Jedi Council Forums - The Official ATP Discussion Thread

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
Tommy_Docherty Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 7/6 10:15am Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	yankee8255 posted: As for "best", did anyone see the McEnroe interview with Sampras, Laver and Borg? Sampras, who was incredibly gracious and classy, hedged a bit on that question, especially with respect to Laver. I thought Sampras was doing his best to avoid saying that Federer wasn't better than him without actually mentioning himself in his answer. I'm pretty sure that Sampras would think that he was better than Federer and knows that Federer would destroy Laver. You could tell that he was a bit pissed to be asked that question. -----signature----- I quit!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 7/6 12:10pm Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	I'd take Sampras at his peak against Federer at his best, with Wimbledon being the surface. Sampras had the better and more powerful serve, and I think his net approaches would neutralize Federer's best weapons. Nadal's left-handedness and wicked topspin neutralizes Federer one way, and I think Sampras did so a different way (even in the one for real game they played in 2001, it just wasn't enough that day). -----signature----- Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
-polymath- Title: SFF:F/TV Trivia Host Registered: Jun '07	Date Posted: 7/6 3:53pm Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	I'd take Sampras-prime over Federer if the grass was as fast as it was back in 2000 or 2001. This year, apparently, the grass played a lot faster than recent years and I think that played to Roddick's advantage. Sampras, as McEnroe noted, is by far the best "fast-grass" player of all-time. As well as Roddick played, and he played fantastically when there were rallies, the serving clinic that Federer put on was phenomenal. Federer only got broken when he let his own concentration slip. Roddick, though, couldn't touch Federer's serve for most of the day. As the match progressed it was only a matter of time until Federer broke Roddick's serve. Many of the games on Roddick's serve went to deuce or were at 40-30 before Roddick boomed it out with his first serve. Roddick really needed to win that second set with there not being a tie-break in the 5th set. It was just unlikely that Federer would lose his focus in the final set like he had in the first and fourth set. Roddick also needed to capitalize on the double break point he had about halfway through the 5th. Anyway, Federer was rather smarmy wearing that pre-made "15" jacket. That lacked a lot of class and was surprising since he is usually a class act. Roddick, though, was extremely gracious in defeat despite the fact that it must have torn him up inside to lose to Federer for the 19th time especially given how well Roddick played during the rallies. He's really transformed his game this season. -----signature----- SFF Films & TV Trivia Contest: Subject is "Stargate SG1" Sign-ups Open
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tommy_Docherty Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 7/6 3:59pm Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	Even if you say they're even on grass, Federer is great on every surface. He's been in the last 4 finals at the French and would probably have 3 more of those titles if Nadal hadn't emerged that the same time as the best clay courter ever. Which isn't to say that we should spot him 3 what-if French's but it is evidence of just how good he is on that surface. At this point in time, Federer's the best there has ever been. No question. -----signature----- I quit!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
-polymath- Title: SFF:F/TV Trivia Host Registered: Jun '07	Date Posted: 7/7 7:32am Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	I completely agree; Federer is the best to have played the game. I don't think there's really a legitimate argument to the contrary any more. -----signature----- SFF Films & TV Trivia Contest: Subject is "Stargate SG1" Sign-ups Open
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 7/7 4:38pm Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	I just can't buy the "best ever" talk yet. Rafael Nadal has brought Federer to his knees on several occasions, including once in unforgettable fashion (the 2008 French Open). Federer won a grand total of three games against Nadal, who brushed Federer aside as easily as he might wipe crumbs off a table. The greatest player ever cannot be so roundly trounced when he and his opponent are on equal footing and health. All this talk about Federer over the past month has managed to overlook the small problem of Nadal's absence, which is important because the last time the two met in Grand Slam competition, Nadal beat Federer in another final for another title. Yes, Federer overcame Nadal a couple months ago in a smaller tournament, but I imagine Nadal wasn't healthy, and more importantly, it wasn't at a Grand Slam tournament. I need to see Federer beat Nadal in another Slam final, ideally in convincing fashion, most ideally at the French Open, before I'm ready to call him the best ever. The memory of Federer basically giving up at the French Open is too strong and Nadal's presence as a clay court wizard and now all around excellent player is too important to allow for it yet. I'm in no way saying Nadal is better than Federer, or that others didn't have their own foils, but Nadal is a question for Federer that needs answering. -----signature----- Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
rechedelphar Registered: Mar '04	Date Posted: 7/7 4:48pm Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon - Date Edited: 7/7 5:06pm (1 edits total) Edited By: rechedelphar
	Lost amongst the talk of Federer Mathieu Montcourt (ranked 119) passes away at age 24 There is also an argument against Federer being the GOAT because his era isn't as strong,not sure if I agree with that. -----signature----- Clemson Football: 6-3, 4-2 ACC 40-24 win over Florida State ---------- West Bromwich: 31 points, 2nd in league 2-1 win over Leicester City
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
MarcusP2 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Jul '04	Date Posted: 7/7 5:38pm Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	I agree with KW- Nadal only needs a US Open to complete his own career Grand Slam, and he already has 6 GS titles and is what, 23 (just)? Federer didn't win his first until he was nearly 22 (though he had a lot by the time he was 24). I don't think a true answer for these two will be apparent until both are retired, and possibly not even then. -----signature----- Darth Revan Fan Club: Technical Specialist Uncle Eddie was my favourite wrestler Gentle Giant owns my bank account.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 7/7 5:56pm Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	rechedelphar posted: Lost amongst the talk of Federer Mathieu Montcourt (ranked 119) passes away at age 24 There is also an argument against Federer being the GOAT because his era isn't as strong,not sure if I agree with that. Thanks for the update, Red. Very sorry to read of this. Obviously very unexpected at his age. To put it another way about Federer, the greatest player ever should not be an underdog at any Grand Slam event, and he would be if he played Nadal at the French Open again, or perhaps even the Australian Open. -----signature----- Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
yankee8255 Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 7/8 12:23am Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	We discussed the Nadal thing after the French, it is definitely a huge chink in Federer's armor. I'd answer, however, that a big part of Nadal's dominance is the surface, the majority of their matches have been on clay, where Federer is almost unbeatable. Kind of odd that so many of their matches have been on that surface, given how few tournaments there are on clay every year. Of course, my counter-argument goes out the window if Nadal continues beating Federer on surfaces like grass (last year's Wimbledon) and hard (Australian). There's also a real question of whether Nadal will ever be the same again after his knee problems. Martina Navratilova made a point on espn, basically refusing to say anyone is the best ever (men or women), and preferring to talk about best of their era. My assessment (on the men's side): Federer over Sampras, becuase of he former's ability to play well on all surfaces, including clay. The real rival for GOAT, to me, in Laver. There was alot of top competition in the 60s, the guy won 2 true Grand Slams, 11 overall, which would probably have been well over 15 if he hadn't gone pro after the first Slam.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tommy_Docherty Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 7/8 10:25am Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	yankee8255 posted: Kind of odd that so many of their matches have been on that surface, given how few tournaments there are on clay every year. Not really. I'd imagine it's because Nadal didn't get deep enough into non-clay tournaments to met Federer in the past while Federer excelled on clay. The defeats on clay probably allowed Nadal to get in Federer's head in a way that wouldn't have occurred in they had also been meeting on other surfaces with the same frequency. Also, from what I read, it would seem that Federer was suffering from mono during his 'slump'. Federer is the best there has ever been up to this point in time. That doesn't mean that Nadal can't or won't surpass him in the future. It just means that he has yet to do so. Therefore, Federer is it. -----signature----- I quit!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediCouncilMember Registered: Jul '03	Date Posted: 7/8 1:19pm Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	KnightWriter posted: To put it another way about Federer, the greatest player ever should not be an underdog at any Grand Slam event, and he would be if he played Nadal at the French Open again, or perhaps even the Australian Open. He would have been the underdog at Wimbledon too, if Nadal was 100% healthy and played. I was listening to some interesting comments post Wimbledon, and the tennis guy that was talking was saying how Federer refuses to change his game to try and beat Nadal, that he is basically going to dance with what brought him. While that makes sense considering he has now won 15 GS, it seems odd that you wouldn't try to make adjustments to beat your main rival should you meet in a final. If true then I think Nadal will keep his pschological edge. I mean Nadal didn't become #1 by accident. As for this years Final, I thought it was great but not close to last years. There is something about having the #1 vs. #2 dynamic and old guard vs. new guard thing that adds a whole new dimension to it. -----signature----- How do you get those Blue Numbers in brackets after thread titles to appear??? The Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding Bureaucracy
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
-polymath- Title: SFF:F/TV Trivia Host Registered: Jun '07	Date Posted: 7/8 2:31pm Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	The Sports Guy put it well. He said something along the lines of how last year he had no clue who was going to win the match. It could have been Nadal or Federer the whole time. There was never a foreshadow of the eventual winner. This year, after Roddick lost the second set, he just knew that Federer would win out. I tend to agree. -----signature----- SFF Films & TV Trivia Contest: Subject is "Stargate SG1" Sign-ups Open
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 7/8 2:36pm Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon - Date Edited: 7/8 3:02pm (1 edits total) Edited By: KnightWriter
	Also, from what I read, it would seem that Federer was suffering from mono during his 'slump'. Not by the French Open. He was dealing with mono during the 2008 Australian Open, but that was in January. Certainly not by this past January, for the 2009 Australian Open. Federer is the best there has ever been up to this point in time. Can someone be the best ever and still get blown away by a contemporary in a Grand Slam final? Sampras was never embarrassed in a Slam final. -----signature----- Opposing Scrooge Economics since 2009
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tommy_Docherty Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 7/8 6:14pm Subject: The Official ATP Discussion Thread - now discussing 2009 Wimbledon
	Not during 2009 but it takes time to recover from mono. Clearly could have still been affecting him during the 2008 French. As for the 2009 Australian, it went 5 sets. No, Sampras got embarrassed by not even making the final at the French. Ever. That's far, far worse. -----signature----- I quit!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 - Previous | Next | Reload