Jump to content

Roger does it again...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think I'm entrenched in Roddick's corner now... aside from his '03 US Open win, he's played in 3 Grand Slam finals, all against Federer, all losses... I'd like to see him get this one.

 

I'm still torn though... I can't fully want one of them to win without being really disappointed for the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and done.

 

about time too. you could see that federer had gotten over the nerves he seemed to have at the beginning of the final set, roddick was tiring, and federer was just waiting for his opportunity.

 

roddick is still to be congratulated though. not many could have kept going that long after an entire tournament.

Link to post
Share on other sites
doesn't become all emotional at silly times

 

He did burst into tears when he lost the Australian Open this year. It was pretty much there that he realized Nadal had surpassed him on all surfaces.

 

It'll be interesting to see if Nadal comes back as good as he was last year. His play in the Wimbledon finals was the greatest performance I've ever seen from a tennis player in a single match (and it says something about Federer that he almost pulled out the victory against a monster like that). It'd be a shame if he reached that summit, only for injuries to bring him back to the pack so quickly.

 

As it is, Nadal has personally lowered Federer's place in sports history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the sense that if not for Nadal federer would already have 20 Majors, yes.

 

But in the end I firmly believe that Federer will be believed to be the best male tennis player of all time, so in that aspect, I disagree.

 

And; I'm still not sold on this 'Nadal surpassing Federer on all surfaces' notion. In the Australian he beat Federer in a 5-setter, but months prior to that, Federer won on hardcourt in the US Open (after Nadal got beat by Murray I believe). Federer battled the long lasting effects of mononucleosis for a majority of the season last year (and still reached 3 finals and 1 semi, while winning the US) so Nadal having his dominant year is cheapened ever so slightly for me, and this year Nadal is dealing with injuries so Federer's wins can't be taken at directly face value in terms of that rivalry. This year COULD have been the year to decide who was truly the best right now, but because of those last two facts; it wasn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't watch much tennis anymore. It's become more about the serve, than the volley. With today's technology helping create 100 MPH plus serves, the game has lost quite a bit of its luster. I don't believe Federer would have stood a chance against the likes of Conner, Mac and Borg using the equipment they had back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But in the end I firmly believe that Federer will be believed to be the best male tennis player of all time, so in that aspect, I disagree.

 

He may well be. But I'm talking about sports overall. Let me repost what I said two years ago when this thread got started:

 

He's got the potential to rank up there in the top five athletes of all-time if he stays at this level for another two years.

 

He's easily in the top 25, but he doesn't break through to the all-time greats like he could have if Nadal hadn't risen to challenge him while Federer was still near his peak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But in the end I firmly believe that Federer will be believed to be the best male tennis player of all time, so in that aspect, I disagree.

 

He may well be. But I'm talking about sports overall. Let me repost what I said two years ago when this thread got started:

 

He's got the potential to rank up there in the top five athletes of all-time if he stays at this level for another two years.

 

He's easily in the top 25, but he doesn't break through to the all-time greats like he could have if Nadal hadn't risen to challenge him while Federer was still near his peak.

 

Now that I can agree with. We were on different pages of the same book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

Aw man, you pre-empted my annual bump which coincides with a major! lol

 

I didn't bump it after his loss at Flushing Meadows last year... I had to pretend it didn't happen. I was genuinely upset about it. Couldn't believe he lost.

 

After demolishing Tsonga in the Semis, Federer went through Englishman Andy Murray with relative ease. 6-3 6-4 7-6 (11). He's the greatest. Love watching it happen. Shame he was upset in the US Open a few months ago or else we'd be looking at a "Tiger Slam"

 

Thats now 23 straight tournaments reaching at least the Semis, and now 8 straight Finals... sheesh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be in the minority, but I'm not as impressed with Federer simply because of his dominating record. While his dominance at the top of his sport is noteworthy and worthy of plenty of accolades, my problem is that I think Federer was fortunate to be a dominating player without truly stiff competition to challenge him. It's not that I believe he is truly this much better than everyone else, I more believe that the field is just weaker than it has been historically.

 

Sampras was more impressive to me because he beat competition that had several players who had Slam titles. He had a true rival in Agassi, and his ability to have a significantly better W-L record than his toughest competitor served as a better measuring stick that he was playing in a strong field where other folks are capable of winning majors.

 

There has been no challenger to Federer, all of the field is missing guys who can prove they can win a major. The only exception is Nadal, and just as it was looking like Nadal may actually become a legitimate rival and threat to Roger, he is plagued by the injury bug. So that only further validates for me that he played in an era that lacked true challengers for him and why is tournament wins total will probably never be broken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I will say in counter response, though, is while it's true that Andre was a great rival for Sampras, Andre didn't really play his best tennis until after Sampras had has most of his success. Around '99 Andre really matured and gained a new focus and actually won the majority of his slams during/after 1999.

 

Essentially, while Sampras' career was starting to wind down, Andre was taking his to another level. One could speculate as to whether or not Sampras would have had quite as much success had Andre approached the game in his earlier years the same way he did in his later years.

 

Either way, the records only enhance things a bit for me. The majority of my love and respect for Roger and his game comes simply from watching him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I will say in counter response, though, is while it's true that Andre was a great rival for Sampras, Andre didn't really play his best tennis until after Sampras had has most of his success. Around '99 Andre really matured and gained a new focus and actually won the majority of his slams during/after 1999.

 

Essentially, while Sampras' career was starting to wind down, Andre was taking his to another level. One could speculate as to whether or not Sampras would have had quite as much success had Andre approached the game in his earlier years the same way he did in his later years.

 

 

That's not really true at all. Andre and Sampras are relatively the same age, and Andre won his first major in '92. followed by a US Open in '94. It was Andre's personal problems (drugs, a hated marriage, depression) why he fell off the map and then had a rebirth when Sampras was starting to slide from his peak level of dominance. Had Andre maintained a fiery competitiveness, they would have battled it out the entire decade, IMO, as Andre's resurgance later in his career showed he had a rare talent to be able to win majors at an age when tennis players are usually past their prime.

 

Besides, my point is that Sampras played when there were other top 10 players who were also champions. Andre, Courier, Becker, Edgerg, Rafter, Kafelnikov and he was consistently better than all of them.

 

Federer has been playing against... ?? Roddick? Hewett? Ya he beat Sampras in 01 when Sampras was already pretty much getting beat up by players for over a year in majors. His best competition is Nadal, but Nadal can't stay healthy. Had Nadal not been injured in the French last year (?) I'm convinced Federer would not have gotten his Career Grand Slam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm convinced if Roger didn't get mono in '08 then Nadal never would have won Wimbeldon :)

 

Sampras wasn't exactly washed up in 01. He made 2 Finals in 2000, and won a major in 02. Declining sure, but not decrepit.

 

Here are those guys you mentioned and the titles they won from 1990 (when Sampras won his first major) to 2000 (his last year being dominant.

 

Courier- 4 titles, 91,92,93,93

Agassi- 6 titles, 92,94,95,99,99,00

Rafter- 2 titles- 97, 98

Kafelnikov- 2 titles- 96, 99

Edberg- 3 titles- 90, 91, 92

Becker- 3 titles-91, 91, 96

 

Here's the list of guys who have won majors since Roger started doing work:

Andy Roddick- 1 title- 03

Gastón Gaudio- 1 title- 04

Marat Safin- 1 title- 05

Rafael Nadal- 6 titles- 05, 06, 07, 08, 08, 09

Juan Martin Del Potro- 1 title- 09

Novak Djokovic- 1 title- 2008

 

So you're essentially valuing Pete's accomplishments more because he lost more? Those guys have titles because they beat Pete in his prime. How many guys accumulated any amount of titles once Federer started winning? Just one, Nadal. I'd rather take Roger who put the lock down on his reign of dominance and didn't let anyone else win for any period of time (sans Rafa on clay). He was consistently better than all of his competition- more so than Sampras. Federer hasn't done worse than making a semi-final in a major since the 2003 French Open- and has made 20 of 23 Finals in that span. That's unmatched and unarguable.

 

Federer has relinquished his world number 1 ranking one time for less than a year during his reign, Sampras passed around the ranking like a hot potato. He lost it 12 different times to 6 different players from the first time he gained the ranking to his last time losing it. The book isn't closed on Roger's career so I'm sure he'll lose it a few more times as well, but Pete lost it in the midst of his prime; Federer did not.

 

Now I can't sit here and tell you in good conscience that Sampras and Federer faced the same obstacles/competition, but if you choose to say they were flat out better, I can just as easily choose to view Sampras' competition as such because he lost to them. Fed's competition begins and ends with Nadal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, Federer's dominance is something to be appreciated, I haven't said it's not a notable accomplishment, it is. He's the Jim Brown of Tennis as far as comparing how dominant he is in relation to his peers. But what I'm saying is that when you have a significant drop off in your competitors it makes you wonder if maybe part of that reason is because there's not enough talent to provide stiff competition. Pete rose above his peers in a decade where it's indisputed the overall field had proven winners and thus good matchups and so his skins on the wall just carry more weight, IMO.

 

Federer is just so dominant that tennis holds no interest because I just chalk up another W for him since I don't believe anybody is capable of making him have to think "I could lose to this guy". Only Nadal does that but even then most of that had been confined to one surface for the most part. :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...