Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 some one stop this cult worship plzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I don't follow Tennis half as closely as some others on this thread and forum, but from whatever I do watch and follow Federer's game has gone down over the last 3-4 years. There is a very good chance that he would have a similar record if he was the same age as Nadal and Djokovic. Maybe 3-4 grand slams less, but that would not have taken away anything from his greatness. Even at his age and tennis becoming a faster game every year with improved rackets (and IMO more boring) he is able to consistently put up a challenge in almost every major tournament he plays in. I am pretty sure Nadal will not be able to attain the number 1 ranking at the age of 30-31. From the players I've seen Sampras and Federer are probably the best, while Becker and Edberg are personal favorites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Happy 31st B'day Fedz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Federer the Great - :birthday: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Happy B'day Emperor Federer :hatsoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I have watched tennis for a long time, Becker being the personal fav. But Sampras altho has a great record, I will put Fed over Sampras by a few notches. Sampras prevailed in an era were courts were faster and he had one cash cow - serve and volley. His return game was not good. Fed is supreme in in 2004-2009 age. Except for Nadal he vanquished all others. Fed has a great return game compared to Sampras and is succesful in all kinds of courts. Only thing bad about Federer is he gives up easily when challenged probably he is not used to getting challenged quite a lot when he was on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adi B Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 :birthday:......GOAT:hatsoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Happy B'Day to a Champion..!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeautifulGame Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I don't think if this win for Federer's proves anything related to the question OP asked. OP didn't ask if Federer deserves to win a GS or not. OP's question was did he deserve to win 16 (now 17), answer to which is - Clear No. Just have a look at Head to Head records. Current generation Rivals Nadal - 18-10 (Grandslam 8-2. Last win coming in 07, against a 20 yr old Nadal) Andy Murry -8-8 Djoko 12-15 Old era rivaals Roddick - 2- Infinity Hewitt - 8-18 Nalbandian - 8-11 This H2H record clearly shows that if Federer had same quality opponents in 2003 to 07, his record would have been far less impressive. You may be enchanted by his style of play, but facts are facts. This head to head record shows than any average / rubbish player can beat Nadal unless its clay court. Its amusing how Nadal fans twist his inability to not even consistently reach later stages of GS(other than clay) as some sort of achievement by pointing out these H2H records. Nadal is simply the greatest ever in clay court.And :hatsoff: him for that but frankly he is lucky to complete career GS.If the nature of Grass and hard courts have changed in the last 10-15 years he would be getting knocked out in 2nd or 3rd round in every Wimbledon/Aus. So if anything it is Nadal who is lucky to win this many GS not Federer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 This head to head record shows than any average / rubbish player can beat Nadal unless its clay court. Its amusing how Nadal fans twist his inability to not even consistently reach later stages of GS(other than clay) as some sort of achievement by pointing out these H2H records. Nadal is simply the greatest ever in clay court.And :hatsoff: him for that but frankly he is lucky to complete career GS. If the nature of Grass and hard courts have changed in the last 10-15 years he would be getting knocked out in 2nd or 3rd round in every Wimbledon/Aus. So if anything it is Nadal who is lucky to win this many GS not Federer. If your aunty were a man - she would be your uncle. Also, I don't get the point in the OP. One can say Federer took benefit of the fact that he didn't have to face great tennis players but to say he was "lucky" is a bit disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeautifulGame Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 If your aunty were a man - she would be your uncle. Also' date=' I don't get the point in the OP. One can say Federer took benefit of the fact that he didn't have to face great tennis players but to say he was "lucky" is a bit disappointing.[/quote'] So Nadal would have had similar success at a fast Grass court of the 90's with his reliance on Volleys? Fact is the nature of surfaces changed in the early to mid 2000s to a great extent.And frankly this is making the uniqueness of Career Grandslams slowly pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 So Nadal would have had similar success at a fast Grass court of the 90's with his reliance on Volleys? Fact is the nature of surfaces changed in the early to mid 2000s to a great extent.And frankly this is making the uniqueness of Career Grandslams slowly pointless. I don't know because Nadal "may have" adapted his game. May be Federer may have done bad - so let us stop being astrologers. Your point on Career GS is also moot because if it was so easy you don't have every Tom, Dick and Harry doing it. How many people have career GS since the 2000s? Only Federer and Nadal have them which is VERY VERY less. And please it's not just the courts have changed - equipment has changed too, training facilities are better as well. A career GS also has clay courts FYI. So you can't single out one factor to say THIS did it - there are multiple factors which lead to it. Only time will tell how easy or difficult it may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 French open is generally a test for endurance more than skill. There was this guy sergie brugera won couple of French opens and bunch of clay court tournaments and reached number 1. Overall performance is what matter. Men's tennis has become more and more power game. Since the days of Ivanisevich , Jim Courier it turned into a brute sports. It is nice to see classical players like Sampras,Federer still doing well. My favorite was always Stefan Edberg.. what a stylish player to watch. He was like Rahul Dravid of Tennis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 If you are really into Tennis a lot you can find lot of tennis discussions here http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13 Here is an interesting vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 If you are really into Tennis a lot you can find lot of tennis discussions here http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13 Here is an interesting vote Graf at her peak would have decimated Serena - she was playing tennis at a completely different level in '88 than anyone I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkt.india Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 He was head and shoulders above in a weaker generation of players. I feel that he was slightly past his peak when Djokovic started to get good. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are the best 3 tennis players of the last 10 years by some distance IMO. When they play each other i think Federer is best equipped to beat Djokovic, Nadal is best equipped to beat Federer (i think Nadal has a significant mental advantage here) and Djokovic is best equipped to beat Nadal. :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 French open is generally a test for endurance more than skill. There was this guy sergie brugera won couple of French opens and bunch of clay court tournaments and reached number 1. Overall performance is what matter. Men's tennis has become more and more power game. Since the days of Ivanisevich , Jim Courier it turned into a brute sports. It is nice to see classical players like Sampras,Federer still doing well. My favorite was always Stefan Edberg.. what a stylish player to watch. He was like Rahul Dravid of Tennis. A more recent (and probably better) example is Gustavo Kuerten. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Kuerten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooda Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 French open is generally a test for endurance more than skill. There was this guy sergie brugera won couple of French opens and bunch of clay court tournaments and reached number 1. Overall performance is what matter. There were others - Muster, Rios, Kuerten as Dexter ptd out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooda Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 So Nadal would have had similar success at a fast Grass court of the 90's with his reliance on Volleys? Fact is the nature of surfaces changed in the early to mid 2000s to a great extent.And frankly this is making the uniqueness of Career Grandslams slowly pointless. I agree re: Rafa and faster courts of the 90's, not that it is his fault. It has made tennis a more exciting sport, with the kind of great rallies seen today...and yes does show the pointlessness of the debate - Rafa was lucky to be born in a different era too, lucky he is left handed so that brutal forehand came down on Feds backhand wing, lucky that Novak did not peak earlier... you could go on and on. I do not disagree that Fed would not have won 16 slams if the Rafa and Novak were older- of course they are better than Roddick and hewitt... but you could flip the hypothetical argument to lessen anyones achievements...heck can you imagine if Roddick and Hewitt were even two or three years older, theyd have a few mroe slams.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooda Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Graf at her peak would have decimated Serena - she was playing tennis at a completely different level in '88 than anyone I've ever seen. Im not sure Serena would outmuscle her, even if she is not as talented. She could probably beat all men outside the top 50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now