The facts about Roger are frightening [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The facts about Roger are frightening

celia
09-10-2007, 01:08 AM
The facts about Roger are frightening

NEW YORK -- What more is there to say about Roger Federer, who continues to rewrite the record books with every Grand Slam title he captures. He might not win as many matches or titles as he did the past couple of seasons, but Federer's win over Novak Djokovic in the U.S. Open final only reinforced his reign over the rest of the field.

Here's our Top 10 list (and change) of Federer's accomplishments resulting from his 12th career Grand Slam title.

0 -- No one has beaten Federer in a Grand Slam final that wasn't played at Roland Garros.

1 -- First player in the Open era (i.e., since 1968) to win the U.S. Open in four consecutive years. Before 1968, Bill Tilden was the last player to win the U.S. Championships at least four years in a row, taking the title from 1920 through 1925.

2 -- Number of players in the Open era who have won four consecutive Grand Slam titles at two events. (Bjorn Borg)

2.4 -- Million dollars he earned for winning the U.S. Open. Prize money for winning the U.S. Open is $1.4 million, but because Federer won the U.S. Open Series, he earns an extra million.

3 -- Times Federer has won the Australian Open, Wimbledon and U.S. Open in the same year (2004, 2006, 2007)

4 -- Number of players Federer has lost to in 2007: Guillermo Canas and Rafael Nadal, twice; Djokovic and Filippo Volandri, once each.

5 -- Career wins against Djokovic, including three in 2007.

6 -- Titles Federer has won in 2007, tied with Nadal for the most this season.

7 -- Set points Federer saved in the first two sets. Federer staved off five in the first set and two more in the second before winning both in tiebreaks.

8 -- Number of players who have won at least four U.S. Open titles. Richard Sears, Bill Larned and Tilden won the most (7). In the Open era, the only players with more U.S. Open titles than Federer are Jimmy Connors and Pete Sampras, each with five.

9 -- Grand Slam sets Federer has lost in 2007: zero at the Australian, four at the French Open, three at Wimbledon and two at the U.S. Open.

10 -- Consecutive Grand Slam final appearances. You have to go back to the 2005 French Open to find the last time Federer did not make it to the final of a Slam.

Keith Hawkins is the tennis editor for ESPN.com.

:worship: :worship: :worship:
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen07/news/story?id=3011976

R.Federer
09-10-2007, 01:35 AM
Here's our Top 10 list (and change) of Federer's accomplishments resulting from his 12th career Grand Slam title.


There were Top 12!

Hahaha, I like point 2.4

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 01:38 AM
A lot of these aren't frightening at all. Particularly #4, #5 and #6. Piss poor article.

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 02:00 AM
CyBorg - it's clear you hate Roger Federer with all your might. Why even bother after a 3rd year out of 4 winning 3 slams?

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 02:01 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_%28tennis%29#Men.27s_Singles_3

# Roger Federer

* 2004: Australian, Wimbledon & U.S. Open
* 2006: Australian, Wimbledon & U.S. Open
* 2007: Australian, Wimbledon & U.S. Open

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 02:04 AM
CyBorg - it's clear you hate Roger Federer with all your might. Why even bother after a 3rd year out of 4 winning 3 slams?

I like Roger. But I see right through the media's attempts to sell tennis across the world by exagerrating Federer's greatness. It's all hype and no substance.

How does CBS get the average sports fan (who is probably more into NFL football than tennis) to not change the channel and watch the US Open final? Tell him that one of the players is the best ever to play the game, leaving the impression that the match has unprecedented historical implications.

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 02:19 AM
CyBorg - it's impossible to get the average sports boob to appreciate tennis. For those of us who love tennis - we appreciate the mental battles that went on today, not every match Fed can hit 45 W and only 10 UFEs.

caleb_123
09-10-2007, 02:19 AM
Cyborg your soo full of shit it not even funny, a real tennis fan would appreciate roger roll in history and be happy to see him achieve greatness. Why do you think they are exagerrating his greatness is clear to anyone with a brain he is one of the all time greats and possibly the best tennis player anyone has ever seen. And what's with this all hype and no substance? you must be talking about your post right?

SheepleBuster
09-10-2007, 02:21 AM
Cyborg, you are an idiot! Go watch NFL why bother with Tennis man!

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 02:24 AM
I was so pissed off that CBS didn't cut to the US Open coverage until they were totally done with their NFL bullshit. Screw NFL Week 1!

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 02:26 AM
You're all absolutely right.

In order to appreciate Roger I must gush about him every second of my life. I must dedicate my life to him. I must create a religion in his name. I must not question what the media says about him.

I appreciate the enlightening advice.

SheepleBuster
09-10-2007, 02:29 AM
it's tough when 60 Minutes gets a nod over U.S. Open ceremony. And Dick, please retire.

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 02:52 AM
CyBorg - give me one piece of hype about Roger.

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 02:54 AM
CyBorg - give me one piece of hype about Roger.

99% of mainstream media coverage and every single piece that claims that Roger is the greatest of all time without even bothering making a comparative analysis with the likes of Laver, Borg, Tilden, Gonzales and Budge.

Also, any article that mentions Roy Emerson. ;)

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 02:56 AM
CyBorg - we can't really decide who is GOAT across era, racquet technologies, different surfaces. However, I think anyone will agree that Federer plays the best tennis ever.

CyBorg
09-10-2007, 02:57 AM
CyBorg - we can't really decide who is GOAT across era, racquet technologies, different surfaces. However, I think anyone will agree that Federer plays the best tennis ever.

Okay. Good for you. Have a cookie.

Allure
09-10-2007, 03:06 AM
I do not know about the others (Emerson, Tilden, Laver) as they are before my time but I do know that Federer is a complete (the most complete of his generation) and great player.

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 03:19 AM
One thing I notice is that inside the baseline, Federer is in total control of the rallies.

Allure
09-10-2007, 03:23 AM
One thing I notice is that inside the baseline, Federer is in total control of the rallies.

To be honest, Roger is not as good in rallies anymore since AO of this year. That's why he keeps the points short by improving his serve. Of course he's still good. But one must be blind not to see declination in his groundstrokes.

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 03:25 AM
I do not see any decline in his groundstrokes. I don't know what tennis you're watching.

Allure
09-10-2007, 03:26 AM
I do not see any decline in his groundstrokes. I don't know what tennis you're watching.

Ok. :wavey:

celia
09-10-2007, 04:58 AM
To be honest, Roger is not as good in rallies anymore since AO of this year. That's why he keeps the points short by improving his serve. Of course he's still good. But one must be blind not to see declination in his groundstrokes.

I've thought that Roger must be physically tired, hence the slight decline. Winning costs -- Roger plays much more tennis than most of his opponents.

Allure
09-10-2007, 05:04 AM
I've thought that Roger must be physically tired, hence the slight decline. Winning costs -- Roger plays much more tennis than most of his opponents.

Maybe he should reduce his appearances to only Grand Slam events. ;)

R.Federer
09-10-2007, 05:12 AM
I've thought that Roger must be physically tired, hence the slight decline. Winning costs -- Roger plays much more tennis than most of his opponents.

He has neither played the most tournaments nor the most matches. He is about 64 matches this year, nadal is at 73, djokovic at 80+.
Federer also played the fewest number of tournaments along with nalbandian among top 50

celia
09-10-2007, 05:24 AM
He has neither played the most tournaments nor the most matches. He is about 64 matches this year, nadal is at 73, djokovic at 80+.
Federer also played the fewest number of tournaments along with nalbandian among top 50

Playing fewer tournaments does not mean playing less tennis. He is the #1 Player in the world and when he goes out on court, everyone is gunning for him. Plus he makes it to most finals. As a result, he plays more tennis than most.

RagingLamb
09-10-2007, 05:24 AM
You're all absolutely right.

In order to appreciate Roger I must gush about him every second of my life. I must dedicate my life to him. I must create a religion in his name. I must not question what the media says about him.

I appreciate the enlightening advice.

I actually agree with you, this guy was being called a goat back in 2004. He was waaaay overhyped for a long long time. But I think he is slowly catching up.

spencercarlos
09-10-2007, 05:25 AM
To be honest, Roger is not as good in rallies anymore since AO of this year. That's why he keeps the points short by improving his serve. Of course he's still good. But one must be blind not to see declination in his groundstrokes.
Even in decline he is able to win 3 out 4 grand slams and reach the final of the 4th.. :lol: go figure

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 06:28 AM
THe idea of that he's 52-6 and winning 3/4 slams and makes the FO final = decline is just retarded. He's still very much at his absolute peak. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Allure
09-10-2007, 06:29 AM
Even in decline he is able to win 3 out 4 grand slams and reach the final of the 4th.. :lol: go figure

Even at his worst, he is still better than the rest. That's how good he is.

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 06:36 AM
Let's temper this talk of Federer "at his worst" - it's just a slightest decline from JesusFed.

Allure
09-10-2007, 06:39 AM
Let's temper this talk of Federer "at his worst" - it's just a slightest decline from JesusFed.

Look I like Federer and he is a great player. But it is true he is not good as he used to be. If you watch his matches, he is a little slower and his bh/fh is worse. However, he is still heads and shoulders above the rest of the field. That's why he's still winning 3 slams a year. However, when Nadal and Djoke step it up, Federer better get back to JesusFed mode soon.

jacobhiggins
09-10-2007, 06:42 AM
He's slowed down a tiny bit, but he's made up for it in the way he plays. He plays smarter and is more measured. That's why he is winning so much. It's a smarter way to play and eventually the older he gets the more he will have to play smart tennis and rely on his serve!

I think Federer was at his peak towards the end of 2004, in some of those matches he was just awesome. Beating top 10 players with bagels!

Action Jackson
09-10-2007, 06:43 AM
What a surprise.

Allure
09-10-2007, 06:45 AM
He's slowed down a tiny bit, but he's made up for it in the way he plays. He plays smarter and is more measured. That's why he is winning so much. It's a smarter way to play and eventually the older he gets the more he will have to play smart tennis and rely on his serve!

I think Federer was at his peak towards the end of 2004, in some of those matches he was just awesome. Beating top 10 players with bagels!

His peak was at the Australian Open this year IMO. After that, he started relying on his serve more and wasn't as quick and made more errors. I think he developed a better serve so he can shorten points and conserve energy. He wants to chase history and thus is playing smart and sacrificing artistry. He still has glimpses of brilliance in each match he plays though.

HKz
09-10-2007, 06:51 AM
Roger IS sometimes too hyped/overrated, such as calling his backhand the best ever which DEFINATELY is not true. But, I believe Federer can be called the "greatest of all time" even without having to surpass Sampras's 14 GS titles because look, 10 Grand Slams Final appearances in a row? Sampras barely reached one Rolland Garros semifinal and a total of just 3 AOpen finals winning 2 of them, whereas Federer has already won 3 AOpens and two finals at Rolland Garros in a row. But yet people still complain that Federer's opponents "must suck" or that Federer is just lucky like today's US Open final where he saved many set points. I'm not a "Federer addict" and I respect all the greats like Borg, McEnroe, Llendl, Sampras, Agassi, etc but I have tennis fanactic parents who have seen all those greats in real life and they even propose that Federer is the greatest. Sure, racket technologies and such are definately not the same, but seriously when will the complains about Federer stop? When he wins 20 GS titles? I mean even past champions have claimed Federer is the greatest. McEnroe has said that Federer has the greatest touch ever, which means a whole lot, coming from someone who played against Borg/Sampras/Agassi/Connors. I'll leave it to you guys to argue.

Allure
09-10-2007, 07:05 AM
Roger IS sometimes too hyped/overrated, such as calling his backhand the best ever which DEFINATELY is not true. But, I believe Federer can be called the "greatest of all time" even without having to surpass Sampras's 14 GS titles because look, 10 Grand Slams Final appearances in a row? Sampras barely reached one Rolland Garros semifinal and a total of just 3 AOpen finals winning 2 of them, whereas Federer has already won 3 AOpens and two finals at Rolland Garros in a row. But yet people still complain that Federer's opponents "must suck" or that Federer is just lucky like today's US Open final where he saved many set points. I'm not a "Federer addict" and I respect all the greats like Borg, McEnroe, Llendl, Sampras, Agassi, etc but I have tennis fanactic parents who have seen all those greats in real life and they even propose that Federer is the greatest. Sure, racket technologies and such are definately not the same, but seriously when will the complains about Federer stop? When he wins 20 GS titles? I mean even past champions have claimed Federer is the greatest. McEnroe has said that Federer has the greatest touch ever, which means a whole lot, coming from someone who played against Borg/Sampras/Agassi/Connors. I'll leave it to you guys to argue.

Agree. Even if Federer doesn't win more than 14 GS he is still the most complete tennis player therefore in my book he is the best.

Bad Religion
09-10-2007, 07:18 AM
Agree. Even if Federer doesn't win more than 14 GS he is still the most complete tennis player therefore in my book he is the best.

At 17 years old you can´t say who's the best ever

dragons112
09-10-2007, 07:25 AM
He does not play with his intensity like he did at the begining of this year and its because he has no coach its not his age. At the aussie open he was awsome. Ppl cant say its his age it ha sonly been a few months. He simply needs a coach he plays lazy now he gets up for nadal on clay and only nadal on clay is when he brings it

Allure
09-10-2007, 07:31 AM
At 17 years old you can´t say who's the best ever

And by what do you base that on?

I don't agree about the coach thing. Before this year, that wasn't a factor in his success.

FedFan_2007
09-10-2007, 07:40 AM
I think Fed needs Cahill to get back to JesusFed.

Allure
09-10-2007, 07:47 AM
I think Fed needs Cahill to get back to JesusFed.

Cahill is too busy licking Hewitt's ass to coach Fed.

celia
09-12-2007, 02:56 PM
Cahill is too busy licking Hewitt's ass to coach Fed.

Is Cahill back with Hewitt? I didn't know that. :eek:

Burrow
09-12-2007, 05:15 PM
A lot of these aren't frightening at all. Particularly #4, #5 and #6. Piss poor article.

I'd have to agree with you there.

Allure
09-12-2007, 05:19 PM
Is Cahill back with Hewitt? I didn't know that. :eek:

No but when he commentates and Hewitt is playing, he drools more than PMAC during a Roddick match.