A journalist actually dissing Roger [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

A journalist actually dissing Roger

mitalidas
07-15-2005, 02:34 AM
Thought this deserved its own thread.
I have yet to see a journalist piece like this, which actually disses Roger and attributes his success at Wimbledon to lack of competition. Ivanisevic better server, Sampras better everything, Roger extremely talented but thriving because the tour doesnt have enough depth :rolleyes:

Federer at Wimbledon: No Sampras
By Baird Hull
Published on Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Associated Press

For the third consecutive year, Roger Federer won Wimbledon. This has brought to bear the inevitable discussions of Federer's greatness and his place in history. Announcers have claimed that Federer possesses the complete game and that he could be the greatest talent ever to have played. The Swiss sensation is only 23, and has won five majors, which puts him on par to possibly reach Pete Sampras' record of 14 slam titles. At Wimbledon this year, Federer was never seriously challenged and beat Andy Roddick with apparent ease. Federer is the only player since Sampras to enter Wimbledon each year as the overwhelming favorite.

Despite Federer's record at Wimbledon and the other slams, his accomplishments are less impressive when one looks at the lack of diversity in the men's game today. Namely, the tour lacks serve and volleyers, who are especially dangerous on the grass at Wimbledon. At this year's Wimbledon, the three semifinalists other than Roger Federer were Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick and Thomas Johansson. All three of these players are basically baseliners. Lleyton Hewitt is essentially a grinder -- he wins matches by running from side to side at the baseline. Andy Roddick, despite his powerful serve, also resides at the baseline, trying to mask a backhand which is shaky at its best. Thomas Johansson is pretty much the standard male baseliner of the 1990s who had a hot tournament.

None of these men possess the talent to have made it to the second week of Wimbledon during earlier generations. If one looks at the recent list of champions, one will find that John McEnroe, Boris Becker and Pete Sampras clearly dominated the event over the past 25 years. All three of these champions possessed great all-around games and were capable of dominating at the net. Other players with notable Wimbledon careers were Goran Ivanesevic and Patrick Rafter. Ivanesevic was an all-around player with a great serve, while Rafter was an all-around player with a great volley.

There is great evidence that these players were far greater grass court players than the players that are dominating Wimbledon these days.

To begin with, Thomas Johansson, Wimbledon semifinalist, has been playing grand slams since 1994. In all of his years, he was never able to make it past the fourth round. In his younger, fresher days he was always stopped short of truly making it deep into the tournament by better players. Also, Roger Federer, who had already been picked as the next potential great, lost to Tim Henman in 2001 in the middle of a run which put him as the favorite to win Wimbledon that year. This alone is clear evidence that Roger Federer would not have been able to dominate in years past.

The best way, however, to judge the competitiveness of today's grass court players versus the competitiveness of grass court players in years past is by a stroke by stroke analysis. Andy Roddick, who has indisputably been the second-best grass court player over the last three years, essentially possesses two strokes: the serve and the forehand. On both shots he possesses mind-numbing power. Unfortunately, he has neither a backhand nor a volley to provide a strong supporting cast. Even on his serve, his most feared weapon, he clearly lags behind players in the past. Although he can hit a 150 mph rocket, he has never put up the numbers that Sampras and Ivanesevic were able to do with 125 mph serves.

Even Federer himself is not a strong matchup against players of the past. Federer is often praised as an all-court player who is great at every shot. Federer does possess a good serve, which has gotten better over the last few years, a good volley, a good backhand, and a great forehand. However, he does not possess nearly as good a serve as Ivanesevic, who won Wimbledon only once, nor does he possess nearly as good a volley as Rafter, who never won Wimbledon. In addition, he falls behind Sampras in nearly every category. Sampras indisputably possessed a better serve, a better volley and a better half volley. Federer is probably a better overall groundstroker, being that he has a better backhand, but his forehand is not as punishing a stroke as was Sampras'.

What does all of this mean? Roger Federer is an extremely talented player, but his dominance at the All England Lawn and Tennis Club has come at a time when the competition is far less tough. Federer has emerged as the king of a new breed of baseliners who cannot take advantage of the grass as in days past.
http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2005071203010

Skyward
07-15-2005, 03:16 AM
Thought this deserved its own thread.
http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2005071203010

It doesn't . J/k . It has already been posted.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=1971748#post1971748

Dirk
07-15-2005, 05:49 AM
This is bullshit. Fuck him. He is a Roger HATA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :fiery:

nobama
07-15-2005, 12:53 PM
I posted this article a few days back, and included numerous comments from former #1 players who talked about the greatness of Roger's game. I think these guys know what they're talking about. During the Wimbledon final on the BBC Jimmy Connors said he couldn't even comprehend some of the shots Roger pulled of, especially those where he was far behind the baseline. Heck, even Pete Sampras himself said there were areas where Roger is better than he was. I don't remember who he gave the interview to, but he said Roger's forehand was just as good as his, his backhand was better and Roger stayed back better. Where he gave himself the edge was the serve. Even more recently during Wimbledon Pete made comments to a British newspaper about how he thought Roger would win it again and that would give him the confidence to think he can break his (Pete's) record. He also said that when he played Roger in 2001 he could see then what a complete player he was. I think it's pointless to debate who's better (Roger or Pete) because they're games are so different. For the most part Roger's a baseliner whereas Pete came in a lot more and was much more a serve/volley type player. But for this guy to say Pete was all around better because he wasn't a baseliner is ridiculous. OK he may prefer serve/volley tennis to what's being played now, but that alone doesn't make one player better than another.

SUKTUEN
07-15-2005, 04:36 PM
Clam down~~ Forget it~

allanah
07-15-2005, 04:44 PM
Interesting that you choose to perceive it as 'Roger-hating'. If the journo is criticising anyone, he is cristicising the rest of the men's tour. Saying Roger's dominance on grass is magnified by the one-dimensional play of his 'challengers'.

It's not hating. It's putting forward an alternate point of view.

SUKTUEN
07-15-2005, 04:51 PM
Also may Chinese tennis fans do not like Roger

lsy
07-17-2005, 02:30 PM
Also, Roger Federer, who had already been picked as the next potential great, lost to Tim Henman in 2001 in the middle of a run which put him as the favorite to win Wimbledon that year. This alone is clear evidence that Roger Federer would not have been able to dominate in years past.

How is that "clear" evidence? Why not use the same logic and mention Rogi beating Sampras that year itself and being "clear" evidence he can dominate in years past? Or why not talk about Rogi crashing out 1st rds in 2002/3, and conclude not even dominating in pasts, he certainly can never win Wimby even in current time :haha:


Even Federer himself is not a strong matchup against players of the past. Federer is often praised as an all-court player who is great at every shot. Federer does possess a good serve, which has gotten better over the last few years, a good volley, a good backhand, and a great forehand. However, he does not possess nearly as good a serve as Ivanesevic, who won Wimbledon only once, nor does he possess nearly as good a volley as Rafter, who never won Wimbledon.

This writer just too funny. Talk about Rogi being all court player, and then conclude he's not good match up vs Goran coz serves not as good, or Rafter coz volley not as good. What about other aspects of the game then?


In addition, he falls behind Sampras in nearly every category. Sampras indisputably possessed a better serve, a better volley and a better half volley. Federer is probably a better overall groundstroker, being that he has a better backhand, but his forehand is not as punishing a stroke as was Sampras'.

and of course while saying these, the author will selectively choose not to mention the only meeting between these 2 on grass ;)


What does all of this mean? Roger Federer is an extremely talented player, but his dominance at the All England Lawn and Tennis Club has come at a time when the competition is far less tough. Federer has emerged as the king of a new breed of baseliners who cannot take advantage of the grass as in days past.


Honestly it isn't that difficult an alternative point of view to view Rogi's domination in Wimby, if the author can back it up with more in-depth analysis than some of these laughable "clear" evidence he put up with :lol:

nobama
07-17-2005, 02:59 PM
Interesting that you choose to perceive it as 'Roger-hating'. If the journo is criticising anyone, he is cristicising the rest of the men's tour. Saying Roger's dominance on grass is magnified by the one-dimensional play of his 'challengers'.

It's not hating. It's putting forward an alternate point of view.Yes, he's going after the entire mens tour, but at the same time that is taking a shot at Roger. He's basically saying the only reason Roger looks good is because everyone else sucks. Of course that is bs, but like you said an alternate point of view.

SUKTUEN
07-17-2005, 03:14 PM
hi~!

ExpectedWinner
07-17-2005, 04:07 PM
Most probably the author is still living in the past. There's a reason why s&v style is dying. The ATP tour is a bit like a wild forest where only the strongest survive. It's not by chance Henman saying that a s&v player will never win Wimbledon again. Slower surfaces, racket technology, generally better returning and passing on the tour are things to blame. I feel that to be successful a s&v player needs consistently to serve in 145-150mp/h on the lines these days and be a very proficient volleyer (combine athletism and soft hands). We see that Dent's 140+ bad placed serves are getting eaten consistently even by average returners.

Some quotes from the top of my head:

Nalbandian " I don't care for s&v players"

Safin "It's easy(to play s&v), you just return into their feet and pass". LOL

As for Ivanisevic or Rafter, both wouldn't stand a chance against Federer of today. Ivanisevic is 0-2 against him, enough said. Rafter is leading 3-0, but their last meeting on grass in 2001 was a very close encounter, and Federer has improved a lot since. I'll give Rafter the edge on volleys, but in every other aspect of the game Federer is more superior. Federer's improved return of serve ( not to mention mentality) would make a difference today. He makes players work hard on almost every service game, and it wasn't the case in the past.


How is that "clear" evidence? Why not use the same logic and mention Rogi beating Sampras that year itself and being "clear" evidence he can dominate in years past? Or why not talk about Rogi crashing out 1st rds in 2002/3, and conclude not even dominating in pasts, he certainly can never win Wimby even in current time :haha:This writer just too funny. Talk about Rogi being all court player, and then conclude he's not good match up vs Goran coz serves not as good, or Rafter coz volley not as good. What about other aspects of the game then

Right on. I agree with everything you've said. :yeah:

SUKTUEN
07-17-2005, 04:10 PM
Report said :

Roger Federer take us to his house beside Wimby, we ate breakfast and talk.
He is so close to people and so nice guy.
That's why he is a more Great champion than Sampras~! :D :D

Roger~!!!! You are so Great~! :worship: :worship: :worship:

Dirk
07-18-2005, 10:21 AM
Suktuen why don't more people like Roger in China?

Stevens Point
07-18-2005, 10:36 AM
Also may Chinese tennis fans do not like Roger

Suktuen why don't more people like Roger in China?
I don't think this is true, because this article wasn't posted long ago...

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=1518633&postcount=2152

Fedex
07-18-2005, 02:33 PM
I just waisted 5 minutes of my life reading this article.

SUKTUEN
07-18-2005, 03:22 PM
Suktuen why don't more people like Roger in China?

You all missunderstand me~!!!!

Many Many Chinese Fan Love Roger~!( like me) :devil: :devil: :bounce: :bounce:
But Also many other fans love another Tennis player and dislike Roger,(but Roger always beat their idlo~~ :o )

WyveN
07-18-2005, 04:48 PM
To begin with, Thomas Johansson, Wimbledon semifinalist, has been playing grand slams since 1994. In all of his years, he was never able to make it past the fourth round. In his younger, fresher days he was always stopped short of truly making it deep into the tournament by better players.

Why does he pick on Johansson (who is actually a slam winner) yet doesnt mention players like Voltchkov, Stoltenberg, Woodbridge and Washington making great runs at Wimbledon during the Sampras era.

SUKTUEN
07-18-2005, 04:54 PM
I want to watch Roger play "tall" Joh

liptea
07-19-2005, 09:39 AM
Maybe the rest of the tour doesn't seem as dominant because Roger plays too well for them.

Dirk
07-19-2005, 03:29 PM
http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2005071902030

A reply to shot down this shitter. Thank god for them publishing it. :)

SUKTUEN
07-19-2005, 03:30 PM
what is this?

Dirk
07-19-2005, 03:39 PM
A reply to the dick who started the need for this thread to be created. It's a defense of Roger.

SUKTUEN
07-19-2005, 03:47 PM
oh

Black Adam
07-20-2005, 06:44 PM
Now does that Journalist really believe that the tour at Sampras' time was tougher than nowadays :rolleyes: :bs:
S&V players are strugling nowadays because the Tour is stronger technically, physically and mentally nowadays. Besides everybody knows that the level of competition gets higher going forward in time Not Backwards.
Andy Roddick, who has indisputably been the second-best grass court player over the last three years, essentially possesses two strokes: the serve and the forehand. On both shots he possesses mind-numbing power. Unfortunately, he has neither a backhand nor a volley to provide a strong supporting cast. Even on his serve, his most feared weapon, he clearly lags behind players in the past.Can say the sam ething of you sir, You clearly Lag behind Modern times!
Anyways :shrug: Can't do nothing for Journalists having a great time daydreaming about the past,:rolleyes:
The Future is HERE,either he catches up on time or he continues in the past tense.

Dirk
07-20-2005, 08:52 PM
I agree TGS but I do think racket technology has made good players better than they would be without it. Players don't train to be serving and volleying anymore either which has also cut into that trend. The reason we have a smaller circle of slam stars now is because the field is so deep.

SUKTUEN
07-21-2005, 08:18 AM
hi

Black Adam
07-21-2005, 12:46 PM
hi
hi :wavey:

NYCtennisfan
07-21-2005, 05:28 PM
What ridiculous garbage. Pure, pure garbage.

SUKTUEN
07-22-2005, 02:29 PM
Hi TGS

1sun
07-25-2005, 04:27 PM
http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2005071902030

A reply to shot down this shitter. Thank god for them publishing it. :)
yo dirk,did u right that reply?

1sun
07-25-2005, 04:27 PM
yo dirk,did u right that reply?
write*

Purple Rainbow
08-29-2005, 12:55 PM
This guy wrote another article. He doesn't seem to like Federer very much.

American players prove dominant in U.S. Open series

The last several years have been marked by a lack of American success in the world of men's tennis. In recent years, only two Grand Slam titles have been won by Americans. Andre Agassi won the 2003 Australian Open and Andy Roddick won the 2003 U.S. Open. In addition, only one American -- Roddick -- has remained in the upper tier with players like Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Roger Federer, who hail from Australia, Russia and Switzerland, respectively.

Thus far, the 2005 season has been abysmal for American players. Agassi, now a relic from a past age, has been sidelined by injury in both the French Open and Wimbledon. Roddick, America's only consistent performer, lost in the semifinals of the Australian Open to Hewitt, lost in the second round of the French Open and was thoroughly crushed by Federer in the Wimbledon finals.

However, since the end of Wimbledon, Americans have started to show signs of better play with the beginning of the U.S. Open series -- a group of hard-court tournaments in the United States which culminates with the U.S. Open itself in September. Three weeks and three tournaments into the series, three Americans have emerged victorious.

First, in the RCA Championships, Robby Ginepri beat fellow American Taylor Dent in the finals. Next, Agassi won the Mercedes-Benz Cup to celebrate his return to active-player status. Most recently, Roddick beat fellow American James Blake in the Legg Mason Tennis Classic. Blake reentered the top 100 with his finals appearance after an injury-ridden 2004 season.

So how does recent American performance on hard courts bode for the year's final major at the U.S. Open? Unfortunately, it does not bode well at all. Players like Blake and Ginepri might make it a few rounds into the tournament, but they most likely aren't capable of producing the kind of tennis necessary to get them into the second week.

Agassi is far and away the most accomplished active American player, and is still capable of making a good run at the other players. Unfortunately, his age should prevent him from being a real threat once the second week arrives. Roddick is the only American who is consistently able to perform his way into the second week of most majors and remain a viable threat. But however consistent Roddick may be, he lacks the talent to be able to beat Federer, who is the man to beat at every major.

So far, the 2005 U.S. Open series has not been a good barometer of who will perform well at this year's U.S. Open. However, there are several things to count on at the 2005 U.S. Open.

First, Federer is the overwhelming favorite. He recently won his third straight Wimbledon title and now has a total of five Grand-Slam titles. Unfortunately, the level of tennis throughout the rest of the top ten is not good enough to provide any consistent competition for the world's number-one player.

Also, we can expect Roddick and Hewitt to advance well into the second week. Roddick's weapons -- his indomitable serve and his forehand -- keep him in contention, while Hewitt's speed and consistency are his strongest allies. Both of these players are strong favorites, but neither player has a recent victory over Federer to his credit.

Other international players capable of doing damage this year are Argentina's David Nalbandian and Spain's Rafael Nadal. Nadal has the speed and the groundstrokes necessary to play well on hard courts, but lacks the serve and first-strike abilities of some of the more experienced hard-court players. Nalbandian is not the most talented player, but is mentally strong and happens to be one of the few players who has given Federer trouble in the past.

The one wild card at the U.S. Open this year will be Russian Marat Safin. Safin's temper and personality always make him unpredictable and while he hasn't been outstanding, he at least has given consistent performances at the majors this year (barring his Australian Open victory). If Safin is capable of playing well after his recent knee surgery, then he is the one man capable of making this a truly entertaining tournament. Safin is the only player in the world right now who is the equal to, or has an even greater talent than, Federer. While he lacks Federer's mentality, he is capable of stringing together some absolutely great performances, which could win him the title.

So overall, expect the year's last major to play out similarly to this year's Wimbledon. Chances are that the top ten players will play true to their seedings, barring any injuries. Expect Marat Safin to be the one unbalancing force strong enough to upset this equilibrium

Action Jackson
08-29-2005, 12:57 PM
If I called this guy a knucklehead, that would be a compliment.

PamV
08-29-2005, 02:32 PM
Regarding the article comparing the field of today with that of Sampras time the author seems to ignore the fact that the reason the current players are not as much into S/V technique is because that style has been losing against the power of the baseliners.

McEnroe points out that because of the racket techonolgy and the increased strength of players today the return of serve is way more important and effective that it used to be. Great returns stop the server from being able to S/V like they did in the old days.

PamV
08-29-2005, 02:38 PM
I agree TGS but I do think racket technology has made good players better than they would be without it. Players don't train to be serving and volleying anymore either which has also cut into that trend. The reason we have a smaller circle of slam stars now is because the field is so deep.

The racket technology has helped create a huge deep field. Players like Federer would be as good even with a wood racket........but not the majority of guys. Most experts say that proof of Roger's greatness is that he is able to play a mixture of old style/ new style even in the face of the tremendous power in the game today.

SUKTUEN
08-29-2005, 06:38 PM
thanks for the article

TenHound
08-29-2005, 08:15 PM
2 Thoughts that haven't been put forth yet.

When we watched Roger last yr. 2 things were inevitable:
That someone would say that he only dominates 'cuz field is weak and that some hugely powerful jerk would come along & overpower him.

Note further that this kid is a college student. Probably he's taking some fashionable marketing courses. They preach that as long as they're talking about you, it is good. Had he just written how exc. Fed was, he wouldn't have been noticed.

Also, it can't be stressed enough that Roger is completely alien to the Am. male jock worshipping sensibility. And not an entirely comfortable fit. I'm impressed that he's as appreciated as he is here. But still the press on him here is tepid, compared to parts of the world where guys don't consider beauty threatening to their "masculinity". (Columnist from my local paper wrote flattering col. about Roger after he won Wimby - virtually nothing til then; but he was constantly coming all over Thuggy.) I'm referring specifically to England & now India. (From Indian press read Rohit Brijnath. Google him up w/Roger's name & read his exc. article "Most Divine of Heirs" from sportstaronnet.com. Here's a quote:
[I]WE are too quick these days to award greatness. Wayne Rooney plays a few matches and talk of another Pele begins. Sehwag swishes a few strokes and he is labelled the next Tendulkar. But Federer, even on reflection, has put forward a persuasive initial argument that if not one day the statistical equal of Sampras, then at least he is the most divine of heirs.[I]

America is The Empire these days. Males must be raised to worship power. We're lucky this kind of crap is relegated to the margins, and the worst Roger gets is less ink than the more brutal guys....