I really hope Nadal plays Wimbledon. Federer has to defeat him to reclaim his Wimbledon crown.
Roland Garros 2009
- Thread starter uae
- Start date
Lets have one more Nadal Federer final at the Wimbledon.
Congrats to Roger....Deserves it more than any player I can think of
Great to see
Great to see
He's the best ever.
Made it to the record faster than Sampras as well. And still got loads of years left in him.
Soderling was never in that match.
Made it to the record faster than Sampras as well. And still got loads of years left in him.
Soderling was never in that match.
Sampras never got close to the French, which I think makes Federer the better player.
If it wasn't for Nadal, arguably the best clay courter ever, Federer could've had at least 3 French Opens already.
If it wasn't for Nadal, arguably the best clay courter ever, Federer could've had at least 3 French Opens already.
So happy for Roger; well deserved. He is my favourite of all time.
It's hard to compare players from different era's and I don't like doing it having not been around to see the other greats but he's definitely one of the best.
20 consecutive GS semi finals, 19 finals, 14 wins. Career GS.
5 Wimbledon titles in a row, 5 US Open titles in a row.
237 consecutive weeks at number one.
etc etc.
20 consecutive GS semi finals, 19 finals, 14 wins. Career GS.
5 Wimbledon titles in a row, 5 US Open titles in a row.
237 consecutive weeks at number one.
etc etc.
Delighted to see Federer win it today-he needed to do it to shake out the self-doubt that was so clearly plaguing him.
As for whether he's the best ever, I'd say he is. The older players were fantastic, but it's a different game since then in terms of ability, fitness and equipment. Whether they would have adapted to those conditions is an academic exercise-the fact remains that we just don't know. Also, three of the four Slams were formerly played on grass. Would Federer have an even bigger haul by now if that continued to be the case?
The test has to be on his very best day, with the players as they were and not how they might have been had they been playing today, would Federer beat any other player on their very best day? For me, he would. Even compared to Sampras' era, the amount of overall quality that you have to face to get to a Slam final is immense. The game has moved on, because of players like Sampras and Agassi.
The majority view(from what I can tell) from past players and pundits is that Federer is the best player ever. That takes nothing away from his predecessors, but they put him up there on his own. Personally, I would too. He's the best I've ever seen, even if he hadn't won today. If he goes ahead of Sampras on 15, I don't know if anyone could argue to the contrary.
As for whether he's the best ever, I'd say he is. The older players were fantastic, but it's a different game since then in terms of ability, fitness and equipment. Whether they would have adapted to those conditions is an academic exercise-the fact remains that we just don't know. Also, three of the four Slams were formerly played on grass. Would Federer have an even bigger haul by now if that continued to be the case?
The test has to be on his very best day, with the players as they were and not how they might have been had they been playing today, would Federer beat any other player on their very best day? For me, he would. Even compared to Sampras' era, the amount of overall quality that you have to face to get to a Slam final is immense. The game has moved on, because of players like Sampras and Agassi.
The majority view(from what I can tell) from past players and pundits is that Federer is the best player ever. That takes nothing away from his predecessors, but they put him up there on his own. Personally, I would too. He's the best I've ever seen, even if he hadn't won today. If he goes ahead of Sampras on 15, I don't know if anyone could argue to the contrary.
The Nadal obstacle is all that's left Brophs. If and this is a big if, he goes on to come out on the other side of a few classic matches with Nadal in the future, I doubt there will be many others arguing otherwise.
"It might be the greatest victory of my career," said the 27-year-old.
"It takes away so much pressure. Now, I can play in peace for the rest of my career.
"Nobody will never tell me again that I have not won Roland Garros."
True. The thing is, I don't think he's at his peak any more. He's still very, very good, but I reckon Nadal's the best out there now, pound for pound. And he and Roger are out there on their own just now, Slam-wise(though I have a sneaking suspicion that Murray will nick the US Open this summer).
My gut is that Nadal will make Wimbledon, but he won't be at 100%. Whether that means he's more beatable from Federer's point of view, or whether he even plays him at all is another thing. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Federer winning the title without even having to play Rafa. That'd be a shame of course, but if you believe what you read on tennis forums and so on, Rafa's knees aren't good at all. There's some talk that he's having injections(cortisone, I presume) on a semi-regular basis. That will obviously be a worry, and may explain his lacklustre last couple of weeks.
Overall, I'm not sure if Rafa's not still improving, which Roger is on the wane to some degree. Whether or not Rafa can keep up the sustained brilliance that Federer has is another matter.
Delighted for Federer
Without counting another Wimbledon as well (6 in a row)... Last year, Roger truly wasn't himself at Wimbledon after he was trounced in that French Open final...
It'd be great to see Roger play so much more relaxed now! I'd love him to play his true unabashed tennis... Because that's a sight to behold...
We are truly lucky to have seen this guy grace the tennis courts! Simply a genius!
Good for Roger!! if anyone deserves it he did. A True Champion!
I'd say Del Potro had a real case to take that "title"... He was truly impressive every time I saw him. And he seemed to have the measure of Federer who only bided his time to get the better of the Argentine with his humongous wealth of experience...
Very difficult to compare
Roy Emerson had the most grand slam wins for ages but nobody would say he was anywhere near the greatest players of all time
Uniquely in tennis the changing surfaces make it a very different game for specific players to generalise who's the greatest
I tend to look at who was at their peak on which surfaces and use that as a yardstick
As a grasscourt player nobody for me ever touched Laver, Sampras and McEnroe at their peaks
Again on the faster stuff, supreme plastic in New York, Sampras and McEnroe were awesome and again Laver when it was grass
Ultimately one cannot go against Laver who missed so many grand sleam titles he would undoubtedly have won due to tennis being amateur for so long
On clay of course Borg was unplayable for 5 years, bit like Nadal for his three and also Ivan Lendl was an immovable force on the surface
I dont think Federer was as strong as any of these players at their peaks on their surfaces but his all round game of course looks to be the best
Roy Emerson had the most grand slam wins for ages but nobody would say he was anywhere near the greatest players of all time
Uniquely in tennis the changing surfaces make it a very different game for specific players to generalise who's the greatest
I tend to look at who was at their peak on which surfaces and use that as a yardstick
As a grasscourt player nobody for me ever touched Laver, Sampras and McEnroe at their peaks
Again on the faster stuff, supreme plastic in New York, Sampras and McEnroe were awesome and again Laver when it was grass
Ultimately one cannot go against Laver who missed so many grand sleam titles he would undoubtedly have won due to tennis being amateur for so long
On clay of course Borg was unplayable for 5 years, bit like Nadal for his three and also Ivan Lendl was an immovable force on the surface
I dont think Federer was as strong as any of these players at their peaks on their surfaces but his all round game of course looks to be the best
Well done Roger!
So happy for him. That was the Federer of old we saw today, and i'm seeing that after ages. He's been a shadow of himself off late, hence has slipped well off Nadal in terms of the rankings, but this was his old self sneaking out of his withered new skin. Really reminded us of how good he truly is at his best. Breathtaking and a joy to behold. I feel privelidged to have followed his career since that first grandslam he won.
So happy for him. That was the Federer of old we saw today, and i'm seeing that after ages. He's been a shadow of himself off late, hence has slipped well off Nadal in terms of the rankings, but this was his old self sneaking out of his withered new skin. Really reminded us of how good he truly is at his best. Breathtaking and a joy to behold. I feel privelidged to have followed his career since that first grandslam he won.
One thing about Laver and Emerson is that they won quite few grand slams when the best players of the time were not eligible to compete. Laver up to '62 was not as good as Gonzales and Rosewall. This was shown when he first turned pro. It took him a while to get up to their standard. This balances somewhat his 5 years of missing the grand slam events.
Emerson was never close to being the best player in the world and I'm sure he would have won fewer between '63 and '67 if the top pros had been eligible.
So I think if pros had been allowed to compete all through the 60's Laver might have won the a few more majors and Emerson would definitely have won fewer.
There's just one problem: Nadal's played Federer loads of times and won far too many times... so many times and in such a way (when Federer was playing great as well, but Nadal just countered him with more greatness) that you no longer can wave it away by saying "oh but United lose to City once in a blue moon as well, doesn't mean the latter's the better team''. Nadal has so far proven he is actually BETTER than Federer and beats him in huge occasions when the crop of the cream show their worth.
Unfortunately, I think time's run out for him to prove otherwise.
Unfortunately, I think time's run out for him to prove otherwise.
I think the argument is though that Nadal needs to do it for longer. Federer has shown himself to be the best ever, but that doesn't mean that Nadal can't go and take that crown off him in the next year or so by just winning absolutely everything.
Currently, though, Federer is the best ever, even if he isn't known as that for long.
Nadal has been the best over the last year or two, which is why he is ranked 1. Beyond that, you need to wait to see how his career pans out before you make any further claims about Nadal. Many players hit their peak in their early 20's and Nadal is now 23.
But his domination of Federer generally is on one surface only apart from Wimbledon and Aus last year
Also Nadal will have to win a lot lot more for a lot lot longer on all surfaces to get even close to Fed
He is a great player but his physical game imo will not lead to longevity at the very top of the game The first sign of any weakness physically and Nadal will go back into the pack imo, wheras Federer's languid all encompassing style can go on even longer imo
Lets hope Nadal gets back to full fitness and Federer maintains his confident form and we're in for some more incredible games between the two
Yep fair points surf, how Rosewall never won Wimbledon is a staggering statistic bit like Jimmy White in snooker but Laver is still right at the top imo tho' with Sampras and maybe Fed
Let`s for a second assume that Federer is the best ever, better than the likes of Laver, Emerson (both of which I`ve never seen), Sampras etc. Would it then be a problem that Nadal is today the best player in the world?
I don`t think so personally. There is nothing wrong with saying that Federer is the best ever while Nadal is the best at the moment.
Nadal might well be at his career peak now, while Federer is probably past his peak heading downwards. When judging the best ever, you must see to their career as a whole and see who is the best. Federer because of the trophies won and the surfaces he has won on is a likely choice. And IMO that doesn`t change because he has a nemesis in Nadal.
I don`t think so personally. There is nothing wrong with saying that Federer is the best ever while Nadal is the best at the moment.
Nadal might well be at his career peak now, while Federer is probably past his peak heading downwards. When judging the best ever, you must see to their career as a whole and see who is the best. Federer because of the trophies won and the surfaces he has won on is a likely choice. And IMO that doesn`t change because he has a nemesis in Nadal.
Agree. Apart from the French its a total of two grandslams that Nadal has gotten the better of Federer. I think he's won some 14 grandslams in 5 odd years. It's just a stunning achievement really. Currently Nadal is probably the better player. IMO Federer's form has dipped severely in the last two years, yet it doesnt discount the fact that during his best years (last 5), he's been ridiculously good.
What i'm more interested in seeing is whether he can maintain the form he showed in this final. Does he have maybe two more years of really good form? Because i haven't seen Federer play like that for ages. Yes i know he beat Nadal on clay a while back but this was different. This was the Federer that made the game beautiful to watch. If he gives us two years of great form we're in for something special.
Agree with that - however the 'fear' factor that makes a player change his mentallity was in evidence yesterday
Federer has always beaten the Swede easily and therefore knew he could not really be hurt - knew he could make mistakes but that they would probably not change the course of events, which allows him to drop in anxiety, play relaxed and with freedom and play his best which is hard for anyone to beat
As opposed to the moment he steps on a court with Nadal he knows any mistakes, even small ones could give away the edge to Nadal and then he gets nervous, fearful and its a whole different game. Thats the nature of competitiveness.
Like you just I want to see Nadal now come stright back to full fitness and pressurise Federer to see if Fed can withstand a renewed challenge.
Be interesting to see how Nadal also copes with being 'beatable' - it often dents confidence like never before
Great for the game this French win for Fed
Roll on Wimbledon. Fed must start a strong favourite after yesterday I fancy
That's just wrong. Only on clay does Nadal have the beating of Federer in head to heads.
But then Nadal is the greatest attritional player the game has ever seen. And that style and surface matches up brilliantly to nullify the attacking, creative game of Federer.
Federer is not just great becuase he has won everything, it's the tennis he played while doing it. Nadal is a brilliant player and one of the best ever but he is no Federer.
Back in the day don't forget the likes of Borg and Guillermo Vilas artritional to the max.
Kinell' - imagine Bjorn Borg going at it with Nadal on clay - the match would go on for a day
What a fecking joke the security is at Roland Garos, you'd think it would be slightly better considering one of the marquee women's players was fecking stabbed in the past twnety years