Federer vs. Becker [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer vs. Becker

sawan66278
09-20-2005, 01:51 AM
In terms of ability, skill, and overall talent, how do you feel that Boris Becker compares to Roger...Boris won Wimbledeon at 17...which in many ways impacted his career in such a way that I believe he really didn't tap into his complete abilities...

To be honest, I really believe that at their peak, on almost every surface, they would split their meetings head to head, with Boris having the advantage on an indoor carpet, and Roger having the advantage on clay...

Opinions :)

jacobhiggins
09-20-2005, 01:54 AM
I think Federer is the most gifted player to ever play the game, pretty much the perfect tennis player. I think Federer will accomplish more then Becker and I feel Federer would win most matches!

uNIVERSE mAN
09-20-2005, 02:53 AM
In terms of ability, skill, and overall talent, how do you feel that Boris Becker compares to Roger...Boris won Wimbledeon at 17...which in many ways impacted his career in such a way that I believe he really didn't tap into his complete abilities...

To be honest, I really believe that at their peak, on almost every surface, they would split their meetings head to head, with Boris having the advantage on an indoor carpet, and Roger having the advantage on clay...

Opinions :)

Boris Becker had a very promising early career, in part due to his emergence in an era with no legendary player. In the late 80's to early 90's, this was a transitional period where Lendl, McEnroe et al were fading and Sampras/Agassi had not yet developed. As you can see it's not really difficult to see that most of Slam damage was done during this period.

Boris never had a great work ethic, he carried all kinds of nagging injuries esp. knee problems through most of his mid 20's and on, this was mostly attributable to him being out of shape most of the time, after the age of 23, he was close to 200 lbs. He wasn't very fast around the back of the court and usually bailed out of long rallies. Becker had the ability to thrash people he was supposed to beat hence the great career W/L record. He was one of the first players to bring the boom boom style of power tennis into play, so he's a pioneer in some respects. But in terms of his game, he was very mechanical (but effective) from the backcourt (his defence was not very good though), but what separated him was his great transitional game where he could break a point open with a forehand up the line, or a low slice where he could thunder in and attack the net.

Boris was a great player but he's never really going to be placed as a legend. He's on that second rung. You only have to look at his head to head against Sampras/Agassi to see how he compares. Head to head against Federer would be lop-sided in Federer's favour.

BigboyDan
09-20-2005, 03:08 AM
Boris Becker, at his best, would have mowed the current Federer with his S/V and great defensive backcourt play. What you yunguns' don't get, yet, is that Federer does have weaknesses that are, as of yet, unexploited by his riff-raff competition. The game that will undo Federer WILL be the game that Becker had (even if it was for such a short a time).

PamV
09-20-2005, 03:15 AM
Boris Becker, at his best, would have mowed the current Federer with his S/V and great defensive backcourt play. What you yunguns' don't get, yet, is that Federer does have weaknesses that are, as of yet, unexploited by his riff-raff competition. The game that will undo Federer WILL be the game that Becker had (even if it was for such a short a time).
What are Federer's weaknesses? I know sometimes a tendril of hair flies out of the bandana....but what else is there?

BigboyDan
09-20-2005, 04:05 AM
What are Federer's weaknesses? I know sometimes a tendril of hair flies out of the bandana....but what else is there?

Well, in reality, if no-one can exploit them, they aren't weaknesses. From what teaching pros tell me is that Federer is never exploited with severe-angled shots that a S/Ver would offer; his backhand return of serve would be tested more by a S/Ver; and his great all-court running-around would be negated by a S/Ver who would own the net. Federer is not as quick from the back-to-front as he is from side-to-side and that should be exploitable by someone who can hit a short, hard BH slice to Fed's backhand (you see this now, if infrequently). Agassi showed in the first two sets of the USOpen final that Fed's strokes can be rushed; as a result, his FH really gets wild, and he tries for baseline-winners that are normally considered dubious. And, Fed does get flustered, surprised, and "feel the preasure" the same as everyone else when behind in the score. But, as I said, if no-one can exploit them...

howardean
09-20-2005, 05:13 AM
Boris won Wimbledeon at 17...which in many ways impacted his career in such a way that I believe he really didn't tap into his complete abilities...Opinions :)

your use of impact is incorrect here; when used as a verb, impact means run into or hit up against ;) :p

mandoura
09-20-2005, 05:15 AM
What are Federer's weaknesses? I know sometimes a tendril of hair flies out of the bandana....but what else is there?

:haha:

But from the look of your avy, I would say more than a tendril :lol: .

1sun
09-20-2005, 06:12 AM
boris has nothing on roger.
straight sets everytime for roger.

deliveryman
09-20-2005, 09:38 AM
Boris Becker, at his best, would have mowed the current Federer with his S/V and great defensive backcourt play. What you yunguns' don't get, yet, is that Federer does have weaknesses that are, as of yet, unexploited by his riff-raff competition. The game that will undo Federer WILL be the game that Becker had (even if it was for such a short a time).


"Boris Becker at his best." Yes, we've already established that Roger Federer isn't unbeatable. However, the problem there inlies with what Andre already pointed out, "you have to play perfect tennis, the entire match." I don't doubt that Becker could've beaten Federer a few times, however, there's absolutely no denying that Federer is the greater talent out of the two.

So I guess the title of the thread should be, "Federer at his absolute best vs Becker at his absolute best" and the answer would be a straight set thrashing by Roger.

jtipson
09-20-2005, 09:48 AM
I just wish I'd seen Roger and Boris play at Yannick Noah's charity night a couple of years ago. Anyone know who won the set (assuming Roger)?

BigboyDan
09-20-2005, 09:51 AM
Reading comprehesion problem, deliveryman?

Federer can not thrash ANY pure S/Ver who also can play baseline, much less someone who has the GAME like a 1985/1990 Becker. Becker's GAME at its best, had no weaknesses to exploit, Federer best GAME does. THAT'S the POINT!

Sheesh! Andre is playing Federer at the END of his career!

Learn the game, dude.

deliveryman
09-20-2005, 10:01 AM
Reading comprehesion problem, deliveryman?

You know, if you're going to start making personal attacks over a tennis conversation, especially over one's reading ability, you might want to be able to spell "comprehension" correctly. But that's beside the point.

Roger has great, great passing shots and has the ability to hit winners from ANYWHERE on the court. His back to front movement is just as impressive as his side to side. Becker's S/V game would be torn to shreds, as Federer would hit passing winner after winner after winner, if he's playing his best.

EDIT: 2005 Wimbledon final ring a bell? Please don't get me wrong, I am by no means comparing Roddick's S/V to Becker's, but there's no denying that Roddick played unbelievably well, and S/V out of his mind the entire tournament. I don't doubt that if Roger didn't play as well as he did, Roddick could've won. Instead, what happened? He got a beatdown.

My point is this: When Roger Federer plays his absolute best tennis, there's nothing anyone can do to beat him. He is by far, ions, lightyears ahead of Becker when it comes to sheer talent. And if both used their respective talents to it's full potiental on the same night, Federer would walk away with an easy straight sets victory.

BigboyDan
09-20-2005, 10:08 AM
Becker's S/V game would be torn to shreds, as Federer would hit passing winner after winner after winner, if he's playing his best.

Ok.... take a lesson.

And you enjoy that long cold winter.... and we'll hear from ya' again next Spring.

RonE
09-20-2005, 10:12 AM
Reading comprehesion problem, deliveryman?

Federer can not thrash ANY pure S/Ver who also can play baseline, much less someone who has the GAME like a 1985/1990 Becker. Becker's GAME at its best, had no weaknesses to exploit, Federer best GAME does. THAT'S the POINT!

Sheesh! Andre is playing Federer at the END of his career!

Learn the game, dude.


For someone who has seen both playing at their peak I beg to differ here.

Federer has proven himself against the serve and volleyers (the few he has played)- Henman, Rusedski, Suzuki at this year's Australian.

Granted, Henman had his number earlier but Roger has figured out how to deal with him.When he needs to Roger can return very efficiently dipping the ball at the feet of the incoming volleyer forcing that player to hit up and set up the passing shot. His variation of spin and pace has left many a net rusher dumbfounded.

Granted, Becker at his peak had a very powerful baseline game but you are forgetting one thing. As was mentioned earlier Becker was the pioneer of the modern power game. Nothing of the sort had ever been seen in the game and the rest of the field was playing catchup. By toay's standards, power bashing alone would not achieve much. Look at Gonzalez and Roddick. For Becker to have to theoretically be able to hang in with a peak Federer he would need more patience in his backcourt game- he would need to trade groundstrokes like an Agassi or a peak Safin and mix it up with his volleying.

While we are on the subject of his volleying there is another point that needs to be made- when I look at his volleys they were exploitable especially the FH volley. He had a bit of an unorthodox teechnique and while he did have a huge wingspan and made many dramatic dive volleys (his trademark) he didn't have the fleetfootedness of his greatest rival Edberg or like that of Rafter for example. Those two were textbook serve and volleyers with the footwork and agility and technique perfected down to a T.

So when you combine all the aforementioned factors here is the summary that ensues:

- Becker has powerful groundstrokes but too inconsistent. Federer would win most of the backcourt rallies as he shows more patience and can generate more spins, angles and changes of pace thus denying Becker any real advantage there.
- In order to volley Becker would need to get Federer on the defensive either with a forceful approach shot or with a hard serve. If a baseline rally ensues he may find it difficult (see point above), off the serve he will have some success but Roger can also return very effectively. On the forehand he can hit forecful returns off an aggressive serve and make the ball deep at the feet of the incoming volleyer. On the backhand he can either slice the return or block it making it dip or at times even flick it back with interest using the wrist.
- Becker wasn't really known for his great return game. Federer with a good serving day would not be broken too often against him (if at all).

In short, I like Roger's chances against Becker even on the faster surfaces.

TheMightyFed
09-20-2005, 10:21 AM
Does Fed have so few rivals that we have to dig in the past to find some... nobody knows if Federer would have beaten Boris, but knowing that Brad Gilbert beat him 4 times, there is a good chance for Fed...

deliveryman
09-20-2005, 10:23 AM
Does Fed have so few rivals that we have to dig in the past to find some... nobody knows if Federer would have beaten Boris, but knowing that Brad Gilbert beat him 4 times, there is a good chance for Fed...

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

deliveryman
09-20-2005, 11:21 AM
Again.

It's not whether Becker could be beaten, much less thrashed, by Gilbert or Federer or the FUCKING MAN IN THE FUCKING MOON - it's whether Federer will ever have to play against a player that CAN exploit his perceived weaknesses as noted by teaching professionals and described above; those teaching professionals when asked as to what GAME most resembles the type of GAME that could give Federer problems many noted Becker's GAME when it was at its best.

Can't believe I'm arguing with a Canadian... freakin' hockey... Moosejaw... snow...

Settledown there, "bigboy." You're going to give yourself ulcers due to the overwhelming stress that only naturally occurs during a "Federer vs Becker" debate. lol.

Ouch. Making stereotypical comments about my nationality, damn, that hurts. You do realize you're the epitome of every... ah, nevermind, I won't even go there.

It's just that, I don't think I've ever seen someone so passionate about a male athelete before. LOL, your devotion to Boris Becker is truly remarkable.

BigboyDan
09-20-2005, 11:29 AM
I don't care about Becker, he's an idiot. He had a great game though, for a while. We'll never know how good Federer is if he keeps playing Majors finals against a washed-up Agassi, or a goober like Roddick, or a wastrel like Hewitt.

deliveryman
09-20-2005, 11:51 AM
We'll never know how good Federer is if he keeps playing Majors finals against a washed-up Agassi, or a goober like Roddick, or a wastrel like Hewitt.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe Federer makes them look that way -- because he's that good?

jtipson
09-20-2005, 12:12 PM
We'll never know how good Federer is if he keeps playing Majors finals against a washed-up Agassi, or a goober like Roddick, or a wastrel like Hewitt.

Better than playing against Martin, Pioline, Ivanisevic and Moya in six of your Grand Slam finals, when none of them had ever won any slams.

Auscon
09-20-2005, 12:53 PM
Fed would win no matter the surface, but they'd be great matches to watch, thats for sure

Puschkin
09-20-2005, 01:07 PM
It's no secret where my sympathy would lie in such an encounter, but an inspired ("booming") Boris Becker indoors certainly would have had his chances. And yeah, what a clash of personalities;)

TheMightyFed
09-20-2005, 01:11 PM
They could have met in Monte-Carlo or Wimbledon in 1999 but their generations really crossed each other...

Jimena
09-20-2005, 01:18 PM
Becker's GAME at its best, had no weaknesses to exploit, Federer best GAME does.

Uh... Boris Becker was the player that made me a tennis fan for life. But I'd have to completely disagree with you here. Becker's movement? Not even nearly the best. Becker's backcourt game? Not the best. Becker's volley's? Not the best? His serve? About the same as Fed. I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.

But hey, to each his own.

ExpectedWinner
09-20-2005, 02:03 PM
I don't care about Becker, he's an idiot. He had a great game though, for a while. We'll never know how good Federer is if he keeps playing Majors finals against a washed-up Agassi, or a goober like Roddick, or a wastrel like Hewitt.

Hewitt was born too late. He'd have done great against McEnroe, Becker,
even Sampras. :devil:

R.Federer
09-20-2005, 03:09 PM
Well, in reality, if no-one can exploit them, they aren't weaknesses. From what teaching pros tell me is that Federer is never exploited with severe-angled shots that a S/Ver would offer; his backhand return of serve would be tested more by a S/Ver; and his great all-court running-around would be negated by a S/Ver who would own the net. Federer is not as quick from the back-to-front as he is from side-to-side and that should be exploitable by someone who can hit a short, hard BH slice to Fed's backhand (you see this now, if infrequently). Agassi showed in the first two sets of the USOpen final that Fed's strokes can be rushed; as a result, his FH really gets wild, and he tries for baseline-winners that are normally considered dubious. And, Fed does get flustered, surprised, and "feel the preasure" the same as everyone else when behind in the score. But, as I said, if no-one can exploit them...

How is it that all the great past players from Macenroe to Lendl to Laver to even the person in question (Becker) says Roger has no apparent weaknesses, but you( BigboyDan) are certain of such weaknesses? One must think that the pros and ex-pros know somewhat more about the game, no?

AgassiFan
09-20-2005, 07:20 PM
Absolutely hilarious. I especialy love the part where BigTroglodyteDan went off the deep Canadian end... LMAO!

Becker couldn't even handle Sampras or Agassi; what chance does he stand against PEAK Federer (who, btw, is not even in his prime yet in terms of backhand and overall level of unflappability) who combines the best of Pete and Andre...?

Those "teaching professionals" wouldn't be donning white coats by any chance?

bandabou
09-20-2005, 07:42 PM
I think Roger at his peak, beats Boris....Roger´s sooo good, it´s hard to see him losing to anybody really.

intikab
09-20-2005, 07:48 PM
Becker's GAME at its best, had no weaknesses to exploit, Federer best GAME does.

You must be joking. You are talking so highly about a guy who lost to PETER DOOHAN in his prime on his favorite surface. He lost 4 finals on his favorite surface. And the first Wim he won, the draw was a joke. The only one USO he won was extremely lucky - match point down vs. Rostagno, for chrissakes.

Neely
09-20-2005, 08:00 PM
Becker would definitely win some matches against Federer and make him struggle, simply alone on the fact that Becker was mentally so incredibly tough in decisive situations and that he would not be afraid of winning or choking like other players who has Federer on the plate, but couldn't eat him at the end. Rather the opposite, Becker grew with the tasks ahead of him. Overall Federer would maybe win two or three matches more. Lets say they play 15 times against each other, maybe small edge for Federer, 9-6 or 8-7. Becker at his best had a more than potent serve, followed up with great volleys and he had an effective and underrated return game (because it never did look spectacular, he didn't need to blast return winner after return winner or need unbelievably beautiful one handed shots like Federer to break, but for the final result counts that Becker found ways to break). Nothing too easy for Federer I would say (except they met on clay). But it's always difficult, and to some point, impossible to compare players from the past to nowadays.

TheMightyFed
09-20-2005, 08:31 PM
One record Becker holds I like is the number of times he's defeated the number 1 seed in a slam: 5 - WM 4, US 1 :worship: :worship:
We need that kind of caliber these days...

sawan66278
09-20-2005, 08:47 PM
To begin...I originally posted this thread under the assumption that Boris wasted a great amount of his talent during his career...He could have achieved much more...as stated above, he suffered many injuries because he was out of shape and his head...well let's just say that his arrogance and stubborn need to prove he could be others at their own game (like Agassi at the baseline---see 1990 U.S. Open semis)...led to many defeats and a failure to tap into his potential...

That being said...let's take Becker as he was...I still believe that his head to head with Roger would be, in 14 matches, would end up being about 7-7...With Boris winning more on indoor and Roger winning more on clay...

Just look at Roger's record against Henman...a LOSING 4-6 record...There is not one aspect of the game that Henman is superior to Boris...Volleys, serve, baseline, power, etc...And Henman has done amazingly well against him...and please don't say that Roger clearly has his number now...He lost to Henman LAST YEAR in STRAIGHT SETS in Rotterdam...

Like Mats said, there are not enough serve and volleyers...because of this, I believe that Roger would truly struggle with Boris...the one man who could stand toe to toe with Sampras at his peak on a fast indoor court... :eek:

alfonsojose
09-20-2005, 08:48 PM
Federer can't make babies in a broom cupboard :p . Boris wins :yeah: :devil:

AgassiFan
09-21-2005, 12:01 AM
That being said...let's take Becker as he was...I still believe that his head to head with Roger would be, in 14 matches, would end up being about 7-7...With Boris winning more on indoor and Roger winning more on clay...



Roger at 26 vs. Boris at 26....

14 matches head-to-head, 10 on hard, 4 on clay...

Fed wins 7 of 10 on hard and all 4 on clay. 11-3... Ok, 10-4 - I am feeling generous today.



Conclusion: wake up

wimbledonfan
09-21-2005, 12:36 AM
A lot of it depends on match ups . I know that Fed has said in the past that he dislikes playing against serve and volleyers because they put a lot of pressure on you to pass them. However , there aren't many classic serve and volleyers left in the game so it's conceivable to win wimbledon by playing a base line game . I don't think Fed would have dominated Boris on grass but he would probably have a slight edge . I also think that Boris Becker would have had a better record against Nadal than Roger would ,simply because Boris always serves and volleys . Nadal stays way too far back on the return of serve game because there aren't any serve and volleyers .

BigboyDan
09-21-2005, 01:11 AM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=69166

intikab
09-21-2005, 02:37 AM
LOL BigBoyDan, that final was closer than it should have been because
(1) 24,000 people giving raucous support to Agassi
(2) Federer not capitalizing on his numerous break point opportunities (4/18), Agassi capitalizing on the few he got (3/6, all break points in 3 games).

Otherwise it would have looked like the MC 2003 final or their QF match at AO this year.

Besides, Agassi at 35 is still a GREAT player. What do you say about Becker getting thrashed by a way-past-it McEnroe on his last legs, and 8 years removed from his last slam ('84) at the '92 Australian Open?

BigboyDan
09-21-2005, 03:33 AM
"Otherwise"

You're dissmissed.

Daniel
09-21-2005, 04:09 AM
Roger :yeah:

Dirk
09-21-2005, 05:00 AM
Boris Becker, at his best, would have mowed the current Federer with his S/V and great defensive backcourt play. What you yunguns' don't get, yet, is that Federer does have weaknesses that are, as of yet, unexploited by his riff-raff competition. The game that will undo Federer WILL be the game that Becker had (even if it was for such a short a time).

Ever take a look at Roger's winner count? You don't get that amount by having a defensive backcourt game.

ExpectedWinner
09-21-2005, 06:27 AM
Becker would definitely win some matches against Federer and make him struggle, simply alone on the fact that Becker was mentally so incredibly tough in decisive situations and that he would not be afraid of winning or choking like other players who has Federer on the plate, but couldn't eat him at the end.


Agassi might think differently. H-H 4-11 with Becker's 3 early wins in 1988-1989

intikab
09-21-2005, 12:30 PM
"Otherwise"

You're dissmissed.

He still won on his opponent's home court, and Agassi is still ranked in the top 10. Defending champion Becker got his ass handed to him by a geriatric McEnroe in his last year on tour. I would have liked to listen to your comments back then.

WyveN
09-21-2005, 12:38 PM
But, as I said, if no-one can exploit them...

if no one can exploit these hypothetical weaknesses, then they are just that - hypothetical.

Roge's done enough spectacular passing shots to make a good case that a serve-volleyer would struggle more against him then a baseliner. But with the lack of serve volleyers we have no way of knowing.

sawan66278
09-21-2005, 02:51 PM
Again...look at Roger's head to head record against Henman...a LOSING 4-6 record...with a loss in straight sets last year...Like I said earlier, Boris was head and shoulder above Henman in every category except maybe mobility...

While I know that this was in Roger's early career, he had an 0-3 record against Rafter, another serve and volleyer...

If you even look at Roger's head to head against Karlovic, while it is 2-0, the scores were:

2004 Gstaad, Clay, R16
Switzerland Clay R16 Federer 6 7 6 3 7 6

2004 Wimbledon, Grass, R16
England Grass R16 Federer 6 3 7 6 7 6

Look at how much difficulty he had with big servers (who come to the net often)...

I'm not saying Roger wouldn't win...I'm just saying...he would most likely split head to head matches with Boris...

TheMightyFed
09-21-2005, 03:16 PM
Again...look at Roger's head to head record against Henman...a LOSING 4-6 record...with a loss in straight sets last year...Like I said earlier, Boris was head and shoulder above Henman in every category except maybe mobility...

While I know that this was in Roger's early career, he had an 0-3 record against Rafter, another serve and volleyer...

If you even look at Roger's head to head against Karlovic, while it is 2-0, the scores were:

2004 Gstaad, Clay, R16
Switzerland Clay R16 Federer 6 7 6 3 7 6

2004 Wimbledon, Grass, R16
England Grass R16 Federer 6 3 7 6 7 6

Look at how much difficulty he had with big servers (who come to the net often)...

I'm not saying Roger wouldn't win...I'm just saying...he would most likely split head to head matches with Boris...
Everybody has tiebreaks with Karlovic, his serves bounces so high you can't reach it... bad example
I think Fed has fabulous passings (see Wimby final) and great returns, so he can handle Serve and volleyers. There is no specific frame of play that really destabilize Federer. I think a talented all rounder like Gasquet will be able to vary enough to beat him, or a freak a la Gasquet with crazy lefty topspin, or some very powerful players that can outpace him and finish at the net, which is quite rare (Safin in a good day). Wait wait... these are the three guys who beat him in 05 ! Incredible...

intikab
09-21-2005, 03:29 PM
Other than Henman, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Agassi were owning Federer as well, and these were not serve-volleyers. What do you make of that? Let's see the last two BIG matches that Fed played with Henman: 6-3, 6-3 in Indian Wells final, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4 USO SF last year. For good measure, he beat Henman 6-4, 6-2 at Miami this year. Henman couldn't even take Fed to a tie-break in the last 3 matches. As you well know, he also has turned around his losing trend (quite spectacularly) agaist Nalby, Hew, & Agassi. Federer used to problems with baseliners & s-vers alike before he became the super champion that he is now.

Also regarding dealing with S-Vers, remember that he beat the greatest S-Ver, Sampras, at W when Sampras was a 4-time defending champion. If not for Fed, Pete could very well have gone to win that W, and equal Borg's record of 5 straight Wimbledons. I also remember people using these kinds of arguments when Fed was about to face Philippoussis in 2003 W final: "He can't just simply block his returns as he did againt Roddick - Philippoussis will be all over the net blah blah blah". Philippoussis served at 70% (!!), and yet was thumped in straight sets. Fed didn't even face a break point against him.
Also, look at the Cincinnati final this year. Roddick was coming off a huge morale-boosting (and 1st win on HC) over Hewitt playing a total S-V game. And Hewitt arguably has the best passing shots and lobs ever. He is one of the best returners off big servers & serve-volleyers (Check out Hewitt's record against S-Vers, it will be an eye-opener). So beating Hewitt playing S-V means you are really doing it well. Meanwhile Fed had just come off a six-week layoff, and was very scratchy until the final. And what happened: Roddick continued his S-V tactics, but Fed amazingly took that incredibly fast serve of Roddick and placed it at Roddick's shoe-laces time and time again. He broke Roddick 4 times in two sets. There is not much anyone can do if returns are coming near your feet everytime. A better volleyer like Edberg would have been able to put more of these low-volleys in play, but it wouldn't have mattered - Fed would have moved to these balls easily and whacked passing shots by the volleyer.

On the flipside, Becker has a 1-10 record against Agassi starting from 1990. Fed has some of Agassi's strengths: returns, taking the ball on the rise, baseline game etc. In addition he has a great serve, huge forehand, movement, transition game, and incredible athleticism. And in big matches, Becker has a poor record against top players other than Lendl. He lost 4/7 Wimbledon finals (Two of his wins were over Curren & Lendl). He was extremely fortunate to get his solitary US Open (squeaking by Rostango by virtue of a lucky net-cord on matchpoint). This kind of record doesn't suggest he can split matches with Federer. If he had the ability to do that, he would have been a top-tier all-time great like Sampras.

Jimena
09-21-2005, 03:29 PM
Again...look at Roger's head to head record against Henman...a LOSING 4-6 record

Yes, but most of Henman's wins happened when Roger wasn't really ROGER yet. After that win in Rotterdam last year, Henman hasn't even won a set (and Henman was playing Roger when Henman was having the best year of his career). You can't realistically use Henman to compare. Nor Karlovic. EVERYONE has problems returning Karlovic's serves.

I loved Becker, but I'm not blind. He never was the player that Roger currently is. I think you might be romanticizing him a bit.

ExpectedWinner
09-21-2005, 03:32 PM
Henman's record doesn't indicate anything.

For example, Haarhius 3-1 against Sampras, and W. Ferreira 6-7 and won 4 straight matches in 1995-1998. It doesn't mean that Sampras had problems with any particular style, it was just a matter of personal match ups.

Federer is a chameleon, he's adjusting to what is coming from the other side. My guess is the rivalry would have been similar to Hewitt's- with Becker winning close matches at the beginning and fairly one- sided matches afterwards.


* But Wywen said it the best (see the post 44).

sawan66278
09-21-2005, 04:04 PM
I think one of the main problems is that everyone is too interested in anoiting the latest (Fed) as the greatest...Now don't get me wrong, I believe Fed is one of the all time greats already...but lets see how he does down the line with some real competition at their peak (i.e. Nadal, Gasquet, etc.)

And I do believe Henman is a good example...Yes, he has beaten him the last three times...but my arguement is that Henman is nowhere near the level of Boris, so if as recently as last year, he beat Roger, Boris would, in my mind, do MUCH better...hence the head to head prediction...

And please, Boris had a great head to head record with a few of the all-time greats:

Edberg: a winning 25-10 record
Lendl: a losing 10-11 record
Wilander: a winning 7-3 record
McEnroe: a winning 8-2 record

I'm not saying that Boris is better than Roger; all I'm saying is that I believe the match-up would be favorable...Would anyone really argue that Boris is better than Lendl? But then look at the head to head record...quite close...

Oh..and I must note, I hope this is a typo..."And Hewitt arguably has the best passing shots and lobs ever" :rolleyes: Insane comment.

jtipson
09-21-2005, 04:17 PM
Oh..and I must note, I hope this is a typo..."And Hewitt arguably has the best passing shots and lobs ever" :rolleyes: Insane comment.

"Ever" might be a bit strong, but Hewitt does have very strong passing shots and excellent offensive lobs: he eats S&V players for breakfast.

intikab
09-21-2005, 04:34 PM
but lets see how he does down the line with some real competition at their peak (i.e. Nadal, Gasquet, etc.).

You sound like anybody Federer beats is not real competition, anybody that beats Federer (including Henman) is real competition. Please apply this logic to Becker as well.

Boris had a great head to head record with a few of the all-time greats:.
I said Becker had a poor record in BIG matches except against Lendl. For proof, see these records:
Edberg: 1-3 in slams
Wilander: 0-3 in slams
McEnroe: 0-1 in slams (straight-set loss at AO when Becker was defending champion)
Sampras: 0-3 in slams
Agassi: 1-4 in slams
That's a combined record of 2-14 in slams.

Oh..and I must note, I hope this is a typo..."And Hewitt arguably has the best passing shots and lobs ever" :rolleyes: Insane comment.
Ok, I will change that to: Hewitt has some of the best passing shots & lobs. Check out his record vs big servers & S-Vers:
Sampras: 5-4
Ivanisevic: 3-0
Krajicek: 1-0
Rafter: 3-1
Henman: 8-0
Philippoussis: 3-1
Dent: 5-1
Combined record of 28-7.

intikab
09-21-2005, 05:12 PM
One more thing ... seeing as how Hewitt has a great record vs S-Vers, shall we extrapolate that and say that he would have beaten guys like Becker, Edberg etc? No, we can't do that.

It's not possible to compare players across eras. We can only see how they did vs. their peers: Facts are that Becker won 6 slams in 10.5 years ('85W to '96 AO), Federer won 6 slams in 2 yrs 2 months ('03 W - '05 USO).

sawan66278
09-21-2005, 05:17 PM
Good point on the "big" matches against the legends, intikab...I didn't realize he had such a poor record against the big guns under those circumstances...Wow...

Anyway, in my opinion, the major competitors of Roger are mediocre when compared to the competition Boris faced...Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, etc. ...I would even argue that Krajicek and Stich were better players than Roddick...Hewitt...in my mind NOWHERE near the calibar of Wilander...

I would say that Safin and Guga are of the talent of the above in some aspects...let's just say that the next few years against Nadal, Gasquet, Monfils, etc....will be good tests for Roger...even Marat if he can put together a great year...

I just feel that Roger would have a tough time against any great serve and volleyers....Like I said before, look at his record against Rafter...0-3...

PaulieM
09-21-2005, 05:22 PM
I think one of the main problems is that everyone is too interested in anoiting the latest (Fed) as the greatest...Now don't get me wrong, I believe Fed is one of the all time greats already...but lets see how he does down the line with some real competition at their peak (i.e. Nadal, Gasquet, etc.)

i love how people pull this crap out when they want to undermine roger's achievements but should one of those players that you don't consider "real competition" beat roger tomorrow you'd hail them as posing a threat, claiming that roger isn't quite as dominant as he appears. not too long ago all these playes were considered good players, the best of their genteration etc. once they start losing consistantly to one guy it's because they aren't "real competition" which one is it or is it just whatever suits the point you're trying to make at the time? federer might not be the greatest but what he's achieved is not about a lack of "real competition".

intikab
09-21-2005, 05:33 PM
sawan, I may have sounded harsh in my criticism of Becker, but I agree with you that he was a great player. Sampras and Agassi REALLY came into the picture after '93. Becker had plenty of time ('85 to '93W) to achieve more success but he squandered a lot of opportunities.

As you noted, he completely dominated Edberg (25-10) but ended up losing 2 out 3 Wimbledon finals (and a FO SF as well. BTW, I was ecstatic about this as I was a HUGE fan of Edberg). This would be like Federer dominating Roddick everywhere but losing 2 W finals. Also, Roddick and Hewitt are not as bad as you make them out to be. They have been consistently reaching the later rounds at slams. Federer is making them look bad by beating them repeatedly. Imagine if Fed, like Becker, lost 2 W finals to Roddick. All of a sudden, Roddick would have 2 W, 1US by the age of 22, and everybody would have looked at him in a different light.

sawan66278
09-21-2005, 07:27 PM
On a side note, what about Roger vs. Edberg? ;)

sawan66278
09-21-2005, 07:35 PM
intikab, I agree Boris wasted a great deal of his talent...which is why originally I was referring to his talent (potential)...not the "resulting product" that was Becker...But let's not forget, he had one of the all-time great comments...about the fifth set not being about tennis... :D :D

Its funny though...why can't people who love Roger just admit that Roddick and Hewitt, his two main competitors, are not of the highest order...one could make positive arguements about every era to a certain extent (ex. that men's depth during the 80's and 90's was not as deep as today's game, etc.)...The point is that while Roger is on one of the most dominant streaks in the history of the game, the dearth of talent of his competitors causes one to question the greatness of his achievements...All I'm saying is that let's not annoit him the king after two or two and half years of superaltive play...

sawan66278
09-21-2005, 11:32 PM
Mac just beat Boris 6-2, 6-3...in seniors competition...There goes my arguement :retard:

deliveryman
09-21-2005, 11:46 PM
No real depth in the mens game?

You do realize the top 6 players in the mens game right now have a combined 20 slams. If that isn't "real" competition, I don't know what is.

BigboyDan
09-22-2005, 01:10 AM
Federer 6
Agassi 8 - never to win another
Nadal 1 - right now clay only, possible hardcourt future
Roddick 1 - never to win another
Hewitt 2 - never to win another
Coria 0 - will never win any
Davydenko 0 - will never win any
Safin 2 - lunk-head, possible future winner
Gaudio 1 - never to win another
Puerta 0 - will never win any

Oh... yeah... lots of competition...

deliveryman
09-22-2005, 01:50 AM
Lol, you say never to win another because, one can only naturally assume that Roger will always beat them. Imagine if Federer didn't exist, Roddick would have 3 slams by now, Lleyton would have a couple more, and Agassi would probably have over 10.

BigboyDan
09-22-2005, 01:54 AM
Dude.

I love Roger's game.

I wish that there were more players like him.

There ain't.

AgassiFan
09-22-2005, 02:06 AM
.On the flipside, Becker has a 1-10 record against Agassi starting from 1990

And the one time he did beat him (1995 Wimbledon Semis), Andre was leading
6-2, 4-1 and BP before going into his signature tank mode and storming off to fuck another model... A more mature Agassi circa 5 years later would have calmly gone on to take Boris in 3 on that day.

0-11

AgassiFan
09-22-2005, 02:28 AM
.The point is that while Roger is on one of the most dominant streaks in the history of the game, the dearth of talent of his competitors causes one to question the greatness of his achievements..


Do you enjoy making stupid comments just to be an "egdy contrarian"?



Safin, Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, Nadal. All very talented, all would have 5-6 more slams in the last 27 months if it weren't for Roger's spectacular emergence.

AgassiFan
09-22-2005, 02:43 AM
Federer 6
Agassi 8 - never to win another
Nadal 1 - right now clay only, possible hardcourt future
Roddick 1 - never to win another
Hewitt 2 - never to win another

Oh... yeah... lots of competition...



Agassi - winner of the last 2 US Opens.... also favorite for 2006 Aussie Open... if Roger didn't exist.

Roddick - winner of last 3 Wimbledons + USO (at tender age of 23)

Hewitt - all of 24; has been playing the kind of tennis that led him to embarass Sampras at USO, in the last 12 months, and contrary to what WyveN thought, is well positioned to win a couple more Slams.