How many of todays players would be legends if it weren't for Federer? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How many of todays players would be legends if it weren't for Federer?

Kuhne
10-01-2007, 06:39 PM
There are plenty of incredible talents out there, Rafa, Djokovic, Gasquet, Roddick etc.

How many of these guys do you think would be living legends if only Roger had chosen football instead of tennis?

I mena, Roddick is the first choise, Americans would think he was the next sampras, if Fed wasn't around Roddick would already have, what, at least 4 slams? (let's say he would have won those finals) I will go as far as to say that if Roddick had won this years semifinal against Fed in the australian open, with the level he had in that open he would have beaten gonzales in the final, so maybe even 5 slams.

Rafa could, potentialy be a 5 slam champion by now if it weren't for roger, plus also the mental aspect of the whole thing, the fact that roger is playing in a slam puts many players in a mindset of "ok we know who's gona win anyways" and they may not try their best. so just the fact that Roger is around may be impeding many other carrers who would otherwise be considered great by now. Like maybe a player with incredible potential doesn't have the same drive to achieve success as he would have if Roger weren't around because the mental hurdle is there already.

Who do you guys think would be the "Roger Federer" of today if Roger weren't around?

I think it would actualy be Roddick, I know it sounds stupid but if Roger weren't around I think he would be the leading multiple grandslam champion of this younger generation with Nadal closing in behind him really fast.

Allure
10-01-2007, 06:42 PM
There are plenty of incredible talents out there, Rafa, Djokovic, Gasquet, Roddick etc.

How many of these guys do you think would be living legends if only Roger had chosen football instead of tennis?

I mena, Roddick is the first choise, Americans would think he was the next sampras, if Fed wasn't around Roddick would already have, what, at least 4 slams? (let's say he would have won those finals) I will go as far as to say that if Roddick had won this years semifinal against Fed in the australian open, with the level he had in that open he would have beaten gonzales in the final, so maybe even 5 slams.

Rafa could, potentialy be a 5 slam champion by now if it weren't for roger, plus also the mental aspect of the whole thing, the fact that roger is playing in a slam puts many players in a mindset of "ok we know who's gona win anyways" and they may not try their best. so just the fact that Roger is around may be impeding many other carrers who would otherwise be considered great by now. Like maybe a player with incredible potential doesn't have the same drive to achieve success as he would have if Roger weren't around because the mental hurdle is there already.

Who do you guys think would be the "Roger Federer" of today if Roger weren't around?

I think it would actualy be Roddick, I know it sounds stupid but if Roger weren't around I think he would be the leading multiple grandslam champion of this younger generation with Nadal closing in behind him really fast.

First Roddick could be a legend? And Roger Federer of today? :haha:

Kuhne
10-01-2007, 06:44 PM
First Roddick could be a legend? And Roger Federer of today? :haha:

That's the thing, the reason why we think of Roddick and the words "legend" as funny is because of how many times we've seen him lose and get owned, specialy be Roger but if Roger weren't around, let's face it, there's a high chance Roddick would have several grand slam titles including wimbledons and no one would laugh at him, maybe they wouldn't call him a living legend but there would be no current player to compare him to, he would be even leading rafa in grandslam titles so if nobody laughs at Rafa, nobody should laugh at Roddick (if that were the case)

Since Roger is around and he bitches andy around easily then it's ok to say he sucks i guess

MisterQ
10-01-2007, 06:47 PM
I have no doubt that Roddick would have multiple grand slam titles without Federer (even keeping in mind the lesser players that have upset Roddick in majors).

Hewitt is another one who has lost finals and semifinals to Roger since Roger became dominant. Likely that he would have at least one more major under his belt.

Allure
10-01-2007, 06:50 PM
That's the thing, the reason why we think of Roddick and the words "legend" as funny is because of how many times we've seen him lose and get owned, specialy be Roger but if Roger weren't around, let's face it, there's a high chance Roddick would have several grand slam titles including wimbledons and no one would laugh at him, maybe they wouldn't call him a living legend but there would be no current player to compare him to, he would be even leading rafa in grandslam titles so if nobody laughs at Rafa, nobody should laugh at Roddick (if that were the case)

Since Roger is around and he bitches andy around easily then it's ok to say he sucks i guess

Without Roger, Roddick would lose to Djokovic and Nadal (who I hate to admit is a better player than him). Sure, he might have one or two more GSs but I wouldn't call him a legend, just someone with multiple GSs.

Kuhne
10-01-2007, 06:53 PM
Without Roger, Roddick would lose to Djokovic and Nadal (who I hate to admit is a better player than him). Sure, he might have one or two more GSs but I wouldn't call him a legend, just someone with multiple GSs.

it really depends on what Roddick shows up, the roddick in the Australian Open was on a tear, I don't think Djokovic or Rafa (from that tournament specialy) could have beaten him. also, Roddick would beat Rafa on grass, rather easily I suspect. djokovic would give him more trouble. the thing is, Roddick can really suck sometimes

Allure
10-01-2007, 06:56 PM
it really depends on what Roddick shows up, the roddick in the Australian Open was on a tear, I don't think Djokovic or Rafa (from that tournament specialy) could have beaten him. also, Roddick would beat Rafa on grass, rather easily I suspect. djokovic would give him more trouble. the thing is, Roddick can really suck sometimes

The understatement of the century :lol:

If Roddick played like he did at this year's USO he could give Rafa a run for his money on hardcourts. Clay never. With Djokovic, Djokovic will beat him 9 times out of 10.

It's insulting that even without Roger, you say Roddick could be one of the greats. Without Roger, Safin or Nalbandian could be the greats of their generation.

JimmyV
10-01-2007, 06:59 PM
If he played against Nadal or Djokovic the way he played against Federer in this US Open I couldn't see them beating him.

l_mac
10-01-2007, 07:02 PM
it really depends on what Roddick shows up, the roddick in the Australian Open was on a tear, I don't think Djokovic or Rafa (from that tournament specialy) could have beaten him. also, Roddick would beat Rafa on grass, rather easily I suspect. djokovic would give him more trouble. the thing is, Roddick can really suck sometimes

:lol:

They'd all be legends ALL OF THEM. Damn that Federer! :mad:

jcempire
10-01-2007, 07:02 PM
I have no doubt that Roddick would have multiple grand slam titles without Federer (even keeping in mind the lesser players that have upset Roddick in majors).

Hewitt is another one who has lost finals and semifinals to Roger since Roger became dominant. Likely that he would have at least one more major under his belt.

Andy can easy controll Glass Court, NO one can beat him out of here.

Djok, Nadal, aslo James...All got a great chance to win GS, MS

l_mac
10-01-2007, 07:04 PM
Playing on glass? And people complain that the courts are being slowed down :haha:

The last two people to beat Roddick on grass were Gasquet and Murray, so to say Federer is the only one who can do it is total BS.

scarecrows
10-01-2007, 07:04 PM
Andy can easy controll Glass Court, NO one can beat him out of here.

Djok, Nadal, aslo James...All got a great chance to win GS, MS

only Voltchkov might beat Andy on glass :worship:

Allure
10-01-2007, 07:05 PM
:lol:

They'd all be legends ALL OF THEM. Damn that Federer! :mad:

Nadal, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Haas, Davydenko, Djokovic, Blake, Fish, Genepri all would have the chance of winning 5 slams each and be inducted into the HOF if it weren't for Fed's existence. Heck, the lady who picks up trash around my uni campus could be a contender.

jcempire
10-01-2007, 07:06 PM
The understatement of the century :lol:

If Roddick played like he did at this year's USO he could give Rafa a run for his money on hardcourts. Clay never. With Djokovic, Djokovic will beat him 9 times out of 10.

It's insulting that even without Roger, you say Roddick could be one of the greats. Without Roger, Safin or Nalbandian could be the greats of their generation.

Djokovic will beat him 9 times out of 10 on Clay, ====---------- I said YES/

But, Andy is not worse than Djok on Hard Court, if Roger is not here.

And He will easy control Glass.

Safin and Nalbandian.... This two both denpends theirselves. They don't care Roger, They got great winning record against ROger, if they are playing their best tennis, they got more than 65% chance to beat Roger.

This two are unbelievable, they can win any unbelievable Match, if they want to.

l_mac
10-01-2007, 07:07 PM
Djok, Nadal, aslo James...All got a great chance to win GS, MS

Djokovic and Nadal have great chances to win Slams and MS even with Federer around. Do you mean James Blake? :lol: I don't think Fed is the only reason he hasn't won a Slam or a MS.

jcempire
10-01-2007, 07:07 PM
Playing on glass? And people complain that the courts are being slowed down :haha:

The last two people to beat Roddick on grass were Gasquet and Murray, so to say Federer is the only one who can do it is total BS.

Oh, My God.

Did you see he play his best, NO.... Not near his best.

mickymouse
10-01-2007, 07:08 PM
If Federer isn't around, we'll be having different slam winners for all the slams, just like in 2003. Nobody would dominate enough to be considered a legend.

jcempire
10-01-2007, 07:10 PM
Djokovic and Nadal have great chances to win Slams and MS even with Federer around. Do you mean James Blake? :lol: I don't think Fed is the only reason he hasn't won a Slam or a MS.

How many time did he lose to Roger in the Final.

He got great chance last year, If he not play Roger last year. I'm 100% sure, He would go to take Andy down in the Final easy.

He got great chance this year too, but He waste his energy for playing too much tennis during Summer.

He may not beat Djok in the Final, if he can reach here/

But, I believe if no Roger, He would absolute play much better with his confidents

l_mac
10-01-2007, 07:11 PM
Oh, My God.

Did you see he play his best, NO.... Not near his best.

Mmhmm. So he doesn't play his best because he might have to meet Federer at some point in the tournament ... ? :retard: And if Federer wasn't around he'd bring his best game to every match he ever plays? :lol:

What magical powers this Federer has. Even more than I had feared ...

DrJules
10-01-2007, 07:11 PM
No player in the history of tennis has had their results effected so much by 1 player:

6 exits against Federer; Wimbledon semi-final 2003, Wimbledon final 2004, Wimbledon final 2005, US Open final 2006, Australian Open semi-final 2007, US Open quarter final 2007. Without Federer he probably would have won at least 4; Wimbledon 2003, Wimbledon 2004, US Open 2006 and Australian Open 2007.

jcempire
10-01-2007, 07:11 PM
If Federer isn't around, we'll be having different slam winners for all the slams, just like in 2003. Nobody would dominate enough to be considered a legend.

I agree. Absolute.

Andy and Nadal would get more than 4 GS,

Djok just come out this year, and He could take USOPEN of 07

l_mac
10-01-2007, 07:13 PM
If Federer isn't around, we'll be having different slam winners for all the slams, just like in 2003. Nobody would dominate enough to be considered a legend.

You don't know that, it's impossible to say. This is a pointless thread which will no doubt inspire hundreds of responses because we are all bored.

jcempire
10-01-2007, 07:13 PM
No player in the history of tennis has had their results effected so much by 1 player:

6 exits against Federer; Wimbledon semi-final 2003, Wimbledon final 2004, Wimbledon final 2005, US Open final 2006, Australian Open semi-final 2007, US Open quarter final 2007. Without Federer he probably would have won at least 4; Wimbledon 2003, Wimbledon 2004, US Open 2006 and Australian Open 2007.

Yes, absolute. Andy would win about 7 or 8 GS if Roger was not there

DrJules
10-01-2007, 07:13 PM
There are plenty of incredible talents out there, Rafa, Djokovic, Gasquet, Roddick etc.

How many of these guys do you think would be living legends if only Roger had chosen football instead of tennis?

I mena, Roddick is the first choise, Americans would think he was the next sampras, if Fed wasn't around Roddick would already have, what, at least 4 slams? (let's say he would have won those finals) I will go as far as to say that if Roddick had won this years semifinal against Fed in the australian open, with the level he had in that open he would have beaten gonzales in the final, so maybe even 5 slams.

Rafa could, potentialy be a 5 slam champion by now if it weren't for roger, plus also the mental aspect of the whole thing, the fact that roger is playing in a slam puts many players in a mindset of "ok we know who's gona win anyways" and they may not try their best. so just the fact that Roger is around may be impeding many other carrers who would otherwise be considered great by now. Like maybe a player with incredible potential doesn't have the same drive to achieve success as he would have if Roger weren't around because the mental hurdle is there already.

Who do you guys think would be the "Roger Federer" of today if Roger weren't around?

I think it would actualy be Roddick, I know it sounds stupid but if Roger weren't around I think he would be the leading multiple grandslam champion of this younger generation with Nadal closing in behind him really fast.

Least effected.

jcempire
10-01-2007, 07:21 PM
Andy Roddick

03 WIN, USO
04 AO, WIN, USO
05 AO, WIN,
06 AO, WIN, USO

10 GS FOR ANDY RODDICK AT LEAST, IF ROGER WAS NOT PLAY LAST FOUR YEARS

And almost 15 MASTERS for Andy

scarecrows
10-01-2007, 07:26 PM
03 WIN, USO
04 AO, WIN, USO
05 AO, WIN,
06 AO, WIN, USO


10 GS FOR ANDY RODDICK AT LEAST, IF ROGER WAS NOT PLAY LAST FOUR YEARS



how did Federer affect Safin, Pim Pim, Hewitt, Murray and Baghdatis wins?

l_mac
10-01-2007, 07:28 PM
Andy Roddick

03 WIN, USO
04 AO, WIN, USO
05 AO, WIN,
06 AO, WIN, USO

10 GS FOR ANDY RODDICK AT LEAST, IF ROGER WAS NOT PLAY LAST FOUR YEARS

And almost 15 MASTERS for Andy


:worship:

Don't forget RG. I'm sure if Fed wasn't around Andy would be pumped full of confidence from all his Slam wins and would make a strong showing at the French. It was a joke post, right?

l_mac
10-01-2007, 07:30 PM
how did Federer affect Safin, Pim Pim, Hewitt, Murray and Baghdatis wins?

What's the point of Andy playing out of his mind and beating those guys if he's going to lose to Federer later in the tournament :shrug:

MariaV
10-01-2007, 07:33 PM
how did Federer affect Safin, Pim Pim, Hewitt, Murray and Baghdatis wins?

:yeah:

Safin would've won 20 GS titles by now. :D Yes, that had to be said. :D

DrJules
10-01-2007, 07:33 PM
If Federer isn't around, we'll be having different slam winners for all the slams, just like in 2003. Nobody would dominate enough to be considered a legend.

Agreed.

You would have players such as Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal collecting between 3 and 7 grand slams each.

scarecrows
10-01-2007, 07:35 PM
:worship:

Don't forget RG. I'm sure if Fed wasn't around Andy would be pumped full of confidence from all his Slam wins and would make a strong showing at the French. It was a joke post, right?

if that's a joke it means that jcempire has been treating us with jokes for 1 year already

What's the point of Andy playing out of his mind and beating those guys if he's going to lose to Federer later in the tournament :shrug:
:lol: too good

brent-o
10-01-2007, 07:39 PM
I would be tempted to say Rafael Nadal but of course he is already a legend, on clay. Haha no but seriously I'm not sure Rafa would be a more great champion if Federer wasn't around. They've kinda both pushed each other to be better.

alfonsojose
10-01-2007, 08:52 PM
Kolya have been stopped by JesusFed in some GS Qfs and SFs

l_mac
10-01-2007, 09:45 PM
Kolya have been stopped by JesusFed in some GS Qfs and SFs


Fed's stopped Koyla 4 times in the past two seasons. 3 times in semis and once in the quarters. Koyla could have been a 4 time Slam Legend, if it wasn't for that pesky Swiss winner.



:secret: Robredo was stopped by Fed in two QF's this year. :banana:

So that's Roddick, Gasquet, Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Robredo all denied legend status by Roger. Think what a tennis era we'd be in if not for the Swiss clown! The Legend Era.

stebs
10-01-2007, 09:47 PM
If Federer was replaced with a bye in each draw I would hazard a guess that the finals of the slams since '04 would be as follows:

AO - Nalbandian over Safin
RG - Gaudio over Coria
W - Roddick over Hewitt
US - Hewitt over Agassi
AO - Safin over Hewitt
RG - Nadal over Puerta
W - Hewitt over Roddick
US - Hewitt over Agassi
AO - Baghdatis over Davydenko
RG - Nadal over Nalbandian
W - Nadal over Ancic
US - Roddick over Blake
AO - Roddick over Gonzalez
RG - Nadal over Davydenko
W - Nadal over Ferrero
US - Roddick over Djokovic

So, assuming Roddick would've taken Wimbledon '03 and no other slams would be significantly effected the tally of Roger's peers would be as follows:

Agassi - 8 slams and 8 finals
Roddick - 6 slams and 1 final
Hewitt - 5 slams and 2 finals
Nadal - 5 slams and 0 finals
Safin - 2 slams and 2 finals
Ferrero - 1 slam and 3 finals
Nalbandian - 1 slam and 2 finals
Baghdatis - 1 slam and 0 finals
Gaudio - 1 slam and 0 finals
Davydenko - 0 slams and 2 finals
Djokovic - 0 slams and 1 final
Ancic - 0 slams and 1 final
Gonzalez - 0 slams and 1 final
Blake - 0 slams and 1 final
Puerta - 0 slams and 1 final
Coria - 0 slams and 1 final

So that's Roddick with the biggest difference, then it's Hewitt and Nadal and Nalbandian has also been heavily pegged back by Federer.

DrJules
10-01-2007, 09:53 PM
If Federer was replaced with a bye in each draw I would hazard a guess that the finals of the slams since '04 would be as follows:

AO - Nalbandian over Safin
RG - Gaudio over Coria
W - Roddick over Hewitt
US - Hewitt over Agassi
AO - Safin over Hewitt
RG - Nadal over Puerta
W - Hewitt over Roddick
US - Hewitt over Agassi
AO - Baghdatis over Davydenko
RG - Nadal over Nalbandian
W - Nadal over Ancic
US - Roddick over Blake
AO - Roddick over Gonzalez
RG - Nadal over Davydenko
W - Nadal over Ferrero
US - Roddick over Djokovic

So, assuming Roddick would've taken Wimbledon '03 and no other slams would be significantly effected the tally of Roger's peers would be as follows:

Agassi - 8 slams and 8 finals
Roddick - 6 slams and 1 final
Hewitt - 5 slams and 2 finals
Nadal - 5 slams and 0 finals
Safin - 2 slams and 2 finals
Ferrero - 1 slam and 3 finals
Nalbandian - 1 slam and 2 finals
Baghdatis - 1 slam and 0 finals
Gaudio - 1 slam and 0 finals
Davydenko - 0 slams and 2 finals
Djokovic - 0 slams and 1 final
Ancic - 0 slams and 1 final
Gonzalez - 0 slams and 1 final
Blake - 0 slams and 1 final
Puerta - 0 slams and 1 final
Coria - 0 slams and 1 final

So that's Roddick with the biggest difference, then it's Hewitt and Nadal and Nalbandian has also been heavily pegged back by Federer.

Agree with most winner predictions except: Agassi would have beaten Hewitt in 1 US Open final probably 2004 and Djokovic would have won US Open 2007.

alfonsojose
10-01-2007, 10:21 PM
Legend. :inlove:

:secret: Robredo was stopped by Fed in two QF's this year. :banana:

Tommyu reached QF in AO this year :eek: :D

nathalya
10-01-2007, 10:30 PM
we must look into the finals, Rafa, Roddick. no more
sorry davydenko, gonzalez, etc...

R.Federer
10-01-2007, 11:14 PM
Andy Roddick

03 WIN, USO
04 AO, WIN, USO
05 AO, WIN,
06 AO, WIN, USO

10 GS FOR ANDY RODDICK AT LEAST, IF ROGER WAS NOT PLAY LAST FOUR YEARS

And almost 15 MASTERS for Andy

Roddick didn't even beat Safin to get to the semis of the Australian in 2004 or Hewitt in 2005 :shrug:

Allure
10-01-2007, 11:25 PM
Roddick didn't even beat Safin to get to the semis of the Australian in 2004 or Hewitt in 2005 :shrug:

He lost to them because he didn't want to lose to Federer. If Federer didn't exist, he would try his best and beat those two. ;)

anny12
10-01-2007, 11:25 PM
Is this frustrating to anyone else? Don't get me wrong, I love Federer. He is a brilliant player and he deserves all his success, but as a tennis fan, I wish he would take a year off. Look at all the players that have been listed. Roddick, Rafa, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Blake and i'm sure there are a few more. Although Djokvoic is a little young to be included and Blake's problem is more mental so i'm not sure they fit on here. It's like the Yankees in there heyday and the Micheal Jordan Bulls. You knew who was going to win at the beginning of the season. I know you can't be the best, until you beat the best but one player dominating a sport is tiresome.

Allure
10-01-2007, 11:25 PM
Is this frustrating to anyone else? Don't get me wrong, I love Federer. He is a brilliant player and he deserves all his success, but as a tennis fan, I wish he would take a year off. Look at all the players that have been listed. Roddick, Rafa, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Blake and i'm sure there are a few more. Although Djokvoic is a little young to be included and Blake's problem is more mental so i'm not sure they fit on here. It's like the Yankees in there heyday and the Micheal Jordan Bulls. You knew who was going to win at the beginning of the season. I know you can't be the best, until you beat the best but one player dominating a sport is tiresome.

It's tiring that the other players can't step up more often.

RagingLamb
10-01-2007, 11:40 PM
that's tough to say. a lot of these players aren't that good anymore, and this has nothing to do with Roger.

Roddick is the only one who's still giving it whatever he's got. Others, not so much.

Kitty de Sade
10-01-2007, 11:44 PM
Is this frustrating to anyone else? Don't get me wrong, I love Federer. He is a brilliant player and he deserves all his success, but as a tennis fan, I wish he would take a year off. I know you can't be the best, until you beat the best but one player dominating a sport is tiresome.

I don't find it frustrating at all. I'm all for variety too, but if the players you listed want to win, and they haven't really done so with frequency so far, it's their responsibility to figure it out. It isn't on Federer to back off or disappear.

It's the nature of competition. Those who want it badly enough man up and figure out a way to win. For Federer's part, he's just doing exactly what he needs to do to keep going. If he gets crowned repeatedly in the process, he should wear it proudly.

Allure
10-01-2007, 11:47 PM
I don't find it frustrating at all. I'm all for variety too, but if the players you listed want to win, and they haven't really done so with frequency so far, it's their responsibility to figure it out. It isn't on Federer to back off or disappear.

It's the nature of competition. Those who want it badly enough man up and figure out a way to win. For Federer's part, he's just doing exactly what he needs to do to keep going. If he gets crowned repeatedly in the process, he should wear it proudly.

:worship:

Allure
10-01-2007, 11:48 PM
If Roddick keeps playing his serve and fh game then he will lose to Roger plain and simple. If Safin doesn't get his head together, he will never beat Roger again. It's not Roger's fault for winning, it's the other's fault for never stepping up to prevent losing.

CyBorg
10-01-2007, 11:51 PM
Nadal and Federer are objectively speaking the only great players in tennis today and this wouldn't change.

It is a natural phenomenon. Someone always establishes himself from the pack and right now we have these two guys.

The notion that somehow Roddick would be a greater player sans Federer is prepostreous. It's like saying that Ivanisevic would have won three Wimbledons if it had not been for Sampras.

The fact is that Ivanisevic did not deserve to win three Wimbledons which is why he lost three times in those finals. Roddick is a similar case and there is a reason why he hasn't won a match against Federer since 2003. He's not a great player and he wouldn't be much greater in any hypothetical scenario. He's one dimensional and only occasionally explosive. Guys like this are not legends.

Lee
10-02-2007, 12:10 AM
I don't find it frustrating at all. I'm all for variety too, but if the players you listed want to win, and they haven't really done so with frequency so far, it's their responsibility to figure it out. It isn't on Federer to back off or disappear.

It's the nature of competition. Those who want it badly enough man up and figure out a way to win. For Federer's part, he's just doing exactly what he needs to do to keep going. If he gets crowned repeatedly in the process, he should wear it proudly.

Although I am not so fond of Federer winning everything, I agree with you 100%.

Bilbo
10-02-2007, 12:18 AM
some of you still think roddick is the real deal it looks like...

Black Adam
10-02-2007, 12:18 AM
I am an Andy Roddick fan and this is all heart warming but IF is is just a waste of time. Let's get on with our lives facing the stern reality: Ballet Tennis currently rules :sad:

Allure
10-02-2007, 12:20 AM
I am an Andy Roddick fan and this is all heart warming but IF is is just a waste of time. Let's get on with our lives facing the stern reality: Ballet Tennis currently rules :sad:

Better that than one dimensional ball bashing or moonballing.

Allure
10-02-2007, 12:21 AM
some of you still think roddick is the real deal it looks like...

One slam= real deal :wavey:

Black Adam
10-02-2007, 12:26 AM
Better that than one dimensional ball bashing or moonballing.
Variety is what we have which is good, though Ballet Tennis comes in a bigger and painful dose.

Mr.Gasquet
10-02-2007, 12:29 AM
Lleyton Hewitt could have easily become the greatest champion, if Roger Federer wasn't around.

Allure
10-02-2007, 12:56 AM
Variety is what we have which is good, though Ballet Tennis comes in a bigger and painful dose.

It's not about ballet tennis. It's about playing all court tennis and being versatile. Not being one dimensional and playing one way.

Kitty de Sade
10-02-2007, 01:00 AM
Although I am not so fond of Federer winning everything, I agree with you 100%.

:hatoff:

Better that than one dimensional ball bashing or moonballing.

Neither style is any fun to watch, imo. I agree with you there- especially about the mindless ballbashing, without a lick of purpose in sight.

Lleyton Hewitt could have easily become the greatest champion, if Roger Federer wasn't around.

Hewitt's last major was a full calendar year prior to Fed winning his first one, and he had all the way up through '04 to win another one, right? He also had a Fed free final in Australia in '05.

I'm curious as to how you got to this point, Brett. :p

Allure
10-02-2007, 01:03 AM
Lleyton was declining even before Fed dominated. He lost to Ivo Karlovic in Wimbledon 03. In AO 05, he could have beaten Safin.

Johnny Groove
10-02-2007, 01:07 AM
If Roddick keeps playing his serve and fh game then he will lose to Roger plain and simple. If Safin doesn't get his head together, he will never beat Roger again. It's not Roger's fault for winning, it's the other's fault for never stepping up to prevent losing.

I kind of feel sorry for Andy, i mean, he played a very smart, tactical match at the USO and did everything he could in those first 2 sets against Roger, and lost due to 1 or 2 points in the TB. :awww:

Tennis is a mean bitch of a game sometimes.

leng jai
10-02-2007, 01:13 AM
Lleyton was declining even before Fed dominated. He lost to Ivo Karlovic in Wimbledon 03. In AO 05, he could have beaten Safin.

Did you even watch that match? Marat turned it midway through the second set and smashed Hewitt. An in form Safin beats Hewitt any day.

Allure
10-02-2007, 01:18 AM
Did you even watch that match? Marat turned it midway through the second set and smashed Hewitt. An in form Safin beats Hewitt any day.

I'm not saying that Hewitt should have beaten Safin. (Obviously Safin was playing his best in that tournament). I'm responding to the post that without Federer, Hewitt would be one of the best. I'm saying he was facing Safin that day not Federer and hypothetically he could have beaten Safin.

leng jai
10-02-2007, 01:20 AM
I don't see the difference between a top flight Safin and a Federer against Hewitt. Either way Hewitt won't win.

Allure
10-02-2007, 01:20 AM
I don't see the difference between a top flight Safin and a Federer against Hewitt. Either way Hewitt won't win.

Something we can agree on.

calvinhobbes
10-02-2007, 01:28 AM
This thread shows how corrosive is for any sport to have an outstanding player hanging around. Rules should forbid this frustrating event and permit only the clownish category to play freely . . . . .:rolls: :rolls: :rolls:

Mr.Gasquet
10-02-2007, 01:32 AM
I'm not saying that Hewitt should have beaten Safin. (Obviously Safin was playing his best in that tournament). I'm responding to the post that without Federer, Hewitt would be one of the best. I'm saying he was facing Safin that day not Federer and hypothetically he could have beaten Safin.

I agree with you.

Allure
10-02-2007, 01:36 AM
I kind of feel sorry for Andy, i mean, he played a very smart, tactical match at the USO and did everything he could in those first 2 sets against Roger, and lost due to 1 or 2 points in the TB. :awww:

Tennis is a mean bitch of a game sometimes.

I didn't see much improvment in tactics. IMO, he was serving very well. :wavey:

Johnny Groove
10-02-2007, 01:47 AM
I didn't see much improvment in tactics. IMO, he was serving very well. :wavey:

He was bringing it :shrug:

He came out firing and was playing well, not to mention as you said him seving very well. This is a nice contrast to when he got owned anally in AO where Roger was just on fire, or when Andy is playing his clay game

leng jai
10-02-2007, 01:57 AM
He usually does that at the US Open due to the media pumping him up and the crowd support.

calvinhobbes
10-02-2007, 02:00 AM
Tennis is a mean bitch of a game sometimes.

Yeah. Specially when you play it against Federer . . . . . :D

Allure
10-02-2007, 02:04 AM
He was bringing it :shrug:

He came out firing and was playing well, not to mention as you said him seving very well. This is a nice contrast to when he got owned anally in AO where Roger was just on fire, or when Andy is playing his clay game

Not getting owned doesn't mean he was tactically good/great. What aspects did he improve in that match that he didn't do in other matches?

leng jai
10-02-2007, 02:11 AM
There are no tactics that Andy can pull off that will trouble Federer.

Johnny Groove
10-02-2007, 02:21 AM
There are no tactics that Andy can pull off that will trouble Federer.

Basically true :shrug:

Roddick tries to come to the net and volley, but his approach shots are so wretched, Federer just gets there in plenty of time and is able to make the pass :shrug:

Still, I'd rather see Roddick serve huge, smack big forehands, and try coming to the net and getting passed, and losing sets in close tb's than sitting at the baseline, hitting useless loopy forehands and getting owned 4, 0, and 2 :shrug:

leng jai
10-02-2007, 02:29 AM
Roddick should just go for wild winners at every chance against Federer on return games. He could break serve a few times if he can pull off a couple in a row. Of course this would have to be on an awesome serving to have any chance of winning.

World Beater
10-02-2007, 05:33 AM
I think federer's getting a dose of his own medicine right now.

poor guy could have been "the king" if not for Oscar Hernandez. :sad: :confused:

Action Jackson
10-02-2007, 06:19 AM
None.

keroni
10-02-2007, 06:29 AM
roddick just couldn't stick to his game plan in the USO. i think he sorta forgot halfway through the second set and got back into the sluggish rhythm.

as leng jai said, he should simply go all out on every single return, until he manages a couple in a row and roger make a few errors. it doesn't matter if he loses every other roger-service-game at love.

at the same time, go all out on the serves.

Allure
10-02-2007, 06:43 AM
roddick just couldn't stick to his game plan in the USO. i think he sorta forgot halfway through the second set and got back into the sluggish rhythm.

as leng jai said, he should simply go all out on every single return, until he manages a couple in a row and roger make a few errors. it doesn't matter if he loses every other roger-service-game at love.

at the same time, go all out on the serves.

Easier said than done.

anny12
10-02-2007, 07:10 AM
I don't find it frustrating at all. I'm all for variety too, but if the players you listed want to win, and they haven't really done so with frequency so far, it's their responsibility to figure it out. It isn't on Federer to back off or disappear.

It's the nature of competition. Those who want it badly enough man up and figure out a way to win. For Federer's part, he's just doing exactly what he needs to do to keep going. If he gets crowned repeatedly in the process, he should wear it proudly.
That's not what i'm saying. I agree that Federer should be proud of his success and should keep doing what he is doing, but we aren't talking about any good/great player. Federer is in a class all his own. It's easy to say that all the other players just need to play better, but when your playing possibly the best player in the history of tennis, it's not that simple. Roddick, Nadal, Hewitt, Safin, Gasquet, etc are all great players and would have (most likely) multiple Slams between them. For me, as a tennis fan, I would like to see someone else win.

Kitty de Sade
10-02-2007, 07:32 AM
That's not what i'm saying. I agree that Federer should be proud of his success and should keep doing what he is doing, but we aren't talking about any good/great player. Federer is in a class all his own. It's easy to say that all the other players just need to play better, but when your playing possibly the best player in the history of tennis, it's not that simple. Roddick, Nadal, Hewitt, Safin, Gasquet, etc are all great players and would have (most likely) multiple Slams between them. For me, as a tennis fan, I would like to see someone else win.

Nobody implied that you didn't acknowledge Federer's success. You went so far as to suggest that in order for the rest of the field to share in the GS wealth, he should take at least a year off. That gives an indication of where he is placed, above the others.

It is as simple as figuring out a way to beat him. That is the method, not the execution. Execution is the tough part, granted, but if memory serves me correctly, Willy did it twice this year. Is he a better player than Federer? Absolutely not. He still did it.

My original point was this- regardless of what a player's competition is doing, even if the basis for comparison is a player as talented as Federer, it is on THEM to figure out a way to beat the guy.

senorgato
10-02-2007, 09:05 AM
So many if's and but's exist in this scenario, it's really hard to say. For example, you just can't limit Roddick possible Grand Slam victories to the finals he's gotten to in the past. You've got to take into consideration the psychological boost a GS win has, and it could have led him to winning many more Slams. Or another example is, would Nadal have pushed himself so hard to get better on grass if it weren't for the motivation to prove himself against Federer?

But when it all comes down to it, I think Roddick would have about 6 Slams to his name right now if Fed weren't around. Nadal would still have 3. Hewitt would have 1 more.

anny12
10-02-2007, 09:25 AM
Nobody implied that you didn't acknowledge Federer's success. You went so far as to suggest that in order for the rest of the field to share in the GS wealth, he should take at least a year off. That gives an indication of where he is placed, above the others.

It is as simple as figuring out a way to beat him. That is the method, not the execution. Execution is the tough part, granted, but if memory serves me correctly, Willy did it twice this year. Is he a better player than Federer? Absolutely not. He still did it.

My original point was this- regardless of what a player's competition is doing, even if the basis for comparison is a player as talented as Federer, it is on THEM to figure out a way to beat the guy.
My suggestion for Roger to take a year off was a joke. I do understand what your saying. It is obviously on the player to beat their competition, but I don't think it's as simple as just figuring out a way to beat him. Federer's game is pure talent. He makes shot's that no one should be able to make, and he makes it look easy. Nadal, Djokovic, Safin and Roddick have all beaten Federer before, but he's still winning 3 slams a year. So if they have beaten him before, wouldn't that mean they figured out a way to beat him? But if they figured out a way to beat him, why is he still consistently winning? I guess this is a silly discussion anyway since Federer is dominating and that's not going to change anytime soon.

groundstroke
10-02-2007, 02:54 PM
Roddick would have had at least 3 slams, Nadal 2, Djokovic 1, and I definitely think Blake would of been a better player.

R.Federer
10-02-2007, 03:29 PM
Roddick would have had at least 3 slams, Nadal 2, Djokovic 1, and I definitely think Blake would of been a better player.

Nadal has 3 even with Federer around. :D

groundstroke
10-02-2007, 03:49 PM
Nadal has 3 even with Federer around. :D
I meant 2 Wimbledon titles.

Andi-M
10-02-2007, 05:14 PM
Roddick legend? no way he'd have max 3 slams its not as if its only Federer that beats him. He can lose to any tom, dick, or harry on any day.

I agree the mental damage Fed has done to Andy by owning him has stiffled him from fufilling his full potential but his game alone is not good enough to be a legend of the sport anyway.

Djokovic is not in the slightest bit effected by Federer's exsistance he's only been making noise on the tour a for year so theres no reason why he cant still become a legend in his own right. Nadal the same in terms of he can still become a 'great' even if Fed is there.

Forehander
10-03-2007, 12:07 AM
If no Roger, It'll go back to these retarded "multiple slam winner era" thing where everybody thinks the tennis level have raised again because EVERYBODY'S PLAYING MULTIPLE GRAND SLAM WINNERS - WOW STRONG ERA, JUST LIKE PETE SAMPRAS'S.

Allure
10-03-2007, 01:10 AM
I reckon I would be a legend. :wavey:

Havok
10-03-2007, 02:00 AM
Roddick would probably be #1, fighting off Nadal and Djokovic if we are talking about this very moment. Andy would probably have anywhere between 5-8 slams (completely owning Wimbledon and snatching some USO/AO titles as well). I doubt he would have had a whole lot of competition during the 2004-2006 years. Hewitt would have probably won another one or two GS himself and be a bottom top 10 player (injuries,baby,etc). Haas would have won one as well, possibly two. Safin has done shit at slams after his freak of a 2005 AO win anyways, so Fed or not he would be stuck at 2. Nalbandian doesn't care. He owned Federer before he became the player he is today and couldn't even take advantage of that. The likes of Gasquet and Murray would probably have a couple, if not, several TMS shields but no Slams yet. Djokovic would be a multiple Slam winner. Davydenko might have actually won a TMS shield when everyone had entered the field :tape:, same goes for Ljubicic in his hay days (that one year).

Allure
10-03-2007, 02:03 AM
Roddick would probably be #1, fighting off Nadal and Djokovic if we are talking about this very moment. Andy would probably have anywhere between 5-8 slams (completely owning Wimbledon and snatching some USO/AO titles as well). Hewitt would have probably won another one or two GS himself and be a bottom top 10 player (injuries,baby,etc). Haas would have won one as well, possibly two. Safin has done shit at slams after his freak of a 2005 AO win anyways, so Fed or not he would be stuck at 2. Nalbandian doesn't care. He owned Federer before he became the player he is today and couldn't even take advantage of that. The likes of Gasquet and Murray would probably have a couple, if not, several TMS shields but no Slams yet. Djokovic would be a multiple Slam winner. Davydenko might have actually won a TMS shield when everyone had entered the field :tape:, same goes for Ljubicic in his hay days (that one year).

:haha: Andy lost to Safin in 04, Hewitt in 05, and Baghdatis in 06 of AO. No way would he win that slam. Wimbledon maybe 2 but who knows if he would beat the other finalist? :shrug: