twice in 6 hours followed by smiley face.

Winner_DownTheLine brought up the 6 hours. The point was that Djokovic can do something in 6 hours that Federer couldn't but wishes that he could. Being snarky, I said Nadal would beat him twice in that amount of time (while Djokovic would obviously win in that amount of time).

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Winner_DownTheLine brought up the 6 hours. The point was that Djokovic can do something in 6 hours that Federer couldn't but wishes that he could. Being snarky, I said Nadal would beat him twice in that amount of time (while Djokovic would obviously win in that amount of time).

Uh yeah, I get it, but it proves you're a *********. Why deny it?

Doesn't Nadal wish he could do what Federer did in 2011? i.e. beat Djoker in a slam.

 

[Tony48]

Uh yeah, I get it, but it proves you're a *********. Why deny it?

Doesn't Nadal wish he could do what Federer did in 2011? i.e. beat Djoker in a slam.

*********? LOL. You're joking right? Once again: I don't give a crap about Nadal. Have you EVER seen me root for Nadal?

 

[westside]

As a massive Hewitt fan, it was scary.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

*********? LOL. You're joking right? Once again: I don't give a crap about Nadal. Have you EVER seen me root for Nadal?

Yes, many times.

 

[Tony48]

Yes, many times.

Yes, and look at me celebrate another one of his accomplishments. I'm such a *********

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Yes, and look at me celebrate another one of his accomplishments. I'm such a *********

Dude, you're constantly saying things like I hope Djoker puts Nadal out of his misery, ends it painlessly, etc, etc, which you obviously don't want and divulges your inner *********.

 

[Tony48]

Dude, you're constantly saying things like I hope Djoker puts Nadal out of his misery, ends it painlessly, etc, etc, which you obviously don't want and divulges your inner *********.

You're obviously trolling. Using your imagination instead of facts to prove a point. You can't find a SINGLE post that says that I support Nadal.

I'm a Djokertard if you haven't noticed. Everyone else could drop off the face of the planet for all I care.

 

[celoft]

I've been following tennis since the 80's.

The first time I saw Federer play was the 2001 match where he upset Sampras.

After that match, I told all my tennis friends that he would be #1 in 3 years. That prediction wasn't exactly going out on a limb, as the young guys ahead of him at the time were Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick. All 3 of those players were very 1-dimensional, and it was clear that Federer had a more well-rounded game than they did.

So when Federer got to #1 and started winning slams, i was not surprised at all. But I did get surprised when he jumped to another level and was clearly head and shoulder above everyone else.

It wasn't until I watched him play in 2006 that I started to realize that he might be as good as prime Sampras. It was then that Federer's 2nd serve really matured and impressed enough to say that he and Sampras could be equals. Until that time, Sampras was the bar in my mind.

I don't think Djokovic has reached the level of prime Fed or prime Sampras. Yes, Djokovic may be a better returner than those guys, but his offensive game is still much inferior. There is no doubt in my mind that prime Fed would not have had much difficulty handling the current version of Djokovic.

This..................

 

[wings56]

Unfortunately not many of the TT spammers/frequent posters you see here actually followed tennis closely back then or even at all, so you wont hear many preaching just how great Federer was back then, it's just a myth to most on here.

But for those of us who watched almost every match and saw him doing the unbelievable, we need not speak too much about it or try and defend him from the band-wagoners. Because anyone who saw it, knows what they saw, knows they were very lucky to see it, and can forever have those memories of the best level of play in tennis history stored in their visual mind.

I don't care if he is called the "GOAT" or not, all I know is that nobody will ever ever ever play better tennis than what he did in 05/06/parts of 07.

I have to agree with this. The display of shotmaking COMBINED with phenomenal mental toughness. It seems these days we only get glimpses of shotmaking. That stretch of Federer domination was something I feel very lucky to have witnessed. I remember being so excited to actually get to watch tennis on the Tennis Channel in between Bag Checks and No Strings.

 

[Castiel]

Those were some very insightful comments.
It's such a shame that I didn't get to watch Federer back in his prime.
All I can tell you is that the first match I ever watched was Wimbledon 2008 final, I didn't really root for anybody, as I barely knew the game itself, but there was something there, the drama, the passion, and since that match, I slowly got into the tennis world. and of course Federer caught my eye.
The best match I seen of him since that day was probably US Open 08 final, he was like a god in that match.
However at some point, I kinda noticed that he tends to be a little bit inconsistent, its like he hit this amazing shot at once, then its out again, and after watching so many of his matches, every time I watch him play it's like "come on roger, don't miss that shot, come on roger focus like you did in 08 US OPEN, 09 Wimby and roland garros, 10 AO, and win! "
It took me some time to accept the fact that he is not what he used to be, and that's why I wanted to ask you guys what it felt like. just how good that guy was.
I'll always be rooting for him, wether he wins or loses, you always see amazing shots, execution, footwork, style..
Matches like the US OPEN 2011 are driving me crazy, but I think that I don't care about this anymore, I just want to watch this guy play because as I said I admire everything about him, not even his game, and the day he retires will be a very sad day.

 

[Wilander Fan]

Just to put it into perspective, Fed at won every slam for a 3 + years. The missing ones are the RG. Without Nadal, his slam final record would be just two losses. Del Potro and Djoker. He would have a 20 to 2 slam finals record.

 

[eric draven]

I'm talking about june 2005 when federer just like djokovic kept dominating the field and had 5 grand slams.
Was it like the way it is now with Djokovic? all the bandwagons and stuff, and people arguing about prime, slams, h2h, rivarlies, etc..
Just curious about the pattern P;
were you aware that he was gonna get so far, what was the ratio between believers and disbelievers? would you say federer received higher expectations and praise than djokovic or the excact opposite way?
It's just intersting in my opinion the analogy between two young and skillfull tennis players with a lot of potential in the top of their game.

I just remember that during that time the one word that everyone used was "invincible". Federer had no holes in his game and made everything look so easy. He was also as fast as the fastest players on the tour but I think it took people by surprise how easily he shifted between defense and offense. The talk was different from Djokovic in that I think the the tennis community was shocked at the domination Fed exerted on the game. We were just coming off watching Sampras finish his career and his domination did not match what Roger was starting to do. It would be a little while before Nadal would fully arrive and start punching holes in the "invincible" aura.

 

[nereis]

That people have already forgotten what it was like back in the day is a little shocking, quite frankly.

You forget that before Federer, there was no such thing as defense to offense as an embodying concept. You had great offense and you had great defense. When you were on the defensive you kept defending until the error was drawn. Federer changed all that.

Suddenly, you had a guy who could come up with winners from impossible positions and paint the lines for a winner all day long from anywhere on the court. At the same time he moved like a dream, no visible effort yet as fast as the fastest counterpunchers of the day.

Before him, you had guys who were great attackers (Sampras, Agassi) and guys who were great defenders (Muster, Chang, Hewitt). Now here is a number 1 who does everything better than everyone.

His game was perfect. It was complete. He could hit every shot in the book and then some that were not in the book. McEnroe was talented, but Federer had talent on another level.

You felt that unless his opponent really came up with better shotmaking that he stood no chance of beating him. People were desperately looking for a weakness and finding none.

People were comparing his game to a religious experience, and it was. It was mesmerising to watch him dismantle the best players of his generation and watch them wilt before shotmaking that was not seen before and largely has not been seen since his heyday.

 

[BigServer1]

Take your garbage elsewhere, you simply don't understand tennis if you don't understand how age effects tennis, Fed dismantled his era....and you expect him to do the same to the NEXT era too? You expect too much, the fact that he has done the things he has done to the next era is a miracle in itself.

Agreed. That poster also mentioned Baghdatis and Gonzo, yet failed to mention Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and (albeit old) Agassi, the guys at the beginning of Fed's prime that won slams, and also guys like Nalbandian who were dangerous and could beat anyone on their day.

The guys playing during Fed's peak aren't as good as Rafa or Novak, but the next guys on the list are FAR inferior to the players mentioned above. David Ferrer at #5 today is a pretty good example.

In response to the OP, the expectations were higher for Fed than they are for Novak. Fed was labeled early as an out of this world talent, and when he knocked off Sampras at Wimbledon in '01, the expectations were through the roof. People were surprised when Fed lost relatively early in slams after that, and some wondered if he would ever live up to his immense potential. Obviously he did...

There were too many questions surrounding Novak's ascent to compare him Fed. Many wondered if Novak could break through the Rafa-Fed duopoly, let alone dominate both. Now that he's won a lot in a short amount of time, the expectations will likely rise.

 

[Logan71]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yidqJM1Xl4U

This was the norm in fact before Fed Agassi was my fav player.
I remember Houston 03 masters cup and Fed played Agassi twice and really put on a show.I couldn't believe that he was making the best ballstriker I had ever seen look so normal.

US04 against Hewitt was a masterclass and it was by then that Federer was clearly no ordinary run of the mill multiple slam winner.

His power wasn't even that monumental it was his placement and spin,it was breathtaking.Even now that inside out forehand for me is the greatest shot ever something that Lendl should coach Murray to do.Lendl was a pioneer for that shot.

I have been watching tennis since Borg and I haven't seen a more complete player technically.Some of the greats in that time had maybe one or two absolute great shots but Federer's whole game seemd to be a weapon.

His movement,defense to offense,serve,forehand,angles.My only critique would be his volley.Back in 01 he was a much better volleyer of the ball,but he has hands like a brick especially on stop volleys.The amount of times against Rafa where I'm screaming at him to punch it away with intent.

 

[Magnetite]

Was a little different.

Djokovic had to wait a few years for Federer to get old, and for his game to improve against Nadal.

Federer didn't spend time in Sampras's shadow, and Hewitt was just a transitional #1, who everyone knew would be dethroned. I think Roddick slipped in there for a bit, and he had a lot of hype, but he never moved well enough.

Everyone knew Fed would dominate, but nobody knew if Djokovic could climb the Federer and Nadal mountain. I think even after RG last year, nobody actually knew if he could sustain his dominance through Wimbledon and into the US Open.

 

[wings56]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=1079

 

[VashTheStampede]

I remember during the 2003 US Open, Federer only had one slam at the time and wasn't even #1, yet all the commentators said if anyone could beat Sampras record, it was Roger Federer.

During the World Tour Finals in 2003 (it was called Master's Cup back then), the commentators were already saying Federer had the biggest arsenal ever.

By 2005 when his dominance was in full force, I think Federer got more praise than Djokovic due to his style of play and shotmaking ability. He had criticisms regarding his struggle against Nadal but for the most part, he had huge expectations to be Sampras' record.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

Was it like the way it is now with Djokovic? all the bandwagons and stuff, and people arguing about prime, slams, h2h, rivarlies, etc..
Just curious about the pattern P;

Yes. Some things never change. In 5-10 years, it'll be whoever dethrones the current crop will be getting the same treatment.

 

[devila]

I would say yes, Federer had higher expectations put than Djokovic.

Commentary during some of his '05 matches already rung with the question, "could Federer be the best ever?"

I think this had a lot to do with the way Federer played. He won points--and matches--with such ridiculous shot making, while Djokovic makes it more a war of attrition (which, granted, doesn't tend to be as "glamorous" as Federer's style of play).

It'll be interesting to see how Djokovic's expectations change as he continues to step out of Federer's shadow.

no one can believe djoker beat multiple slam winners, back to back, all with a rib muscle tear.
plus, he played final after final, including all davis cup ties. he couldn't quit because he knew arrogant federer would win the final with the usual easy draw.
nadal obviously served worse last year.

federer didn't play DAVIS CUP ties for many months. if fed did play much, fat LIMITED roddick would've converted 1 out of 17 break points at the 2004 wimbledon final.
we all know how much roddick injured & exhausted himself for davis cup ties and exhibition matches every year.
the bagel loss to federer at 2004 thailand was no coincidence. fed claimed he was injured too but he clearly had no big injury back then.

THE 2009 WIMBLEDON FINAL WAS THE NAIL ON RODDICK'S SLAM COFFIN.


if djoker had been confident instead of being wimpy and unathletic like roddick was in 2004,

djoker would have won the first 2 sets and the rest of the match at age 20.
he already knew how to trouble nadal on clay and queens club grass. he beat the top 3 players in july 2007.
neither federer nor nadal beat each other, djoker, murray in one event, on neutral hardcourts.
federer had injured opponents who withdrew from his draw or didn't fight due to bad fitness.

fed had no excuse for calling djoker lucky because djoker hit a forehand in the 2011 us open semi.
djoker played from match point down against federer the year before. djoker admitted he was passive in 2010 too.
federer needed djoker's double fault when djoker was up set points in the 2007 us open final too.

when fognini cancelled the french open (AND john mcenroe kept nagging djokovic about winning all slams),
djoker lost his match toughness.

 

[devila]

Was a little different.

Djokovic had to wait a few years for Federer to get old, and for his game to improve against Nadal.

Federer didn't spend time in Sampras's shadow, and Hewitt was just a transitional #1, who everyone knew would be dethroned. I think Roddick slipped in there for a bit, and he had a lot of hype, but he never moved well enough.

Everyone knew Fed would dominate, but nobody knew if Djokovic could climb the Federer and Nadal mountain. I think even after RG last year, nobody actually knew if he could sustain his dominance through Wimbledon and into the US Open.

djokovic was great on every surface and beat everyone. his true opponents are his fitness and fear. he didn't wait for federer because he didn't grow up to meet federer. he waited to reach his best. yet, he still beat nadal on clay (with no injuries and luck). federer cannot say that about himself no matter how much he admires himself.

 

[IvanisevicServe]

Goran said, following his final match at Wimbledon in 2004, that Federer was the most talented player he'd ever faced, and that included Pete.

Federer had 2 majors at that point.

People were already talking about him as possibly being the greatest player of all-time when he had just 2-3 majors in the bag. I think that's pretty telling.

 

[Mustard]

Goran said, following his final match at Wimbledon in 2004, that Federer was the most talented player he'd ever faced, and that included Pete.

Federer had 2 majors at that point.

People were already talking about him as possibly being the greatest player of all-time when he had just 2-3 majors in the bag. I think that's pretty telling.

Even back in 2001, John McEnroe was talking about how Roger Federer was one of the most talented players he had seen, and then Federer beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon. On the other hand, saying that someone is talented could mean anything. Miloslav Mecir, Henri Leconte and Younes El Aynaoui are some of the most talented players there's ever been, yet none of those guys won a major. I didn't think Federer would win a major either, back then, as he seemed too volatile and unpredictable. Even Safin seemed more likely than Federer to deliver when it mattered at that time (2000-2002). Federer took a few years, but he got the pieces together eventually, and what a domination he had.

 

[cc0509]

Even back in 2001, John McEnroe was talking about how Roger Federer was one of the most talented players he had seen, and then Federer beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon. On the other hand, saying that someone is talented could mean anything. Miloslav Mecir, Henri Leconte and Younes El Aynaoui are some of the most talented players there's ever been, yet none of those guys won a major. I didn't think Federer would win a major either, back then, as he seemed too volatile and unpredictable. Even Safin seemed more likely than Federer to deliver when it mattered at that time (2000-2002). Federer took a few years, but he got the pieces together eventually, and what a domination he had.

McEnroe was talking up Federer before 2001. He started talking about Federer when Federer was still a junior and I think had just won junior Wimbledon.
I have never heard McEnroe talking up a junior player on air while commentating before or since then.

 

[cc0509]

Goran said, following his final match at Wimbledon in 2004, that Federer was the most talented player he'd ever faced, and that included Pete.

Federer had 2 majors at that point.

People were already talking about him as possibly being the greatest player of all-time when he had just 2-3 majors in the bag. I think that's pretty telling.

Forget what all of these pros even say about Federer and his talent, all you had to do was see Federer live in action between 2001-2006 to know how talented he was. He could do everything. As the courts slowed down from 2001 on, his game became less aggressive unfortunately. He was pretty aggressive early on.

 

[Mustard]

I stick to my belief that tennis equipment is the main reason for any stylistic changes in the game over the last 10 years rather than the surfaces.

It's true that the old Wimbledon grass was removed in September 2001, and then there was a fazing out of carpet courts until they disappeared for good after 2006, but I really don't think they've been slowed down otherwise, and it's the equipment that makes serve and volley much, much harder to do today.