Federer - greatest ever?

[MadDogg]

In regards to the competition (or lack thereof), I feel it's a bit of both. Yes, the top few players outside the big two aren't as good as they were in the Sampras era, but I'd say the level of quality outside the top 10 is better than it was then. Federer and Nadal are just so damn good that they never have to break a sweat to get over them.

But if you took Federer and Nadal back 10 years I think they'd still dominate. Sampras and Agassi at their peak could've provided a bit for competition for Federer, but I feel Kuerten, Agassi and Ferreira would've been swept aside on clay against Nadal. They just seem to be superior all round players and athletes than any who have come before.

 

[MadDogg]

Rod Laver won the grand slam when the 3 other grand slams were all played on grass, I think.

If he hadn't turned professional (back in those days the slams were only for amateurs), Laver could've set a real target for Federer to chase. He had six titles at the end of 1962 when he went professional (including all four in 62) and couldn't play them again until 1968 when they started allowing the professionals to play. He then won five of the next eight, including all four again in 69.

That's five years out of his time when he was at his peak, so god only knows how many he would've ended up with.

 

[reelworld]

I think interest in the tour events is still null with me. Only the Grand Slams get my attention. I didn't specifically like the Kuerten, Hewitt, Roddick phase in between

My feeling as well. All the guys you mention, are overrated in my view, more so on Roddick.

I'm surprised there are many Agassi fan here. I'm too was a fan, when I first saw him beat Sampras in the Australian Open final. I can't remember which year, but as I watched very little tennis up to that point, I think that was the best game I've ever seen.

About Federer, his technique is as complete as I've ever seen. But what set him apart is his ice cool nerves in the tightest situations. He never seem to panic at all.

I agree that he'll be able to get past Sampras record, barring injury. And one of these days he'll be able to beat Nadal on clay.

 

[crappycraperson]

I

But if you took Federer and Nadal back 10 years I think they'd still dominate. Sampras and Agassi at their peak could've provided a bit for competition for Federer, but I feel Kuerten, Agassi and Ferreira would've been swept aside on clay against Nadal. They just seem to be superior all round players and athletes than any who have come before.

There is no way Fed would have 10 slams right now if he played with Sampras and Aggasi at their peaks. Nadal possibly would have dominated clay court still but don't reckon he would have won it 3 years in a row.

 

[Instant Karma]

But what set him apart is his ice cool nerves in the tightest situations. He never seem to panic at all

Federer actually caves in when under pressure. He has never really been tested or pushed to the limit apart from Nadal on clay.

Sampras has a 29-9 win loss record in 5 setter grand slam matches. In 5 of those wins, he also came back from being two sets down. Federer hasnt won even 65% of his 5 setters and doesnt have comeback wins either -

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/five_setters_winpct_career.html

After early exits at Indian Wells and Miami, for the first time in three years, Federer had a ‘decade’ to prepare for the clay court season -

to practice on the slow surface.
to practice exclusively for the inevitable clash with Nadal in the final.
to formulate strategies and rehearse them to negate Nadal’s advantage.
to apply what was learnt from the defeats and the wins over Nadal.
to brainstorm with his coach, an expert of clay, without any time pressure.
to prepare himself physically and mentally for the slow surface.

He had nothing to do but concentrate on the clay court season for a long long time this year. And what happens? In the first clay tournament at Monte Carlo, he loses to Nadal in straight sets in the finals. He could not win even one set against his only realistic threat after adequate preparation. Almost unanimously, everyone who watched the match had the same observation - that he caved in, did not want it as much as the opponent, lacked effort and had poor body language. Even worse, is that the fans and media noticed the same on all of his loses this year, irrespective of the surface. The story in the French open was similar. Didnt he convert just 1 of 17 break points against Nadal ? He also caved in when he was facing break points.

If Sampras were to face Nadal three times in successive French open championships, he would have found a way past. He may not have won the title, but he wouldnt be thrashed by the same player year after year. Sampras played numerous five-setters in his career, specially at Grand Slams. He had the ability to gut it out. After all, his parents immigrated from Sparta and being a descendent of Hercules, from childhood he was 'taught never to retreat, never to surrender'

 

[crappycraperson]

Sampras wouldn't have beaten Nadal ever on clay courts.

And Fed has not been tested enough. He hasn't been pushed to the limits like Sampras was. That's why he is still some way from being the best ever.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Sampras wouldn't have beaten Nadal ever on clay courts.

And Fed has not been tested enough. He hasn't been pushed to the limits like Sampras was. That's why he is still some way from being the best ever.

Federer would have made people like Rafter and Invenisevic look as ordinary as he is making everyone else look right now. He has been tested, by a fantastic Roddick, by Nadal(he beat him at wimbledon), by Safin, by Bagdhadhis(who i think is a brilliant talent), by Agassi etc. The man, apart from on clay against possibly one of the great players on clay, hasnt put a foot wrong. Hes won everything else, his greatness cant be doubted. Sampras couldnt have bettered that, he would have probably done worse. And i think it was mentioned earlier, the all round level of the mens game outside the top 10 is better now. He had too much of a game for Sampras or Agassi.

 

[crappycraperson]

Federer would have made people like Rafter and Invenisevic look as ordinary as he is making everyone else look right now. He has been tested, by a fantastic Roddick, by Nadal(he beat him at wimbledon), by Safin, by Bagdhadhis(who i think is a brilliant talent), by Agassi etc. The man, apart from on clay against possibly one of the great players on clay, hasnt put a foot wrong. Hes won everything else, his greatness cant be doubted. Sampras couldnt have bettered that, he would have probably done worse. And i think it was mentioned earlier, the all round level of the mens game outside the top 10 is better now. He had too much of a game for Sampras or Agassi.

Roddick is far from fantastic. We are going in circles, it's subjective I guess. But I haven't met any who reckon competition is better now than last decade.

Players like Agassi pushed Sampras to the limits by a playing a near flawless game against him. I still remember their QF at US open 2004?, when it was decided in 4 tie breakers. Both were impeccable whole match, and in the end Sampras service gave him the obvious advantage in tie breakers. He was similarly pushed to limit early on by Becker in career. And Rafter was very good in between, much better than both Roddick and Hewitt right now. Sampras's comeback against him in that Wimbledon final was fantastic.

Fed has only been pushed to limits by Nadal against whom he hasn't been able to respond. Remember they are 2-2 on hard courts as well where neither has an advantage over other so as to speak. And given Nadal is getting better with age, that record may tilt more im his favor in future.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Roddick is far from fantastic. We are going in circles, it's subjective I guess. But I haven't met any who reckon competition is better now than last decade.

Players like Agassi pushed Sampras to the limits by a playing a near flawless game against him. I still remember their QF at US open 2004?, when it was decided in 4 tie breakers. Both were impeccable whole match, and in the end Sampras service gave him the obvious advantage in tie breakers. He was similarly pushed to limit early on by Becker in career. And Rafter was very good in between, much better than both Roddick and Hewitt right now. Sampras's comeback against him in that Wimbledon final was fantastic.

Fed has only been pushed to limits by Nadal against whom he hasn't been able to respond. Remember they are 2-2 on hard courts as well where neither has an advantage over other so as to speak. And given Nadal is getting better with age, that record may tilt more im his favor in future.

I was a fan of Rafter, but watching Federer gives a different meaning to tennis. Federer would have destroyed Rafter comfortably. And Roddick was a very very good player at one point, no Agassi for sure, but definately worthy of testing anyone. You can talk about Nadal's record against Federer, but hes still just harmed him just on clay, Federer's won everything else. Hes been flawless apart from on clay in the semis or finals. What else can he do? That said its important he wins wimbledon again.

 

[Salvation]

Roddick is like a modern day Ivanisevic. The only difference being since the power game has gained more importance, players are able to tackle serves better

Federer has beaten Sampras on grass at his prime. If that isn't a testament to his ability then what else is? He was a four time defending champion then FFS

 

[crappycraperson]

Roddick is like a modern day Ivanisevic. The only difference being since the power game has gained more importance, players are able to tackle serves better

Federer has beaten Sampras on grass at his prime. If that isn't a testament to his ability then what else is? He was a four time defending champion then FFS

And then he went to lose to Henman wasn't it?
One off matched don't say much about players. Fed obviously has the ability and would go down as one of the greats but there is a consensus developing that he possibly may be the greatest ever.

 

[crappycraperson]

You can talk about Nadal's record against Federer, but hes still just harmed him just on clay, Federer's won everything else. .

Federer hasn't overpowered Nadal in hardcourts, even on grass it's 1-0 to him, not saying Nadal will beat him on grass.
Also Nadal reaching Wilmbledon final says more than Fed reaching French considering the former has played very tournies on grass while Fed has had loads of practice on clay. Nadal obviously needs to improve in Aus and US open, but that will happen with time.

As anyone would admit, Nadal is the toughest test for Federer so far and he hasn't won the duel yet by any means.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Federer hasn't overpowered Nadal in hardcourts, even on grass it's 1-0 to him, not saying Nadal will beat him on grass.
Also Nadal reaching Wilmbledon final says more than Fed reaching French considering the former has played very tournies on grass while Fed has had loads of practice on clay. Nadal obviously needs to improve in Aus and US open, but that will happen with time.

As anyone would admit, Nadal is the toughest test for Federer so far and he hasn't won the duel yet by any means.

I wasnt talking about other tournaments. In grandslams apart from on clay, Nadal hasnt harmed him, Federer has won it all. Which is as good as one can do, which i dont think Sampras would have. It is a big deal that he beat Sampras at Wimbledon as well as Salvation mentioned when it was Petes home. IMO he would have bossed it had they been in the same era.

Sure anything can happen in the future. I'd say Nadal has sort of thrown the challenge down to him, and is winning the duel, its up to Roger to show that he can still dominate the rest, win the French in the next few years and cement his authority. At the moment its very much on.

 

[VP]

Federer actually caves in when under pressure. He has never really been tested or pushed to the limit apart from Nadal on clay.

Sampras has a 29-9 win loss record in 5 setter grand slam matches. In 5 of those wins, he also came back from being two sets down. Federer hasnt won even 65% of his 5 setters and doesnt have comeback wins either -

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/five_setters_winpct_career.html

Bizarre use of stats. Federer usually finishes the game before 5 sets. Federer has only played 16 five setters of which he has a 50% record. Firstly it's not a bad record and we can't compare it to Sampras' 35 five setters yet.

After early exits at Indian Wells and Miami, for the first time in three years, Federer had a ‘decade’ to prepare for the clay court season -

to practice on the slow surface.
to practice exclusively for the inevitable clash with Nadal in the final.
to formulate strategies and rehearse them to negate Nadal’s advantage.
to apply what was learnt from the defeats and the wins over Nadal.
to brainstorm with his coach, an expert of clay, without any time pressure.
to prepare himself physically and mentally for the slow surface.

If it only were this easy. You're assuming Nadal won't do anything about Federer's game.

He had nothing to do but concentrate on the clay court season for a long long time this year. And what happens? In the first clay tournament at Monte Carlo, he loses to Nadal in straight sets in the finals. He could not win even one set against his only realistic threat after adequate preparation. Almost unanimously, everyone who watched the match had the same observation - that he caved in, did not want it as much as the opponent, lacked effort and had poor body language. Even worse, is that the fans and media noticed the same on all of his loses this year, irrespective of the surface. The story in the French open was similar. Didnt he convert just 1 of 17 break points against Nadal ? He also caved in when he was facing break points.

If Sampras were to face Nadal three times in successive French open championships, he would have found a way past. He may not have won the title, but he wouldnt be thrashed by the same player year after year. Sampras played numerous five-setters in his career, specially at Grand Slams. He had the ability to gut it out. After all, his parents immigrated from Sparta and being a descendent of Hercules, from childhood he was 'taught never to retreat, never to surrender'

Yes, Federer bottled it a bit against Nadal, but that's bound to happen. It's Nadal on clay. Did you even watch Sampras play on clay? Nadal would've thrashed Sampras.

Federer has lost only to Nadal on clay. And Nadal will probably be the greatest player on clay every.

Do you even watch tennis?

 

[Escobar]

True, Nadal so far only had a chance on clay, and we shouldnt forget that Federer beat Nadal this season on clay!!!!

And beside his talent, Federer is a very nice, humble person. In Switzerland, people love him!!! Great sportsman with a huge heart.

 

[crappycraperson]

True, Nadal so far only had a chance on clay, and we shouldnt forget that Federer beat Nadal this season on clay!!!!

When?

 

[VP]

When?

Final of the Hamburg masters.

It was 3 sets though. Nadal is beatable on clay in 3 sets but beating him in 5 sets is almost impossible.

 

[Escobar]

Final of the Hamburg masters.

It was 3 sets though. Nadal is beatable on clay in 3 sets but beating him in 5 sets is almost impossible.

True, nevertheless, to beat Nadal on clay is some achievement. I just hoped it gave him the confidence to beat him in the final but unfortunately Nadal was back on form.

 

[sidsutton]

Roddick is like a modern day Ivanisevic.

In what way? They serve fast? That`s about the only similarity I can see. Ivanisevic was better in every aspect of the game that Roddick is now. (better serve despite it not being as fast)

 

[MadDogg]

There is no way Fed would have 10 slams right now if he played with Sampras and Aggasi at their peaks. Nadal possibly would have dominated clay court still but don't reckon he would have won it 3 years in a row.

I agree Federer wouldn't have 10, as Sampras and Aggasi would've given him a bit more competition. But he'd certainly have the most out of those three players, probably at least 6, and quite likely 7 or 8. Considering many said that Sampras himself was the greatest (I always disagreed with that one), that says it all.

 

[KingEric7]

I am of the opinion that, if you put Federer on top form, against any of the other greats on top form, Federer would be the best.
He is an unbelievably talented player.
To the people that say he can't cut it on clay, Sampras never really did either, and to be honest, if Nadal wasn't around, Federer would've won it by now.

 

[Looking Busy]

Until Federer wins all 4 he can't be put in the greatest ever bracket

 

[ILBB15]

Until Federer wins all 4 he can't be put in the greatest ever bracket

Why?

If Nadal(the best clay court tennis player in history) didn't exist, Federer would have already won Roland Garros easily.

Sampras wasn't even close to win all 4 and still some people consider him being the greatest ever.

 

[Desert Eagle]

I hope Djokovic steps up to another level and challenges Federer and Nadal on a consistent basis. To answer the thread though I do think Federer is the greatest ever player.