Will there be another Roger Federer? - Page 15 - MensTennisForums.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #211 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 11:16 AM
Registered User
 
Sophocles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Age: 41
Posts: 8,986
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fed4ever View Post
I had posted this on a different message board awhile back under a different username but wanted to bring it out and update it. This myth that Sampras had to face tougher competition is simply a myth.

During Sampras' prime from '93-'98 when he won 10 of his majors, Sampras never beat Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, Rafter, Rios, Kuerten, Moya, Kafelnikov, Philippoussis, Bruguera in a Slam when they were ranked in the top 10. He was 0-5 against these players when they were in the top 10 and was fortunate enough never to have faced many of them when they were. So Sampras' competition is always inflated when people talk about all the tough players he had to beat to win his Slams.

Which top 10 players did Sampras beat from "93-'98 in those 6 years when he was no.1 and who did Federer beat?

US Open - Sampras:
'93 - Chang (7); '94 - noone- lost to Yzaga (23) in the 4th; '95 - Agassi (1); '96 - Ivanisevic (6), Chang (3); '97 - noone - lost to Korda (16) in the 4th ; '98 - Kucera (9), lost to Rafter (3) in semis

So basically, he beat prime Agassi for which he deserves tremendous credit, Chang twice, Ivanisevic who had a poor record on hard courts, Kucera, and lost to Yzaga, Korda, Rafter.

Us Open - Federer:

'03 - noone - lost to Nalbandian (13) in the 4th, '04- Agassi (7), Henman (6), Hewitt (5); '05 - Hewitt (4); Agassi (7); '06 - Blake (7), Davydenko (6), Roddick (10); '07 - Roddick (5), Davydenko (4), Djokovic (3); '08 - Djokovic, Murray .

He beat Djokovic twice, Hewitt twice, Roddick twice, Agassi twice, Davydenko twice; Murray; Blake and Henman.

Conc: I realize Sampras' win over prime Agassi in '95 was probably the toughest matchup, but overall, I would say that Federer has beaten more quality opponents and suffered fewer questionable defeats.


Australian Open - Sampras:

'93 - noone - lost to Edberg (2) in semis ; '94 - Courier (3), '95 - Chang (6), lost to Agassi (2) in final ; '96 - noone - lost to Philippoussis (40) in the 3rd round; '97 - Muster (5); '98 - noone lost to Kucera (20) in the quarters.

Basically, he has wins over Courier, Chang and Muster.

Australian Open - Federer

'03 - noone - lost to Nalbandian (12) in the 4th; '04 - Nalbandian (8) ; Ferrero (3) (pre-chicken pox); '05 - Agassi (8); lost to Safin (4) in the semis; '06 - Davydenko (5); '07 - Robredo (6); Roddick (7); Gonzalez (9); '08 noone lost to Djokovic

Federer has wins over Agassi, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez and Robredo with fewer bad losses. (Federer also beat Safin in the finals in 2004, but, unfortunately Safin's ranking had slipped because he was injured the year before - it's still probably a scalp better than any of Sampras' wins at the Aussie)

Conc: Federer has beaten tougher competition at the Aussie


French Open- Sampras
'93- noone- lost to Bruguera (11) in Quarters; '94 - noone - lost to Courier (7) in Quarters; '95 - noone - lost to Schaller (24) in 1st round; '96 - Courier (8); lost to Kafelnikov (7) in semis; '97- noone- lost to Norman (65) in 3rd round; '98 - noone - lost to Delgado (97) in 2nd round

He has one victory over Courier and lots of bad losses

French Open - Federer

'03- noone - lost to Horna (88) in 1st round, '04 - noone - lost to Kuerten (30) in 3rd round; '05-noone - lost to Nadal (5) in semis; '06 - Nalbandian (3); lost to Nadal (2) in final; '07- Robredo (9); Davydenko (4) -lost to Nadal (2) in final; '08 noone - lost to Nadal in the final

Federer beat Nalbandian, Robredo, and Davydenko, made it to the finals three times and had fewer bad losses.

Conc: If not for Nadal, Federer would have been a dominant multiple clay-court champion and clearly outperformed Sampras at Roland Garros


Wimbledon- Sampras

'93- Becker (4), Courier (2); '94- Chang (8), Martin (9), Ivanisevic (5); '95 - Ivanisevic(6), Becker (4), "96 - noone - lost to Krajicek in the quarters; '97 - noone; '98- noone

He beat Ivanisevic twice, Becker twice, Courier; Chang and Martin

Wimbledon- Federer
'03- Roddick (6); '04- Hewitt (10); Roddick (2); '05- Hewitt (2), Roddick (4); '06- Ancic (10), Nadal (2); '07- Haas (10) in a walkover; Nadal (2); '08 noone - lost to Nadal

He beat Roddick 3 times, Nadal twice, Hewitt twice; Ancic

Conc: I think Ancic was as good as Martin on grass and Hewitt was better than Courier and Chang. Roddick is on par with Ivanisevic. The evaluation depends on whether we think pre-prime on grass Nadal is as worthy competition as the older Becker that Sampras faced. While Nadal does not have a typical dominant grass game, it's hard to argue with results. Ignoring 2009 since he withdrew, Nadal won twice and made 3 finals between 2006-2011. It's hard for me to say that the old Becker was playing at a higher level than Nadal knowing Nadal's success that follows after 2007.


Overall:
I don't see any substantive evidence to suggest that Sampras beat tougher opponents to win his Slams. On the contrary, I think a strong case can be made that Federer has in fact beaten tougher opponents.

Furthermore, if you don't just look at his wins but look at their losses, you will see that Federer has virtually no bad losses. Starting from Wimbledon '93, Federer only lost to Nalbandian (13) at the US, Guga (30) and Nadal (5, 2, 2, 2) at Roland Garros, Safin (4) and Djokovic (3) at the Australian and Nadal (2) at Wimbledon. Starting from Wimbledon '93, Sampras lost to Yzaga (23) , Korda (16) and Rafter (3) at the US, Philippoussis (40), Kucera (20), Agassi (2) at the Australian; Courier (7), Schaller (24), Kafelnikov (7); Norman (65) and Delgado (97) at the French and Krajicek (13) at Wimbledon.

Take a long hard look at the data from the 6 years of Sampras' prime and the 6 years of Federer's prime and then tell me who faced tougher competition and who was losing to pigeons.
I knew Sampras had far more hack losses at slams & had a pretty good idea his competition in his peak years, taking into account their actual level at the time rather than just their names, was less than it was cracked up to be by Fed-haters, but you have done the work to prove it. Huge props to you.

"There is no such thing as 'the world'." - Enoch Powell.
Sophocles is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #212 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 11:18 AM
Registered User
 
Sophocles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Age: 41
Posts: 8,986
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SetSampras View Post
If Fed only was owned by his daddy on clay then I would be fine with that.. But the guy has lost slams on ALL SURFACES. to Nadal. Imagine if Pete lost to Andre on all surfaces at the slams, imagine if Borg lost to on all surfaces to Mac at the slams etc. It fucks the legacy up in many ways, as does not winning the french. But fish and fowl. Personally, I wouldn't want to be crapped on on grass, clay, and hard at the slams on the biggest stage by my main rival more
I'm pretty sure Laver was beaten on all surfaces by Rosewall. I'm also pretty sure Nadal has been bagelled on all surfaces by Federer.

On the Rosewall-Nadal question, by the way, I think Rosewall would have played him tough because he'd basically have played like Coria with a demon net game.

"There is no such thing as 'the world'." - Enoch Powell.
Sophocles is offline  
post #213 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 11:22 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 28
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

What's ironic is that Sampras fans will question Federer's competition but Federer actually faced Agassi more times as a top 10 player between 2003-2008 (going 3-0) than Sampras faced Agassi between 1993-1998 (1-1). Setting aside Agassi, who were the great players that Sampras supposedly kept beating to win his grand Slams? Unless you're willing to extol the virtues of head-case Ivanisevic at Wimbledon, old Becker at Wimbledon, or past-prime Courier at the Australian, Sampras doesn't actually have that many impressive wins from the 24 grand slams played between '93-'98. Certainly, there's nothing to remotely suggest that Sampras had to beat better players that Federer had to beat.
fed4ever is offline  
post #214 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 11:29 AM
Registered User
 
Sophocles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Age: 41
Posts: 8,986
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fed4ever View Post
What's ironic is that Sampras fans will question Federer's competition but Federer actually faced Agassi more times as a top 10 player between 2003-2008 (going 3-0) than Sampras faced Agassi between 1993-1998 (1-1). Setting aside Agassi, who were the great players that Sampras supposedly kept beating to win his grand Slams? Unless you're willing to extol the virtues of head-case Ivanisevic at Wimbledon, old Becker at Wimbledon, or past-prime Courier at the Australian, Sampras doesn't actually have that many impressive wins from the 24 grand slams played between '93-'98. Certainly, there's nothing to remotely suggest that Sampras had to beat better players that Federer had to beat.
Yes, I mean certainly Sampras's 1995 was impressive: '95 Agassi is better (higher level of play) than anybody Federer's beaten to win a slam, & '95 Becker at Wimbledon, though past his best, was playing extremely well & isn't far behind 2007 Nadal, but you could say the same for 2005 Agassi, & overall, it's clear Federer had to beat better competition to win slams than Sampras did. Sampras benefited from the fact that the best players of his era were far less consistent than the best players of the current era, so he often avoided them - but credit to him for taking his chances. All successful players have to do that, including Federer (as at 2009 R.G., to take the obvious example).

"There is no such thing as 'the world'." - Enoch Powell.
Sophocles is offline  
post #215 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 11:57 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,339
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fed4ever View Post
I had posted this on a different message board awhile back under a different username but wanted to bring it out and update it. This myth that Sampras had to face tougher competition is simply a myth.

During Sampras' prime from '93-'98 when he won 10 of his majors, Sampras never beat Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, Rafter, Rios, Kuerten, Moya, Kafelnikov, Philippoussis, Bruguera in a Slam when they were ranked in the top 10. He was 0-5 against these players when they were in the top 10 and was fortunate enough never to have faced many of them when they were. So Sampras' competition is always inflated when people talk about all the tough players he had to beat to win his Slams.

Which top 10 players did Sampras beat from "93-'98 in those 6 years when he was no.1 and who did Federer beat?

US Open - Sampras:
'93 - Chang (7); '94 - noone- lost to Yzaga (23) in the 4th; '95 - Agassi (1); '96 - Ivanisevic (6), Chang (3); '97 - noone - lost to Korda (16) in the 4th ; '98 - Kucera (9), lost to Rafter (3) in semis

So basically, he beat prime Agassi for which he deserves tremendous credit, Chang twice, Ivanisevic who had a poor record on hard courts, Kucera, and lost to Yzaga, Korda, Rafter.

Us Open - Federer:

'03 - noone - lost to Nalbandian (13) in the 4th, '04- Agassi (7), Henman (6), Hewitt (5); '05 - Hewitt (4); Agassi (7); '06 - Blake (7), Davydenko (6), Roddick (10); '07 - Roddick (5), Davydenko (4), Djokovic (3); '08 - Djokovic, Murray .

He beat Djokovic twice, Hewitt twice, Roddick twice, Agassi twice, Davydenko twice; Murray; Blake and Henman.

Conc: I realize Sampras' win over prime Agassi in '95 was probably the toughest matchup, but overall, I would say that Federer has beaten more quality opponents and suffered fewer questionable defeats.


Australian Open - Sampras:

'93 - noone - lost to Edberg (2) in semis ; '94 - Courier (3), '95 - Chang (6), lost to Agassi (2) in final ; '96 - noone - lost to Philippoussis (40) in the 3rd round; '97 - Muster (5); '98 - noone lost to Kucera (20) in the quarters.

Basically, he has wins over Courier, Chang and Muster.

Australian Open - Federer

'03 - noone - lost to Nalbandian (12) in the 4th; '04 - Nalbandian (8) ; Ferrero (3) (pre-chicken pox); '05 - Agassi (8); lost to Safin (4) in the semis; '06 - Davydenko (5); '07 - Robredo (6); Roddick (7); Gonzalez (9); '08 noone lost to Djokovic

Federer has wins over Agassi, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez and Robredo with fewer bad losses. (Federer also beat Safin in the finals in 2004, but, unfortunately Safin's ranking had slipped because he was injured the year before - it's still probably a scalp better than any of Sampras' wins at the Aussie)

Conc: Federer has beaten tougher competition at the Aussie


French Open- Sampras
'93- noone- lost to Bruguera (11) in Quarters; '94 - noone - lost to Courier (7) in Quarters; '95 - noone - lost to Schaller (24) in 1st round; '96 - Courier (8); lost to Kafelnikov (7) in semis; '97- noone- lost to Norman (65) in 3rd round; '98 - noone - lost to Delgado (97) in 2nd round

He has one victory over Courier and lots of bad losses

French Open - Federer

'03- noone - lost to Horna (88) in 1st round, '04 - noone - lost to Kuerten (30) in 3rd round; '05-noone - lost to Nadal (5) in semis; '06 - Nalbandian (3); lost to Nadal (2) in final; '07- Robredo (9); Davydenko (4) -lost to Nadal (2) in final; '08 noone - lost to Nadal in the final

Federer beat Nalbandian, Robredo, and Davydenko, made it to the finals three times and had fewer bad losses.

Conc: If not for Nadal, Federer would have been a dominant multiple clay-court champion and clearly outperformed Sampras at Roland Garros


Wimbledon- Sampras

'93- Becker (4), Courier (2); '94- Chang (8), Martin (9), Ivanisevic (5); '95 - Ivanisevic(6), Becker (4), "96 - noone - lost to Krajicek in the quarters; '97 - noone; '98- noone

He beat Ivanisevic twice, Becker twice, Courier; Chang and Martin

Wimbledon- Federer
'03- Roddick (6); '04- Hewitt (10); Roddick (2); '05- Hewitt (2), Roddick (4); '06- Ancic (10), Nadal (2); '07- Haas (10) in a walkover; Nadal (2); '08 noone - lost to Nadal

He beat Roddick 3 times, Nadal twice, Hewitt twice; Ancic

Conc: I think Ancic was as good as Martin on grass and Hewitt was better than Courier and Chang. Roddick is on par with Ivanisevic. The evaluation depends on whether we think pre-prime on grass Nadal is as worthy competition as the older Becker that Sampras faced. While Nadal does not have a typical dominant grass game, it's hard to argue with results. Ignoring 2009 since he withdrew, Nadal won twice and made 3 finals between 2006-2011. It's hard for me to say that the old Becker was playing at a higher level than Nadal knowing Nadal's success that follows after 2007.


Overall:
I don't see any substantive evidence to suggest that Sampras beat tougher opponents to win his Slams. On the contrary, I think a strong case can be made that Federer has in fact beaten tougher opponents.

Furthermore, if you don't just look at his wins but look at their losses, you will see that Federer has virtually no bad losses. Starting from Wimbledon '93, Federer only lost to Nalbandian (13) at the US, Guga (30) and Nadal (5, 2, 2, 2) at Roland Garros, Safin (4) and Djokovic (3) at the Australian and Nadal (2) at Wimbledon. Starting from Wimbledon '93, Sampras lost to Yzaga (23) , Korda (16) and Rafter (3) at the US, Philippoussis (40), Kucera (20), Agassi (2) at the Australian; Courier (7), Schaller (24), Kafelnikov (7); Norman (65) and Delgado (97) at the French and Krajicek (13) at Wimbledon.

Take a long hard look at the data from the 6 years of Sampras' prime and the 6 years of Federer's prime and then tell me who faced tougher competition and who was losing to pigeons.
You need to post more often!

I cannot rep you again
atennisfan is offline  
post #216 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 12:05 PM
Talent >> Robots
 
Sapeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 20
Posts: 41,005
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

The closet we've come to another Roger Federer is Andy Murray. The nice game, astounding talent and brilliant variety. The smiliarities end there, however, as they are completely different after that. Apart from Andy, there's nobody else.

ANDY MURRAY

SLAMS: 2 WINS, 7 finals, 9 semi-finals, 7 quarter-finals...
MASTERS: 11 WINS, 5 finals, 11 semi-finals, 18 quarter-finals...
WTF: 3 semi-finals...
OTHER: Olympic gold and silver medals, Davis Cup champion...
MATCH WIN/LOSS: 558-166...
TITLES: 35 and counting...

~ Roger ~ Pics ~ Monty ~ Berdman ~ Stronga ~ Feli ~ Big Kev
Sapeod is offline  
post #217 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 12:10 PM
Registered User
 
barbadosan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: I hear my Bimshire calling . . .
Age: 67
Posts: 9,637
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fed4ever View Post
I had posted this on a different message board awhile back under a different username but wanted to bring it out and update it. This myth that Sampras had to face tougher competition is simply a myth.

During Sampras' prime from '93-'98 when he won 10 of his majors, Sampras never beat Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, Rafter, Rios, Kuerten, Moya, Kafelnikov, Philippoussis, Bruguera in a Slam when they were ranked in the top 10. He was 0-5 against these players when they were in the top 10 and was fortunate enough never to have faced many of them when they were. So Sampras' competition is always inflated when people talk about all the tough players he had to beat to win his Slams.

Which top 10 players did Sampras beat from "93-'98 in those 6 years when he was no.1 and who did Federer beat?

US Open - Sampras:
'93 - Chang (7); '94 - noone- lost to Yzaga (23) in the 4th; '95 - Agassi (1); '96 - Ivanisevic (6), Chang (3); '97 - noone - lost to Korda (16) in the 4th ; '98 - Kucera (9), lost to Rafter (3) in semis

So basically, he beat prime Agassi for which he deserves tremendous credit, Chang twice, Ivanisevic who had a poor record on hard courts, Kucera, and lost to Yzaga, Korda, Rafter.

Us Open - Federer:

'03 - noone - lost to Nalbandian (13) in the 4th, '04- Agassi (7), Henman (6), Hewitt (5); '05 - Hewitt (4); Agassi (7); '06 - Blake (7), Davydenko (6), Roddick (10); '07 - Roddick (5), Davydenko (4), Djokovic (3); '08 - Djokovic, Murray .

He beat Djokovic twice, Hewitt twice, Roddick twice, Agassi twice, Davydenko twice; Murray; Blake and Henman.

Conc: I realize Sampras' win over prime Agassi in '95 was probably the toughest matchup, but overall, I would say that Federer has beaten more quality opponents and suffered fewer questionable defeats.


Australian Open - Sampras:

'93 - noone - lost to Edberg (2) in semis ; '94 - Courier (3), '95 - Chang (6), lost to Agassi (2) in final ; '96 - noone - lost to Philippoussis (40) in the 3rd round; '97 - Muster (5); '98 - noone lost to Kucera (20) in the quarters.

Basically, he has wins over Courier, Chang and Muster.

Australian Open - Federer

'03 - noone - lost to Nalbandian (12) in the 4th; '04 - Nalbandian (8) ; Ferrero (3) (pre-chicken pox); '05 - Agassi (8); lost to Safin (4) in the semis; '06 - Davydenko (5); '07 - Robredo (6); Roddick (7); Gonzalez (9); '08 noone lost to Djokovic

Federer has wins over Agassi, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez and Robredo with fewer bad losses. (Federer also beat Safin in the finals in 2004, but, unfortunately Safin's ranking had slipped because he was injured the year before - it's still probably a scalp better than any of Sampras' wins at the Aussie)

Conc: Federer has beaten tougher competition at the Aussie


French Open- Sampras
'93- noone- lost to Bruguera (11) in Quarters; '94 - noone - lost to Courier (7) in Quarters; '95 - noone - lost to Schaller (24) in 1st round; '96 - Courier (8); lost to Kafelnikov (7) in semis; '97- noone- lost to Norman (65) in 3rd round; '98 - noone - lost to Delgado (97) in 2nd round

He has one victory over Courier and lots of bad losses

French Open - Federer

'03- noone - lost to Horna (88) in 1st round, '04 - noone - lost to Kuerten (30) in 3rd round; '05-noone - lost to Nadal (5) in semis; '06 - Nalbandian (3); lost to Nadal (2) in final; '07- Robredo (9); Davydenko (4) -lost to Nadal (2) in final; '08 noone - lost to Nadal in the final

Federer beat Nalbandian, Robredo, and Davydenko, made it to the finals three times and had fewer bad losses.

Conc: If not for Nadal, Federer would have been a dominant multiple clay-court champion and clearly outperformed Sampras at Roland Garros


Wimbledon- Sampras

'93- Becker (4), Courier (2); '94- Chang (8), Martin (9), Ivanisevic (5); '95 - Ivanisevic(6), Becker (4), "96 - noone - lost to Krajicek in the quarters; '97 - noone; '98- noone

He beat Ivanisevic twice, Becker twice, Courier; Chang and Martin

Wimbledon- Federer
'03- Roddick (6); '04- Hewitt (10); Roddick (2); '05- Hewitt (2), Roddick (4); '06- Ancic (10), Nadal (2); '07- Haas (10) in a walkover; Nadal (2); '08 noone - lost to Nadal

He beat Roddick 3 times, Nadal twice, Hewitt twice; Ancic

Conc: I think Ancic was as good as Martin on grass and Hewitt was better than Courier and Chang. Roddick is on par with Ivanisevic. The evaluation depends on whether we think pre-prime on grass Nadal is as worthy competition as the older Becker that Sampras faced. While Nadal does not have a typical dominant grass game, it's hard to argue with results. Ignoring 2009 since he withdrew, Nadal won twice and made 3 finals between 2006-2011. It's hard for me to say that the old Becker was playing at a higher level than Nadal knowing Nadal's success that follows after 2007.


Overall:
I don't see any substantive evidence to suggest that Sampras beat tougher opponents to win his Slams. On the contrary, I think a strong case can be made that Federer has in fact beaten tougher opponents.

Furthermore, if you don't just look at his wins but look at their losses, you will see that Federer has virtually no bad losses. Starting from Wimbledon '93, Federer only lost to Nalbandian (13) at the US, Guga (30) and Nadal (5, 2, 2, 2) at Roland Garros, Safin (4) and Djokovic (3) at the Australian and Nadal (2) at Wimbledon. Starting from Wimbledon '93, Sampras lost to Yzaga (23) , Korda (16) and Rafter (3) at the US, Philippoussis (40), Kucera (20), Agassi (2) at the Australian; Courier (7), Schaller (24), Kafelnikov (7); Norman (65) and Delgado (97) at the French and Krajicek (13) at Wimbledon.

Take a long hard look at the data from the 6 years of Sampras' prime and the 6 years of Federer's prime and then tell me who faced tougher competition and who was losing to pigeons.
Always good to see largely baseless claims (that keep being touted as much as possible) being thoroughly and efficiently debunked by force of actual figures and research. Fed4ever



"When I'm asked, how is it to be around Federer, and what is he really like, I always reply, "I wish people could meet him when cameras or an audience aren't around, as he is one of the nicest people I have ever met when stringing on tour. " -- drakulie
barbadosan is offline  
post #218 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 12:13 PM
Registered User
 
Shinoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: My Flag
Posts: 4,185
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapeod View Post
The closet we've come to another Roger Federer is Andy Murray. The nice game, astounding talent and brilliant variety. The smiliarities end there, however, as they are completely different after that. Apart from Andy, there's nobody else.
Shinoj is offline  
post #219 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 12:17 PM
Registered User
 
tripwires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Posts: 13,526
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophocles View Post
I'm pretty sure Laver was beaten on all surfaces by Rosewall. I'm also pretty sure Nadal has been bagelled on all surfaces by Federer.

On the Rosewall-Nadal question, by the way, I think Rosewall would have played him tough because he'd basically have played like Coria with a demon net game.
You are right: Grass in 2006, clay in 2007, indoors hard in 2011.

Roger Federer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt01 View Post
Fed's groundstrokes never were that good to begin with.
tripwires is offline  
post #220 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 12:18 PM
Registered User
 
Shinoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: My Flag
Posts: 4,185
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

ofcourse There wont be other Roger federer because everybody is unique. But if you tend to imply that The ones with his Records and Accomplishment wont be another one. Then of course that is not true because somebody else will come with a superior talent and preparation and more adjusted and more aware. He will break all the records

because if you see there was Sampras in the 90s with 14 grand Slams and just another 10 years later somebody else comes breaks his record. There will always be someone better waiitng next.

But if you are implying the skills, the grace, the efficiency of Roger Federer then of course there wont be many.

There is a reason why nadal sheepishly and guiltfully grins after he defeats Federer at the end of the match because he himself knows that on Talent alone he cant even tie shoelaces of Roger Federer and he defeats federer just on the basis of pure Gamesmanship, called moonballing.
Shinoj is offline  
post #221 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 12:18 PM
Registered User
 
tripwires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Singapore
Age: 29
Posts: 13,526
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapeod View Post
The closet we've come to another Roger Federer is Andy Murray. The nice game, astounding talent and brilliant variety. The smiliarities end there, however, as they are completely different after that. Apart from Andy, there's nobody else.
Oh no you didn't.

Roger Federer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt01 View Post
Fed's groundstrokes never were that good to begin with.
tripwires is offline  
post #222 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 12:35 PM
Registered User
 
barbadosan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: I hear my Bimshire calling . . .
Age: 67
Posts: 9,637
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinoj View Post
ofcourse There wont be other Roger federer because everybody is unique. But if you tend to imply that The ones with his Records and Accomplishment wont be another one. Then of course that is not true because somebody else will come with a superior talent and preparation and more adjusted and more aware. He will break all the records

because if you see there was Sampras in the 90s with 14 grand Slams and just another 10 years later somebody else comes breaks his record. There will always be someone better waiitng next.

But if you are implying the skills, the grace, the efficiency of Roger Federer then of course there wont be many.

There is a reason why nadal sheepishly and guiltfully grins after he defeats Federer at the end of the match because he himself knows that on Talent alone he cant even tie shoelaces of Roger Federer and he defeats federer just on the basis of pure Gamesmanship, called moonballing.
Even so, I suspect I'd be Methuselah's age before I lived long enough to see the record of 23 consecutive GS semi-finals broken



"When I'm asked, how is it to be around Federer, and what is he really like, I always reply, "I wish people could meet him when cameras or an audience aren't around, as he is one of the nicest people I have ever met when stringing on tour. " -- drakulie
barbadosan is offline  
post #223 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 12:52 PM
Registered User
 
Shinoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: My Flag
Posts: 4,185
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barbadosan View Post
Even so, I suspect I'd be Methuselah's age before I lived long enough to see the record of 23 consecutive GS semi-finals broken

You are already in your 60s man.
Shinoj is offline  
post #224 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 12:53 PM
Registered User
 
barbadosan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: I hear my Bimshire calling . . .
Age: 67
Posts: 9,637
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinoj View Post
You are already in your 60s man.
?? Didn't Methuselah live to be seven hundred and something years old?



"When I'm asked, how is it to be around Federer, and what is he really like, I always reply, "I wish people could meet him when cameras or an audience aren't around, as he is one of the nicest people I have ever met when stringing on tour. " -- drakulie
barbadosan is offline  
post #225 of 332 (permalink) Old 11-30-2011, 01:00 PM
Registered User
 
Shinoj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: My Flag
Posts: 4,185
                     
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barbadosan View Post
?? Didn't Methuselah live to be seven hundred and something years old?

Records are meant to be broken.. Its an Old Adage you see, you would know better than that.
Shinoj is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome