Anybody doubt Fed can get 14 slams now? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Anybody doubt Fed can get 14 slams now?

henree
07-05-2004, 12:02 AM
At this point I really think that not only will Federer get 14 slam wins in his career, he will surpass Sampras with a couple more. I mean who can stop him. Lets analyze the main contenders for the slams in the up and coming years.

Andy Rodddick : Obviously Andy's serve and power can get him to the semis of 3 out of the 4 majors with relative ease. I still think he needs another year to flesh out his game. Specidically his backhand, returns, and volleys.

Marat Safin : I have been deeply dissapointed with him this year. He tears through the Aussie open, only to lose early in almost every tournament after the fact. Plain and simple Safin needs to get his head out of his ass.

Tim Henman : Henman is after all these years becoming a slam contender. It wouldn't be a surprise if he wins the 2004 U.S. Open. There will be no pressure, and when he is on he is unstoppable.

Raphael Nadal : I think in 2 to 3 years time he will have at least one slam under his belt. Once he matures he will be a force.

Fererro : I like his game. I love his backhand. He just needs more pace on his serve. But his speed and craftiness will win him a few majors besides the French Open. The only problem is he seems fragile. If he can stay healthy he has a better chance than Andy to beat Federer.

Worth noting; Nalbandian, Coria, Moya, Hewitt...

Any other players I have missed...

LCeh
07-05-2004, 12:20 AM
Come on Henree, you can't be serious...

This is not as easy as arithmetic, it's not always logical. Luck, condition, weather, form, there are so many things. If you say Roger can win 6 slams in his career, I would think so too, but more than 14? Way too early to judge.

J. Corwin
07-05-2004, 01:01 AM
It's too soon to tell. Fed will have to continue to be very dominant for several years..and right now I don't know if I already see that happening.

Dirk
07-05-2004, 01:26 AM
Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here? I just hope Rogi stays healthy and gets stronger and works on the few things left for him to improve upon.

Goenitz_196
07-05-2004, 01:30 AM
By the time Pete Sampras was 19 years old he had already pocketed 2 Grand Slams....

tennyfan
07-05-2004, 01:34 AM
I hope not for the better of the sport. Nothing against Federer, but I lose interest in a sport that's dominated by one player. It's always nice to see new faces holding the trophy.

Dirk
07-05-2004, 01:57 AM
No Pete won the Open in 90 and didn't win another slam till Wimbly 93.

YoursTruly
07-05-2004, 02:14 AM
To all who said it's too early to see, I totally agree with you. It's just too early. However, with his natural talent and ability, as well as his good attitude and champion qualities, he has what it takes. I hope he can reach 14 or better slams. :)

Mimi
07-05-2004, 02:23 AM
yes he will, he got talent and also lucks, saving many break points yesterday :eek: , waaaa, sampras will become second behind him, i don't like it :mad: :mad:

WyveN
07-05-2004, 02:38 AM
I think yesterdays final showed Andy can play a lot better then some people give him credit for. I am not sure if anyone apart from Roger would be able to beat him on yesterdays form on grass. Andy sounded very determined in his interview, it will be interesting how he reacts to this loss.

rogicomel
07-05-2004, 06:00 AM
yes too early to tell but it's nice to see him doing it!

Action Jackson
07-05-2004, 06:03 AM
Wow the overreaction is full force by the original poster.

jtipson
07-05-2004, 07:03 AM
By the time Pete Sampras was 19 years old he had already pocketed 2 Grand Slams....

As Dirk already pointed out, he only had the US Open at 19, but if you look compare them at the same age (they are almost exactly 10 years apart), where Federer has just won his third GS, Sampras had just won his fifth (Wimbledon 1994).

Roger would have to win the USO, and the AO just to stay with him. That's a tall task.

trixy
07-05-2004, 07:31 AM
Well if you had to pick some1 who could break the record it would be Roger but having that said I'll stick with every1 else and say its slightly pre-mature to make grand statements such as that. I mean alot can happen and change in a couple of years.

chris whiteside
07-05-2004, 07:44 AM
He certainly has the ability to do so but will he have the resolve? I think he is now less prone to those "off" days when he could lose to anyone. Roddick has got a bit closer and I think a fully fit Ferrero could give him a run on clay or hard court. As a Brit I cannot see Henman as a serious Slam winner - he does not have the mental capacity, perhaps yes to reach the semis. It was not the fact that Ancic beat him at Wimbledon but the way once again his game just crumpled.

It is worth noting that on the women's side only two years ago everyone was saying how Venus and Serena would dominate for years to come and look what's happening now. So as with most others I think it's too early to say.

CarnivalCarnage
07-05-2004, 09:44 AM
At this point I really think that not only will Federer get 14 slam wins in his career, he will surpass Sampras with a couple more. I mean who can stop him. Lets analyze the main contenders for the slams in the up and coming years.

Andy Rodddick : Obviously Andy's serve and power can get him to the semis of 3 out of the 4 majors with relative ease. I still think he needs another year to flesh out his game. Specidically his backhand, returns, and volleys.

Marat Safin : I have been deeply dissapointed with him this year. He tears through the Aussie open, only to lose early in almost every tournament after the fact. Plain and simple Safin needs to get his head out of his ass.

Tim Henman : Henman is after all these years becoming a slam contender. It wouldn't be a surprise if he wins the 2004 U.S. Open. There will be no pressure, and when he is on he is unstoppable.

Raphael Nadal : I think in 2 to 3 years time he will have at least one slam under his belt. Once he matures he will be a force.

Fererro : I like his game. I love his backhand. He just needs more pace on his serve. But his speed and craftiness will win him a few majors besides the French Open. The only problem is he seems fragile. If he can stay healthy he has a better chance than Andy to beat Federer.

Worth noting; Nalbandian, Coria, Moya, Hewitt...

Any other players I have missed...

It's just much too early to say something like this. The tennis hierarchy can change awfully fast.

sem4
07-05-2004, 11:11 AM
Nobody knows yet what his hunger and desire for the game will be in the next few years, I mean Borg retired at 26 unexpectedly.

He hasn't mastered the French Open or US yet, I think the chances of him winning on all 4 surfaces are greater than him equalling or breaking the Sampras 14 slams.

SaFed2005
07-05-2004, 01:06 PM
I think yesterdays final showed Andy can play a lot better then some people give him credit for. I am not sure if anyone apart from Roger would be able to beat him on yesterdays form on grass. Andy sounded very determined in his interview, it will be interesting how he reacts to this loss.


I agree. I think if Andy had played anybody else yesterday besides Roger, he would've won... Man!! He was playing great...

Action Jackson
07-05-2004, 01:07 PM
No he will not win 14 Slams.

CarnivalCarnage
07-05-2004, 01:21 PM
No he will not win 14 Slams.

It's also too early to say that.

Action Jackson
07-05-2004, 01:26 PM
It's also too early to say that.

This thread deserved that answer. Next it will be all the threads saying how unbeatable Roddick is during the North American hardcourt season.

If he proves that statement wrong, then I will be one of the happiest people around, and yes I am a Federer fan. The only time that statement is in doubt is if he reaches 13 and then if he reaches 14, then it's incorrect.

CmonAussie
07-05-2004, 01:27 PM
@@ Roger is not a greedy man & not so 'single minded' & boring as Sampras was...

--->> As mentioned previously I think Federer will probably seek to win All-4-Slams rather than just accumulating a tally like Sampras's. Roger knows he's got the ability to win French Open & obviously he can take USO too... so it's just a matter of how many years will it take him to knock off those two remaining pillars**! In Agassi's case it took him 12-attempts to finally win Rolland Garros at age 29yrs~~ so presuming Federer stays healthy he's got another 6-years in which to eclipse Agassi's achievment.
REMEMBER~~ only 5-Men in the history of the game have won ALL-4 Slams; so it's probably the ultimate goal for a guy as talented as Federer. Of course there will always be speculation about the 'Calendar Slam'. However I think it's unrealistic for him to expect All-4 would come in the same year; although Mats Wilander almost pulled off the miracle in 1988!!

I don't know Roger personally but I guess he's not a numbers man, for him it's more about quality & not quantity. For that reason Olympic glory & Davis Cup could also remain a priority for him. As well as the elusive French Open title that so many players fall short on {a la Connors 3/4, Edberg 3/4, Becker 3/4, Lendl 3/4, Sampras 3/4...}~~~ ROGER wanst to prove he's a complete 'all court all surface' player & that's where his goals will differ from Sampras.

CarnivalCarnage
07-05-2004, 01:28 PM
This thread deserved that answer. Next it will be all the threads saying how unbeatable Roddick is during the North American hardcourt season.

If he proves that statement wrong, then I will be one of the happiest people around, and yes I am a Federer fan.

Two bad posts do not equal sagacity.

Couldn't care less if you like Fed or not.

JennyS
07-05-2004, 01:30 PM
Wasn't Pete Sampras 23 in 1994? And Roger is 22, right?

I agree it's way too early to predict what could happen. Just a few years ago, people were asking if Tiger Woods could pass Jack Nicklaus' number of major wins and now they're wondering if Tiger will ever win a major again!

CarnivalCarnage
07-05-2004, 01:31 PM
@@ Roger is not a greedy man & not so 'single minded' & boring as Sampras was...

--->> As mentioned previously I think Federer will probably seek to win All-4-Slams rather than just accumulating a tally like Sampras's. Roger knows he's got the ability to win French Open & obviously he can take USO too... so it's just a matter of how many years will it take him to knock off those two remaining pillars**! In Agassi's case it took him 12-attempts to finally win Rolland Garros at age 29yrs~~ so presuming Federer stays healthy he's got another 6-years in which to eclipse Agassi's achievment.
REMEMBER~~ only 5-Men in the history of the game have won ALL-4 Slams; so it's probably the ultimate goal for a guy as talented as Federer. Of course there will always be speculation about the 'Calendar Slam'. However I think it's unrealistic for him to expect All-4 would come in the same year; although Mats Wilander almost pulled off the miracle in 1988!!

I don't know Roger personally but I guess he's not a numbers man, for him it's more about quality & not quantity. For that reason Olympic glory & Davis Cup could also remain a priority for him. As well as the elusive French Open title that so many players fall short on {a la Connors 3/4, Edberg 3/4, Becker 3/4, Lendl 3/4, Sampras 3/4...}~~~ ROGER wanst to prove he's a complete 'all court all surface' player & that's where his goals will differ from Sampras.

I think Sampras had that goal once too. But in 1996, he realized he was quite worn out by the French and it affected his play at Wimbledon. That, and I think because he thought it would be '96 or never there, influenced him to softpeddle the French.

Action Jackson
07-05-2004, 01:32 PM
Two bad posts do not equal sagacity.

Couldn't care less if you like Fed or not.

I care about as much as you with the quality of that post, and whether I like Federer or not. If he wins 14 that's all and good, but it's doubtful.

CarnivalCarnage
07-05-2004, 01:33 PM
I care about as much as you with the quality of that post, and whether I like Federer or not. If he wins 14 that's all and good, but it's doubtful.

Great. So say that. But don't shut the door all the way. Too soon for that.

CmonAussie
07-05-2004, 01:43 PM
I think Sampras had that goal once too. But in 1996, he realized he was quite worn out by the French and it affected his play at Wimbledon. That, and I think because he thought it would be '96 or never there, influenced him to softpeddle the French.
:wavey:
Oh yeah I agree with you Mate :cool: ! Maybe I didn't express myself well in the previous post~~ the main thing I'm trying to say is that Federer Express knows he's got what it takes to win French Open :angel: ; whereas Pistol Pete hoped that in a perfect world he could possibly pull it off~ but realistically Sampras's game was not well suited to Clay no matter how he tried to alter his approach :p !

Roger has shown in his wins at Hamburg & Rome-TMS events-->> where he's beaten Safin, Moya, Hewitt, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Coria etc... that Clay can suit him perfectly if he maintains his patience & concentration ;) !
~~ Thus French Open is a title that is attainable for him every year & even if he has to beat the best clay-courters he's more than capable :worship: !

Action Jackson
07-05-2004, 01:44 PM
Great. So say that. But don't shut the door all the way. Too soon for that.

We agree on that, but that door will be shut until it's forced open and I for one, would love that. :)

CarnivalCarnage
07-05-2004, 01:55 PM
:wavey:
Oh yeah I agree with you Mate :cool: ! Maybe I didn't express myself well in the previous post~~ the main thing I'm trying to say is that Federer Express knows he's got what it takes to win French Open :angel: ; whereas Pistol Pete hoped that in a perfect world he could possibly pull it off~ but realistically Sampras's game was not well suited to Clay no matter how he tried to alter his approach :p !

Roger has shown in his wins at Hamburg & Rome-TMS events-->> where he's beaten Safin, Moya, Hewitt, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Coria etc... that Clay can suit him perfectly if he maintains his patience & concentration ;) !
~~ Thus French Open is a title that is attainable for him every year & even if he has to beat the best clay-courters he's more than capable :worship: !

I agree.

Maybe Guga can just give him one of his titles.

CarnivalCarnage
07-05-2004, 01:56 PM
We agree on that, but that door will be shut until it's forced open and I for one, would love that. :)

Maybe Emerson will come out of retirement. Whaddaya think of that, George Whittler?

Action Jackson
07-05-2004, 01:57 PM
Maybe Emerson will come out of retirement. Whaddaya think of that, George Whittler?

Emerson would still win a round on the women's tour if he came out of retirement.

RogiFan88
07-05-2004, 02:39 PM
doubt anyone can win 14 slams... after all AA didn't and he won't

just hope Rogi can have the belief that he can win RG and really focus on it soon... same w USO

I'd also like Juanqui and Marat to win at least one more slam also!

WyveN
07-05-2004, 02:44 PM
In my opinion if Roger manages to win each slam twice then that is just as impressive as 14 slams.
This target is extremely difficult but more achievable.

Skyward
07-05-2004, 02:52 PM
I'd be very thrilled to see him winning RG.

RonE
07-05-2004, 02:53 PM
I highly doubt that Federer can surpass Pete's record, mainly because the game has such greater depth now than it did ten years ago- Pete didn't really have to do anything special to reach the quarters in many of the slams he's won earlier in his career (barring a few exceptions), whereas today, you have to be on top of your game from the get-go at any tournament, let alone a slam.

The bulk of Pete's majors came between the years '93-'97 during which he won 9 out of his 14. The depth of the men's game at the time was shallow enough for a player of Sampras' calibre to manage that, but today I just don't think it is possible for any player to do that.

RonE
07-05-2004, 03:06 PM
I would also love to see Fed winning in Paris, but there is something about Court Phillippe Chatrier that bothers Rogi out there. On clay in general he's great, I saw the way he won Hamburg, but in Paris I remember he was constantly slipping and off balance in his match against Guga. I think there are a few factors endemic to this particular court that make it really difficult:

1. The clay is really hard-baked so that the ground itself is almost like a hard court in terms of material concentration- the top layer of sand doesn't mesh well with the court surface causing it to feel like you're walking on marbles out there. Federer wasn't the only one with problems, if you'll remember Gaudio had a bad slip and grazed his knee in his QF against Hewitt.

2. The court area is HUGE, there is ample amount of room between the baseline and where the line judges stand which give the scrappy clay court specialists that much more time to run down another ball, and another and another and another... (you get the picture).

3. The balls used in RG seem to get heavier and heavier every year. I remember Roger saying in his p/c after the Guga match that he was putting an unbelievable amount of spin on the ball in Hamburg and when he hit the same shots in Paris the ball just stood there waiting for his opponent to smack it.

I'm not saying it's not possible for Fed to win in Paris but I wouldn't wager my life savings on it.

BaselineSmash
07-05-2004, 03:24 PM
Even if Federer continues to dominate the field in coming years like he is now (which I severely doubt, as the top ranks are forever evolving), I have little faith in his mental strength and mental stamina in so far as winning 14 slams would entail. Yesterday was a case in point in that Federer's psychological fragility was again exposed in a sub-par performance; by the standards of a slam final, that is, he was far too nervous and seemed unprepared for what the American threw at him. If Roddick had sustained his form, he would have won because Federer wasn't playing well enough. Already the strain of being a world No. 1 and grand slam title holder is slightly starting to show. And that pressure will only get bigger as he gets older and more fully realises the magnitude of his status. Through the years the greats of the game have been worn out in their efforts to sustain their own high standards, and I'm not sure the Swiss man has the mental fortitude he will need to get up there amongst, say, the top five players in terms of achievement. After 6 or 7 slams I wouldn't be too surprised to see his motivation drip away. Then there's the competition... Roddick for one is a player who is improving at a quicker rate than Federer, and has already shown us that he can attain a level that Federer apparently can't cope with on grass. Roddick also strikes me as someone who has more drive to be the best, and I think his longevity at the top of the game will be greater as time goes on, so long as he keeps fit. But then that opinion would be subject to change were Federer to dominate the US hardcourt swings of the coming years, which I doubt he will be able to.

Action Jackson
07-05-2004, 03:30 PM
So BaselineSmash, you have found me now, so you seriously think Roddick will have more longevity. What specific reasons do you think that is?

Yes, Roddick has improved for sure, but he hasn't done anything to improve on his worst surface. He can only consistently win on grass away from North America, and on nothing else.

No matter how well Roddick played yesterday, who got the W next to their name?

WyveN
07-05-2004, 04:04 PM
Yesterday was a case in point in that Federer's psychological fragility was again exposed in a sub-par performance; by the standards of a slam final, that is, he was far too nervous and seemed unprepared for what the American threw at him.


The one question mark over Federer's mentality was how he would respond in a slam final if he wasnt able to come out and have it all his own way. It is amazing that someone can conclude yesterdays win while being outplayed for large periods of the match is a sign of psychological frailty.
Guess what? Winning matches the way Federer did yesterday is a sign of mental strength and shows that Federer can find ways to win when he is not playing at his peak.


If Roddick had sustained his form, he would have won because Federer wasn't playing well enough.


The thing is, the form Roddick showed in the first set is impossible to sustain for 3 sets. Phillipoussis/Safin are known for producing the odd magical set that would leave even someone like Sampras without any answer but such a high risk gamestyle is almost impossible to produce consistently without making a fair few mistakes.


Already the strain of being a world No. 1 and grand slam title holder is slightly starting to show.


Federer defends Wimbledon while being heavy favorite and you conclude that? :rolleyes:


Roddick for one is a player who is improving at a quicker rate than Federer, and has already shown us that he can attain a level that Federer apparently can't cope with on grass.


First you criticise Federer for being mentally fragile because he did not come out all cylinders firing yesterday yet now you say Federer apparently can't cope with peak Roddick on grass. Can you spot where the logic breaks down?


Roddick also strikes me as someone who has more drive to be the best

Yet it was Roddick who made the errors at critical points yesterday.

BaselineSmash
07-05-2004, 04:04 PM
So BaselineSmash, you have found me now, so you seriously think Roddick will have more longevity. What specific reasons do you think that is?

Yes, Roddick has improved for sure, but he hasn't done anything to improve on his worst surface. He can only consistently win on grass away from North America, and on nothing else.

No matter how well Roddick played yesterday, who got the W next to their name?

You've misconstrued my post quite badly, it seems. I was projecting an objective opinion, and not some blindly optmistic, Roddick-loving perspective. I am no fan of Roddick, that I feel I need to get clear to you. I was a fan of Federer well before he fully realised his talent, and have since become lukewarm towards him because of his overriding dominance of the game, although I still prefer to see him win over most players. That includes the Wimbledon final, which I was very glad to see him win.

Why do I think Roddick has more longevity? I think he has more will to improve than Federer does and I think he has a better mentality, which I expect him to prove over time. He has a more prosaic mental approach which allows him to give his all in most big matches without being defeatist (clay withstanding, admittedly), and he's the kind of player you'd back to be able to recover from a two-set deficit, whilst with Federer there isn't that certainty that he will even try to make a recovery. Even when considering the fact that Roddick is more of an extrovert to Federer's introvert, the American just comes off as a more positive player. That difference is a considerable one, and could be what separates them in coming years as their games are so close to one another in their effectiveness.

Rex
07-05-2004, 04:12 PM
i have said it before, if the fed hangs around number 1, winning all the time, then some player will eventually find out how to beat him!

Action Jackson
07-05-2004, 04:14 PM
You've misconstrued my post quite badly, it seems. I was projecting an objective opinion, and not some blindly optmistic, Roddick-loving perspective. I am no fan of Roddick, that I feel I need to get clear to you. I was a fan of Federer well before he fully realised his talent, and have since become lukewarm towards him because of his overriding dominance of the game, although I still prefer to see him win over most players. That includes the Wimbledon final, which I was very glad to see him win.

Actually I didn't misconstrue at all. I was interested in what you had to say in this case, not that I agree with a lot of it, but you explained your point of view and that's cool.

Considering Borg and Wilander were introverts, but no one ever questioned their testicular fortitude at all, so I don't see the total relevance about respective personalities coming into it, though I will say that Federer does need to improve his record over 5 sets.

Federer knows he has to improve and that's one thing in his favour, and Roddick will always be limited to an extent and I want to see him start winning when everything isn't in his favour and events besides Queens, that's something he hasn't done yet outside of North America.

maratski
07-05-2004, 04:23 PM
I don't know how many slams Roger will/can win and I don't care. It's all speculation.

What I do like to see is who will win slams when Safin, Federer, Ferrero and Roddick are playing to the best of their abilities. There's always one or two top players struggling for some reason and you can't make comparisons if they aren't all playing well at that particular moment.
I know luck is a factor as well in winning a slam, but it just seems that luck is getting a big factor in winning a GS nowadays.

CarnivalCarnage
07-05-2004, 04:25 PM
Emerson would still win a round on the women's tour if he came out of retirement.

Only if he got Castano.

BaselineSmash
07-05-2004, 04:28 PM
The one question mark over Federer's mentality was how he would respond in a slam final if he wasnt able to come out and have it all his own way. It is amazing that someone can conclude yesterdays win while being outplayed for large periods of the match is a sign of psychological frailty.
Guess what? Winning matches the way Federer did yesterday is a sign of mental strength and shows that Federer can find ways to win when he is not playing at his peak.



The thing is, the form Roddick showed in the first set is impossible to sustain for 3 sets. Phillipoussis/Safin are known for producing the odd magical set that would leave even someone like Sampras without any answer but such a high risk gamestyle is almost impossible to produce consistently without making a fair few mistakes.



Federer defends Wimbledon while being heavy favorite and you conclude that? :rolleyes:



First you criticise Federer for being mentally fragile because he did not come out all cylinders firing yesterday yet now you say Federer apparently can't cope with peak Roddick on grass. Can you spot where the logic breaks down?



Yet it was Roddick who made the errors at critical points yesterday.

Remember that this thread is about Federer being able to win 14 slams or not? :rolleyes: It isn't just an analysis of yesterday's match, it is largely addressing the original thread question. Let's keep our focus here. When I point out that Federer was mentally fragile yesterday (and he was, playing nervously and not even capitalising on Roddick's dips in form e.g. squandering a 4-0 lead in the 2nd set), I was utilising that as a factor to support my opinion that he would not be able to win 14 or more slams with that propensity for shakiness if he made it a habit in grand slam finals , which is entirely relevant to the thread question.

"First you criticise Federer for being mentally fragile because he did not come out all cylinders firing yesterday yet now you say Federer apparently can't cope with peak Roddick on grass. Can you spot where the logic breaks down?"

No, sorry, don't see where the logic breaks down. Must be stupid me. :retard: At no point did I cite Federer's not coming out guns ablazin' as a sign of mental fragility, I cited his evident nervousness e.g. his all-round tight play during the 1st set and to a lesser extent much of the match. Again, I was discussing that in the context of the thread question. Do I think he can win 14 slams when he comes out that nervously in a grand slam final? No, I do not. And he got lucky yesterday, no doubt about it. I'm not sure how long that luck can last. And yes, at this time it would seem Federer can't cope with a peak Roddick on grass. But that has a lot to do with the fact that Roger makes relatively lethargic starts to his matches a lot of the time, where Roddick is more of a quick-starter, as we saw yesterday. Another significant factor (as previoulsy mentioned) is that Roddick has improved more than Federer in the past 12 months. If that trend continues I think it will be very relevant to whether Federer wins 14 slams or not.

Where I actively like Federer I am neutral towards Roddick, so you shouldn't be so quick to launch an attack on someone because you have such an aversion to Roddick zealots and tend to mistake people for them.

Action Jackson
07-05-2004, 04:31 PM
I know luck is a factor as well in winning a slam, but it just seems that luck is getting a big factor in winning a GS nowadays.

So, Federer and Gaudio have been absolutely lucky and their respect Slam wins, have only been flukes?

maratski
07-05-2004, 04:35 PM
Rainbreaks saved Rogi a little bit.

Gaudio was definitely lucky Ferrero wasn't playing on full force.

AO was a fair tournament IMO.

USO 2003 was just luck, I can't say more.

The word luck can be interpreted in different ways. Weather can be a lucky factor, but so can be the other players in the draw.

maratski
07-05-2004, 04:36 PM
I don't use the term fluke for the last GS champions, but luck was a bigger factor then let's say when Marat and Lleyton won USO.

Action Jackson
07-05-2004, 04:41 PM
Rainbreaks saved Rogi a little bit.

Who was clearly the best player during the tournament, and it's not luck when someone doesn't take their chances when on offer.

Gaudio was definitely lucky Ferrero wasn't playing on full force.

Considering Gaudio plays very well against Ferrero and choked 2 matches away against him that he should never have lost. Then again so Costa was lucky as well when he won in 2002.

If you want to be like that then Safin was lucky to win a 5th set tiebreaker at the US Open against Grosjean, the year he won the title.

Those three examples there weren't suspicious circumstances with rampant favourtism either.

BaselineSmash
07-05-2004, 04:54 PM
Good luck plays a part in all slam victories, and to add to what's already been said, I'd add some points about AO 2004:-

-Ferrero was injured in the semi-final, and Safin was very tired in the final (although I would blame that on him because he allowed some matches to go on longer than they should have).

-Nalbandian was not as consistent in the quarter-final against Federer as he had been in the past e.g. the US Open.

As with most grand slam victories, Federer still fully deserved the title because he took advantage of his opportunities and played to his optimum.

WyveN
07-05-2004, 05:01 PM
Remember that this thread is about Federer being able to win 14 slams or not?


I dont think that is possible for Roger.


It isn't just an analysis of yesterday's match, it is largely addressing the original thread question.


But you used yesterdays match to back up your responce to the original thread question and I didnt agree with some of the conclusions you made.



I cited his evident nervousness e.g. his all-round tight play during the 1st set and to a lesser extent much of the match. Again, I was discussing that in the context of the thread question. Do I think he can win 14 slams when he comes out that nervously in a grand slam final? No, I do not.


Dont forget that yesterday was his first slam final defense, the pressure on Federer to repeat his success was huge and he has said in interviews that he approached it the wrong way by placing to much pressure on himself.
Already he has said he has learned from the experience and is now looking forward to the AO defense.


And he got lucky yesterday, no doubt about it. I'm not sure how long that luck can last.


He certainly wasnt lucky in his previous 2 slam finals so I am not sure what the "luck can last" comment means. Even if he isn't lucky in his next slam final and loses? So what?


Another significant factor (as previoulsy mentioned) is that Roddick has improved more than Federer in the past 12 months. If that trend continues I think it will be very relevant to whether Federer wins 14 slams or not.


The thing is that 12 months ago Roddick had gaping holes in his game that he has cleared up. The backhand is no longer a liability, his volleys have improved and his serve placement is far better. Roddick can further improve but it wont be the significant improvement we saw over the past 12 months

Another significant thing is that Roddick did not play nearly as well in any matches leading up to the final.


Where I actively like Federer I am neutral towards Roddick, so you shouldn't be so quick to launch an attack on someone because you have such an aversion to Roddick zealots and tend to mistake people for them.

I don't care if you hate Federer or are his biggest fan. I dont think 14 slams is possible for Roger, that is not what I am arguing with you about, but I did not agree with the "opinions you came up with to support your reply.

WyveN
07-05-2004, 05:03 PM
-Ferrero was injured in the semi-final, and Safin was very tired in the final (although I would blame that on him because he allowed some matches to go on longer than they should have).

-Nalbandian was not as consistent in the quarter-final against Federer as he had been in the past e.g. the US Open.

As with most grand slam victories, Federer still fully deserved the title because he took advantage of his opportunities and played to his optimum.

what is your point?

BaselineSmash
07-05-2004, 05:11 PM
what is your point?

It was my contribution to the discussion between maratski and George. I think you'll find it perfectly relevant if you read what they were talking about...

vene
07-05-2004, 05:40 PM
I hope so, but unlikely. In fact I was reading an article yesterday that said "Fed would be dethroned by 18yr-old Nadal or 14yr old Don Young" :rolleyes:

shaoyu
07-05-2004, 06:10 PM
I cited his evident nervousness e.g. his all-round tight play during the 1st set and to a lesser extent much of the match. Again, I was discussing that in the context of the thread question. Do I think he can win 14 slams when he comes out that nervously in a grand slam final? No, I do not.


Dont forget that yesterday was his first slam final defense, the pressure on Federer to repeat his success was huge and he has said in interviews that he approached it the wrong way by placing to much pressure on himself.
Already he has said he has learned from the experience and is now looking forward to the AO defense.
I dont think that is possible for Roger.


I think this summarizes the arguments between you guys. Yes Rogi showed nerves and mental fragility, but he also showed mental fortitude. I think we should give an encouraging thought there as it was his first grand slam title defense. I believe he'll pass this hurdle and become truly the greatest.

BTW, WyveN, if Roger is to win each slam at least twice, I think the total number would have already been close to Sampras' 14 if not more than that!

rue
07-05-2004, 06:25 PM
About Federer being a bit mentally fragile, he used to but we all know that he will never be as mentally strong as someone like Hewitt. He demonstrated that he is mentally strong and that will definitely help him win more grandslams. He can win as many of them as he wants to, also provided that he stays healthy too.

J. Corwin
07-05-2004, 08:08 PM
BTW, WyveN, if Roger is to win each slam at least twice, I think the total number would have already been close to Sampras' 14 if not more than that!

Winning each slam twice would equal 8 slams. Whether that is close to 14 slams is debatable (I personally don't think it's close).

WyveN
07-06-2004, 01:31 AM
Just to show how much Sampras was ahead at the same age as Fed have a look at the following:

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

Sampras has had far better results even at the FO when he was same age Federer so all this talk that compares the 2, especially in terms of results, is very premature.

Fedex
07-06-2004, 02:39 AM
Well, lets first see how Roger does at the Open. I think its most possible Roger could have 20 titles by the end of the year, but certainly not 29!! He'd have to win every tournement he played in, and i still dont think that'd be enough :eek:

Beat
07-06-2004, 09:51 AM
roger is 23. if he plays 'til 29, 30 he still has to win almost 2 slams every year to surpass sampras. i'm a big fan, but in today's tennis, i think that's just impossible.

RonE
07-06-2004, 09:59 AM
Just to show how much Sampras was ahead at the same age as Fed have a look at the following:

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

Sampras has had far better results even at the FO when he was same age Federer so all this talk that compares the 2, especially in terms of results, is very premature.

Wyven,

I know I keep repeating this mantra, but I think the depth in the men's game has just increased so much over the last 10 years that it's impossible to make that kind of comparison. Each era should be treated differently. If Roger was 22 in 1994 and Pete 22 now in 2004, I think those results would have been the other way around.

FrenchLouise
07-06-2004, 11:36 AM
To answer the first question: of course I still do, and I'm quite sure Federer himself does as well (or at least does not see things this way). Tennis is (thank God!) not about mathematics.

Ferrero Forever
07-06-2004, 12:29 PM
yeah, i do, because ferrero won't let him when he gets back in form

oxy
07-06-2004, 12:34 PM
juanqui lover....as much as juanqui is my fav player....i think its quite hard for juanqui to stop federer on grass

*SKYE*
07-06-2004, 12:38 PM
its gonna be hard to stop federer from getting 14 slams thats for sure

WyveN
07-06-2004, 01:21 PM
Federer is not getting 14 slams.
With some luck, if he avoids injuries, remains motivated and keeps improving he may get 10.

CmonAussie
07-06-2004, 01:32 PM
its gonna be hard to stop federer from getting 14 slams thats for sure
:rolleyes:
I think you've got unrealistic expectations of Federer! @@ At best I think he could maybe reach 10-Slams :worship: ;but 14 ain't going to happen :cool: .

PS~ Do you realise Roger's overally record in Slam events is not particularly impressive: only 5-times has Federer reached QF or better{fortunately he went on to win 3/5 that he made QF & of course 100% in Finals} :p .
...--->> By contrast Roddick has 7 QF+ appearances in Slams; Hewitt has 8 QF+ in GS; Ferrero has 7 QF+ GS; Safin 6 QF+ in GS... ;)
* Therefore Federer Express's record of going deep into Slams is the worst of his main New Ball rivals :eek: ! Of course I'm aware that Roger has the best strike rate when he does get QF+ in GS; but still i find it hard to believe that he can go on to win another 11 Slams to make 14^Total :confused: !
As WyveN said Federer is more likely to try 2 of each Slam than just rack up the huge number Sampras managed. Anyway time will tell :angel: .

Lady
07-06-2004, 01:35 PM
So many people forget that injury is probably the most important factor right now...
I do not wish anything bad to any player, but right now noone can know even for how long Roger will play on ATP.
Staying healthy all the time seems like very hard task right now. :(

vene
07-06-2004, 07:59 PM
A different take:

Federer near Sampras' level
Associated Press


WIMBLEDON, England (AP) - You heard it here first: Roger Federer will eclipse Pete Sampras' record for career Grand Slam singles titles.

Admittedly, that's a premature prediction. After all, Sampras walked away with 14 trophies from tennis' top tournaments, two more than anyone else.

Federer? He owns three majors after beating Andy Roddick 4-6, 7-5, 7-6 (3), 6-4 Sunday to win Wimbledon for the second straight year.

So Federer would need to average 11/2 Slams a season for the next eight to top Pistol Pete. That doesn't seem so far-fetched, given Federer's age (22), talent, versatility, commitment to improving and toughness.

"Federer, in my mind, has clearly separated himself from the field," Andre Agassi said. "He's a guy who has proven he can get the job done."

Agassi spoke last week, before watching Federer absorb Roddick's best and figure out a way to beat him.

"He's got every shot imaginable. There's not a shot he hits that's not very well struck," John McEnroe said. "He's got a chance to be one of the greatest players who ever lived. He's got a ways to go to reach Sampras' 14 Grand Slam titles. I don't think he'll do that, but he's got a chance to win a lot of major titles."

There are all sorts of variables and potential roadblocks, from injuries to sudden inconsistency to new challengers. For every Pete Sampras who fulfills his potential, there's a Marat Safin who squanders it.

Federer knows that.

"I don't set goals for 10 years' time and say I want to stay No. 1 for 10 years," he said. "It is not realistic, because I know if I have one injury I will lose it straight away, and it's the same for Grand Slams."

He's managed to avoid health problems, and he was fortunate to come along in an era of parity. No man has captured consecutive titles over the past 18 majors, an Open era record.

Roddick, the U.S. Open champion, is the closest thing to a rival - and Federer's 6-1 against him. Sampras' main foil was Agassi, who's won eight majors; in other words, there's room for Roddick to collect titles and still leave the bulk to Federer.

In 2004, Federer is 46-4 with six titles that have come on grass, hard and clay courts. He won the Australian Open, so he now owns three of the past five Slams and is the first man since Agassi in 1999 to win two in a year.

Sampras won seven Wimbledons, five U.S. Opens and two Australian Opens, but he only once made it to the semifinals at the French Open in 13 tries.


Like Sampras, 14-4 in major finals, Federer knows how to win the big ones. That wasn't always the case. Federer lost his opener three of his first four trips to Wimbledon. He lost four of his first six tournament finals.

Since May 2002, though, he's 15-2 in finals, 3-0 at Slams.

"For me, winners stay, and losers go," the Swiss star said. "I don't want to be one of them who goes."

Of course, you never know when another great player will emerge. The women's Wimbledon champion, Maria Sharapova, was just 17, seeded only 13th, and never before past the quarterfinals at a major.

Maybe that's next on Federer's "To Do" list. Not much needs fine-tuning, although he says he needs to work on volleying.

He doesn't have a record-busting serve (Roddick hit second serves faster than Federer's top first serve), but his placement is perfect. His forehand, backhand and return can end points. . His defense is dispiriting to opponents.

"He understands how to put the ball in a place where you can't hurt him," said McEnroe's brother, U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick, adding: "Sampras said, 'I'm going impose my game on you, and that's it."'

With Federer, at times, it's as if he says: "I'm going to impose your game on you."

At Wimbledon, he outaced Roddick. He outslugged the consummate baseliner and battler, Lleyton Hewitt. He won a higher percentage of points at the net while beating 6-foot-10 Ivo Karlovic.

"He's a good competitor. He's a lot better than he probably was a couple of years ago. He gives 100 percent out there," Hewitt said. "That's a part of his game he's probably worked on."

Against Roddick, Federer was undaunted by 140 mph serves, forehands whipped so hard that fans gasped, and one overhead pounded so violently that Federer ducked at the baseline to avoid a welt. OK, so he was daunted by that.

"I proved that Roger's not quite invincible," Roddick said, smiling. "You know, he's pretty close."

Given a chance to regroup during a rain delay Sunday, Federer went to Plan B: charging the net. It was remarkable to see someone switch gears in the middle of such an important match against such a capable foe.

Expect to see more of that for years to come.

July 6, 2004 6:47 AM

shaoyu
07-07-2004, 02:29 AM
Winning each slam twice would equal 8 slams. Whether that is close to 14 slams is debatable (I personally don't think it's close).

I am not talking about which one is harder here. I am saying it is necessary to win much more than 8 slams to get two each. If Roger manages to win RG twice, how many Wimbledon do you think he would have won? How many AO? How many USO? Add them up you get your answer.

But on the other hand people seem don't understand how hard it is to win each slam twice, like suggesting Roger to go for 2 slams each rather than Sampras's record. You may ask Sampras which way is easier for him. It's not like you say I want 2 RG's even if no more other slams and boom you get them.

Of course I understand the it might be easier for Roger to get 2 slams each rather than breaking Sampras' 14 due to his particular style of game and potential on clay, still it would take him much more than 8 slams to get it done.

Ferrero Forever
07-07-2004, 07:22 AM
lolz, oxy.. i think ferrero will get a hell of a lot better then he already is, and he will beat federer, and he will win a lot of grand slams, i have faith in him (just not this year)

Experimentee
07-07-2004, 03:45 PM
He certainly has the talent to, but there are many others who people thought the same thing about but they didnt win as many as expected. So i guess we'll see, but if there is anyone who i can see breaking the record, it would be Federer.

faboozadoo15
07-07-2004, 06:37 PM
yea, if federer has 2+ of each at the end of his career (crazy to even think about) he should also break petes record bc he'll win a lot more at wimby and ao (he should start doing better at the uso :rolleyes: ) but to get 2 french, he would pile the others on at some point.
it's all just fun to talk about, i personally would be surprised if he got 2 of each or if he passed 14-- they're both so incredibly difficult to achieve.

deekaye
07-08-2004, 08:17 PM
Re Federer's 14 slam potential
I agree Fed has the potential to surpass Sampras's achievements. However,when he is quoted as saying that he needs to improve on a few things,how can he do this without an expert coach with proven credentials?
I take on board the respected opinion of such as McEnroe,Becker,and a host of veteran 'greats',that he could be the greatest ever. Certainly I have never enjoyed watching a player going about his business as I do Roger Federer. I enjoy the sheer style with which he unfolds his range of strokes. By comparison,Sampras and Agassi are mere automatons,even if successful.
However,as he is still only 22 going on 23,he could fulfill his promise in about 3 years time,barring injury. Another plus for me is his single hand back-hand. I maintain a two-hander like Roddick is handicapping himself. What is the advantage? Power? todays modern racquets ensures that any top player can generate power with a single hand backhand. I despise grown men stooping and bending just to bring both hands into play. Leave that to the weaker sex!
I maybe regarded as a club player with oldfashioned ideas but I cannot and will not be persuaded otherwise.

Deekaye






At this point I really think that not only will Federer get 14 slam wins in his career, he will surpass Sampras with a couple more. I mean who can stop him. Lets analyze the main contenders for the slams in the up and coming years.

Andy Rodddick : Obviously Andy's serve and power can get him to the semis of 3 out of the 4 majors with relative ease. I still think he needs another year to flesh out his game. Specidically his backhand, returns, and volleys.

Marat Safin : I have been deeply dissapointed with him this year. He tears through the Aussie open, only to lose early in almost every tournament after the fact. Plain and simple Safin needs to get his head out of his ass.

Tim Henman : Henman is after all these years becoming a slam contender. It wouldn't be a surprise if he wins the 2004 U.S. Open. There will be no pressure, and when he is on he is unstoppable.

Raphael Nadal : I think in 2 to 3 years time he will have at least one slam under his belt. Once he matures he will be a force.

Fererro : I like his game. I love his backhand. He just needs more pace on his serve. But his speed and craftiness will win him a few majors besides the French Open. The only problem is he seems fragile. If he can stay healthy he has a better chance than Andy to beat Federer.

Worth noting; Nalbandian, Coria, Moya, Hewitt...

Any other players I have missed...

RonE
07-08-2004, 10:21 PM
Re Federer's 14 slam potential
I maybe regarded as a club player with oldfashioned ideas but I cannot and will not be persuaded otherwise.

Deekaye

I agree, I think it's a real shame that 95% of the male players are playing with 2 hands off the backhand- the singlehanded backhand is the most elegant shot in the game if played right.

RoddickBabe10
07-08-2004, 11:30 PM
It's definitely too early to tell. Sure Federer is the best player out there right now and he definitely has the potential on winning what like 6-10 slams, maybe, in his career? But I think he'd have a difficulty surpassing Pete's 14 grand slams.

Fedex
07-09-2004, 06:36 AM
I agree, I think it's a real shame that 95% of the male players are playing with 2 hands off the backhand- the singlehanded backhand is the most elegant shot in the game if played right.
Yes, i agree. I play with a single-handed backhand myself. While you can certainly hit a one hander with pace, its much harder to hit it with athourity. It takes someone of great strength to hit an effective one. There incredibly gracefull, but if you look at some of the one handers (Federer, Guga, Amelie, Justine), you can see it is a very hard shot indeed. Most of my favourites had single-handed backhands (Edberg, Sampras, Federer), but there are still gracefull 2 handed backhands. Safin has a very elligant 2 hander, and Nalbandian's i just love as well.

Fedex
07-09-2004, 06:38 AM
You also get much more variety with a single-handed backhand, so its easier to hit effective slices (because youre used to taking one arm away), and dropshots. All in all this is one of my favourite shots in tennis.

Lalitha
07-09-2004, 06:55 AM
ya, Justine Henin has that lovely backhand as well.

bounccer
12-24-2009, 08:06 PM
This thread deserved that answer. Next it will be all the threads saying how unbeatable Roddick is during the North American hardcourt season.

If he proves that statement wrong, then I will be one of the happiest people around, and yes I am a Federer fan. The only time that statement is in doubt is if he reaches 13 and then if he reaches 14, then it's incorrect.

:angel::angel:

DrJules
12-24-2009, 08:15 PM
At this point I really think that not only will Federer get 14 slam wins in his career, he will surpass Sampras with a couple more. I mean who can stop him. Lets analyze the main contenders for the slams in the up and coming years.

Andy Rodddick : Obviously Andy's serve and power can get him to the semis of 3 out of the 4 majors with relative ease. I still think he needs another year to flesh out his game. Specidically his backhand, returns, and volleys.

Marat Safin : I have been deeply dissapointed with him this year. He tears through the Aussie open, only to lose early in almost every tournament after the fact. Plain and simple Safin needs to get his head out of his ass.

Tim Henman : Henman is after all these years becoming a slam contender. It wouldn't be a surprise if he wins the 2004 U.S. Open. There will be no pressure, and when he is on he is unstoppable.

Raphael Nadal : I think in 2 to 3 years time he will have at least one slam under his belt. Once he matures he will be a force.

Fererro : I like his game. I love his backhand. He just needs more pace on his serve. But his speed and craftiness will win him a few majors besides the French Open. The only problem is he seems fragile. If he can stay healthy he has a better chance than Andy to beat Federer.

Worth noting; Nalbandian, Coria, Moya, Hewitt...

Any other players I have missed...

Come on Henree, you can't be serious...

This is not as easy as arithmetic, it's not always logical. Luck, condition, weather, form, there are so many things. If you say Roger can win 6 slams in his career, I would think so too, but more than 14? Way too early to judge.

Wow the overreaction is full force by the original poster.

Federer 1 grand slam away from verifying thread starter.

Congratutions on the prediction and even saw Nadal as threat in 2004.

DrJules
12-24-2009, 08:19 PM
No he will not win 14 Slams.

You are correct.

He has won more.

Acer
12-24-2009, 08:23 PM
Excellent bump!

Lleyton_
12-24-2009, 09:53 PM
This thread deserved that answer. Next it will be all the threads saying how unbeatable Roddick is during the North American hardcourt season.

If he proves that statement wrong, then I will be one of the happiest people around, and yes I am a Federer fan. The only time that statement is in doubt is if he reaches 13 and then if he reaches 14, then it's incorrect.

:dance:

abraxas21
12-24-2009, 10:36 PM
i love to see these old threads in which bold predictions actually turned out to be correct. kudos to the OP.

Orka_n
12-25-2009, 12:07 AM
Yeah, the OP deserves respect. Very good call 5 years ago.

barbadosan
12-25-2009, 12:46 AM
This OP can buy me lotto tickets any day! That was SOME crystal-balling!

Start da Game
12-25-2009, 02:55 PM
At this point I really think that not only will Federer get 14 slam wins in his career, he will surpass Sampras with a couple more. I mean who can stop him. Lets analyze the main contenders for the slams in the up and coming years.

Andy Rodddick : Obviously Andy's serve and power can get him to the semis of 3 out of the 4 majors with relative ease. I still think he needs another year to flesh out his game. Specidically his backhand, returns, and volleys.

Marat Safin : I have been deeply dissapointed with him this year. He tears through the Aussie open, only to lose early in almost every tournament after the fact. Plain and simple Safin needs to get his head out of his ass.

Tim Henman : Henman is after all these years becoming a slam contender. It wouldn't be a surprise if he wins the 2004 U.S. Open. There will be no pressure, and when he is on he is unstoppable.

Raphael Nadal : I think in 2 to 3 years time he will have at least one slam under his belt. Once he matures he will be a force.

Fererro : I like his game. I love his backhand. He just needs more pace on his serve. But his speed and craftiness will win him a few majors besides the French Open. The only problem is he seems fragile. If he can stay healthy he has a better chance than Andy to beat Federer.

Worth noting; Nalbandian, Coria, Moya, Hewitt...

Any other players I have missed...

this post exposes the clown era all ends up which we were having back then........if those were the shit clowns that federer was surrounded by back then, how about taking a look at sampras' opponents?

at the time when pete won his first us open, he already had 3 legends in the game before him, all playing at their peak or at least near best in lendl's case........stefan edberg, boris becker and ivan lendl - towers of glory who already knew what it takes to hold grandslam trophies at the biggest stages of tennis........agassi almost started out with pete.......clay monsters in the making muster, courier, bruguera were starting out around the same time as of pete's.......

it's not for nothing that it took 3 years for pete to win his 2nd slam........his second us open final opponent was not grandpa agassi who still pushed fed to the limit in us open matches, but was stefan edberg who was already a legend in the game........his first wimbledon final hurdle was not a 1-D buffoon like philippoussis, it was grass court legend boris becker........his first australian open semifinal challenger was not a 'mosquito', once again it was stefan edberg.......

he did not pussy out and lose to buffoons like arazi and horna in the first round of the french open, he toughened up and downed one of the greatest fighters in the history of the sport, then rising clay monster thomas muster.......he was confronted by clay court specialists of some 'matter' all the time in the early to mid nineties, not by mosquitoes and houseflies like robredo, davydenko.......he did not have just one challenger on clay so that he could collect those cookie plates all the time.......ridicule his clay facts and ridicule his game on clay, it doesn't help much when you are surrounded by clay greats like bruguera, courier by the time of quarterfinals.......he showed a lot of class and will to finally gun them down in their own backyard in 96.......

during 1990-93, if he had the kind of ease that federer enjoyed from 2003-06, he would have amassed many more slams.......

and i don't think there is any need to get embarrassed for people who predicted less than 14 or even less than 10 for fed back then.......fed was almost 20 when he beat pete in wimbledon 2001, with already a decent game.......a pool of mixed players shook his arse from 2001-2003, something which fedtards relate to the so called "unclear thinking" of fed which he needed to "sort out"........the truth was, he was just not comfortable dealing with surface specialists day in day out on a weekly basis.......not until serve and volleyers were almost extinct and clay court gems like guga, corretja were disappearing, that federer started winning something finally.......by 2004, we were left with the clowns listed by the thread starter.......2006 is by far the most pathetic year in the history of open era.......it's not for nothing that the only other legend so far in this era, rafae nadal, owns him almost everywhere on earth, particularly on the biggest stages.......

thankfully, we now have some real challengers like novak djokovic, jm delpotro, andy murray who can play some tennis and can challenge both federer and nadal........

DrJules
12-25-2009, 06:24 PM
this post exposes the clown era all ends up which we were having back then........if those were the shit clowns that federer was surrounded by back then, how about taking a look at sampras' opponents?

at the time when pete won his first us open, he already had 3 legends in the game before him, all playing at their peak or at least near best in lendl's case........stefan edberg, boris becker and ivan lendl - towers of glory who already knew what it takes to hold grandslam trophies at the biggest stages of tennis........agassi almost started out with pete.......clay monsters in the making muster, courier, bruguera were starting out around the same time as of pete's.......

it's not for nothing that it took 3 years for pete to win his 2nd slam........his second us open final opponent was not grandpa agassi who still pushed fed to the limit in us open matches, but was stefan edberg who was already a legend in the game........his first wimbledon final hurdle was not a 1-D buffoon like philippoussis, it was grass court legend boris becker........his first australian open semifinal challenger was not a 'mosquito', once again it was stefan edberg.......

he did not pussy out and lose to buffoons like arazi and horna in the first round of the french open, he toughened up and downed one of the greatest fighters in the history of the sport, then rising clay monster thomas muster.......he was confronted by clay court specialists of some 'matter' all the time in the early to mid nineties, not by mosquitoes and houseflies like robredo, davydenko.......he did not have just one challenger on clay so that he could collect those cookie plates all the time.......ridicule his clay facts and ridicule his game on clay, it doesn't help much when you are surrounded by clay greats like bruguera, courier by the time of quarterfinals.......he showed a lot of class and will to finally gun them down in their own backyard in 96.......

during 1990-93, if he had the kind of ease that federer enjoyed from 2003-06, he would have amassed many more slams.......

and i don't think there is any need to get embarrassed for people who predicted less than 14 or even less than 10 for fed back then.......fed was almost 20 when he beat pete in wimbledon 2001, with already a decent game.......a pool of mixed players shook his arse from 2001-2003, something which fedtards relate to the so called "unclear thinking" of fed which he needed to "sort out"........the truth was, he was just not comfortable dealing with surface specialists day in day out on a weekly basis.......not until serve and volleyers were almost extinct and clay court gems like guga, corretja were disappearing, that federer started winning something finally.......by 2004, we were left with the clowns listed by the thread starter.......2006 is by far the most pathetic year in the history of open era.......it's not for nothing that the only other legend so far in this era, rafae nadal, owns him almost everywhere on earth, particularly on the biggest stages.......

thankfully, we now have some real challengers like novak djokovic, jm delpotro, andy murray who can play some tennis and can challenge both federer and nadal........

The reason Sampras and Federer won so many has a lot to timing of when they dominated. Neither had to compete with the quality in depth from 1978 to 1991 that meant McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Becker, Edberg and Wilander could not win individually more that 8 grand slams (all were past their best by 93 when Sampras entered his peak period. The key periods for Sampras and Federer was from 93 to 99 and 03 to 09 which both had slightly weaker fields. Sampras had the injury plagued Krajicek, the less than fully committed Stich, the mentally fragile Ivanisevic and the on and off Agassi combined with the persistent Chang. Federer had Nadal who probably was a stronger contender than any Sampras faced, Safin who had his exceptional moments but was inconsistent, the Determined Roddick whose game was limited beyond the serve and the new guns in the last 2 years during which he has won 3 grand slams.

DrJules
01-31-2010, 08:39 PM
At this point I really think that not only will Federer get 14 slam wins in his career, he will surpass Sampras with a couple more. I mean who can stop him. Lets analyze the main contenders for the slams in the up and coming years.

Andy Rodddick : Obviously Andy's serve and power can get him to the semis of 3 out of the 4 majors with relative ease. I still think he needs another year to flesh out his game. Specidically his backhand, returns, and volleys.

Marat Safin : I have been deeply dissapointed with him this year. He tears through the Aussie open, only to lose early in almost every tournament after the fact. Plain and simple Safin needs to get his head out of his ass.

Tim Henman : Henman is after all these years becoming a slam contender. It wouldn't be a surprise if he wins the 2004 U.S. Open. There will be no pressure, and when he is on he is unstoppable.

Raphael Nadal : I think in 2 to 3 years time he will have at least one slam under his belt. Once he matures he will be a force.

Fererro : I like his game. I love his backhand. He just needs more pace on his serve. But his speed and craftiness will win him a few majors besides the French Open. The only problem is he seems fragile. If he can stay healthy he has a better chance than Andy to beat Federer.

Worth noting; Nalbandian, Coria, Moya, Hewitt...

Any other players I have missed...

He has now surpassed Sampras with a couple more, but you may have underestimated him.

tennisphilia
01-31-2010, 10:18 PM
At this point I really think that not only will Federer get 14 slam wins in his career, he will surpass Sampras with a couple more. I mean who can stop him. Lets analyze the main contenders for the slams in the up and coming years.

nice bump from the past. federer has indeed surpass sampras by two, and still going. he may end up winning as many as 20+ grand slams.

MrChopin
01-31-2010, 10:22 PM
No point to this bump. No salt to throw in the eyes of Nadaltards, no Djokovic retirements to mock, and no jokes about Murray's teeth or DelPo's Frankenstein-esque looks. He's at 16. Move on.

Edit: I mean, YES!, doubt still remains...

kyleskywalker007
01-31-2010, 10:33 PM
No point to this bump. No salt to throw in the eyes of Nadaltards, no Djokovic retirements to mock, and no jokes about Murray's teeth or DelPo's Frankenstein-esque looks. He's at 16. Move on.

Edit: I mean, YES!, doubt still remains...

It was a good and bold prediction by the OP. But still those who doubted this would happen had some reasons to think that. I mean, let's be serious, who thought Fed would keep this consistency for so long?:confused:

crude oil
02-03-2010, 03:52 AM
i love revisionist history.

5 years ago, people thought 14 wasn't possible because of the depth in the game.

I will say it again, this time in caps, DEPTH.

Now that someone came along and totally dominated, apparently the game wasn't deep.

:haha:

serveandvolley80
02-03-2010, 07:06 AM
i love revisionist history.

5 years ago, people thought 14 wasn't possible because of the depth in the game.

I will say it again, this time in caps, DEPTH.

Now that someone came along and totally dominated, apparently the game wasn't deep.

:haha:

Revisionist history maybe, those guys that the OP posted were talented, but nobody could have predicted injuries and the path their careers went to, Ferrero was very talented but did not have a long period of being healthy, i can't remember the last time he played a full season. And other guys just did not work as hard to maintain their top level, Safin as a huge example.

The talent was undeniable, Nalbandian could have been a force, Hewitt should have won more, Roddick choked at some key moments, Safin should have done more with his career, its easy to look back and say its a weak era now but maybe 5 years from now we will be saying the same thing about this new generation of talented youngsters.

I mean could anyone have guessed that Ferrero would only win 1 slam? or Roddick only having 1, Safin only 2? Shows how much we overestimate talent sometimes, maybe Djokovic will never win another again and others who we predict for big things might falter. Tennis seems to be more then just an ability to pick up the racquet, the mental aspect is just as big of a hurdle.