IS Roger Federer the BEST?
- Thread starter SONNY
- Start date
Olde Hornet
Well-Known Member
Roger is good, but he CANT beat his top competition! If Rafa was fit, I doubt if Roger would have won a major this year (maybe the US Open). He reminds me of Martina Hingis - Very good until competition comes along.
SONNY
The Future of Omega!!!!
Rafa is Great, but he aint got the Grand Slam numbers as Roger.
14 is a lot and he's won in every Major.
I am a Rafa fan but you cant argue the numbers.
philharmonic
Living History!!!
Yes!
Olde Hornet
Well-Known Member
I am not arguing that Rafa is the best, I think Roger is really good, but all time best, I dont know yet - my issue is that he cannot beat his major rival at majors. Thats why I dont know if I can argue that he is the all time best.
Diesel
Member
Yes, for the moment. This discussion comes around every 10 years or so and right now, no one can bring up any reason to say he is not. People said Sampras was the best, now they are discussing someone else.
Before him, people said that McEnroe was the greatest, but noboby liked him while he was playing. Before McEnroe, they said it was Connors. But nobody like him until he got older and calmed down.
I am not a Federer fan, but its hard to find fault with his game. He has not been put out of a major earlier than the semi-finals in 5 years. He is currently, the second best clay court player in the world, still one year removed from dominating Wimbledon for years, 5 straight US Opens, and 2 years removed from 3 straight Aussie Champs including making the finals 4 out of 5 years. There has not been a run like that in the Open Era except by Connors in the 70's.
Before him, people said that McEnroe was the greatest, but noboby liked him while he was playing. Before McEnroe, they said it was Connors. But nobody like him until he got older and calmed down.
I am not a Federer fan, but its hard to find fault with his game. He has not been put out of a major earlier than the semi-finals in 5 years. He is currently, the second best clay court player in the world, still one year removed from dominating Wimbledon for years, 5 straight US Opens, and 2 years removed from 3 straight Aussie Champs including making the finals 4 out of 5 years. There has not been a run like that in the Open Era except by Connors in the 70's.
dacontinent
Preacher
Nice post ... but I would take Borg over both Connors and McEnroe...hence we have these discussions.
Federer was clearly the best during his era. Trying to compare eras typically takes us nowhere except around in circles.
dacontinent
Preacher
I know this is a tennis thread, but it would be interesting to know the number of times Federer and Tiger Woods have won significant tournaments on the same day / weekend.
Bane
The Vilian
I agree. Men's tennis is pretty weak overall. It has been this way for years now. Federer just came along at the right time.
Diesel
Member
Weak? On what basis do you make that assertion? The game has changed and the players have changed to conform to the present day model.
I am still a Stefan Edberg fan. Best kick serve and volley that I have ever seen. I love McEnroe's game with the variety and the touch. But, neither one of them could win a major in today's game with the power ground strokes and slower surfaces.
Every 5 years, someone comes along and dominates the game. 1984, John McEnroe had an 84-3 record. Does that mean the game was weak or was it just his year? He played the Edberg, Conners, Wilander, Lendl, Kricksten, Noah, Jarryd and he beat them all.
Federer plays the modern game better than anybody. Hugging the baseline, big power ground strokes, big first serves. Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick (who would have won at least 2 Wimbledons and US Opens if not for Federer), and others are very credible players who could beat any McEnroe, Edberg, or other star of our generation on today's courts playing their games.
Only Agassi and Courier could compete with these guys playing their games. Actually, you can say that these guys reinvented tennis to the modern game we see now with the ground strokes and two hand backhands.
So, I don't think the game is weak, it's just not the game we remember.
I am still a Stefan Edberg fan. Best kick serve and volley that I have ever seen. I love McEnroe's game with the variety and the touch. But, neither one of them could win a major in today's game with the power ground strokes and slower surfaces.
Every 5 years, someone comes along and dominates the game. 1984, John McEnroe had an 84-3 record. Does that mean the game was weak or was it just his year? He played the Edberg, Conners, Wilander, Lendl, Kricksten, Noah, Jarryd and he beat them all.
Federer plays the modern game better than anybody. Hugging the baseline, big power ground strokes, big first serves. Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick (who would have won at least 2 Wimbledons and US Opens if not for Federer), and others are very credible players who could beat any McEnroe, Edberg, or other star of our generation on today's courts playing their games.
Only Agassi and Courier could compete with these guys playing their games. Actually, you can say that these guys reinvented tennis to the modern game we see now with the ground strokes and two hand backhands.
So, I don't think the game is weak, it's just not the game we remember.
Bane
The Vilian
What you are describing has happen with all sports and not just tennis. Players back then can't compete now, but that's not what I'm saying. Now you only have a few decent tennis players and that's it. You mentioned Edberg...He had to battle Becker, Lendl, Cash, and Chang to name a few. All of those guys won Gram Slam titles. Most of the current male tennis players are garbage.
97JSULEGEND
Well-Known Member
He is arrogant or at least he came off that way in his interview with Dick Enburg. To say that no one has affected his game not even Rafa but he has affected everyone elses game. Whatever dude.
Robber
Consigliere
I'm a huge Connors, Becker and Sampras fan. It's a great discussion. In addition to the consecutive semis Federer has made, which is more than double the next longest streak on majors, Federer never loses to scrubs. The few times he loses, it's to a top 5 player. His recent troubles with Rafa is very similar to the problems Sampras had with Federer in the end. Roger been at it a long time. Rafa just started beating him on other surfaces last year. If I had to chose, I'd chose Federer as best.
Olde Hornet
Well-Known Member
Thats why I compared him to his Swiss home girl Hingis - She was winning, but womens tennis was really weak during her reign. He has the same issue - Rafa is his only competition and he cant beat him at the majors. Djokovic is trying, but he is too busy enjoying the women that fame has brought him to work on being number 1.
Diesel
Member
Is that his fault? How do you know these guys are weak? Maybe they look weak because he is that much better. You beat the guys you play against. A lot of players have flaws, but its hard as hell to constantly win the 6 or 7 matches in a grand slam tournament. It's hard to compete week in and week out against even the worse players.
Robber
Consigliere
It's really not weak competition. These guys ain't American, so they aren't shown or talked about all the time like players in the past.
The PRIMARY difference between the players then (McEnroe, Conners and Borg) vs. the players now is the equipment that is used today. It has evolved. And it has/does make a difference in how the game is played now.
Journalist
Listen up maggots! And that's an order!
True SOGgy....the equipment (especially lighter, stronger racquets) are the primary difference. Also, the male players now just might be better athletically and have access to better training and medical attention.
Nadal just began beating Federer on more than just clay. However, it took Nadal half a day to beat Federer at Wimbledon last year. It ain't like Nadal just whuppin up on Federer lately.
Also, where would you put Sampras and Agassi in relation to Federer, Nadal and the McEnroes, Borgs and Lendls that came before them?
Robber
Consigliere
Like I said earlier, last year at Wimbeldon was the 1st time Rafa beat Roger in a major other than the French. Prior to that, it was all Roger outside of clay courts.
Sampras is my 1b. Then Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Becker/Edberg, Wilander.
Olde Hornet
Well-Known Member
Lets get real - if Rafa was healthy, Roger would still be in a slump. Rafa got into Roger's head.
Journalist - It is difficult comparing players of different eras, my issue with naming Roget "The Best Ever" is his inability to beat his rival and the fact that his rival got so into his head that it impacted his play in finals for over a year.
Journalist - It is difficult comparing players of different eras, my issue with naming Roget "The Best Ever" is his inability to beat his rival and the fact that his rival got so into his head that it impacted his play in finals for over a year.
Robber
Consigliere
Nadal is 9-2 vs. Federer on clay. Federer leads 5-4 on other surfaces. Again, Rafa has taken over, but only recently. That happens. Federer is simply a victim of being the 2nd best clay court player, while Nadal rarely made it to a semi on the other courts, until recently.
Olde Hornet
Well-Known Member
The great thing about Rafa is that he figured out how to beat Roger on other surfaces - It was over a year since Roger beat Rafa and THE ONLY REASON he beat him this year is because Rafa was injured. Make no mistake, Rafa got into Rogers head and sent him down into a mental slump. Roger could not figure out how to beat Rafa during that time period.