Was Federer lucky to have won 16 Grand slam ?

[BERGKAMP]

pwned by the mighty murray again today. fed even tried to use some dirty delaying tactics by complaining about a few rain drops when murray was ragging him all over the court.

[jusarrived]

:)) Nice to see Murray stepping up

[Gracysmith]

Yes. But he still was the best at that time.

Yaa,I agree with you..Sehwag as a opener was doing a fabulous job in test matches and even in ODI's matches...

[yoda]

pwned by the mighty murray again today. fed even tried to use some dirty delaying tactics by complaining about a few rain drops when murray was ragging him all over the court.

Might murray who has won a grand total of ONE grand-slam in his career. LOL!

[bones]

A lot of people who clearly don't know much about tennis posting here. Some of the comments are the counter arguments are pathetic. Hardly anyone, bar 2/3 member have discussed actual tennis play. Federer's competition during the time when he was winning most of his Slams was not what it is today, there's little to dispute that. Roddick and Daydenko etc are a distance behind the likes of Djokovic, Murray and Nadal. However it's not Federer's fault that he had easy competition, you can only beat what is in front of you. It's unfortunate that Nadal is 5 years younger, because there will always be the question, would Federer have won so many titles if they were the same age. Unfortunately we will never know. The other thing that must be said is, have you ever considered that Federer's outstanding shotmaking and tennis ability was the reason why the competition was so bad? Maybe the competition was nullified? I don't buy that argument, Federer's opponents in that 2003-2007 period were very ordinary and Roddick is the perfect example. Was he lucky? No. But did he have it easier by being born 6 years ealier, yes. Djokovic and Nadal have taken tennis to another level altogether. Men's tennis viewing figures recently have shot up, it's because of the rise of Djokovic and to some extent Murray. But it's not the players themselves that have, but the rivalaries within the top 4 that have. Federer is 31 and cannot keep up physically with these guys, his shots have lost some power and the outrageous defensive qualities particularly of Djokovic mean he cannot dictate rallies as he used to.

[Small_town_boy]

You can be lucky for 2 to 3 times ...not 16..so acc. to me he deserves it..

[b555]

Djokovic is without doubt the best hard-court player around at the moment. He has the best back-hand out there. He has managed to make his forehand a weapon. He also serves very well at the crucial points, often getting his first serve in. He also runs harder, slides longer, stretches farther than any of the current players. And (as we saw in the O2 and in the finals this Sunday) he can even put in a dive to stay in the point. Of course, this gladiatorial 'fight to the death' is very effective and will continue win him many matches and silverware. But it will also, crucially, erode his longevity. How long can he continue to play like this is something only time will tell. The reason Roger is able to carry on so successfully even at the age of 31 is because of his effortless style. Novak is currently at the peak of his physical well being. And even at this peak, we see the effects this style of playing has on him towards the latter part of the season. And I believe he will hit a major obstacle when he approaches 30. Which means he has about 4 1/2 seasons more left in his tank. That means another 18~ slams in which he will compete with his full force. Can he win 12 of those to overcome the tally of Federer? Previously, his two major opponents were only, Federer and Rafael Nadal. Federer, on hard courts, over 5 sets, will be no threat. But on grass courts, Federer's swiftness and his deep bag of tricks can out-fox the physical challenge posed by Djokovic, as we saw last year. Federer will be around for atleast another season after this one. And while he is there, he will be a threat. On clay, Nadal is, without question, the toughest player to beat. Not only is he a match for Djokovic's movement, he also possesses an arsenal of explosive ground-strokes, which Djokovic found out last year, will take more than something special to beat. Now, with Murray becoming increasingly fitter and menacing, he faces three formidable opponents. And apart from clay, Murray, provided he plays like he did the past two weeks, can defeat Djokovic. Further, both Murray and Nadal are nearly the same age as Djokovic, which means, these three will share the spoils in the years to come. We might also see someone from the chasing pack emerge. So, the answer is no. Novak will not be able to win more majors than Federer. He will, at most, win about 6 to 7 more slams, totaling at 13. (But he may complete the career slam this year. Nadal is on a comeback trail and might not have the momentum he had last year if he faces Djokovic.)

https://www.quora.com/Tennis/Will-Djokovic-be-able-to-win-more-titles-than-Federer I just wanted to share this.. Read it a few days back

[India-KXIP fan]

:haha: . Nadal is looking almost apologetic for winning this Australian open.

Federer is extremely competitve and doesn't want to lose. His emotion here is nothing bad. Everytime he wins a grandslam he pretty much cries, even age 19 when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon he sort of cried. Obviously losing a big match is gonna be very difficult to digest for such a competitve sports person. Nothing wrong with that.

[Crookbond]

Federer is extremely competitve and doesn't want to lose. His emotion here is nothing bad. Everytime he wins a grandslam he pretty much cries' date= even age 19 when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon he sort of cried. Obviously losing a big match is gonna be very difficult to digest for such a competitve sports person. Nothing wrong with that.

I will tell WHY he cried. He cried because he lost 3 out of the 4 major titles that year and the opponent was Rafael Nadal (surprise!). The one GS where Nadal didn't reach the final was the US open and Federer won it. Despite being competitive (and totally understanding Federer's emotions), he got into insecurities out there. But, Nadal the gentleman that he is handled the awkward situation extremely well. Federer is a great player - probably the greatest of them all - however, I'm not sure of his abilities to react/play when he's under serious pressure.

[adi B]

I will tell WHY he cried. He cried because he lost 3 out of the 4 major titles that year and the opponent was Rafael Nadal (surprise!). The one GS where Nadal didn't reach the final was the US open and Federer won it. Despite being competitive (and totally understanding Federer's emotions)' date=' he got into insecurities out there. But, Nadal the gentleman that he is handled the awkward situation extremely well. Federer is a great player - probably the greatest of them all - however, I'm not sure of his abilities to react/play when he's under serious pressure.[/quote'] the druggie got a 6 months silent ban,asking for uncle toni`s help from stands in b/w matches,taking wastefull timeouts,giving injury reasons behind losses,u say he`s gentleman?lol talking about losses,nadal lost 7 straight finals vs nole,tbh I'm not sure of his abilities to react/play when he's under serious pressure..lastly fed lost these matches to nadal after he was 27 years old,past his prime ,nadal was young,shaping towards his prime..fed had already won so many slams b4 these losses,the body does take a toll,same with sachin now.. lets see how nadal does after he turns 27 this june

[Raghav_12]

the druggie got a 6 months silent ban,asking for uncle toni`s help from stands in b/w matches,taking wastefull timeouts,giving injury reasons behind losses,u say he`s gentleman?lol talking about losses,nadal lost 7 straight finals vs nole,tbh I'm not sure of his abilities to react/play when he's under serious pressure..lastly fed lost these matches to nadal after he was 27 years old,past his prime ,nadal was young,shaping towards his prime..fed had already won so many slams b4 these losses,the body does take a toll,same with sachin now.. lets see how nadal does after he turns 27 this june

Federer didn't lose because he had turned 27, but because Nadal had turned 22 (the age at which Federer had won his first grand slam). Also you numbers have been manipulated a bit. When Federer lost to Nadal at French Open (6 1, 6 3, 6 0) and at Wimbledon in 2008, Federer was yet to turn 27. Also, Federer kept defeating all other opponents with same regualarity shows that it had nothing to do with his turning 27.

[Nova]

If luck has to do anything with success, it is summed up in the following quote: The harder you work, the luckier you get. Federer, SRT all hard working people, dedicated to their craft. :good:

[Sooda]

http://debatewise.org/debates/898-roger-federer-is-not-the-greatest-tennis-player-of-all-time/

[Cricketics]

Why the hell people keep bumping this topic. I am tired of defending Federer. He's the greatest. Please live with it. It's like one of those Sachin debates, where people keep coming out and talking trash about Tendulkar.

[adi B]

Why the hell people keep bumping this topic. I am tired of defending Federer. He's the greatest. Please live with it. It's like one of those Sachin debates' date=' where people keep coming out and talking trash about Tendulkar.[/quote'] +100000

[JoelMarrs]

re Awesome

[bones]

Why the hell people keep bumping this topic. I am tired of defending Federer. He's the greatest. Please live with it. It's like one of those Sachin debates' date=' where people keep coming out and talking trash about Tendulkar.[/quote'] Federer was a great player, but his lack of success over recent years against quality opponents is evidence enough that he was winning Grand Slams in a easy era. Tell me, is it easier to win Grand Slams, when Roddick, Hewitt and Nalbandian are playing, or when Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, DelPo etc are playing? Fed is the greatest of all time but he was helped by the fact his rivals when he was young, were total and utter shyte. Nadal's and Djokovic's accomplishments for me may well be less numerically, but their paths to glory have been far more difficult. Why Indians constantly bring Sachin into every discussion, I don't know. Keep Sachin out of this, he plays cricket, a ridiculously easy sport in comparison.

[adi B]

Federer was a great player, but his lack of success over recent years against quality opponents is evidence enough that he was winning Grand Slams in a easy era. Tell me, is it easier to win Grand Slams, when Roddick, Hewitt and Nalbandian are playing, or when Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, DelPo etc are playing? Fed is the greatest of all time but he was helped by the fact his rivals when he was young, were total and utter shyte. Nadal's and Djokovic's accomplishments for me may well be less numerically, but their paths to glory have been far more difficult. Why Indians constantly bring Sachin into every discussion, I don't know. Keep Sachin out of this, he plays cricket, a ridiculously easy sport in comparison.

lack of success in recent years is bcoz his rivals are 25-26 years old at their primewhile fed is 30+,u expect a guy 30+to win the world and beat those players at their prime everytime? we`ll see how djokodal perform when they are 30+,i bet when they`ll fade guys like u will say oh they were lucky they played in an easy era,now they are exposed

[Cricketics]

Fe Fed is the greatest of all time but he was helped by the fact his rivals when he was young, were total and utter shyte.

and what if I say, that DJokovic is shining now because Fed is not at his best which he used to be? Dude, you won't have answer to it. It's just totally debateable. You just chan't compare that. I am a big Federer fan but I have learned to honor and appreciate talent like Nadal and Class like Djokovic. I love to watch both Nadal and Djokvic play. They are legends too just like Federer and I don't care debating about them as they are still one of the best in the bussiness and I can't put them down in debates in order to support Federer. I hope everyone start appreciating the great players instead of wasting time in putting one player down in order to support their favorite.

[Zelig]

This is how I see it...in their PRIME, Federer v Djoker - 3:1 (Oz open) Federer v Rafa - 3:1 (French, obvious) Federer v Murray - 4:0 (with a couple of straight sets) and I'm no Federer fan :om: