Roger Federer

How lucky are we to watch this man play tennis?

 

I don't watch much tennis, but its pretty clear he's completely dominating everyone else out there with ease.

And Andy Roddick is clearly overrated, too

 

No flaws in his game.

In 30 years, we will talk of Federer as one of the greatest sports men ever.

What a legend.

 

I want to make brutal love to Lukas Haas.

 

any time you have to reach into history to find real competition for a person, you know they're a truly great athlete. as i said elsewhere, i think only sampras and agassi, of players over the past 20 years or so, had what it takes to take federer down without it being some kind of big upset. sampras could (and did toward the end of his career and the beginning of federer's) neutralize some of federer's strengths and counter with his own. Agassi was an underrated server himself, and an incomparable returner (the Federer of serve returners). They were also both extremely intelligent players. At their peaks, they were a match for Federer.

The catch is that Federer likely hasn't hit his peak yet, and right now, only boredom and injury can really slow him down. He may complete one, two or even three grand slams, if he can just master the French Open. Steffi Graf is a fair comparison, as she dominated women's tennis for many years in a similar fashion.

 

I agree that Sampras could beat Federer, but I think even Agassi would be quite an upset.

 

Agassi was within a blown set point of putting a major hurt on Federer in their U.S. Open final match in 2005, when he was a lion in winter and federer about as good as he is now. No, Agassi of 1999-2002 was more than capable of turning that serve back around at a ludicrous speed and pace.

 

IIRC, Federer and Sampras played only once, with Federer beating Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001. Neither was at their best as Sampras was on the downslide and Federer wouldn't win his first grand slam for 2 more years.

I agree both Sampras and Agassi, at their best, would be a match for Federer, but I'd give Federer a slight edge on any surface (except grass vs Sampras where I'd put them even).

 

We are lucky to see him play. He is a great of the game. Whether or not he's the best... *shrugs*

But he's still got so much more ahead of him. Didn't he just say at the Aus Open that he would be back for another six years? At least he's got the heart in him now to shine even further. I say go for it!

 

Definitely side wit Latorski over KW. Its a shame Sampras and Federer's careers didn't overlap more, they would have ben a great match-up if both were playing at their peaks. though, with their serves, possibly a rather boring match.

Agassi is tough to call. When push comes to shove, Sampras almost always found a way to beat him in big matches. I think Federer could do the same, espcially since he has a bit better all around game than Sampras. Not that Agassi wouldn't make the matches close.

I think we're going to be a big step further in determining Federer's place n tennis history after this year's French Open. He wins that, I htink he goes to a level all his own.

 

I saw Federer win the 2004 Wimbledon Final. He dropped a set to Roddick that day (and was less of a player than he is today), but it was a fantastic display, no doubt about it. Great to see him in person.

 

Agassi still has a big card to play that Federer and Sampras don't (as of yet), which is that he won all four grand slams, and on four different surfaces. he mastered the clay, whereas Federer has yet to do the same and Sampras never did.

 

Definitely true. Big knock on Agassi is that he was never the dominent player at any one time. But him winning Wimbeldon was amazing. And a big knock on Samras that he never won the French, Heck, he never even cam e close (SF once, QF 3 years in a row). Sampras certainly had the groundstrokes to do it.

 

Sampras and Agassi are his nearest rivals, but, as difficult as it is to truely gauge, i would say Federer is easily the better. we're now talking Rod Laver territory.

 

Best article on Federer I've read. It's truly transcendental to watch him play.

Roger Federer as a Religious Experience

 

It will be fascinating to watch Federer's lion-in-winter phase. Jack Nicklaus's 1986 Masters triumph remains one of sport's greatest achievements (and then he almost did it again, at 58, in 1998), and i wouldn't be surprised to see Federer muster up some of his old magic to win a couple Grand Slam finals, especially Wimbledon, when he's in his mid to late 30s. The emerging champions of that era are barely in elementary school right now, but they'll be along eventually.

For now, Federer is entering his best years, without peer and with near-incomparable skill.

 

I remember Nicklaus in 86 very well. That was absolutely amazing.

Federer has a long way to go, though: first he has to establish himself as the (arguably) the best ever, then do into a steady decline for 5 years to the point that nobody thinks he has a shot at winning anymore, and then win. I think he'll have retired long before then.

 

If Nadal beats Federer again at Roland Garros this year, I would put Nadal in the top 3 Clay courters of all time. Nadal has a 6-3 record ve Federer and I dont think he is even in hid prime quite yet.

 

He's already done that.

I don't get this part. Anyway, I think he'll still be playing in 5 years.

 

I disagree. He has to win the French before that can be said IMO

 

I'm referring to him doing somehting on a par with Nicklaus's 1986 Masters Victory. The greatest ever, well past the twilight of his career, shocking hte worlds with an incredible performance to take a major.

The problem is that in golf, guys stay on the tour well past their prime. Tennis, being a far more physically demanding sport (can you imagine any 50-year-old still playing regularly on the ATP tour?), guys don't hang around so long.

 

Ah, I see. Doing such a thing - coming back from the grave so to speak - isn't as good as always being at the top in my view. It's not something anyone should aim for, at least, because first you must have a decline.

The French is that clause on many a tennis player's handbook. But, I still stand by what I said. I agreed in that Federer is arguably the best player ever. Arguably. That's what he's already done.

 

It's only natural, physical skills diminish over time, no matter how much you do trainig-wise.

Nicklaus was 46 when he won the Masters in 1986. His prior win in a major was 1980. His last win in any tournament was in 1984.

The amazing thing about Nicklaus is how many generations his caeer crossed. he started out as the young upstart who challeneged Arnold Plamer, then had challengers like Gary Player, Johnny Miller, then Tom Watson. By the time he won in 86, the tour was dominated by people like Greg Norman.

Think about that for a second: in the early 60s, Laver was only just starting his domination of tennis. By 1986, Norg was gone, McEnroe fading, with Lendl, Becker, et al starting to take over. Imagine Laver (he's 2 years older than Nicklaus) beating Lendl or McEnroe in the mid-80s.

 

I'm not a golfer; is Nicklaus considered to be a or the great of golf?


It's only natural, physical skills diminish over time, no matter how much you do trainig-wise.

Of course. Which is why the ability to keep your level as high as possible for the longest amount of time consistently is what attracts me.

 

Yes. Though Tiger Woods is well on his way to toppping him.