What a joke, how is Federer supposed to hit a gobsmacking winner when Safin is giving him nothing but 90+ mph groundstrokes that are painting corners and lines.
Who in your opinion has produced the highest level of tennis?
- Thread starter dogged
- Start date
What a joke, how is Federer supposed to hit a gobsmacking winner when Safin is giving him nothing but 90+ mph groundstrokes that are painting corners and lines.
Nevertheless, if he wasn't hitting gobsmacking winners then it wasn't one of his best shotmaking performances. Which is all I said. (unless you think it was of his best defensive shotmaking performances - something I would, again, disagree with - but I wasn't talking about defense anyway, I specified what I was talking about in the post you quoted).
Maybe you could say that federer was still playing so well in that match against safin that IF he had played a lesser player it MIGHT have turned out to be one of his best shotmaking performances - that's a HUGE hypothetical there though.
I watched it for the third or fourth time a few months ago, and I've seen the highlights probably another three or four times. It was possibly the best I've ever seen Roger play and still lose (although there are a few others close). Alot of good shots in the match. Must admit though that the second time I watched the match (first time was live) I was a bit disillusioned, first few sets were a bit error prone. Next few were very high quality from both, and the end was very exciting. But honestly, I think federer has played a fair bit better - it's just that when he does so he never loses.
Take a look at the blake-federer match. Blake played well. It was the final of the masters cup, blake beat the no. 7, 6, 3 and 2 players in the world to get to the final. He was playing the tennis of his life. And federer bagelled him. Or, if you life, you could try and ignore that it was Blake on the other side of the net and just look at the balls federer was hitting his winners off. Backhand winners from unthinkable positions, off extremely good shots from blake, shots that would force a defensive or passive rally shot from anyone but federer in one of his best ever shotmaking performances.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I can think of these shots right off my head
two brilliant brilliant dropshots in the 4th set tie-break
3-inside out backhand return winners , yes, inside-out !
1 great half-volley lob
some monster forehands
some great play at the net, some phenomenal volleying
also less errors that would be deemed silly in comparision to the blake match ( I'm comparing on an average/per total points played, not the total no of points )
He hit some phenomenal shots in the blake match: half-volley baseline winner of the BH, running BH winners , slice lob etc ...very very brilliant, but the highlights make him look better than how he actually played, there were some inexplicable errors too .. highlights don't show this ...
as far as blake's play is concerned, he didn't play anywhere close to his best in the final, though he had in the run to the final , his FH his biggest weapon wasn't clicking at all .....
same for the sampras-safin match in 2000 too that you'd written about in the match thread... safin did outplay sampras from the baseline , though sampras had more winners from the baseline ( the highlights only show sampras winners and make it seem he was perhaps better from the baseline which is so not true, I did the stats and posted it in the former pro player section )
I look at how well they were striking the ball , not just outrageous winners when talking about shotmaking .... which is why I put in the roddick and scud matches ( the scud match also had quite a few brilliant passing shots ) .. well looking at the highlights of fed-blake again, I shouldn't put them above it, but yeah, I'd say they were cleaner matches .....
as far as the safin-federer match goes, still above the fed-blake match for me. I'd probably put the TMC 2003 final match right at the top though
Last edited:
I think where we differ here is, in evaluating a shotmaking performance, we place unequal emphasis on the number of errors committed in the match. You seem to think it is quite important, and I would disagree. I certainly think errors are a crucial factor when determining how well someone played overall, but you have to remember that I wasn't arguing that the blake match was the best federer ever played, rather, I was arguing for its status as one of the very best of fed's shotmaking performances.
Take, for instance, the statement that "federer played very well but also made tons of errors" and compare it to the statement that "federer made tons of errors, but there was also lots of fantastic shotmaking". The conjunction of the two propositions in the first statement seems a little bit silly - if you made tons of errors then it's hard to see how you could've played well, but the conjunction of the two propositions in the second statement seems to me quite reasonable. It doesn't claim that his shotmaking on every point was right up there with his best, rather it claims that his shotmaking was (at times) absolutely brilliant. This is the claim I'm making about the blake match, and the reasons I have just given are the reasons why I think you can judge a shotmaking performance solely from watching highlights (presuming they are comprehensive).
When you argue that the '05 AO semi was a better shotmaking display from federer on the basis of less silly errors (per point), or that it was a 'cleaner' (because of less silly errors per point) shotmaking display, you're definitely using a different criteria to me to judge shotmaking brilliance. I judge shotmaking brilliance by the frequency of brilliant shots in a match, not by the consistency of very good shots (or lack of errors) - that seems more like a measure of how well someone played than a measure of shotmaking brilliance to me.
P.S. totally agree with the TMC 2003 being right up the top. That one, alot of the 2004 TMC semi, and the 2006 TMC final are, I think, the best of fed's shotmaking performances (unless I'm forgetting some).
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Lendl. He was the first one to start hitting the ball off the ground really hard so he started the baseline bashing trend. Without him, people would still be playing like McEnroe. But Lendl proved that his style of game can be effective against the McEnroes of the world.
Do you have any particular matches in mind where he played better than anyone else ever has? I've never taken the time to watch much of Lendl, let alone try and find out his very best performances. I've only seen the FO '84 (I feel that Mcenroe lost this more than lendl won it) and some USO matches against connors and mac.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
For one match it's very possible that Lew Hoad played the highest level of tennis ever. The man had a huge serve, great volley and had the timing to move inside the baseline to return big serves like Pancho Gonzalez and put them away. He was also very fast, immensely strong and had great stamina.
He was a very high risk player who went for shots when he could have played it safely.
Unfortunately his back problems ended his career. He may have been the most talented player ever.
He was a very high risk player who went for shots when he could have played it safely.
Unfortunately his back problems ended his career. He may have been the most talented player ever.
volleynets
Hall of Fame
Oh Hai Roger,
You are so talented! Posting this message in this thread while serving out for the match against Clement in Estoril.
Dimension
Professional
Oh Hai Roger,
You are so talented! Posting this message in this thread while serving out for the match against Clement in Estoril.
Ever heard of telepathy and telekinesis, my dear? I am certain it will help you appreciate my greatness more.
Love,
Federer
Two matches jump into memory(esp considering who they played against)
2000 US Open final- Safin was so out of this world I never saw Sampras looked so lost and helpless.
2004(?) Master's Final Houston- Federer looked like he couldn't go and do something wrong he was timing the ball perfectly you felt bad for Agassi
2000 US Open final- Safin was so out of this world I never saw Sampras looked so lost and helpless.
2004(?) Master's Final Houston- Federer looked like he couldn't go and do something wrong he was timing the ball perfectly you felt bad for Agassi
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Such polls may not be meaningless, but they never reveal appropriate answers. The title should say:
Which player have you heard of?
(If there are multiple polls with multiple different questions and the most popular result is always the same, then something is certainly wrong with the sample group.)
Which player have you heard of?
(If there are multiple polls with multiple different questions and the most popular result is always the same, then something is certainly wrong with the sample group.)
Last edited:
But you can have multilple polls for Michael Jordan, or Michael Phelps, and the popular result is likely going to be the same. Why? B/c most sport fans agree they are the best.
Safin, Federer and Sampras. Safin's level was higher than anyone's in that group. However the other two were able to do it on different surfaces and on a consistent basis. But all three guys when in the zone are the three players who produce the greatest tennis. Safin kind of pissed a lot of godly talent away.
lmao, Federer played virtually the same match that he played against Agassi and embarrassed Agassi on his BEST surface. He nearly beat Safin, but it just wasn't enough. Federer was playing extremely well, virtually close to his best.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Lol at Safin. Nadal at the French and Wimbledon in 08 was better than Safin, Nadal at the French in 07 maybe too.
davey25
Banned
Agassi was 34 years old, soon to be 35. Thank goodness Federer was able to handle Agassi comfortably at that age or there would be a real problem for his supposed GOAT status. Oh wait he actually did have trouble putting away Agassi at that age twice at the U.S Open. Seriously why do Federer fans continue to bring up wins over Agassi at that age as if they are impressive. If anything it is a bad reflection on him that Agassi at that age atleast half the time gave him such a tough time.
davey25
Banned
Sampras 99 Wimbledon final > any Federer or Safin. I agree with Cesc about Nadal at the 2008 French and 2008 Wimbledon events. The 2007 Wimbledon final Nadal's sheer level was higher than Federer's best tennis that day on his favorite surface as well. Unfortunately Federer was the far mentally tougher player that day (against the norm for those two) and won all the big points, many which Nadal blew in very unNadal like fashion.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Its funny how Federer fans big up his wins against 35 year old Agassi but put down Sampras' win over 30 year old Lendl who was no.1 a month before.
davey25
Banned
Yeah that is definitely funny. Not to mention Sampras himself was only 19 at the time. Beating #1 ranked Lendl was a huge victory for the kid at the time, I remember what an upset it was considered. Sampras had an easier time with Agassi in his best year of hard court tennis ever in 1995 at the U.S Open than Fed had with Agassi at the U.S Open at 34 and 35.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Another clown who overrates Safin. Let me guess, Safin is the most talented player ever to pick up a racquet?
davey25
Banned
Safin does deserve huge credit for his performance vs Federer in the 2005 Australian Open semis and Sampras in the 2000 U.S Open final. Beating Federer at his best in a slam semifinal, and destroying Sampras only a bit out of his prime in a slam final, is worthy of high praise and shows how much game he could have when he was on. I just dont like how some of his fans build him up to be larger than life based on that alone. Performances like that show he is clearly more talented than your typical 2 slam winner and thus he underachieved, but that is not exactly a secret. It is not like those 2 matches alone make him the most talented player who reached the highest level of tennis ever produced ever. It is not like there arent many others (possibly no guys only 2 slams, but of all guys who have played the game) who havent had performances like that as well, including obviously guys like Federer, Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Nadal, and many others.
I prefer Safin to be overrated than Nalbandian though. Atleast Safin has won some things and beaten the best guys on the biggest stage when they were on top. Nalbandian hasnt done those things at all, hasnt even made a slam final since his fluke Wimbledon final, hasnt beaten prime Federer or Nadal in a slam, and has credentials on par with Davydenko, yet is heralded with some unofficial GOAT status claims on TW.
Both Safin and Nalbandian are overrated by some people, but Safin is atleast the far more tolerable of the two.
I prefer Safin to be overrated than Nalbandian though. Atleast Safin has won some things and beaten the best guys on the biggest stage when they were on top. Nalbandian hasnt done those things at all, hasnt even made a slam final since his fluke Wimbledon final, hasnt beaten prime Federer or Nadal in a slam, and has credentials on par with Davydenko, yet is heralded with some unofficial GOAT status claims on TW.
Both Safin and Nalbandian are overrated by some people, but Safin is atleast the far more tolerable of the two.
BigServer1
Legend
Then why do so many people downplay Fed beating Sampras when he was 19 and Sampras was on a 4 Wimby streak?
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Lendl 1990 >> Sampras 2001
davey25
Banned
Sampras of 2001 and 2002 was a huge dropoff from his previous level. If watching him play is not convincing enough just look at his overall results both years. 98-2000 was only a slight dropoff from his prime, but 2001 and 2002 was an enormous one.
It still was an excellent performance from Federer. One of the best matches he has ever played on grass arguably in that he volleyed much more and better than usual on grass, his backhand was excellent that day, etc...However a big difference is that was just a single win and he did not go on to win the title or even come close. Sampras followed up his big win with two more, especialy the more experienced and seemingly ready Agassi in the final, and won the title.
The objection comes when Federer fanboys act like that one match alone shows Federer would have an edge over prime Sampras on grass. A single match that could have gone either way with neither player in their prime does not show undisputed superiority for either player. Of course such a discussion between Sampras and Lendl is not brought up often as they arent even compared much the way Sampras and Federer are. I for one wouldnt say that match alone shows prime Sampras would have an edge over prime Lendl at the U.S Open. I would just assume that prime Sampras would have the edge on prime Lendl outside of clay mostly based on his greater and longer dominance of the game and better all court game.
Also a big difference is Lendl was ranked #1 at the time of the 1990 U.S Open and ended that year ranked #2 or #3. He had won the Australian Open that year and probably would have won the French had he played it. He won Queens which both Becker and Edberg were in, and was picked by some to win his first Wimbledon that year. My point is he was still at the top of his game and went in as the favorite or one of the favorites to win any slam event he was in at that point. Sampras was nowhere near that in 2001 and was already down to #5 ranked at the time of Wimbledon even with his Wimbledon Championship points still counting.
Maybe you have forgotten that Safin has Won 2 slams on hard. Nadal only has one slam on grass. Safin has also beaten the 2 GOAT's to win slams. Nadal managed to beat Federer no where near his 2005 form. Not even someone with adequate intellect could argue that Federer played better in 2008 than 2005
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Thats because theres only 1 slam on grass, if there was 2 Nadal would have won more grass court slams.
davey25
Banned
Of course Federer played better in 2005 than 2008. In 2005 he was facing a passive Roddick playing by far his worst match ever against Federer at Wimbledon. It is easy to play great when your opponent is doing nothing to hurt you. When Roddick plays more agressively like the 2004 and 2009 Wimbledon finals, Federer suddenly looks less god like and much more pressured. And an in form Nadal is an even tougher opponent for Federer on grass than an in form Roddick.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Federer played excellently at Wimbledon 2008, he didn't drop a set up in to the final. He was off colour for the first 2 sets of the final but after the rain delay he came out and played very well for the last 3 sets.
davey25
Banned
People have called the 2008 and even 2007 Wimbledon finals amongst the best matches ever. People say that about those finals even more than the 2005 Australian Open semis which was also an excellent match. People wouldnt say that if Federer wasnt in top form. Yet Nadal still beat him in one, and probably should have beaten him in the other.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda, if's, but's. You cannot prove any of that!
zagor
Bionic Poster
Much of those same people would also say that:
-Fed is GOAT
-Fed is better than Pete
So if we don't take those things for granted just because people say it(and I know you don't) than we shouldn't also take for granted that 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals are better than 2005 AO SF.
I personally think that 2005 AO SF was better than both 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals,for me personally it is by far the best match I've ever seen quality wise.
I think last years AO (bar the 5th set) was better than those two as well. Incredible tennis.
And of course - 2005 TMC Nalby vs Federer.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
Off topic,but who's that in your avatar? From some anime?
zagor
Bionic Poster
It was a great match,there were some sick groundies from both but I still felt that Nadal was a bit slower on defense than usual and Fed's serve was off while in Fed-Safin AO everything was clicking for both players from groundies,serve,ROS,volleys etc.
davey25
Banned
Fair enough. I do think the 2007 and 2008 Wim finals were the best Fed will ever play vs Nadal outside of indoors or a very fast hard courts (where the conditions are such he can dominate Nadal which is when he looks most great vs players). Nadal is just such a bad matchup for him and doesnt allow the best of Federer, so the 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals are really the best tennis he can do vs Nadal on a surface Nadal is comfortable on.
Safin is actually a very good and generally fairly easy matchup for Federer so does allow the very best of Federer to come out if he is "on". Safin was just playing so well that day he was able to beat Federer inspite of that.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Thanks man,I'll try and find it at the net,I'm always up for a good anime.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Ditto.From Federer's side I thought that was one of the better matches he played against Nadal.The BH held up MUCH better than it had for quite a few of their previous matches.From the baseline-Fed went absolutely toe-to-toe against Nadal for the first four sets.His numbers at the net weren't bad-He won 43 out of his 60 net approaches ( that's the official number anyway..or so I believe) .His serve though was REALLY off.Had some 11 DFs in the match (that's a quite a number for him.) and of course a lousy overall first serve percentage.Oh and the lousy BP conversion.
Last edited:
Sampras is 20-14 against Andre and most of the matches are on fast surface.
Winning percentage: 59%
Roger is 8-3 against Andre.
Winning percentage: 73%
LOL, it's the double standard between 90's and today. Sure, I gave Pete credit for stopping Lendl's 8 consecutive USO finals, but they aren't man enough to give credit for stopping Pete from tying Borg's 5 straight SW19.
Sampras fans have a lot to catch up with Federer's fans in terms of objectivity!
davey25
Banned
Sampras had to go 5 sets with Barry Cowan at that years Wimbledon. He was never going to make it to the final that year. Henman would have taken him out next round just as he did Federer. Henman had given Sampras a tough time in 98 and 99 when Sampras was twice as strong as he was in 2001. Sampras beating Henman, Ivanisevic, and Rafter all in a row to win that years Wimbledon in the form he was in that year. Please.
Now Lendl for sure would have been in the finals of the 1990 U.S Open and almost certainly won it if it werent for Sampras. An old McEnroe would have been an easy win for Lendl. Then in the final a young Agassi who Lendl had owned up to the point.
Now Lendl for sure would have been in the finals of the 1990 U.S Open and almost certainly won it if it werent for Sampras. An old McEnroe would have been an easy win for Lendl. Then in the final a young Agassi who Lendl had owned up to the point.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Same. Maybe then we don't have to read TMF's awful posts. I see he's reporting me aswell.
Pwned
Hall of Fame
The only way Serena is getting the Grand Slam is by going to Dennys.
