Why the tennis still needs Roger Federer

rommil said:
Remember the guy that if you added the total number of GS singles titles of all the other active ATP players it would only equal his? Yeah, that one.
Click to expand...

Extreme *******s like to discount the slam total in favor of the H2H. It gives them a false sense of security. Let them have their little fantasies! We know the truth. :)
 
cc0509 said:
So does that mean Simon is better than Federer and Davydenko is better than Nadal? Based on what you just said above that the H2H is the most important stat, that would be true, correct? I am sorry, but that makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I agree it makes no sense which is why I never said that, nor claimed that Simon is better than Federer.

Tennis is one person vs. one person. When two people get together 10-20times, distinct patterns are created. The h2h for Nadal Fed, Nadal Djoko, Fed Hewitt, Fed Nalbandian, etc. says so much about how the players match up and how they have evolved over the course of their career.

To respond to the conclusion you came to, for the most part I would say that yes, h2h does indeed indicate which player is better, since in competitive sports more wins=BETTER, however as for the case of Fed/Simon the sample is too small to make any conclusions.
 
Marius_Hancu said:
To all of those saying that Federer should retire in order not to diminish his heritage:

Your historical perspective is nil. Your view is limited.

Think about Rod Laver, who may still be the GOAT ("Greatest Of All Time") based purely on his double calendar GS ("Grand Slam").

He achieved those in 1962 and 1969.

He still remained active until his late thirties, until the late 1970s.

Certainly he knew he would not equal his "prime" 1969, that his results to lesser opponents would be going to his disadvantage. He was certainly more intelligent, in tennis terms, than any of his doubters, to realize that.

E.g. his career head-to-head is 1-4 against Ilie Nastase, whose prime was 1972-1973 (winning the USO and the RG), who was 8 years his junior.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L058&oId=N008

He was 39 when he was beaten last by Nastase.

His series with Stan Smith (also 8 years his junior), whose prime was 1972, is tied at 6-6 only because Laver continued to play into his thirties:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=L058&oId=S060

thus losing the last five of them.

Laver competed in such a way and his style of play was so unique that he made any of those duels worth watching, even when the final result was not to be in his favor because of his having lost a step to age, even though his competitors might have caught up to him in terms of speed, power or even mental edge at that very time.

Now, did he subsequently fare worse than Borg, who retired immediately he started to seriously lose, in terms of fame, because of staying in the game long past his prime?

No, those in the know know he didn't.

On the contrary, he's still at the top when GOAT discussions are around, for 50 years now, in the mix with Sampras and Federer.

Like Federer today, Laver in his thirties did a great service to the tennis community by continuing to present a great style of play, even if the results weren't favorable to him.

Thanks God for Federer. Otherwise it would be only the ugly, workmanlike, academies-sponsored game, the ugly game created by Borg-Agassi, against which the sparkling style of Nastase-McEnroe-Sampras-Federer lineage will be always pitted.

New generations of players need Federer just for the visual gratification and showcasing of a great style of play (yes: S-Volleying, even though less than Sampras; yes: 1HBH; yes: smaller-head raquets), just as yesteryear's generations needed Laver to stay around.

We need models and Federer is the best model against the uniformity that traps the current game. He's the model of great physical and mental talent, of great and easy shotmaking, against the great plodding.

We need him because he is the star that was and still is both extremely spectacular and light-moving and deadly efficient while at it.
Click to expand...

Well said. Many suffer from Federer fatigue, but they will miss him when he goes. The comparison to Laver is excellent, but I think Laver played longer than he might have because he could still use the money late in his career. Fed doesn't need cash so his exit from the game will be purely for personal reasons - I doubt he'll stick around as long.

But if Agassi could win slams in his 30s, Roger can too, although some more fast courts on tour would help.
 
Devilito said:
Player A beats player B all the time. Player C beats player A all the time. Player B beats player C all the time. Who is the better player? That’s why H2H is meaningless.
Click to expand...

how is that meaningless? 3people do not play a match, only 2.
 
tacou said:
I agree it makes no sense which is why I never said that, nor claimed that Simon is better than Federer.

Tennis is one person vs. one person. When two people get together 10-20times, distinct patterns are created. The h2h for Nadal Fed, Nadal Djoko, Fed Hewitt, Fed Nalbandian, etc. says so much about how the players match up and how they have evolved over the course of their career.

To respond to the conclusion you came to, for the most part I would say that yes, h2h does indeed indicate which player is better, since in competitive sports more wins=BETTER, however as for the case of Fed/Simon the sample is too small to make any conclusions.
Click to expand...

Oh, in the case of the Federer and Simon H2H you are putting your own qualifier on the stat by saying their sample is too small. That does not make sense. If you are going to say the H2H is one of the most important stats you can't then go and say that the H2H does not count if there are not enough matches. Either the H2H is important or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

With respect to a H2H where players have played on numerous occasions the match ups take place over different conditions over time--i.e. in tennis there are different surfaces that are played on for example. You can't just blindly look at the total H2H figure without looking at these conditions and what they mean.

What is more important is not one or two match ups that a player may have had where they are in an unfavorable H2H but ALL the other match ups they have had in their career with many other players where the H2H is in their favor. You have to look at the whole picture. You can't just isolate certain variables to suit your cause. In addition to that, there are so many other stats that are important to look at when looking at a player's career--i.e. slam count, other major tournaments won, weeks at number 1, consecutive wins, consecutive appearances in finals, etc. etc. etc.

When you think of a player, let's say Hewitt for example, the first thing you think about when you think about his career is not his H2H record with other players. Who would even know that off the top of his/her head? You think about how many slams did he win? Most people would be able to tell you that fairly quickly if they follow tennis at all. Then there are several other things that one would think about to assess his overall career. H2H is not even in the top 10 of the first things somebody is going to discuss. It just isn't.
 
cc0509 said:
Oh, in the case of the Federer and Simon H2H you are putting your own qualifier on the stat by saying their sample is too small. That does not make sense. If you are going to say the H2H is one of the most important stats you can't then go and say that the H2H does not count if there are not enough matches. Either the H2H is important or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

With respect to a H2H where players have played on numerous occasions the match ups take place over different conditions over time--i.e. in tennis there are different surfaces that are played on for example. You can't just blindly look at the total H2H figure without looking at these conditions and what they mean.

What is more important is not one or two match ups that a player may have had where they are in an unfavorable H2H but ALL the other match ups they have had in their career with many other players where the H2H is in their favor. You have to look at the whole picture. You can't just isolate certain variables to suit your cause. In addition to that, there are so many other stats that are important to look at when looking at a player's career--i.e. slam count, other major tournaments won, weeks at number 1, consecutive wins, consecutive appearances in finals, etc. etc. etc.

When you think of a player, let's say Hewitt for example, the first thing you think about when you think about his career is not his H2H record with other players. Who would even know that off the top of his/her head? You think about how many slams did he win? Most people would be able to tell you that fairly quickly if they follow tennis at all. Then there are several other things that one would think about to assess his overall career. H2H is not even in the top 10 of the first things somebody is going to discuss. It just isn't.
Click to expand...

Stats/numbers are perfectly suited to qualifiers/outliers. I do not think a 2-1 h2h is a telling stat, but h2h over all is a very illuminating stat.

people don't know off the top of their head what % of BP a given converts on, but that does not make it a trivial stat.

Slam Count/Weeks at #1 obviously define a career more than h2h, but I don't view either as a statistic. those are accolades.

If you talking about Federer/GOAT and whatever go ahead with that, I for one do not think his h2h with Nadal has much baring on his career overall. However the fact is Nadal wins most of their matches, as defined by h2h, and Nadal is a terrible matchup for Federer, as is reflected in h2h.
 
tacou said:
how can head to head be meaningless in a one-on-one sport, like boxing and tennis? tennis is 100% about match ups and the h2h tellst that story every time, not just Nadal vs Fed. I love Andy Roddick but his game and his prime matched up awful with Roger, just check out the h2h. Roger also struggles against quick counter punchers, check out his h2h with Gilles Simon.
h2h is one of, if not THE, most important stats in tennis
Click to expand...

No it's not, it's meaningless in terms of rankings and accomplishments. In fact, your post simply contributes to making my point. H2H is only useful for commentators to discuss matchup/style issues and to make predictions, and to people on the internet who are mostly fanboys for one player or another, and use H2H as a "when all else failed" non-argument.

And of course H2H is important in boxing, the reason why and the difference with tennis should be rather obvious.
 
tacou said:
how can head to head be meaningless in a one-on-one sport, like boxing and tennis? tennis is 100% about match ups and the h2h...

....h2h is one of, if not THE, most important stats in tennis
Click to expand...
The h2h is, at best, a 4th rate criteria by which to rate a tennis player's position in the bigger scheme of things.

When people talk historically about great players they talk about Laver's calendar slam, Sampras' 14 slams.... somehow the criteria changes when we get to Federer and the h2h has prominence? No way.

You say tennis is a one-on-one sport like boxing but it is not. It is an individual sport where the goal is to win a (finite) event through a series of wins against others - bettering the results of all those competing. Boxing by contrast is entirely one-off events with an added entirely ambiguous criteria by which you earn the right to fight those above you and a sport which is also divided into multiple associations which all-but ignore each other.

No-one other than a person using a conveniently self-serving line of debate considers a player's h2h to be of higher importance in overall greatness stakes than slam wins (and their make-up) or time spent/consecutive weeks at the number one ranking.

OR... you are right - and therefore have just argued that somehow Paul Haarhuis and Richard Krajicek should be considered in the same neighbourhood of greatness as Pete Sampras.

The h2h means virtually nothing because it can't be used to compare people from different eras - while slams and rankings can.
 
Last edited:
A good reason tennis still needs Federer can be seen in the support he gets in his matches. The first major tournament he doesn't appear at will show markedly lower interest in attendance and media coverage. Neither Nadal or Djokovic has anything like the appeal of Federer outside of dedicated tennis fans.

He literally is this tennis generation's Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods and nothing Nadal or other current top players achieve will likely change that. They simply don't have the broader appeal or the fortune to come along in a time when they could have a similarly mesmerising effect on the tour/public/media for so long.
 
Bobby Jr said:
When people talk historically about great players they talk about Laver's calendar slam, Sampras' 14 slams.... somehow the criteria changes when we get to Federer and the h2h has prominence? No way.

No-one other than a person using a conveniently self-serving line of debate considers a player's h2h to be of higher importance in overall greatness stakes than slam wins (and their make-up) or time spent/consecutive weeks at the number one ranking.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about h2h being more important than slam/ranking. I also mentioned nothing about comparing eras, nor did I single out Federer's h2h with anyone as having any effect on his legacy.

the GOAT discussion is endless/unanswerable (though I think Fed has the clearest claim to it) but the arguement that head-to-head isn't a useful stat doesn't work for me, and there really hasn't been sensible opposition to it.

if you were to place money on tomorrow's final, none of this would play into your decision?
 
Hood_Man said:
I'd love to see him do a Jimmy Connors and keep going until he's 39, just so I can enjoy watching him for another ten years.

Now, I'm not sure I can even see him continuing as long as Agassi did, but as long as he's around I will root for him wherever he goes and whatever he wins, Grand Slam, 250 or exhibition.

The day he retires there will be a massive hole left in the tennis world. Christ, even last years Wimbledon final felt wrong without him.
Click to expand...

It didn't for me.

There was tennis before Federer and there will be tennis after him. One man isn't the be all and end all of the sport.
 
H2h is important whether people want it to be, or not. Statisticians aren't paid to keep up with a meaningless statistics. There isn't a reputable tennis site that doesn't list the h2h as a valuable stat. It's important for many reasons and to deny its important is unrealistic.

People still talk about, and are aware of the Sampras/Agassi, Chris/Martina, other significant h2h's in tennis history.

If Federer leaves it will leave a void for his fans, but I doubt it will negatively affect the entire state of tennis. There are still sellout crowds at the finals that he hasn't contested.

Anyone who has been watching tennis for a while understands that all sport is ever changing. As good as Michael Jordan was, the sport didn't change when he left. It hasn't changed for anyone and it won't change for Federer either.
 
Bobby Jr said:
A good reason tennis still needs Federer can be seen in the support he gets in his matches. The first major tournament he doesn't appear at will show markedly lower interest in attendance and media coverage. Neither Nadal or Djokovic has anything like the appeal of Federer outside of dedicated tennis fans.

He literally is this tennis generation's Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods and nothing Nadal or other current top players achieve will likely change that. They simply don't have the broader appeal or the fortune to come along in a time when they could have a similarly mesmerising effect on the tour/public/media for so long.
Click to expand...
Well yeah I mean I do think it'll take a little bit of time for a lot of people to get used to his absence.I doubt all the people who used to buy finals tickets in the hope that they'd get to watch him play or specifically made sure to go to tournaments just to see him will suddenly switch over to someone else.It takes time for such a change to come about.
 
sureshs said:
Actually, Nadal has won 3 Slams beating Fed.

While Fed won the FO only because Nadal was injured.

That, combined with the Olympics Gold, overall H2H, and far better backhand, places Nadal on a whole different level above Fed.
Click to expand...

But Fed has went through to more finals on clay courts that Nadal has on hard courts in their total h2h. It just shows that Fed is/was a better all-around player.
 
tacou said:
I never said anything about h2h being more important than slam/ranking. I also mentioned nothing about comparing eras, nor did I single out Federer's h2h with anyone as having any effect on his legacy.

.....if you were to place money on tomorrow's final, none of this would play into your decision?
Click to expand...
My reply was in terms of goatness, not a betting agency making odds etc.

For sure, it is holistically - but a distant 4th (at best) to slam wins, weeks at #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 - and maybe others when rating a player's position in tennis history. I'd even put career winning % ahead of h2h with any specific peer why? - because it's a stat which show a player relative to everyone else. A stat such as a h2h is only relative to one person and therefore almost irrelevant unless you're only comparing them for trending reasons (making betting odds etc).

The implication of your h2h comment is as obvious as any other time people drag it out in these discussions. It was about his losing h2h with some of his peers. In reality, the better comparison in terms of GOATness is slam wins: Federer 16, Nadal/Djokovic/Delpotro/Roddick/Hewitt combined 15. So Federer is higher up the food chain historically (up to this point) than all of their careers combined. :lol: (yes, spurious logic use alert)

As for using a h2h to place money on a single match - already covered two paragraphs up. It's just not important in the overall scheme of things when you're talking about potential greats/GOATs.
 
Last edited:
Bobby Jr said:
My reply was in terms of goatness, not a betting agency making odds etc.

For sure, it is holistically - but a distant 4th (at best) to slam wins, weeks at #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 - and maybe others when rating a player's position in tennis history. I'd even put career winning % ahead of h2h with any specific peer why? - because it's a stat which show a player relative to everyone else. A stat such as a h2h is only relative to one person and therefore almost irrelevant unless you're only comparing them for trending reasons (making betting odds etc).

The implication of your h2h comment is as obvious as any other time people drag it out in these discussions. It was about his losing h2h with some of his peers. In reality, the better comparison in terms of GOATness is slam wins: Federer 16, Nadal/Djokovic/Delpotro/Roddick/Hewitt combined 15. So Federer is higher up the food chain historically (up to this point) than all of their careers combined. :lol: (yes, spurious logic use alert)

As for using a h2h to place money on a single match - already covered two paragraphs up. It's just not important in the overall scheme of things when you're talking about potential greats/GOATs.
Click to expand...

Whoa!!! That is just awesome! :)

There will never be another player like this guy! Tennis will sorely miss him when he is gone. imo, the most talented player to ever pick up a racquet, and with 16 slams under his belt, and still staying in contention, he is truly one of a kind.

Overall, great post!!!!
 
TheTruth said:
H2h is important whether people want it to be, or not. Statisticians aren't paid to keep up with a meaningless statistics. There isn't a reputable tennis site that doesn't list the h2h as a valuable stat. It's important for many reasons and to deny its important is unrealistic.
Click to expand...

In the context of how the h2h argument is being used against Federer (judging his career accomplishments), it's importance shivers considerably.
 
TheTruth said:
H2h is important whether people want it to be, or not. Statisticians aren't paid to keep up with a meaningless statistics. There isn't a reputable tennis site that doesn't list the h2h as a valuable stat. It's important for many reasons and to deny its important is unrealistic.

People still talk about, and are aware of the Sampras/Agassi, Chris/Martina, other significant h2h's in tennis history.
Click to expand...

Nobody said the h2h is not important, it is just not THE most important thing in judging the overall greatness of a player. It pales in comparison to looking at everything as a whole, meaning all of the player's records and achievements. It is just ONE statistic, that is it. If it is so important than I guess you probably think that Davydenko is a better player than Nadal right?:wink:
 
Certainly when He retires tennis will lose a lot. I have said before, when Fed retires the art of tennis will go away and with that much of the audience.
I don't seat around and watch Nadal Vs Ferrer, Nadal VS Djokovic anymore, these match ups don't bring anything to me anymore, I just got tired of these guys, too ugly game for me to see.
If I don't really have anything to do I'll watch otherwise anything will do it for me, unless it is major final where i make an effort to see it.
If Fed plays an ATP 250 i watch, if Sampras play an EXO i watch, but some of these guys can't bring anything special to the table but the baseline defensive ugly tennis.
 
Sartorius said:
In the context of how the h2h argument is being used against Federer (judging his career accomplishments), it's importance shivers considerably.
Click to expand...

I don't know how history will record it, but even in today's articles they make much mention of it. I don't think the h2h means Nadal is greater than Fed (we won't know that until their careers are over), but I also don't think the
h2h is a meaningless stat either.

Even today people know Krajicek had a winning h2h against Pete, so obviously it's something people pay attention to.

What's interesting about Fed and Nadal's h2h imo, is the fact that they're so distanced in age.
 
TheTruth said:
I don't know how history will record it, but even in today's articles they make much mention of it. I don't think the h2h means Nadal is greater than Fed (we won't know that until their careers are over), but I also don't think the
h2h is a meaningless stat either.

Even today people know Krajicek had a winning h2h against Pete, so obviously it's something people pay attention to.

What's interesting about Fed and Nadal's h2h imo, is the fact that they're so distanced in age.
Click to expand...

I agree the h2h is overated bynadaltards, it's aknock against fed, but hardly
ahuge one. I dont know if h2h is meaningless..but GOATis.just too difficult
to compare generatons esecially equi changes.

it'sfunny *******s will say variety willbe lost when fed goes..when about a decadeago..we lost the last half-decent serve-volleyer onthe tour.
the last decade.both fed and nadal hae benefitted fromthis.
 
Federer is the only guy in tennis who I will watch play in the early rounds. He is great to watch regardless of wh he plays because you are guaranteed some great winners. You couldn't pay me to watch an early round Nadal match which is full of grinding and moonballing. Of all the former world number 1's I think Nadal may have the ugliest and least entertaining game to watch. Highly effective but ugly.
 
obsessedtennisfandisorder said:
I agree the h2h is overated bynadaltards, it's aknock against fed, but hardly
ahuge one. I dont know if h2h is meaningless..but GOATis.just too difficult
to compare generatons esecially equi changes.

it'sfunny *******s will say variety willbe lost when fed goes..when about a decadeago..we lost the last half-decent serve-volleyer onthe tour.
the last decade.both fed and nadal hae benefitted fromthis.
Click to expand...

I think the h2h is what it is, and nothing more. I don't know why people get so touchy about Fed vs. Nadal anyway.

They're not the only two tennis players that ever existed. When they're gone, they're gone. Anyone who's watched tennis over the years should know that.

I just hate people throwing out that ridiculous 16>9 thingy, and then getting mad when someone counters with h2h.

Everyone should just appreciate their player. I do. I love watching Nadal play more than any player I've ever seen. To each his own. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Last edited:
TheTruth said:
I think the h2h is what it is, and nothing more. I don't know why people get so touchy about Fed vs. Nadal anyway.

They're not the only two tennis players that ever existed. When they're gone, they're gone. Anyone who's watched tennis over the years should know that.

I just hate people throwing out that ridiculous 16>9 thingy, and then getting mad when someone counters with h2h.

Everyone should just appreciate their player. I do. I love watching Nadal play more than any player I've ever seen. To each his own. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

How do find moonballing and repetitive topspin entertaining though? I mean with Federer you're getting sick drop shots, inside out forehand winners, serve and volley, one handed backhand flick passes, tweeners, lobs etc. With Nadal you're basically getting one stroke with the odd great winner on the run. Not trying to be a dick but just asking an honest question? Is it Federer's personality you don't care for?
 
Ray Mercer said:
How do find moonballing and repetitive topspin entertaining though? I mean with Federer you're getting sick drop shots, inside out forehand winners, serve and volley, one handed backhand flick passes, tweeners, lobs etc. With Nadal you're basically getting one stroke with the odd great winner on the run. Not trying to be a dick but just asking an honest question? Is it Federer's personality you despise?
Click to expand...

I like Nadal's passion as opposed to Federer's stoicism.

I think Nadal makes more fabulous gets than Federer.

The shots you named I see Nadal do too, lobs, flicks, overhead bh smashes, inside out, sick little dropshots, 360's, and that hitting the ball when it's behind him is to die for. Not to mention kissing volleys over the net like he did against Ferrer today.

I don't think Federer is original at all. I've seen it all before. There's no difference between Federer, Sampras, Haas, Malisse, and a ton of other guys who play that way.

Please, don't say between 2004-2007, because I saw him then and before he became TMF. Initially I was going to root for him because I thought he played like Sampras, but after reading his interviews he turned me off big time. Then Nadal came along and I chose Nadal to be a fan of, because never have I seen anyway play like him, and I don't think anyone can.

I prefer watching Djokovic, Murray, Haas, Ferrero, and a host of other players more, because how I perceive them makes a big difference to me.

And to answer your question honestly. I cannot stand his personality, so there's really nothing for me to like.

Although, as he's getting older and realizing his mortality, he has been more bearable, but when he was on top I couldn't believe many of the things he said.

Not to take anything away from him, he is a great player, it's just a case of been there, done that for me.
 
Buckethead said:
Certainly when He retires tennis will lose a lot. I have said before, when Fed retires the art of tennis will go away and with that much of the audience.
I don't seat around and watch Nadal Vs Ferrer, Nadal VS Djokovic anymore, these match ups don't bring anything to me anymore, I just got tired of these guys, too ugly game for me to see.
If I don't really have anything to do I'll watch otherwise anything will do it for me, unless it is major final where i make an effort to see it.
If Fed plays an ATP 250 i watch, if Sampras play an EXO i watch, but some of these guys can't bring anything special to the table but the baseline defensive ugly tennis.
Click to expand...

While I would love to see Federer stick around and hopefully be competitive for another five years, I really don't understand the notion that somehow his game is 'prettier' or more aesthetically pleasing than anyone else's? Is it really all about the one-handed backhand? It surely cannot be aggressiveness, as there are players equally aggressive or more aggressive than Federer.

I realize that's always going to be subjective, but it's a recurrent point I see on TW that seems to be taken as gospel, and I just wonder why.
 
Ray Mercer said:
How do find moonballing and repetitive topspin entertaining though? I mean with Federer you're getting sick drop shots, inside out forehand winners, serve and volley, one handed backhand flick passes, tweeners, lobs etc. With Nadal you're basically getting one stroke with the odd great winner on the run. Not trying to be a dick but just asking an honest question? Is it Federer's personality you don't care for?
Click to expand...

From what I recall, Federer didn't begin doing drop shots until the last two or three years once he stopped being able to overpower almost every opponent.

And frankly, if you want 'sick' drop shots, refer to Murray, Djokovic or Melzer. Those guys can hit them far more frequently and effectively than Federer.

I am pretty sure Nadal and every other player on tour hits inside out forehand winners several times a match. I'll grant Federer the backhand passes and the tweeners. However, Federer isn't really known for his great defense and lobbing skills. I'm not saying he isn't great at those things, but there are other guys who certainly stand out more defensively.
 
TTMR said:
From what I recall, Federer didn't begin doing drop shots until the last two or three years once he stopped being able to overpower almost every opponent.

And frankly, if you want 'sick' drop shots, refer to Murray, Djokovic or Melzer. Those guys can hit them far more frequently and effectively than Federer.

I am pretty sure Nadal and every other player on tour hits inside out forehand winners several times a match. I'll grant Federer the backhand passes and the tweeners. However, Federer isn't really known for his great defense and lobbing skills. I'm not saying he isn't great at those things, but there are other guys who certainly stand out more defensively.
Click to expand...

????

Obviously now he isn't but back then that was one of his greatest assets. Only Nadal could top him in that department (and you could argue about grass and HC)
 
TTMR said:
While I would love to see Federer stick around and hopefully be competitive for another five years, I really don't understand the notion that somehow his game is 'prettier' or more aesthetically pleasing than anyone else's? Is it really all about the one-handed backhand? It surely cannot be aggressiveness, as there are players equally aggressive or more aggressive than Federer.

I realize that's always going to be subjective, but it's a recurrent point I see on TW that seems to be taken as gospel, and I just wonder why.
Click to expand...
Many things make Federer's game prettier than everybody else. He can do it all(Can Nadal and Djokovic serve and volley??), the way He moves, very light on his feet, aggressive, doesn't waste time, goes for it, and don;t rely on people's UE to win, He makes his wins, on his racket, unlike Nadal, Djoker, Murray, He owns his destiny, He created shots and made some shots his signature shots such as the knifing slice, FH drop shot and He does all of that with a classic one handed with a mid size racket, He is polite, doesn't even look at his box when playing.... I could go on and on, but , it isn't worth it.
TTMR said:
From what I recall, Federer didn't begin doing drop shots until the last two or three years once he stopped being able to overpower almost every opponent.

And frankly, if you want 'sick' drop shots, refer to Murray, Djokovic or Melzer. Those guys can hit them far more frequently and effectively than Federer.

I am pretty sure Nadal and every other player on tour hits inside out forehand winners several times a match. I'll grant Federer the backhand passes and the tweeners. However, Federer isn't really known for his great defense and lobbing skills. I'm not saying he isn't great at those things, but there are other guys who certainly stand out more defensively.
Click to expand...

No they can't, not worth it arguing about this.:)
 
Buckethead said:
Many things make Federer's game prettier than everybody else. He can do it all(Can Nadal and Djokovic serve and volley??), the way He moves, very light on his feet, aggressive, doesn't waste time, goes for it, and don;t rely on people's UE to win, He makes his wins, on his racket, unlike Nadal, Djoker, Murray, He owns his destiny, He created shots and made some shots his signature shots such as the knifing slice, FH drop shot and He does all of that with a classic one handed with a mid size racket, He is polite, doesn't even look at his box when playing.... I could go on and on, but , it isn't worth it.


No they can't, not worth it arguing about this.:)
Click to expand...

In modern sports, there is no place for polite, self-sufficient players with an aesthetically pleasing game, versatility, grace and class. I appreciate the throwback and the use of only half his God-given number of hands on the backhand, but, come on, this guy is over da hill. He has no swagga.

To get famous, you gotta be in they faces, you gotta hammer, you gots to travel wit dat phat entourage (or else who you gonna watch entourage wit?), you gotta gets paid, you gotta wear the Disney Channel colors they tell you to wear and you gotta play the style that works.

This Rogerer guy needs to pack it up, bro'.
 
Man, I am going to miss the magic....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsJ1Wc9nscA

A great ambassador for the sport both on and off the court. The most complete player I have ever seen, and I just simply won't tire from watching his brilliance, and imagination on the court. There was no fakeness in his interviews, he always said it how he felt it was, whether people liked it or not, and I always appreciated that.

That court truly was his canvas on which he has created many special moments.
 
Buckethead said:
Many things make Federer's game prettier than everybody else. He can do it all(Can Nadal and Djokovic serve and volley??), the way He moves, very light on his feet, aggressive, doesn't waste time, goes for it, and don;t rely on people's UE to win, He makes his wins, on his racket, unlike Nadal, Djoker, Murray, He owns his destiny, He created shots and made some shots his signature shots such as the knifing slice, FH drop shot and He does all of that with a classic one handed with a mid size racket, He is polite, doesn't even look at his box when playing.... I could go on and on, but , it isn't worth it.
Click to expand...
This great, original writer said it best:

Federer as Religious Experience
By DAVID FOSTER WALLACE
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all
 
slice bh compliment said:
In modern sports, there is no place for polite, self-sufficient players with an aesthetically pleasing game, versatility, grace and class. I appreciate the throwback and the use of only half his God-given number of hands on the backhand, but, come on, this guy is over da hill. He has no swagga.

To get famous, you gotta be in they faces, you gotta hammer, you gots to travel wit dat phat entourage (or else who you gonna watch entourage wit?), you gotta gets paid, you gotta wear the Disney Channel colors they tell you to wear and you gotta play the style that works.

This Rogerer guy needs to pack it up, bro'.
Click to expand...
ROTFL !!! Hey slice, I've been away a while, the big fish here seem to have changed, but you still are pure gold ! Don't you "pack it up" ever, Sir.
 
Hitman said:
Man, I am going to miss the magic....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsJ1Wc9nscA

A great ambassador for the sport both on and off the court. The most complete player I have ever seen, and I just simply won't tire from watching his brilliance, and imagination on the court. There was no fakeness in his interviews, he always said it how he felt it was, whether people liked it or not, and I always appreciated that.

That court truly was his canvas on which he has created many special moments.
Click to expand...

A complete player doesn't have a flaky backhand.
 
sunny_cali said:
Indeed. In much the same way that a complete troll should not recite the same tired lines over and over again. It is disappointing that the troll-GOAT is not more versatile and well-rounded.
Click to expand...

It is not me who is repeating stuff, but others who keep saying he is the GOAT or complete player, etc.
 
sureshs said:
It is not me who is repeating stuff, but others who keep saying he is the GOAT or complete player, etc.
Click to expand...

As with the tennis-"GOAT" perhaps you have reached/crossed the ripe old age of 29 and are unable to note your glaring deficiencies ? Compared to the vibrant, energetic well-rounded trolling skills of an Yoda, you are looking positively lethargic, lacking in new ideas. Will troll-history look upon this moment as an inflection point, a passing of the baton perhaps ?
 
sunny_cali said:
Indeed. In much the same way that a complete troll should not recite the same tired lines over and over again. It is disappointing that the troll-GOAT is not more versatile and well-rounded.
Click to expand...

Without Federer tennis will be duller and trolls such as Suresh might need to retire as well. Suresh just isn't able to draw attention to himself with Nadal and Djokovic puns, which makes me sad for him.

On a more serious note, people will appreciate Federer more once he retires. As proven by Nadal and lately Djokovic ultimate success comes with excellent defense and with 90 % of the surfaces being slow, this will be a key to entering the top 3.

I hope I will see a player who can take the aggressive approach more often and be successful against the defenders, because as I said, for me, tennis will be duller.
 
ananda said:
ROTFL !!! Hey slice, I've been away a while, the big fish here seem to have changed, but you still are pure gold ! Don't you "pack it up" ever, Sir.
Click to expand...
hahahah ananda, thanks..too kind. Thanks for picking that up. I was thinking I'd get flamed, hahah. How are you? Glad you are back. Hope you're hitting the ball well.

tenniswarrior said:
It's okay, in about 6 years when he retires, Dimitrov will just take his place, and people will think it's Federer. :)
Click to expand...

Nice! I hope you are onto something!
But I have this sinking feeling Grigor will be Gasquet Part Deux rather than Roger Fed-again.
 
billnepill said:
On a more serious note, people will appreciate Federer more once he retires. As proven by Nadal and lately Djokovic ultimate success comes with excellent defense and with 90 % of the surfaces being slow, this will be a key to entering the top 3.

I hope I will see a player who can take the aggressive approach more often and be successful against the defenders, because as I said, for me, tennis will be duller.
Click to expand...

+1.

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be anyone on the horizon yet who can consistently pull off an offensive game.

Wonder if the homogenization of surfaces will reach it's logical conclusion, and we will see a reversal of that process ?
 
He will, soon. And he'll beat Federer in the 4th round of Wimbledon this year in 5 sets, and he'll go on to lose to Murray in the QFs, then win Wimbledon 2013 and there you go. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hyperwarrior
  • Poll Poll
ATP: Which rivalries is the most underrated?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Legend of Borg
Legend of Borg
underground
Some statistical information about Bye
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sentinel
Sentinel
T
David Ferrer is better than Berdych, Tsonga and Del Potro
2 3
Replies
105
Views
11K
ibbi
ibbi
F
Nadal has beaten Djokovic 5 times in a row before..
Replies
18
Views
3K
stingstang
stingstang
Amritia
Why tennis superstar Roger Federer is NOT the GOAT
2 3 4
Replies
170
Views
9K
Bud
Bud
Back
Top