ZERO chance Fed loses now

C

Connors

Banned
The guy is two wins away from tying Pete (although if he retired today, I already think he has surpassed Pete, just by his French Open semi an two final appearances alone).

He gets better as majors go on. He finds new stamina, new shotmaking skills, new motivation, new focus, new.....

He will clock Djokovic and beat Raphael in straight sets for his thirteenth major. In fact, I predict, he'll lose no more than one set in his final two matches before holding up the trophy.
 
Laver won his Grand Slam when three of the four Slams were on grass. Federer has more variety then Laver had. Hands down.
 
Fed's gotta go through Djokovic and possibly Nadal to win this slam. These are by far Federer's toughest 2 opponents. Except for Tipsarevic, (who was supposed to be easy) Fed has had an incredibly easy draw.
 
es-0 said:
Laver won his Grand Slam when three of the four Slams were on grass.
Click to expand...

This may be true.

es-0 said:
Federer has more variety then Laver had.
Click to expand...

This isn't. Laver regularly hit shots Fed hasn't dreamed of yet.

How much of the court do Fed use? Just watch those vids of Laver at the French against Rosewall, or Laver at Wimbledon against Ashe. (They used every square inch.) Then you will see true variety.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by es-0
Laver won his Grand Slam when three of the four Slams were on grass.

This may be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by es-0
Federer has more variety then Laver had.

This isn't. Laver regularly hit shots Fed hasn't dreamed of yet.

How much of the court do Fed use? Just watch those vids of Laver at the French against Rosewall, or Laver at Wimbledon against Ashe. (They used every square inch.) Then you will see true variety.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. First of all its a fact that in Laver's time, 3 of the majors were on grass. And rather than an anonymous internet poster, I'm going to take the word of every single former great playe, including Laver, who have all said that Federer is the greatest talent they've ever seen, bar none.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Fed's gotta go through Djokovic and possibly Nadal to win this slam. These are by far Federer's toughest 2 opponents. Except for Tipsarevic, (who was supposed to be easy) Fed has had an incredibly easy draw.
Click to expand...

Fed has an easy draw? Nadal's is easier. his highest ranking opponent is 25 whereas Fed had to play 16, 12 and 3, and all 3 of them has given Nadal trouble in the past.
 
msc886 said:
Fed has an easy draw? Nadal's is easier. his highest ranking opponent is 25 whereas Fed had to play 16, 12 and 3, and all 3 of them has given Nadal trouble in the past.
Click to expand...
Lets just say both players got the matchups they wanted. Fed even admitted he likes playing Blake. Finally Fed will get a tough draw starting now.
 
Connors said:
The guy is two wins away from tying Pete (although if he retired today, I already think he has surpassed Pete, just by his French Open semi an two final appearances alone).

He gets better as majors go on. He finds new stamina, new shotmaking skills, new motivation, new focus, new.....

He will clock Djokovic and beat Raphael in straight sets for his thirteenth major. In fact, I predict, he'll lose no more than one set in his final two matches before holding up the trophy.
Click to expand...
Good chance maybe, but zero chance? You've got to be kidding me. Djoko played him close, really close int he USO - I think it would have been closer if it hadn't been his first GS final. And Nadal...are you really going to give Federer that much an edge over one of the few guys on tour who has a winning record against him? A guy who took him to 5 sets on his favorite surface last year?
 
Defcon said:
I'm going to take the word of every single former great playe, including Laver, who have all said that Federer is the greatest talent they've ever seen, bar none.
Click to expand...

Admit it: you've never seen Laver play.
(Oh, I guess you just did.)
 
i wouldn't say zero chance. Djokovic can give him trouble if he can keep that kind of play up. Nadal (provided he gets past Tsonga) is also likely to give him trouble expecially on a slow surface. However it speeds up on the second week and it is low bouncing so don't think Nadal's topspin will have that much effect.
 
Federer's 5-setter against Tipsarevic has taken a lot out of him. He's playing the numbers 2 and 3 in the world who have played pretty well over the last 2 weeks. So, not as straight forward as some of you may think.
 
ckthegreek said:
Federer's 5-setter against Tipsarevic has taken a lot out of him. He's playing the numbers 2 and 3 in the world who have played pretty well over the last 2 weeks. So, not as straight forward as some of you may think.
Click to expand...

agreed but I still don't think he'll drop a set to them.. if nadal starts slow like he has been the past couple matches, he'll be off the court before he warms up
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Fed's gotta go through Djokovic and possibly Nadal to win this slam. These are by far Federer's toughest 2 opponents. Except for Tipsarevic, (who was supposed to be easy) Fed has had an incredibly easy draw.
Click to expand...

Dude,

Nadal will not play a top 20 player until the finals. I don't know but Fed's draw compared to Nadal was really hard. Nice try though.
 
ckthegreek said:
Federer's 5-setter against Tipsarevic has taken a lot out of him. He's playing the numbers 2 and 3 in the world who have played pretty well over the last 2 weeks. So, not as straight forward as some of you may think.
Click to expand...

Where do people come up with this non-sense. Federer wasn't tired or winded at the end of the Tipsarevic match. And he then beat Berdych and Blake in straights.

The 5-setter didn't take anything from Federer. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Fed's gotta go through Djokovic and possibly Nadal to win this slam. These are by far Federer's toughest 2 opponents. Except for Tipsarevic, (who was supposed to be easy) Fed has had an incredibly easy draw.
Click to expand...

Let's see. Federer had to beat Berdych and Blake to reach the semi-finals. Djokovic beat Hewitt and Ferrer. Tsonga beat Murray, Gasquet and Youzhny. Nadal beat??????

Nadal is the only semi-finalist with "an incredibly easy draw." Blake owns him on hard courts. Ferrer beat him at their last two meetings, both on hard courts. Youzhny beat him 6-0 6-1 this month. He would not have made the semi-finals if he had faced the opponents from any other quarter.

Nadal should be thanking his lucky stars that he has reached this far in the tournament.
 
Some of you people are so funny at times.. I don't know how many times I have heard the grass court comment when talking about Laver, and each time some one new comes along and says it, they get laughed out of town like the rest of them..

What gets me, is that alot of people on these boards pick and choose what ever points will help them realize their own dream of who they want to the greatest..

For example.. People say that you cant count amature titles and only pro titles, and yet, here you have Sampras equalling and then breaking the record of Roy Emerson, who was considered very much as an amature.. So if Emersons titles aren't considered as note worthy, then why would the greats and the media use his tally as the record to break?

As for Laver, the same could be said about him.. And alot of people don't give him the credit he deserves because of the very same facts.. The fact is, regardless of surface ( and believe me. In those days no one grass court played the same) he won not one (1), but two (2) year end grand slams.. I would also go on to say that there were alot of tennis that he missed because of the politics of the sport, and one could be forgiven to think that if he won those two year end Grand Slams so far apart from each other. Then how many more would he have won if he had been able to compete?.. I dare say Emersons record wouldn't have been his in all honesty, and so believe that Laver would have held that record aswell!

As I see it. Fed is good. But unless he wins two (2) end of year Grand Slams, then he will never be greater than Rod Laver... Now if he were to win one (1) end of year Grand Slam, and also broke the Sampras record, then I would put him on par with Laver..

Lastly.. For those people who say Fed is greater because Laver himself said so.. Then what do you expect Laver to say? ;) He has alot more class than alot of people around here, and of course he is going to be modest and sing the praises of Roger.. So for the love of god. Stop using that example.....
 
chris_in_japan said:
Some of you people are so funny at times.. I don't know how many times I have heard the grass court comment when talking about Laver, and each time some one new comes along and says it, they get laughed out of town like the rest of them..

What gets me, is that alot of people on these boards pick and choose what ever points will help them realize their own dream of who they want to the greatest..

For example.. People say that you cant count amature titles and only pro titles, and yet, here you have Sampras equalling and then breaking the record of Roy Emerson, who was considered very much as an amature.. So if Emersons titles aren't considered as note worthy, then why would the greats and the media use his tally as the record to break?

As for Laver, the same could be said about him.. And alot of people don't give him the credit he deserves because of the very same facts.. The fact is, regardless of surface ( and believe me. In those days no one grass court played the same) he won not one (1), but two (2) year end grand slams.. I would also go on to say that there were alot of tennis that he missed because of the politics of the sport, and one could be forgiven to think that if he won those two year end Grand Slams so far apart from each other. Then how many more would he have won if he had been able to compete?.. I dare say Emersons record wouldn't have been his in all honesty, and so believe that Laver would have held that record aswell!

As I see it. Fed is good. But unless he wins two (2) end of year Grand Slams, then he will never be greater than Rod Laver... Now if he were to win one (1) end of year Grand Slam, and also broke the Sampras record, then I would put him on par with Laver..

Lastly.. For those people who say Fed is greater because Laver himself said so.. Then what do you expect Laver to say? ;) He has alot more class than alot of people around here, and of course he is going to be modest and sing the praises of Roger.. So for the love of god. Stop using that example.....
Click to expand...

Great points all. But we must surely accept that all we can say is each is an all-time great player. The racquets, the surfaces, the training regimes, they're so different! It's like comparing Stanley Matthews with Christiano Ronaldo. Two great players, two different eras.
 
fps said:
Great points all. But we must surely accept that all we can say is each is an all-time great player. The racquets, the surfaces, the training regimes, they're so different! It's like comparing Stanley Matthews with Christiano Ronaldo. Two great players, two different eras.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying, and I also understand the sentiment.. But if you were to ask me strait out, then I would still say Laver. I love Roger and tell my daughter that she is watching one of the greats that we only get if we are lucky once in a lifetime.. But I will still say that Laver was the greatest, and should be respected as such..
 
Well I think 14 slams and 6 straight year end #1 are "still" very tall order.

Federer probably will better these records and can go infinity and beyond but I don't think it's going to be that easy next few years.

For example, the young guns has started to take it to Federer. They are going to get better fast next few years, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Federer has great chance of winning this grand slam but he wont do it so easily, Nadal and Djokovic will at least take a set from him.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Fed's gotta go through Djokovic and possibly Nadal to win this slam. These are by far Federer's toughest 2 opponents. Except for Tipsarevic, (who was supposed to be easy) Fed has had an incredibly easy draw.
Click to expand...

1. Fed's draw was not as easy as Nadal's
2. I agree, Fed has a tough match coming up, if he gets through that and has Nadal, it is going to a difficult match as well.

I think a lot of Fed fans are underestimating how much the surface change has helped players like Nadal and Djokovic, granted it helps Fed too against acertain player, but more so the people he has had trouble against in the past...


dont get ahead of yourselves.
 
Chauvalito said:
I think a lot of Fed fans are underestimating how much the surface change has helped players like Nadal and Djokovic, granted it helps Fed too against acertain player, but more so the people he has had trouble against in the past...
.
Click to expand...

I am not sure whom surface changes helped. The surface wasn't supposed to get faster ?
Many players has said the ball is heavier, though.
The impression I've got from Federer-Blake match was that the balls are flying slower.

Gasquet mentioned the new surface and balls suit for "power players" whatever that means.
Gonzalez compalined the heavier ball hurted his shoulder...
 
chris_in_japan said:
Some of you people are so funny at times.. I don't know how many times I have heard the grass court comment when talking about Laver, and each time some one new comes along and says it, they get laughed out of town like the rest of them..

What gets me, is that alot of people on these boards pick and choose what ever points will help them realize their own dream of who they want to the greatest..

For example.. People say that you cant count amature titles and only pro titles, and yet, here you have Sampras equalling and then breaking the record of Roy Emerson, who was considered very much as an amature.. So if Emersons titles aren't considered as note worthy, then why would the greats and the media use his tally as the record to break?

As for Laver, the same could be said about him.. And alot of people don't give him the credit he deserves because of the very same facts.. The fact is, regardless of surface ( and believe me. In those days no one grass court played the same) he won not one (1), but two (2) year end grand slams.. I would also go on to say that there were alot of tennis that he missed because of the politics of the sport, and one could be forgiven to think that if he won those two year end Grand Slams so far apart from each other. Then how many more would he have won if he had been able to compete?.. I dare say Emersons record wouldn't have been his in all honesty, and so believe that Laver would have held that record aswell!

As I see it. Fed is good. But unless he wins two (2) end of year Grand Slams, then he will never be greater than Rod Laver... Now if he were to win one (1) end of year Grand Slam, and also broke the Sampras record, then I would put him on par with Laver..

Lastly.. For those people who say Fed is greater because Laver himself said so.. Then what do you expect Laver to say? ;) He has alot more class than alot of people around here, and of course he is going to be modest and sing the praises of Roger.. So for the love of god. Stop using that example.....
Click to expand...

I sure hope he has a lot more class than the majority of people on this forum. 50% of the people here don't know what the heck is going on the tour.
 
Nadal_Freak said:
Lets just say both players got the matchups they wanted. Fed even admitted he likes playing Blake. Finally Fed will get a tough draw starting now.
Click to expand...

Federer would prefer Nadal's matchups over his one. Ranking-wise, Nadal has the easier draw compared to the other semi-finalists.
 
This game really has changed so drastically that trying to TRULY compare the greats, is slightly impossible in terms of Federer vs Laver
 
fastdunn said:
Well I think 14 slams and 6 straight year end #1 are "still" very tall order.

Federer probably will better these records and can go infinity and beyond but I don't think it's going to be that easy next few years.

For example, the young guns has started to take it to Federer. They are going to get better fast next few years, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Everyone talks about how consistent Federer is. Let's see if he can win a slam in his 30's, like sampras did.
 
Defcon said:
And rather than an anonymous internet poster, I'm going to take the word of every single former great player, including Laver, who have all said that Federer is the greatest talent they've ever seen, bar none.
Click to expand...
With a name like Defcon, aren't you an "anonymous internet poster"?

Here’s what Laver recently said about Federer—
What are your thoughts on where Federer stands among the all-time greats of the game?? Well, he's one of them already. But I don't know that anyone can wear the title of "best ever." I mean, [Andre] Agassi and [Pete] Sampras played some unbelievable matches. The most you can say is, "I was the best in my era." Roger can say that.

Have you ever thought about how you might have played Federer in your prime? Not really. Because of the equipment differences [between our eras]... there's not much point. He doesn't have a weakness, so it becomes more of a mental game. You'd have to tell yourself, "Well, maybe I'm mentally stronger."
--TIME Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008

Always the gentleman.
 
Last edited:
Connors said:
The guy is two wins away from tying Pete (although if he retired today, I already think he has surpassed Pete, just by his French Open semi an two final appearances alone).

He gets better as majors go on. He finds new stamina, new shotmaking skills, new motivation, new focus, new.....

He will clock Djokovic and beat Raphael in straight sets for his thirteenth major. In fact, I predict, he'll lose no more than one set in his final two matches before holding up the trophy.
Click to expand...
I think you mean Tsonga.
 
This topic is getting overheated by a lot of comments on what will happen or not happen. In sport anything can happen on the day. The player who plays the best (barring luck) will win. Unless Djokovic plays the best but Federer wins the vital points, as he so often is known to do.
 
msc886 said:
i wouldn't say zero chance. Djokovic can give him trouble if he can keep that kind of play up. Nadal (provided he gets past Tsonga) is also likely to give him trouble expecially on a slow surface. However it speeds up on the second week and it is low bouncing so don't think Nadal's topspin will have that much effect.
Click to expand...

I agree. Unless Federer moves better, it will only be Djokovic's game to lose.
 
Realistically, I think Fed will win it all. However, to say he has zero chance of losing is just plain ignorant. No such thing. The only way this can happen is if they didn't play at all. As long as they play the match there will always be a chance that Fed could lose. There is the physical element where he could get an injury (I hope not), element of luck such as a few well-timed let cords or the opponent just playing way above their normal playing ability.
 
Connors said:
The guy is two wins away from tying Pete (although if he retired today, I already think he has surpassed Pete, just by his French Open semi an two final appearances alone).

He gets better as majors go on. He finds new stamina, new shotmaking skills, new motivation, new focus, new.....

He will clock Djokovic and beat Raphael in straight sets for his thirteenth major. In fact, I predict, he'll lose no more than one set in his final two matches before holding up the trophy.
Click to expand...

Rickson said:
I think you mean Tsonga.
Click to expand...

I think I've proven my point.
 
I get so tired of the Federer chest thumpers starting these threads. Fact is at this point he has to get by the world #3 who is playing very well and has given him a good run in the past, then if he gets by that he has to play Tsonga who I do not believe he has ever played and is playing out of his mind right now. It is very realistic to think that Fed. might lose. If you think otherwise you are in denial.
 
Lets just say, that if Fed makes the final. Then he has seen it all and overcome it. Tsonga is just another player to him..

Novak on the other hand still has a lot of growing up to do, and I think if he makes the final, then Tsonga will own him purely because of his explosive and on court presence..

At the end of that match against Nadal, Tsonga had a look in his eyes I havn't seen in a player since Boris Becker...
 
chris_in_japan said:
Some of you people are so funny at times.. I don't know how many times I have heard the grass court comment when talking about Laver, and each time some one new comes along and says it, they get laughed out of town like the rest of them..

What gets me, is that alot of people on these boards pick and choose what ever points will help them realize their own dream of who they want to the greatest..

For example.. People say that you cant count amature titles and only pro titles, and yet, here you have Sampras equalling and then breaking the record of Roy Emerson, who was considered very much as an amature.. So if Emersons titles aren't considered as note worthy, then why would the greats and the media use his tally as the record to break?

As for Laver, the same could be said about him.. And alot of people don't give him the credit he deserves because of the very same facts.. The fact is, regardless of surface ( and believe me. In those days no one grass court played the same) he won not one (1), but two (2) year end grand slams.. I would also go on to say that there were alot of tennis that he missed because of the politics of the sport, and one could be forgiven to think that if he won those two year end Grand Slams so far apart from each other. Then how many more would he have won if he had been able to compete?.. I dare say Emersons record wouldn't have been his in all honesty, and so believe that Laver would have held that record aswell!

As I see it. Fed is good. But unless he wins two (2) end of year Grand Slams, then he will never be greater than Rod Laver... Now if he were to win one (1) end of year Grand Slam, and also broke the Sampras record, then I would put him on par with Laver..

Lastly.. For those people who say Fed is greater because Laver himself said so.. Then what do you expect Laver to say? ;) He has alot more class than alot of people around here, and of course he is going to be modest and sing the praises of Roger.. So for the love of god. Stop using that example.....
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm not going to get into this huge debate, but am going to bring up a couple of points. Particularly the part of your posting that I put in Blue and underlined.

You can argue all you want that the 3 grass courts played different from each other, but the point is, they were all grass. Clay is not grass, Rebound Ace isn't grass, Plexiform isn't grass, and Concrete isn't grass.

Now I have no problem with giving Laver credit for his slams, but he won on 2 different surfaces not 4, and to me that is significant. The only one to ever win on the 4 distinct surfaces was Agassi, and yes the Australian now has the new surface but is still distinct.

I think it's ridiculous that the only 2 things that seem to count towards who is best, is the amount of grand slam titles, and whether one has won all 4 of them whether on 2 surfaces or 4. Sorry, but there are so many other things. How long someone has been number 1 consecutively (Federer at 4 years and 1 week and counting), How many times someone finished the end of the year as number 1 (Sampras so far). Most number of wins in a career (I think this is Connors) I tried to pick things that someone differently has held. The point is, that just having the grand slams, or just having the most slam titles shouldn't be the only factor.

Jukka
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hitman
With his big 4 brothers gone, all eyes turn to the heavyweight champion and the defense of his RG title
Replies
23
Views
1K
joekapa
joekapa
T
The Ten True Changes Of The Guard In Tennis!
Replies
24
Views
1K
Tennis Devolution
T
grif
Djoker's Coach
Replies
2
Views
950
Ripper
Ripper
alinefx
2019 W Fed > 2025 W Djok?
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
BorgTheGOAT
BorgTheGOAT
OddJack
To Be Best Ever, Federer Needs To Beat Nadal
Replies
4
Views
925
5263
5263
Back
Top