Federer = GOAT :worship: [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer = GOAT :worship:

maskedmuffin
09-09-2007, 11:21 PM
Roger federer is sampras with an all court game.



This year has cemented it. Federer is clutch...period

He comes up with big serves when needed, hits lines on his serves muc like his predecessor sampras

When he is not playing well from the baseline, as agassi said, he has 3 or 4 other things to rely on

Last year that serve was not as big a weapon..now he has made it as effortless as his forehand swing


The record shall fall maybe as early as next year's wimbledon

It is irrelavent at this stage when it does; He is just a cut above the rest



OH and RFK.... take your sparta shit somewhere else. You are lucky you are even BACK on this board following what happened at AO 07


Federer just took a gigantic dump on your city of SPARTAAAAAAAAA

nkhera1
09-09-2007, 11:26 PM
His serve is probably one of the most underrated shots in the game. He can place is better than anybody else. He already has the best forehand in the game. His movement is among the top and his backhand, while sometimes shaky, is great because of its versatility. It will be interesting to see how he improves with the new threats he is facing.

Though its a shame you had to ruin this thread with your childishness.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
09-09-2007, 11:34 PM
I think there are signs that, just like Sampras at the same age, Roger is slightly on the way down. We aren't seeing magical performances like the destruction of Hewitt in the USO final any more. He is starting to play more and more like Sampras - slightly erratic from the back of the court, but keeps coming up with the big serves on key points to make the other guy want to break his racquet.

nkhera1
09-09-2007, 11:36 PM
I think there are signs that, just like Sampras at the same age, Roger is slightly on the way down. We aren't seeing magical performances like the destruction of Hewitt in the USO final any more. He is starting to play more and more like Sampras - slightly erratic from the back of the court, but keeps coming up with the big serves on key points to make the other guy want to break his racquet.

Well I mean he is at the age where for being a tennis player he probably isn't going to get any better physically. Like I said before, he can beat all the players of his generation, but its only natural that the younger guys are going to see Federer and know that to beat him they have to be better than him. Just like how Sampras got destroyed by the likes of Hewitt and Safin though Fed isn't at that stage yet. It will be a lot closer once Federer loses a step or two, but he will still be a huge contender. People have grown spoiled with Fed's performance but it can't last forever.

Billabong
09-09-2007, 11:43 PM
I think there are signs that, just like Sampras at the same age, Roger is slightly on the way down. We aren't seeing magical performances like the destruction of Hewitt in the USO final any more. He is starting to play more and more like Sampras - slightly erratic from the back of the court, but keeps coming up with the big serves on key points to make the other guy want to break his racquet.

You seem to have forgotten the 2007 AO semifinal, it was almost even more magical than the 2004 US Open final!!

nkhera1
09-09-2007, 11:45 PM
You seem to have forgotten the 2007 AO semifinal, it was almost even more magical than the 2004 US Open final!!

You gotta look to the younger players to challenge Federer.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
09-09-2007, 11:48 PM
You seem to have forgotten the 2007 AO semifinal, it was almost even more magical than the 2004 US Open final!!

Roddick got his tactics wrong in that match, with disastrous results.

There will come a time - not too far away now - when Fed comes into a GS final (other than the French) in good form, but simply gets beaten all ends up and goes down in straight sets. That happened to Pete at the USO 2000. I think Fed probably has another two years before it happens to him, but it's on the way.

Voo de Mar
09-10-2007, 12:13 AM
I feel sick with Federer's another Grand Slam title. But it isn't a matter of disliking him. He has nice personality, plays beautiful tennis and I was cheering him many times in the past, but it's extremely boring when you see all the time the same winner at the end of the Majors. Federer's supremacy isn't good for tennis :sad: :confused:

Adler
09-10-2007, 12:23 AM
We aren't seeing magical performances like the destruction of Hewitt in the USO final any more
Just because he doesn't have to play 100% all the time. Last year Nadal said that he didn't play even close to his 100% on clay, and there goes the same thing

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 12:33 AM
Roddick got his tactics wrong in that match, with disastrous results.

There will come a time - not too far away now - when Fed comes into a GS final (other than the French) in good form, but simply gets beaten all ends up and goes down in straight sets. That happened to Pete at the USO 2000. I think Fed probably has another two years before it happens to him, but it's on the way.

And in 2 more years, Fed will win 5-6 more majors for a slam count of 17-18. :devil: :devil: :devil:

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 12:33 AM
Fed doesn't go all out anymore like the 2004 US Open to preserve himself. Winning 7-6, 7-6, 7-5 is good enough.

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 12:36 AM
Laver and Borg were both better on their weakest surfaces than Federer's on his, so I guess not.

DDrago2
09-10-2007, 12:39 AM
Laver and Borg were both better on their weakest surfaces than Federer's on his, so I guess not.

Borg never won a US Open title

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 12:40 AM
Borg never won a US Open title

Federer never won a French Open title.

bokehlicious
09-10-2007, 12:44 AM
Federer never won a French Open title.

Fed hasn't retired yet.

GlennMirnyi
09-10-2007, 12:45 AM
Sampras had an all court game, you moron.

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 12:47 AM
Fed hasn't retired yet.

He won't win the French. It's nice to dream but it's not happening.

Regardless, his chances of winning at the French has nothing to do with my point.

bokehlicious
09-10-2007, 12:49 AM
He won't win the French. It's nice to dream but it's not happening.

Regardless, his chances of winning at the French has nothing to do with my point.

Thanks for the prediction Nostradamus :)

So your point is even if Federer had to win the French he still would be worse on clay than Borg on hardcourts ? Okay......

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 12:51 AM
Thanks for the prediction Nostradamus :)

So your point is even if Federer had to win the French he still would be worse on clay than Borg on hardcourts ? Okay......

If he wins it (which would mean that he'd get through seven players not named Nadal in the weakest clay court era in tennis history) he will still be worse on the red than Borg was on hard.

But he won't win it. His best two chances were the last two years (his peak years) and he did not come close to beating Nadal.

bokehlicious
09-10-2007, 12:54 AM
If he wins it (which would mean that he'd get through seven players not named Nadal in the weakest clay court era in tennis history) he will still be worse on the red than Borg was on hard.

But he won't win it. His best two chances were the last two years (his peak years) and he did not come close to beating Nadal.

Can't argue with bjorntards :shrug: :zzz:

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 12:56 AM
Can't argue with bjorntards :shrug: :zzz:

You forgot Laver-tard. That's also me. I'm also a Gonzales-tard and a Tilden-tard, both of whom were better than Federer. In case you were wondering.

calvinhobbes
09-10-2007, 01:14 AM
I feel sick with Federer's another Grand Slam title. But it isn't a matter of disliking him. He has nice personality, plays beautiful tennis and I was cheering him many times in the past, but it's extremely boring when you see all the time the same winner at the end of the Majors. Federer's supremacy isn't good for tennis :sad: :confused:

Why isn´t this supremacy good for tennis? Roger is a good example of sportmanship, hard work, devotion to his profession and respect towards his opponents. This makes tennis something worth seeing and knowing about, and it gives idealistic youngsters something to fight about. I would agree with you if Roger happened to be Mac E or Nastylye . . . .

Voo de Mar
09-10-2007, 01:56 AM
Why isn´t this supremacy good for tennis?

A contest isn't interesting when you know who will win at the end.

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 02:00 AM
Why isn´t this supremacy good for tennis? Roger is a good example of sportmanship, hard work, devotion to his profession and respect towards his opponents. This makes tennis something worth seeing and knowing about, and it gives idealistic youngsters something to fight about. I would agree with you if Roger happened to be Mac E or Nastylye . . . .

I like Roger's supremacy. Hardcourt tennis, for example, is very deep and Roger is still coming out on top. Grass court tennis has a number of legit contenders.

What I like less is Nadal's supremacy on clay. While he's a masterful talent he plays (and wins everything) in a very watered down era of clay court tennis. This is troubling.

World Beater
09-10-2007, 02:10 AM
its always funny seeing people come up with these weak field theories.

sampras, todd martin think that clay tennis is incredibly deep and have commented how nadal's streak is more impressive than roger's. While we have our resident borg troll, say the opposite.

boo hoo. Tilden is better, so is laver. :haha: you are one among a small minority who think this way. I find it funny for people to defend borg's supposed mental toughness when he quit tennis because mcenroe started to own him. Borg despite all his streaks and what not isnt the GOAT. Neither is william renshaw or tillden.

there are 3 legit contenders for the GOAT title.

borg, laver and sampras. Federer is almost in the conversation. But borg, laver and sampras aren't outright winners of this title because of the strikes against them

Allure
09-10-2007, 02:16 AM
A contest isn't interesting when you know who will win at the end.

How about not focusing on who will win but just appreciate good tennis. Even if Roger wins all the time and not my favorites, I can be happy that he played brilliant tennis to win.

Voo de Mar
09-10-2007, 02:21 AM
How about not focusing on who will win but just appreciate good tennis. Even if Roger wins all the time and not my favorites, I can be happy that he played brilliant tennis to win.

Good idea but sometimes is tough to have a distance to everything all around. The fact that he plays complete, beautiful tennis is a good circumstance.

NinaNina19
09-10-2007, 02:23 AM
Fed hasn't retired yet.Borg retired at Federer's age.

NinaNina19
09-10-2007, 02:24 AM
If he wins it (which would mean that he'd get through seven players not named Nadal in the weakest clay court era in tennis history) he will still be worse on the red than Borg was on hard.

But he won't win it. His best two chances were the last two years (his peak years) and he did not come close to beating Nadal.Yeah but Nadal could be injured.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-10-2007, 02:35 AM
Roger federer is sampras with an all court game.



This year has cemented it. Federer is clutch...period

He comes up with big serves when needed, hits lines on his serves muc like his predecessor sampras

When he is not playing well from the baseline, as agassi said, he has 3 or 4 other things to rely on

Last year that serve was not as big a weapon..now he has made it as effortless as his forehand swing


The record shall fall maybe as early as next year's wimbledon

It is irrelavent at this stage when it does; He is just a cut above the rest



OH and RFK.... take your sparta shit somewhere else. You are lucky you are even BACK on this board following what happened at AO 07


Federer just took a gigantic dump on your city of SPARTAAAAAAAAA

Federer got lucky that Djoko choked.

P.S. Nadals knees will be healthy soon and then RIP ballet tennis.

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 02:51 AM
Yeah but Nadal could be injured.

Rod Laver didn't wait until Ken Rosewall was injured to win the French Open.

RagingLamb
09-10-2007, 04:14 AM
Federer is only 26. In his declining year he's won 3 majors, which is incredible.

I have been critical of his peers, and the lack of competition he's often faced (still am to an extent). But, having seen him when he was challenged recently has made me more of a believer.

I'm a die hard Sampras fan; the guy was a hero to me when I was growing up. And to me he is still the greatest.

But if Federer breaks Sampras' record by Wimbledon 2008, i.e. wins AO, RG (beating Nadal) and Wimbledon again, or even wins AO, Wimbledon and USO, and ends up with 15 majors at the age of 27 (holy crap!), I will hang a poster of him on my office wall and call him the greatest of all time.