Who in your opinion has produced the highest level of tennis?

Which player took tennis to the highest level?

  • Sampras

    Votes: 21 6.2%
  • Federer

    Votes: 245 72.7%
  • Nadal

    Votes: 31 9.2%
  • Agassi

    Votes: 7 2.1%
  • Laver

    Votes: 7 2.1%
  • Borg

    Votes: 5 1.5%
  • Connors

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • McEnroe

    Votes: 9 2.7%
  • Lendl

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 11 3.3%

  • Total voters
    337

aphex

Banned
The point was that one cannot judge the game of a player he has barely seen. I've probably seen more footage of Laver than most posters here, but I don't or wouldn't pretend to know how well Laver played at his prime.

.

so this thread is for people 70 years old or older:confused:

btw, have you seen don budge play?

how can you judge a player you've never seen???
 

NonP

Legend
It wasn't clear that you were making that point, nevertheless, how do you know that you've seen more than everyone else?

From the ignorance that's on constant display in this forum and also from studying old tapes of Laver in my tennis lessons as a teen. BTW I never said "everyone else."

Whether they'd return as well with the same racquets/strings is irrelevant. I was making the point that the returns are better, regardless of whether that fact obtains because of a general increase in player ability in that area or if it's because of technology. If it were just the technology, that wouldn't change the fact that the servers are still having to deal with better returns.

Like I said, this is just media boilerplate, along with the refrain that today's players are fitter and stronger. You obviously buy it, I don't. Many tennis instructors and coaches would dispute both claims.

I disagree, you might be right about not being able to improve the reflexes part, but you can certainly improve your ability to place returns, or clobber returns, by practicing, as most people on these forums who play the game would know. By the way, tennis in general is based largely on hand-eye coordination but you'll see ATP players's form fluctuate based on how much they've practiced/played recently. My point is your level of play in any regard isn't fixed to a point, although the range of of your potential level of play might be fixed by your natural talent. It seems downright false to me to say that you can't improve your return of serve much with practice (but because of the reflexes component, you're probably right that you can't improve it as much as some other strokes).

As you granted at the very end, I only claimed that a player's return of serve cannot be improved much compared to his other strokes.

Even if youcouldn't improve your return of serve at all, that doesn't show that players today don't have better returns than players of the 90s. They could just be a better crop of returners - a possibility that you implicitly acknowledged when you hypothesised the the 90s crop was actually better.

Again this is debatable. Another thing I briefly alluded to was that today's players can be more safe with their returns since very few players serve and volley these days, which cuts down their return errors. That's just one of the variables you're not taking into account.

Well we aren't talking about players's serves in general here, we're talking about federer and sampras's serve, and because federer uses one of the smallest head sizes on tour, and only uses poly cross strings (his mains are gut), the benefits to the server (federer, in this case) do NOT offset the benefits to the returner, because federer does not fully employ these benefits.

Actually, Federer himself has commented on how switching from his previous Pro Staff 85 (the same racquet Sampras used throughout his career) to the bigger 90 helped his game. And the fact remains that Sampras didn't use poly while on tour.

Don't forget that here the returners also have the benefit of the slower surfaces these days, and don't pretend that the game wasn't alot more serve dominated in the past. It just was.

Yeah, it's true because you say it is. In case you haven't noticed this is called begging the question. You're simply assuming that the benefits of the slower surfaces outweigh the other variables I mentioned. And not only is your second statement about the serve-dominated game of yesteryear is irrelevant to this discussion, you'll also be hard-pressed to name many Wimbledon matches from the '90s that were "a lot" more serve-dominated than last year's final.

So regardless of the higher bounces helping topspin and kick serves, serves were obviously more effective in general in the 90s because of the surface speeds (and to a much lesser degree, the quality of returns).

Like I said, it's not just the speed of the surface that matters. And this is yet more unsupported question-begging.

Based on this (and the service games held stats) I find it reasonable to conclude that Federer had a better hold game in his prime than sampras did in his prime.

A belief is different from a reasonable conclusion.

And because of this I dont understand why everyone thinks sampras was the runaway BETTER grass courter of the two, (although he was the GREATER - 7 wimby titles compared to 6 for fed)

This is a different topic, and one I'm not interested in discussing.

so this thread is for people 70 years old or older:confused:

Not necessarily.

btw, have you seen don budge play?

Only a few short clips.

how can you judge a player you've never seen???

You can't, that was my point. This poll would've been more reasonable with choices from just the last 20 or 30 years.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
ROFL X 300, FR! You should send this in to 'The Reader's digest'. It'll make it into the 'laughter, the best medicine' section rather easily!

LOL, c'mon. That was meant to rile up the Pete-****s (a la Azzuri style) :).
However, I do believe that Fed is a bad match-up for Pete and would hold a significant advantage in their h2h.
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
I'm originally from Madras ... well, Chennai! :)

So are you Kannadiga? They're the most gentle people in all of India, IMO! Or at least, they were when I lived there back in the early 80's :)

KSBH, though we disagree on Fed, I hope we can agree upon singara chennai :). I'm currently on vacation there.... Though it is hot here, the convenience of auto rickshaws is quite something
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Why is a senior citizen like NonP trolling in this forum? If fans picked players like Laver, Emerson or Gonzalez, it’s all perfectly fine for him. But if you ever pick Sampras or Federer, he either judge you as too young and/or lack of tennis knowledge(regardless how old you really are). There’s plenty of threads/posts reek with bias against present players in the “former pro player talk”.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Why is a senior citizen like NonP trolling in this forum? If fans picked players like Laver, Emerson or Gonzalez, it’s all perfectly fine for him. But if you ever pick Sampras or Federer, he either judge you as too young and/or lack of tennis knowledge(regardless how old you really are). There’s plenty of threads/posts reek with bias against present players in the “former pro player talk”.

oh boy !!!!!!!!
 

kiki

Banned
Also, I think Hoad, Gonzales and Vines should be options. Jack Kramer considered all these guys to have better peak play than Laver, and Gonzales thought Hoad at his best was the best ever

and do not forget Budge,Crawford andPerry
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Also, I think Hoad, Gonzales and Vines should be options. Jack Kramer considered all these guys to have better peak play than Laver, and Gonzales thought Hoad at his best was the best ever

Yes they should be options. Hoad's reflexes were so good that he could take Gonzalez's first serve (when he was on his game) inside the baseline and put it away. Hoad also had a very powerful serve and volley game.

Kramer didn't say Gonzalez's peak play was better than Laver's. He said he thought Gonzalez could be Laver regularly if both were in their primes. It's clear Kramer thought Laver's best game was better than Gonzalez's. Kramer thought the best players when "on" were Vines, Hoad and Laver and I believe he ranked Vines number one in this category.

That being written I am always a bit suspect of Kramer's opinions because I think he has other reasons for writing them.
 

kiki

Banned
Maybe rose-tinted glasses, but I always think of McEnroe in 1984.



Mc in 84 is a one man show just like laver´s slam in 1969, Connors storm in 1974 and Lendl form in 1987.Certainly, Mc is the last big attacking player able to dominate the best clay courter of his time -lendl- for 2 amazing sets in FO
 
I started watching tennis during Wimbledon, but it was in 2005. Around the time of the finals, I saw Roger playing Hewitt and then Roddick. I couldn't believe how talented he was. It was one of the cleanest matches, I've ever seen from him. Then I saw Roger at the US Open just two months later and his level seemed to have dropped a bit.

I think it's just about impossible to have not been amazed by Roger during the 2004-07 era.
US OPEN 2005 was the tail-end of the 2005 version of Federer. Seeing him play Thailand and TMC thereafter, his game already looked like the game he had in 2006. It's a subtle thing. I'm probably alone in this, but watching his movement, his strokes, his serve, his volleys in particular, I thought the change was discernable. Roger early-to-mid in 2005 was the best player i've ever seen.
 
Last edited:

davey25

Banned
Breaking it down further of fairly recent players I think on grass it would be Sampras or McEnroe of 1984. On hard courts it would be Sampras at the U.S Open, Agassi at the Australian Open, or Lendl overall. On clay it would be Nadal or Borg.
 

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
US OPEN 2005 was the tail-end of the 2005 version of Federer. Seeing him play Thailand and TMC thereafter, his game already looked like the game he had in 2006. It's a subtle thing. I'm probably alone in this, but watching his movement, his strokes, his serve, his volleys in particular, I thought the change was discernable. Roger early-to-mid in 2005 was the best player i've ever seen.

He was great then but I still think he was the best at Wimbledon 2006 and the Australian Open 2007.
 

Al Czervik

Hall of Fame
The funny thing about this thread is I hate Pete for a lot of reasons, think Fed has had the better career, Fed is obviously the better all around player, etc., etc., BUT I have to agree with the OP if you have to give me one guy on his A+ game, I just feel Pete's was the best. '99 Wimby pretty much did it for me. Andre was playing out of his mind that year, even played pretty well in that match when he could get his racquet on the ball, but Pete's serve was so ridiculous not even prime Fed could touch him on that day.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Breaking it down further of fairly recent players I think on grass it would be Sampras or McEnroe of 1984. On hard courts it would be Sampras at the U.S Open, Agassi at the Australian Open, or Lendl overall. On clay it would be Nadal or Borg.

Grass: Pete for now. However, if Roger ever win his 7th SW19, then he gets the edge. Roger holds the record for the longest winning streak on grass and he was perfect in Halle, but Pete was less unbeatable(facing many 5 setters) and had some losses in Queen.

USO: Clearly it's Roger b/c he won 5 straight and 6 straight finals(and counting). Pete is right behind win 5 titles, and then Lendl in 3rd who made 8 straight finals.

AO: It's between Roger and Andre. I think Roger is better b/c he had overall tougher draws, and 2007 was one of the most dominant performance in this era(right behind Rafa in 2008 RG) by not dropping a set. Last man did it was Rosewall in 1971.

FO: Yes, it's between Bjorn and Rafael. This is the only part I agree with you.

Please try to be objective!!!
 
Krajicek vs Sampras (Wimbledon 1996)
Sampras vs Agassi (Wimbledon 1999)
Federer vs Hewitt (Masters Cup 2004)
Federer vs Safin (Australia 2005)
Safin vs Federer (Australia 2005) ;)
Federer vs González (Madrid 2006)
Federer vs Roddick (Australia 2007)
Soderling vs Nadal (French Open 2009) :cool:
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
Federer's hard court tennis has been by far the most dominant tennis I have ever seen.

I never saw Pete come close to doing what Federer did in the 2004 final of the USO
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Federer's hard court tennis has been by far the most dominant tennis I have ever seen.

I never saw Pete come close to doing what Federer did in the 2004 final of the USO

The 1999 Wimbledon final win over Agassi was amazing by Sampras. He was beating Agassi at Agassi's own strengths.
 

davey25

Banned
Roger holds the record for the longest winning streak on grass and he was perfect in Halle, but Pete was less unbeatable(facing many 5 setters) and had some losses in Queen.

USO: Clearly it's Roger b/c he won 5 straight and 6 straight finals(and counting). Pete is right behind win 5 titles, and then Lendl in 3rd who made 8 straight finals.

AO: It's between Roger and Andre. I think Roger is better b/c he had overall tougher draws, and 2007 was one of the most dominant performance in this era(right behind Rafa in 2008 RG) by not dropping a set. Last man did it was Rosewall in 1971.

FO: Yes, it's between Bjorn and Rafael. This is the only part I agree with you.

Please try to be objective!!!

Oh please, the thread is not called "most accomplished", it is "highest level". Whether Roger wins a 7th or 8th Wimbledon does not impact whether or not he reached a higher level of tennis on grass than Pete or not (personally I don t think he has at all) unless it is an even higher level than he has previously played which obviously seems unlikely at this point. If you really want to believe Roger has reached the highest level that is fine, but it is not based on something like whether he adds another slam here or there by comparision when it is pretty clear he wont be reaching a higher personal level anywhere than whatever he has previously.

Saying you think someone other than Roger has reached the highest level is also not unobjective. I dont feel Roger has produced the highest level of tennis I have ever seen. That is a matter of opinion, not some objective fact that everyone has to feel Roger reached the highest level of tennis just based on his wins, which other than Pete is hard to compare directly to past players anyway given the changing format of the game.
 
Last edited:

Pwned

Hall of Fame
Oh please, the thread is not called "most accomplished", it is "highest level". Whether Roger wins a 7th or 8th Wimbledon does not impact whether or not he reached a higher level of tennis on grass than Pete or not (personally I don t think he has at all) unless it is an even higher level than he has previously played which obviously seems unlikely at this point. If you really want to believe Roger has reached the highest level that is fine, but it is not based on something like whether he adds another slam here or there by comparision when it is pretty clear he wont be reaching a higher personal level anywhere than whatever he has previously.
Not clear to those who watched AO 2010.
 

davey25

Banned
Not clear to those who watched AO 2010.

So you think the 2010 AO was a higher level than the 2004, 2005, or 2007 AO's? It may have been the best tennis Federer has played in years other than the first couple sets vs Davydenko, but certainly not the best he has ever played.
 

Pwned

Hall of Fame
So you think the 2010 AO was a higher level than the 2004, 2005, or 2007 AO's? It may have been the best tennis Federer has played in years other than the first couple sets vs Davydenko, but certainly not the best he has ever played.

His match against Murray was better than 04 and 05 and I watched both Safin matches in the last week. But I never said it was his highest level. It just proves that he is still capable of an extremely high level. I am not going to write him off and say he cant raise the bar even more.
 

davey25

Banned
His match against Murray was better than 04 and 05 and I watched both Safin matches in the last week. But I never said it was his highest level. It just proves that he is still capable of an extremely high level. I am not going to write him off and say he cant raise the bar even more.

Federer reaching a new high even in the slams is pretty much impossible when he is now losing to Baghdatis, Berdych, Gulbis, and Benneteau in Masters Series events on a regular basis, regardless how little effort he might be giving to those. Winning slams is very possible of course, reaching a new career high level in them is not.
 

Pwned

Hall of Fame
Federer reaching a new high even in the slams is pretty much impossible when he is now losing to Baghdatis, Berdych, Gulbis, and Benneteau in Masters Series events on a regular basis, regardless how little effort he might be giving to those. Winning slams is very possible of course, reaching a new career high level in them is not.
Those matches are irrelevant to his grand slam play and he proved that at AO 2010. His lead up to the AO was less than stellar and he played phenomenally there. You don't think it's possible for him to reach a new high but your opinion on the matter is worthless.
 

davey25

Banned
Those matches are irrelevant to his grand slam play and he proved that at AO 2010. His lead up to the AO was less than stellar and he played phenomenally there. You don't think it's possible for him to reach a new high but your opinion on the matter is worthless.

Common sense is that he wont reach a new level in slam play, and even most *******s concede he will never play at a higher level than 2004-2006. That isnt to say he wont win anymore slams but he wont reach an all time new level. If you want to be an idiot and believe he can that is your problem.
 

Pwned

Hall of Fame
Common sense is that he wont reach a new level in slam play, and even most *******s concede he will never play at a higher level than 2004-2006. That isnt to say he wont win anymore slams but he wont reach an all time new level. If you want to be an idiot and believe he can that is your problem.

I never said what I believe. But I am not going be an idiot and rule it out.
 

bluescreen

Hall of Fame
us open final in '04 was the highest level of tennis ive ever seen played. even though i've only been watching live tennis since the early 2000's, ive seen many matches from the greats also listed in this poll, and is still think federer has played the best single match of tennis ive ever seen.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
I still remember Hewitt's face as he sat in his chair at the end of the 2004 US Open final. His face was like "Wow. What could I have done out there to beat this guy?" Hewitt never stops believing during matches, though.
 

edberg505

Legend
I still remember Hewitt's face as he sat in his chair at the end of the 2004 US Open final. His face was like "Wow. What could I have done out there to beat this guy?" Hewitt never stops believing during matches, though.

I was loving every single second of that too. I was certainly not the biggest Hewitt fan. I remember the incident that happened at the US Open with Blake and then he went on to kick Pete's teeth in in the final that same year. So it burned me up even more the he beat one of my favourite players. Yes, I was grinning from ear to ear looking at the complete and utter destruction of Hewitt in 04 US Open. Which makes it kinda ironic that I sorta root for him now. LOL. Weird, I know.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Grass: Pete for now. However, if Roger ever win his 7th SW19, then he gets the edge. Roger holds the record for the longest winning streak on grass and he was perfect in Halle, but Pete was less unbeatable(facing many 5 setters) and had some losses in Queen.

USO: Clearly it's Roger b/c he won 5 straight and 6 straight finals(and counting). Pete is right behind win 5 titles, and then Lendl in 3rd who made 8 straight finals.

AO: It's between Roger and Andre. I think Roger is better b/c he had overall tougher draws, and 2007 was one of the most dominant performance in this era(right behind Rafa in 2008 RG) by not dropping a set. Last man did it was Rosewall in 1971.

FO: Yes, it's between Bjorn and Rafael. This is the only part I agree with you.

Please try to be objective!!!

Achievements has nothing to do with highest level of play ....its not objective, but subjective.

For example, if I had to choose b/w safin and andre at the AO , based on their highest levels, I'd go with marat, though he has only 1 AO and andre has 4 AO
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Common sense is that he wont reach a new level in slam play, and even most *******s concede he will never play at a higher level than 2004-2006. That isnt to say he wont win anymore slams but he wont reach an all time new level. If you want to be an idiot and believe he can that is your problem.

umm, no, all it takes is one match where he plays out of his mind , so to speak. His serve, when on, these days is slightly more lethal than it used to be (I'm talking only of the highest level, its more inconsitent than before, see sod match at the french and roddick match at wimby), returning can still be good when he's focussed ( ex: the murray match at AO 2010) , he's incorporated the drop shots into his arsenal and when on can toy around with the opponents even more ... there's no reason why he can't play out of his mind for one match to match/surpass his best level.

That being said, he played better at AO 2k4,2k5 and AO 2k7 than at AO 2k10
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
Common sense is that he wont reach a new level in slam play, and even most *******s concede he will never play at a higher level than 2004-2006. That isnt to say he wont win anymore slams but he wont reach an all time new level. If you want to be an idiot and believe he can that is your problem.

did you even watch Fed Vs. Delpo of AO 09? that match is right up there with 2004-2006 level of Fed. Fed can play an occasional match of very high quality. Sustaining it over the course of a tournament is highly unlikely, though.
 

piece

Professional
umm, no, all it takes is one match where he plays out of his mind , so to speak. His serve, when on, these days is slightly more lethal than it used to be (I'm talking only of the highest level, its more inconsitent than before, see sod match at the french and roddick match at wimby), returning can still be good when he's focussed ( ex: the murray match at AO 2010) , he's incorporated the drop shots into his arsenal and when on can toy around with the opponents even more ... there's no reason why he can't play out of his mind for one match to match/surpass his best level.

That being said, he played better at AO 2k4,2k5 and AO 2k7 than at AO 2k10

I think there might be a couple of reasons why he is very unlikely to surpass his best level. One being the drop in his speed and footwork, and the other the drop in the racquet head speed he gets on his forehand side. I don't see how he's suddenly going to be as fast as he was from '01 - '05 (for example) again, even if only for one match. That kind of thing doesn't really happen. The racquet head speed issue is a little less clear, just because it could be a conscious choice on his part to swing more slowly (perhaps he knows his hand/eye isn't what it used to be and wants to cut down on errors), in which case he probably could bring the old forehand power out for one match.

Still, even if his old level in these two respects is gone, I guess it is still possible for him to surpass his previous high water mark, but he's going to have to do it without these attributes, which means he's probably going to have to serve/hit his backhand/dropshot/place his forehand/volley better than ever before. This, while not impossible, seems very unlikely to me.

While that match was his best BH performance, I don't think that's his best level of tennis, although he played some great tennis . He faced more than a few BPs and did make some sloppy errors.

Yeah it definitely wasn't the most error free of his "great performances", but Blake was playing some of his best ever tennis in that event (maybe his very best) and to destroy him like Federer did is impressive in itself. Apart from that, I've always found the highlights in that match to be more impressive in terms of shotmaking than any other Federer performance I can think of. So even if federer didn't play at his most "unbeatable" level in that match, it might just be his best ever performance in terms of shotmaking, in my opinion.
 

piece

Professional
us open final in '04 was the highest level of tennis ive ever seen played. even though i've only been watching live tennis since the early 2000's, ive seen many matches from the greats also listed in this poll, and is still think federer has played the best single match of tennis ive ever seen.

Agreed. Watching his forehand that match gives a prime example of what the word "unplayable" means. The first set was the most perfect set of tennis I have ever seen played. His forehand has never looked so good. And because his forehand is probably the cornerstone of his game, and because federer on his day may well be the best player to ever play the game, I can definitely see why this could be considered the best performance from any player ever.

I'd be interested to hear if there are any people who think that a fed from another day would be capable of beating the fed of the '04 final against hewitt, perhaps because they think that an even more important aspect of his game was clicking better in another one of his performances...
 

ksbh

Banned
FR, agreed X 100% on Chennai! :)

I'm quite embarassed to ask, being from that city myself, but what does 'singara' mean? :)

Where are you from? By the way 'Though it is hot here' is the greatest understatement about the Chennai weather that I've heard! LOL, it's more like a furnace! :)

KSBH, though we disagree on Fed, I hope we can agree upon singara chennai :). I'm currently on vacation there.... Though it is hot here, the convenience of auto rickshaws is quite something
 

fed_rulz

Hall of Fame
FR, agreed X 100% on Chennai! :)

I'm quite embarassed to ask, being from that city myself, but what does 'singara' mean? :)

Where are you from? By the way 'Though it is hot here' is the greatest understatement about the Chennai weather that I've heard! LOL, it's more like a furnace! :)

'singara' = pretty (rough translation), though the adjective does not quite match the reality

I hail from coimbatore, but did my high school + undergrad in chennai. So yeah, it's like a second home to me. I'm back in the states and am glad to have escaped "furnace"-like conditions (~ 40 C) :).
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I think there might be a couple of reasons why he is very unlikely to surpass his best level. One being the drop in his speed and footwork, and the other the drop in the racquet head speed he gets on his forehand side. I don't see how he's suddenly going to be as fast as he was from '01 - '05 (for example) again, even if only for one match. That kind of thing doesn't really happen. The racquet head speed issue is a little less clear, just because it could be a conscious choice on his part to swing more slowly (perhaps he knows his hand/eye isn't what it used to be and wants to cut down on errors), in which case he probably could bring the old forehand power out for one match.

Still, even if his old level in these two respects is gone, I guess it is still possible for him to surpass his previous high water mark, but he's going to have to do it without these attributes, which means he's probably going to have to serve/hit his backhand/dropshot/place his forehand/volley better than ever before. This, while not impossible, seems very unlikely to me.

its not easy, but a one-match situation,its definitely possible. He looked sluggish against berdych in their AO match in 2009 in 4R ( although partly due to the power on berdych's groundstrokes), but came out firing and was moving excellently in the next match vs del potro as he had a point to prove .. at times, he can get sloppy with footwork these days, but if on, he can move excellently, close to his peak level ..same applies for the FH as well

Yeah it definitely wasn't the most error free of his "great performances", but Blake was playing some of his best ever tennis in that event (maybe his very best) and to destroy him like Federer did is impressive in itself. Apart from that, I've always found the highlights in that match to be more impressive in terms of shotmaking than any other Federer performance I can think of. So even if federer didn't play at his most "unbeatable" level in that match, it might just be his best ever performance in terms of shotmaking, in my opinion.

very good in terms of shotmaking, but I'd put performances like TMC 2003 F vs agassi, wimby 2003 semis and finals vs roddick and scud,Aussie semi vs safin in 2005 etc ahead in terms of shotmaking
 

piece

Professional
very good in terms of shotmaking, but I'd put performances like TMC 2003 F vs agassi, wimby 2003 semis and finals vs roddick and scud,Aussie semi vs safin in 2005 etc ahead in terms of shotmaking

The 2003 TMC was the only one out of those you listed that I was considering on the same plane of pure unbelievable shotmaking as fed's 2006 tmc final performance. 2003 wimby semi v roddick was also great, but aside from that huge forehand half-volley winner he hit on set point (one of the great shots of the open era, I reckon) there wasn't anything that impressed me half as much as a bunch of federer's shots in that final against blake.

the 2003 final against scud and 2005 ao semi against safin are two matches that I would rank a fair bit lower than the others. I know you consider the 2005 ao semi to be the best match ever, but do you really think it was one of federer's best shotmaking performances individually? or just that he was part of one of the best mutual shotmaking displays of all time? Because whilst federer's performance in that match was above average (well above average if you look at his whole career, but only "above average" IMO if you look at how well he normally played in 2005), I can't think of many breathtaking attacking strokes (although he certainly played alot of very good attacking strokes) that he played during that match compared to say the 2003 tmc, or 2004 tmc semi (first set) or 2006 tmc, for example. I mean, look at the highlights of his match against blake (highlights are sufficient if you're evaluating pure shotmaking rather than overall level of play), then look at the highlights vs safin. Every winner federer hits on the 2006 tmc highlight reel leaves me gobsmacked, can you honestly say the same for the 2005 ao semi?
 

ksbh

Banned
Thanks, FR!

I agree, no kiddin ... pretty & Chennai?! LOL! Coimbatore is a nice city, or so I think based on my memory of having visited the city over 20 years ago!

I always loved Chennai but the oppressive heat finally convinced me to leave the city.

'singara' = pretty (rough translation), though the adjective does not quite match the reality

I hail from coimbatore, but did my high school + undergrad in chennai. So yeah, it's like a second home to me. I'm back in the states and am glad to have escaped "furnace"-like conditions (~ 40 C) :).
 
The 2003 TMC was the only one out of those you listed that I was considering on the same plane of pure unbelievable shotmaking as fed's 2006 tmc final performance. 2003 wimby semi v roddick was also great, but aside from that huge forehand half-volley winner he hit on set point (one of the great shots of the open era, I reckon) there wasn't anything that impressed me half as much as a bunch of federer's shots in that final against blake.

the 2003 final against scud and 2005 ao semi against safin are two matches that I would rank a fair bit lower than the others. I know you consider the 2005 ao semi to be the best match ever, but do you really think it was one of federer's best shotmaking performances individually? or just that he was part of one of the best mutual shotmaking displays of all time? Because whilst federer's performance in that match was above average (well above average if you look at his whole career, but only "above average" IMO if you look at how well he normally played in 2005), I can't think of many breathtaking attacking strokes (although he certainly played alot of very good attacking strokes) that he played during that match compared to say the 2003 tmc, or 2004 tmc semi (first set) or 2006 tmc, for example. I mean, look at the highlights of his match against blake (highlights are sufficient if you're evaluating pure shotmaking rather than overall level of play), then look at the highlights vs safin. Every winner federer hits on the 2006 tmc highlight reel leaves me gobsmacked, can you honestly say the same for the 2005 ao semi?
On the Blake match at TMC 2006...

That was an incredible display of dominance by Federer. But matches like that imo don't really carry a lot of hyped weight because, well, it's freaking James Blake. It's the same for Fed against say, Andy Roddick (as unfair as that may sound considering Andy's admirable consistency over the years). Roger walked on water that night in Melbourne in 07, but really now... it's different when he's up against someone who can bring out the best in him and, at the same time, push him to limit of his tennis acumen.

Which is what makes Safin's achievement of defeating Federer in Melbourne extra special. One could strongly argue that was probably the only time Fed ever lost in a Grand Slam when he was playing his best. And yes, it was also one of his best shotmaking performances. You should watch it again.
 
Top