Is The Book On Federer's Career Closed? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is The Book On Federer's Career Closed?

SheepleBuster
02-01-2010, 06:27 AM
So the guy has 16 slams now. He has won on all surfaces. He has beaten the new generation guys in slam finals (most of them anyway). He is going to have that # weeks as No.1. Is he now the best in the history? I am surprised that people still say if maybe but. Murray knows better than anyone how tough it is to win 1 slam let alone 16. And there is no reason Fed can't reach 18 or 20 but does he have to?

doublebackhand
02-01-2010, 06:42 AM
he still wants the Olympic singles gold

CyBorg
02-01-2010, 06:46 AM
Davis Cup. Olympic gold - meh. No history. No one should care.

Sophocles
02-01-2010, 11:20 AM
He needs at least 20 slams plus a Grand Slam plus a Davis Cup plus at least one more year as No. 1 to be indisputably the greatest.

MatchFederer
02-01-2010, 11:55 AM
He needs at least 20 slams plus a Grand Slam plus a Davis Cup plus at least one more year as No. 1 to be indisputably the greatest.

It still wouldn't be undisputed though, would it. Some would say that just about puts him on a par with the achievements of Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall. Just sayin'.

nanoman
02-01-2010, 11:58 AM
He needs to turn back time and beat the likes of Laver, Gonzalez, Borg in their prime.

MariaV
02-01-2010, 11:58 AM
he still wants the Olympic singles gold

And the calendar slam coming this year. :shrug: Maybe Golden Slam a la Steffi Graf in 2012.

Sophocles
02-01-2010, 12:17 PM
It still wouldn't be undisputed though, would it. Some would say that just about puts him on a par with the achievements of Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall. Just sayin'.

True. To get the undisputed title, he'd need 25 slams, 3 Grand Slams, & the Number One ranking for 9 years.

Persimmon
02-01-2010, 12:56 PM
25 slams to beat Margaret Court's record.

paseo
02-01-2010, 01:06 PM
True. To get the undisputed title, he'd need 25 slams, 3 Grand Slams, & the Number One ranking for 9 years.

He'll do this. Easy.

barbadosan
02-01-2010, 01:14 PM
He has to prove he invented tennis ;)

Apemant
02-01-2010, 02:23 PM
He needs at least 20 slams plus a Grand Slam plus a Davis Cup plus at least one more year as No. 1 to be indisputably the greatest.

No, that's not enough, he has to have positive H2H against everyone, including Nadal, Murray and even guys who are retired now. :haha:

As long as he's 0-3 vs. Rafter, he can't be the undisputed GOAT. :shrug: Simple logic. :angel:

SheepleBuster
02-01-2010, 03:02 PM
Maybe if Fed adopts another sport and dominates that as well, then he could be called the greatest. Besides, Roger never played Big Bill Tilden. So how can he be the greatest? In my book, 16 slams is more than enough to have him surpass Rod Laver. Rod Laver's grandslams are so overrated in my opinion. The field, the game, everything is just different now. And Fed has almost pulled it off twice.

R.Federer
02-01-2010, 03:05 PM
Well my own reading is that he is extremely territorial. The thought that all the glory and so on that goes (correctly) with what he's achieved would go to someone else is probably what pisses him off the most. There is probably some truth to the "I love the game", but I think that some of it is also motivated by putting the pretenders in their place.

magnoliaewan
02-01-2010, 03:16 PM
LMAO. This thread is so true. Fed could fly to the moon and the haters will continue to deny.

MatchFederer
02-01-2010, 03:19 PM
LMAO. This thread is so true. Fed could fly to the moon and the haters will continue to deny.

Of course they would. If Federer were able to fly to the moon it would be the most incredulous achievement of all time to our knowledge other than the matter of the universe and the advent of consciousness.

However, it would be unrelated to his tennis achievements.

SheepleBuster
02-01-2010, 03:24 PM
Well, Paul Annacone was saying a year ago that even if Fed wins 15, he would still take like Sampras's 286 weeks as #1 or something over that. These guys are so competitive. Rod Laver probably still thinks he is No. 1. Sampras actually thinks he can beat the top 5 today in a serious match. I guess if Hewitt thinks he can win a slam, then anything is possible. No offense to Hewitt fans of course. He'll be competitive, but winning?

abraxas21
02-01-2010, 03:31 PM
Well, Paul Annacone was saying a year ago that even if Fed wins 15, he would still take like Sampras's 286 weeks as #1 or something over that. These guys are so competitive. Rod Laver probably still thinks he is No. 1. Sampras actually thinks he can beat the top 5 today in a serious match. I guess if Hewitt thinks he can win a slam, then anything is possible. No offense to Hewitt fans of course. He'll be competitive, but winning?

Not Laver and not many others :)

For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game. It’s always good to see him play and win and we are going to see so much more of Federer in the future, he is going to win more grand slam tournaments.
Bjorn Borg, after Federer winning 2009 French Open Final[6]

He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played against some of the great players—the Samprases, Beckers, Connors', Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That, to me, says it all.
John McEnroe, winner of 7 Grand Slams

Oh, I would be honoured to even be compared to Roger. He is such an unbelievable talent, and is capable of anything. Roger could be the greatest tennis player of all time.
Rod Laver, winner of 11 Grand Slams, considered by some the greatest player to ever play the game of tennis.

He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision.
Andre Agassi, at US Open 2005.[27]

[In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger Federer.
Jimmy Connors, winner of 8 Grand Slams.[32]

Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player I have ever seen. He has the capacity to become the greatest in history.
Nick Bollettieri.[37]

I'd like to be in his shoes for one day to know what it feels like to play that way.
Mats Wilander, winner of 7 Grand Slams.[36]

__________________________________________________ _________________________________

But of course, the opinions of some dissatified tennis haters on MTF are clearly more valid and factual than the thoughts of any of those mugs.

Persimmon
02-01-2010, 03:32 PM
Federer will win more slams, unfortunately for his haters.

paseo
02-01-2010, 03:36 PM
Well, Paul Annacone was saying a year ago that even if Fed wins 15, he would still take like Sampras's 286 weeks as #1 or something over that. These guys are so competitive. Rod Laver probably still thinks he is No. 1. Sampras actually thinks he can beat the top 5 today in a serious match. I guess if Hewitt thinks he can win a slam, then anything is possible. No offense to Hewitt fans of course. He'll be competitive, but winning?

Is this for real? :eek:

magnoliaewan
02-01-2010, 03:41 PM
Of course they would. If Federer were able to fly to the moon it would be the most incredulous achievement of all time to our knowledge other than the matter of the universe and the advent of consciousness.

However, it would be unrelated to his tennis achievements.

Okay, you took that too literally.

Basically, it doesn't matter what Fed does: even if he breaks every tennis record and the haters will still deny that he's the greatest. There's basically no point in trying to convince EVERYONE.

Andresito
02-01-2010, 03:59 PM
Mmmhhh, after week 287 maybe we can find another record to break.

MatchFederer
02-01-2010, 04:09 PM
Okay, you took that too literally.

Basically, it doesn't matter what Fed does: even if he breaks every tennis record and the haters will still deny that he's the greatest. There's basically no point in trying to convince EVERYONE.

Lol. Mate, I didn't take it too literally. I was just joking around with my often incredibly dry and obtuse humour. I got your point absolutely. :cool:

Speed of Light
02-01-2010, 04:19 PM
Not yet, it will end on an all time low note with Fraud crying after being dismissed in the first round in olympics 2012 and watching all his record being shattered to pieces by the spanish bull.

SheepleBuster
02-01-2010, 05:03 PM
Is this for real? :eek:

Well. I remember a couple of years ago when Blake was top 10 or was it top 5, Sampras made the comment that he could see himself being very successful against those types of players. Now it's given that even Sampras knows a mug when he sees one, regardless of ranking. But still. Wasn't it Ivanecevic who said this era was crap?

manuel84
02-01-2010, 05:09 PM
blah blah blah

Hatahs don't change, just Roger's Slam count.

SheepleBuster
02-01-2010, 08:20 PM
I think Federer needs a coach if he wants to be GOAT cause everybody else has one

Quadruple Tree
02-01-2010, 08:23 PM
I think Federer needs a coach if he wants to be GOAT cause everybody else has one

He should switch to a two handed backhand, too, and a bigger racquet head so that he doesn't shank so many shots.

king_roger
02-01-2010, 09:50 PM
Not yet, it will end on an all time low note with Fraud crying after being dismissed in the first round in olympics 2012 and watching all his record being shattered to pieces by the spanish bull.

Well, he'll at least be at those Olympics, while Nadal will be at Paralympics :devil:

paseo
02-02-2010, 02:13 AM
Well. I remember a couple of years ago when Blake was top 10 or was it top 5, Sampras made the comment that he could see himself being very successful against those types of players. Now it's given that even Sampras knows a mug when he sees one, regardless of ranking. But still. Wasn't it Ivanecevic who said this era was crap?

:D Poor Blake. He needs more appreciation here.

But, Sampras gotta be dreaming there. I bet Hewitt can still beat him now.
And Ivanisevic? Please, Karlovic has a better serve than Ivanisevic at his prime, and yet Karlovic is seeing his serves get broken many times. Ivanisevic ground game is nonexistent, and his volleys are not that good. I'm sorry, but I don't think Ivanisevic at his prime would even get to top 20 now.

SheepleBuster
02-02-2010, 02:46 AM
He should switch to a two handed backhand, too, and a bigger racquet head so that he doesn't shank so many shots.

If Federer wins 8 straight slams with 1920's racquets while having a bad case of mono, then he is definitely among the best players (maybe not the goat if you feeling what I am saying).

MrChopin
02-02-2010, 04:20 AM
Well, Paul Annacone was saying a year ago that even if Fed wins 15, he would still take like Sampras's 286 weeks as #1 or something over that. These guys are so competitive. Rod Laver probably still thinks he is No. 1. Sampras actually thinks he can beat the top 5 today in a serious match. I guess if Hewitt thinks he can win a slam, then anything is possible. No offense to Hewitt fans of course. He'll be competitive, but winning?

Possibly the funniest thing you've ever posted here. Sampras would be arrogant enough to think he has a chance on today's courts... these days he would require a surface of teflon slicked with grease to take a set from Gulbis.

jcempire
02-02-2010, 05:29 AM
Possibly the funniest thing you've ever posted here. Sampras would be arrogant enough to think he has a chance on today's courts... these days he would require a surface of teflon slicked with grease to take a set from Gulbis.

Who knows

But 40 years old body play against 28 years old Fed .... Which already amazing

Pete is the best ever

Commander Data
02-02-2010, 10:09 AM
tripple bagel Nadal in RG final.

SheepleBuster
02-02-2010, 07:15 PM
Winning the Career Grand Slam without dropping a game. That should do it.

kobulingam
02-02-2010, 07:26 PM
He is now recovering almost 100% from mono so he probably wants a few years to dominate using his full movement. His movement was bad for two years and it put a dent in his career. I could see it in his movement (especially to the right). This made his forehand errorprone. It lingers for a long long time and Im
seeing him now get back all his tools back (but not fully because he
has aged). The back problems are going away because that is usually a
lingering issue from mono. "I feel like my movement has come back. I
think that was already good before, but I'd lost the edge in
2008-2009," he said. http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26663709-23209,00.html
.... its too bad Feds lingering mono period was timed with Nadals
purple redlining patch.

Valdi
02-02-2010, 07:32 PM
If he wanna be tennis legend he should throw the racket when he`s number 1

serveandvolley80
02-02-2010, 07:38 PM
He is not the greatest of all time until he wins a doubles grand slam, playing against the Bryan brothers, except, he gets no partner, he has to play alone.

SheepleBuster
02-03-2010, 03:52 AM
Peter Bodo keeps going off the deep end by seriously claiming that Roger can't be the best ever as older players didn't play AO before. Some by choice I might add. Here is his latest idiotic podcast: http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/podcast.aspx?articleid=4032&zoneid=28

Sorry but it's a bit long.

Arkulari
02-03-2010, 04:10 AM
Bodo :o

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2010/02/my-entry.html

JediFed
02-03-2010, 06:52 AM
He still has 12, and he's tied Borg for consecutive finals at RG, and tied Becker's record of 7 straight at wimbledon, which is better than Borg.

I can see Bodo's argument, but FR in 09 and WIM in 09, clinched that finally for Federer.

He wins another French, he's looking at 8 slams won on natural surfaces, as compared to 11 for Borg. It's possible that Roger could tie him, but I don't think Borg's record will be challenged.

RagingLamb
02-03-2010, 06:59 AM
Well, Paul Annacone was saying a year ago that even if Fed wins 15, he would still take like Sampras's 286 weeks as #1 or something over that. These guys are so competitive. Rod Laver probably still thinks he is No. 1. Sampras actually thinks he can beat the top 5 today in a serious match. I guess if Hewitt thinks he can win a slam, then anything is possible. No offense to Hewitt fans of course. He'll be competitive, but winning?

:lol: he never said that.

He said he thinks if he had to play only 1 best of 3 match against anyone, he could make it competitive. NOT win, just make it competitive.

Mimi
02-03-2010, 07:22 AM
:lol: he never said that.

He said he thinks if he had to play only 1 best of 3 match against anyone, he could make it competitive. NOT win, just make it competitive.

yup, thanks for this clarification, people put words into pete's mouth:rolleyes:

aulus
02-03-2010, 08:07 AM
He still has 12, and he's tied Borg for consecutive finals at RG, and tied Becker's record of 7 straight at wimbledon, which is better than Borg.

I can see Bodo's argument, but FR in 09 and WIM in 09, clinched that finally for Federer.

He wins another French, he's looking at 8 slams won on natural surfaces, as compared to 11 for Borg. It's possible that Roger could tie him, but I don't think Borg's record will be challenged.

Becker did not make 7 straight finals at Wimbledon.

missed finals in '87 (lost to Peter Doohan in the 2nd round), but made finals in '95.

TheMightyFed
02-03-2010, 08:48 AM
One funny trivia is that despite not doing the CYGS, Fed has won more grand Slam matches in one year than any other player, including Laver. In 2006 he won 27 GS matches vs. 26 for Laver in 1969. Laver had to win only 5 matches at the Australian Open to be the champion vs. 7 in other slams.

So Fed is the GOAT, period. ;)

buzz
02-03-2010, 09:58 AM
One funny trivia is that despite not doing the CYGS, Fed has won more grand Slam matches in one year than any other player, including Laver. In 2006 he won 27 GS matches vs. 26 for Laver in 1969. Laver had to win only 5 matches at the Australian Open to be the champion vs. 7 in other slams.

So Fed is the GOAT, period. ;)

:) didn't know that. Butt Roger wouldn't have defeated Rafe if RG was only 5 matches of course. Still you can't compare lavers era with todays

SheepleBuster
02-03-2010, 03:00 PM
:lol: he never said that.

He said he thinks if he had to play only 1 best of 3 match against anyone, he could make it competitive. NOT win, just make it competitive.

That's not true at all. Yes. I heard the story you are talking about but in an interview which was on YouTube the last time I checked, Sampras said he'd have a "good chance" against players today but he would not make "the return" as it was over for him. Sure. Sampras never said he could beat Roger or Nadal, but I am pretty sure he said something about being able to beat mugs like Blake. :devil: I'll post the YouTube video as long as I can figure out how to find it .

Sophocles
02-03-2010, 03:16 PM
Bodo does have a point. The Australian Open was a 2nd-rate slam from say 1976-1982, when Connors, Borg, & McEnroe were all at or near peak, & in that period only Borg played it, & only once. The Grand Slam was a more coveted achievement than the slam record, not least because the holder, Emerson, achieved it only because players good enough to earn a living from the sport were barred from the slams; so in the late seventies the best players would have been motivated to make the trip Down Under only if they'd already won the other 3 slams. On the other hand, the A.O. wasn't THAT 2nd rate. Edmondson, Kriek, & Teacher may not have been worthy slam winners, but Vilas, who won it twice in the late '70s, certainly was. And if you assume Borg would have won it every year from 77-81 to tie Federer, which is highly unlikely given he lost in the quarters in 76 & there were plenty of good grass-courters around, not least Connors & McEnroe, then Connors's chances of winning would have been restricted to 1976 & 1982-4 & McEnroe's to 1982 & 84, meaning they'd have had to split titles even if they both made the final, which Mac didn't when he played in 83. So none of them would have overtaken Federer, & Borg almost certainly wouldn't have equalled him. (Though with Connors, it's worth remembering he also missed the F.O. 1974-77, in his peak years.)

RagingLamb
02-04-2010, 05:30 AM
That's not true at all. Yes. I heard the story you are talking about but in an interview which was on YouTube the last time I checked, Sampras said he'd have a "good chance" against players today but he would not make "the return" as it was over for him. Sure. Sampras never said he could beat Roger or Nadal, but I am pretty sure he said something about being able to beat mugs like Blake. :devil: I'll post the YouTube video as long as I can figure out how to find it .

I will eagerly wait for the video.

phelbyn
02-04-2010, 02:28 PM
He needs at least 20 slams plus a Grand Slam plus a Davis Cup plus at least one more year as No. 1 to be indisputably the greatest.

Geez.... since we're going there, why don't we expect the poor guy to beat Court's record of 24 slams, Graf's record for weeks at #1, Laver's 2 calendar grand slams, etc.

Different feats in different eras are hard to compare. We can only debate it when his career is over. Hopefully everyone can give him the credit that is due for what he's accomplished up to now too.

Sophocles
02-04-2010, 02:52 PM
^ Sure. Note I said "indisputably".

barbadosan
02-04-2010, 04:04 PM
Geez.... since we're going there, why don't we expect the poor guy to beat Court's record of 24 slams, Graf's record for weeks at #1, Laver's 2 calendar grand slams, etc.

Different feats in different eras are hard to compare. We can only debate it when his career is over. Hopefully everyone can give him the credit that is due for what he's accomplished up to now too.

Heh, you don't get it. It's ok for individual players to have one or two milestones to stand on... but not Fed. He has to match ALL the records other players hold separately; at the same time no other individual contender is being asked to match all of Fed's accomplishments as one indivdual.. heck, we aren't even demanding they match a measly 2 of his records along with their own one or two.

It's all a one-way street.

Everko
02-04-2010, 04:06 PM
Closed and bound with rope

barbadosan
02-04-2010, 04:20 PM
Closed and bound with rope

But oh! what a glorious and satisfying read it was :)

Everko
02-04-2010, 04:22 PM
But oh! what a glorious and satisfying read it was :)

If gross arrogance novels interest you then yes.

Sophocles
02-04-2010, 04:23 PM
^ The Egoist by George Meredith is a classic.

SheepleBuster
02-04-2010, 04:35 PM
I hate YouTube. It used to be easy to find videos on it. Sampras return interview used to give me that video. Now it's all randy orton, WWE and crap.

jonas
02-04-2010, 07:41 PM
Bodo does have a point. The Australian Open was a 2nd-rate slam from say 1976-1982, when Connors, Borg, & McEnroe were all at or near peak, & in that period only Borg played it, & only once.

Borg actually played AO only 1973, when he was 17. But almost right. :angel:

BTW, I like how you say it's "highly unlikely" Borg would win AO on grass from 1977 'til 1981, "cause there were plenty of good grass-courters around", when he won Wimby 1976-1980 and made final 1981. :lol:

Of course, it would have been very difficult, but highly unlikely? Not really.

Sophocles
02-04-2010, 10:40 PM
Borg actually played AO only 1973, when he was 17. But almost right. :angel:

BTW, I like how you say it's "highly unlikely" Borg would win AO on grass from 1977 'til 1981, "cause there were plenty of good grass-courters around", when he won Wimby 1976-1980 and made final 1981. :lol:

Of course, it would have been very difficult, but highly unlikely? Not really.

I stand corrected.

Winning Wimbledon 5 years in a row was amazing, but winning Wimbledon AND the Australian Open 5 years in a row? That would be some achievement even for Borg. Remember how many tough matches he had at Wimbledon, where his motivation was very high. McEnroe would probably have got him once or twice at the A.O.

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 10:49 PM
So the guy has 16 slams now. He has won on all surfaces. He has beaten the new generation guys in slam finals (most of them anyway). He is going to have that # weeks as No.1. Is he now the best in the history? I am surprised that people still say if maybe but. Murray knows better than anyone how tough it is to win 1 slam let alone 16. And there is no reason Fed can't reach 18 or 20 but does he have to?

I dont think he 'needs' to but its so much fun for him to keep breaking records so why stop? Plus every record that he breaks will help his GOAT status. There will always be the ones who will find a reason for him not to be the GOAT, but very few if any of those will be objective. Hes career is not over so give the guy a god damn break. He still has much left to achieve.