MensTennisForums.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: Will there be another Roger Federer? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
12-08-2011 02:56 AM
mark73
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

I got my first warning 2 weeks ago. I was off topic. Ummmmm where are the mods. Setsampras has no business talking about Sampras in a Federer thread. Every time there is a Federer thread he goes ape over Sampras being better than Federer.
12-02-2011 09:52 PM
perfect-tennis
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

I very much doubt it, Roger is one of a kind. All players coming through the ranks are taught to be baseline pushers and play a grinding style of tennis with the emphasis on having 1 or 2 years at the top, make enough money from that and then job done. Roger was built to stand the test of time.
12-02-2011 09:51 PM
Egreen
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by juan27 View Post
thanks man.

sad for delpo`s defeat against ferrer.

tower of tandil show great tennis and delicius forehands and backhands.

I think that his physicall will stops him for win importanmts titles , but in hardcourt he can beat anybody , in clay with his physicall against ferrer or nadal not , but he is a great clay player the problems is his body in long matches in clay
His best chance will be at the HC slams, of course.
12-02-2011 09:40 PM
juan27
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadmap View Post
juan27 is really turning the screw tonight (or today in Argentina). Great poster
thanks man.

sad for delpo`s defeat against ferrer.

tower of tandil show great tennis and delicius forehands and backhands.

I think that his physicall will stops him for win importanmts titles , but in hardcourt he can beat anybody , in clay with his physicall against ferrer or nadal not , but he is a great clay player the problems is his body in long matches in clay
12-02-2011 09:31 PM
samanosuke
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

SetSampras still running this thread
12-02-2011 09:08 PM
Roadmap
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

juan27 is really turning the screw tonight (or today in Argentina). Great poster
12-02-2011 09:04 PM
Dougie
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by juan27 View Post
edberg and becker pasrt their peaks.

courier burn after 1993.

agassi out of top100

patetic
So it was Sampras who was the real transitional champ!
12-02-2011 08:56 PM
juan27
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SetSampras View Post
No it was a biased, mangled mess of a Fedtard post that I had to dissect and destroy. Posts consisting of slamless mugs who have no business being compared to the greats of the game like Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Courier etc even Brugera or Kafelnikov.

When you start comparing guys like Nalbandian, Blake, Davydenko,Roddick etc.. to these guys.. You're credibility is completely GONE
edberg and becker pasrt their peaks.

courier burn after 1993.

agassi out of top100

patetic
12-02-2011 07:43 PM
Dougie
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SetSampras View Post
What you FAIL to take into account there FedmugFederphilia boy and that you can't seem to get through your little skull, is that that 90 consisted of SPECIALISTS... I repeat moron.... SPECIALISTS.. THerefor guys who accelled generally just on that one surfaces and you would have to run into that person during that time years. On clay, you had to run into Courier, Burugera, Muster Kafelnikoc, Medvedev etc..all the time... From there you run into Goran, Rich, Becker, Edberg, Agassi etc.

Thus a big reason why you didn't see guys getting to finals everywhere. The game was a completely different animal.. NOt like today's homogenized slow surface baseline play, where you have a guy like Murray or Nadal reaching the finals or semis of a French, and following it right up on grass. 100 TIMES easier to do that today with the strict baseline game.. Years ago, damn near impossible. So yes there wasn't that same 1-2 threats all throughout the year under all the homogenized slow conditions but there were specialist threats everywhere. No on was getting free rides.
SetSampras is being slaughtered in this thread, but there is actually some truth to this. It is a bit unfair to compare who Federer played against to who Sampras played, because the game was indeed very different. In the 90´s there were always dangerous clay specialists, who could beat almost anyone at RG, and then fade into mediocrity after that. Same at WImbledon, dangerous, big serving guys who could blast anyone out of the draw and then fade away.
And that´s just the way the game was, you never saw the top 4 make it to almost every SF , there were always surprising results, so it´s a bit unfair to say Sampras had easier draws, it´s just that the draws played out in a different way.
Having said that, Sampras did have some truly bad losses that simply cannot be rationalised.
12-02-2011 07:26 PM
freeandlonely
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

To be honest I mean his style.

And he has 16 GS.
12-02-2011 06:36 PM
mystic ice cube
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

^ You mean your credibility is completely gone. Your delusional to the point where I question if anyone takes you seriously on this board.

Thank you for setting the record straight fed4ever.
12-02-2011 06:07 PM
SetSampras
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

No it was a biased, mangled mess of a Fedtard post that I had to dissect and destroy. Posts consisting of slamless mugs who have no business being compared to the greats of the game like Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Courier etc even Brugera or Kafelnikov.

When you start comparing guys like Nalbandian, Blake, Davydenko,Roddick etc.. to these guys.. You're credibility is completely GONE
12-02-2011 06:01 PM
tennis2tennis
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fed4ever View Post
I'm not sure how you can accuse anyone of being biased and not taking things into context since you're the king of hypocrisy and using selected data. I posted all of Sampras' and Federer's wins and losses from the 6 year period of their prime against top 10 opponents in each of the 4 Slams and provided thei rankings at the time. I didn't cherry pick stats like you always do or throw in names of players he never faced or faced when they were out of the top 10 just to try to artificially impress.

In the 24 grand slams played between 1993-1998, Pete Sampras beat a top 10 ranked player only 16 times. Between 2003-2008, Federer beat a top-10 ranked player 31 times. Who had the easier draws?

You're going to try to make some argument that it's the quality that counts not the quantity, but Sampras only faced Agassi twice in that span going 1-1. Who was Sampras beating to win his Slams? It wasn't Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, Rafter, Rios, Kuerten, Moya, Kafelnikov, Philippoussis, Bruguera. He was 0-5 against these players between '93-'98 when they were in the top 10.

Explain to me how beating Agassi once, Chang twice, Ivanisevic, Kucera, at the US open is more impressive than beating Djokovic twice, Hewitt twice, Roddick twice, Agassi twice, Davydenko twice; Murray; Blake and Henman?

Explain to me how beating Courier, Chang and Muster at the Australian is more impressive than wins over Agassi, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez and Robredo?

Explain to me how 1 win over Courier (on a ridiculously fast sun-baked RG surface where Pete served 28 aces and Courier served 27!) with losses to Schaller, Norman, and Delgado at the French and 1 SF as your best result is more impressive than beating Nalbandian, Robredo, and Davydenko, and making 3 finals only losing to arguably the best clay-courter ever in Nadal.

Explain to me why beating Ivanisevic twice, Becker twice, Courier; Chang and Martin at Wimbledon is much more impressive than beating Roddick 3 times, Nadal twice, Hewitt twice; Ancic?

Explain to me why we should ignore the fact that starting from Wimbledon '93, Federer only lost to Nalbandian (13) at the US, Guga (30) and Nadal (5, 2, 2, 2) at Roland Garros, Safin (4) and Djokovic (3) at the Australian and Nadal (2) at Wimbledon. However, starting from Wimbledon '93, Sampras lost to Yzaga (23) , Korda (16) and Rafter (3) at the US, Philippoussis (40), Kucera (20), Agassi (2) at the Australian; Courier (7), Schaller (24), Kafelnikov (7); Norman (65) and Delgado (97) at the French and Krajicek (13) at Wimbledon.

When looking at the real hard data and not just the imaginary stats in your head, there is nothing that you could possibly say to any rational person that can convince them that Sampras was beating up on tougher competition. As much as you make fun of baby Nadal or baby Djokovic or dismiss the qualities of Hewitt, or Roddick, Murray etc., the fact is they were all in the top 10 at that point and all playing well enough to win had Federer not been around.

Sampras only had 16 wins in 24 tournaments against top 10 players! What is so impressive about that? Keep in mind that as much as you bad mouth Federer's peers, Agassi and Ivanisevic were known as being mental midgets in the 90s, Chang was weaponless, Becker was aging and Courier was burnt out.


Badass response of the year! -
12-02-2011 05:41 PM
juan27
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SetSampras View Post
What you FAIL to take into account there FedmugFederphilia boy and that you can't seem to get through your little skull, is that that 90 consisted of SPECIALISTS... I repeat moron.... SPECIALISTS.. THerefor guys who accelled generally just on that one surfaces and you would have to run into that person during that time years. On clay, you had to run into Courier, Burugera, Muster Kafelnikoc, Medvedev etc..all the time... From there you run into Goran, Rich, Becker, Edberg, Agassi etc.

Thus a big reason why you didn't see guys getting to finals everywhere. The game was a completely different animal.. NOt like today's homogenized slow surface baseline play, where you have a guy like Murray or Nadal reaching the finals or semis of a French, and following it right up on grass. 100 TIMES easier to do that today with the strict baseline game.. Years ago, damn near impossible. So yes there wasn't that same 1-2 threats all throughout the year under all the homogenized slow conditions but there were specialist threats everywhere. No on was getting free rides.




Explain this? Quite simple really.

Beating Agassi on hardcourt>>>> ANY Hewitt. WHos the more accomplished player?/ Whos the bigger threat? Whos the more talented opponent? Whos the legend? Thank you. And defending champ Hewitt at the USO lost to Andre in 2002. He failed to beat even old Agassi.


Agassi are>>>>>>>>>>> Beat ANY fucking A-MUG you want to throw out there. Yea the same A-MUG who was pissed on by Pete at the USO and who Andre has the 5-1 h2h over

Goran>>>>> any A-MUG you want to argue on grass.. I know it and you know it. Roddick with the hardcourt slam... Goran 10 times then grass champion, pointy nose assclown Roddick is.
But yes Im supposed to think Roddick is greater then PROVEN CHAMPIONS.

In fact, the only guy I put Roddick over in your stupid question.. Is Kucera. ROFL Hell you may as well just put slamless clowns like Davy, Blake etc.. on par with Kucera. All slamless. No need to be talked about

Agassi> 15 year old DJokovic at the USO.. Sorry

And forget it. Courier>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANYTHING Fed deal with from the 04-07 time period. I shouldnt have to mention that.. We can compare legacies

Do I really have to argue Pete's rival, to your fucking "Can't win a set in a slam final and continues to let my home country down cause I'm such a mug on the big stage" Mugray.


Becker was edging but he sure as hell was MORE of a threat then he even prime Roddick, Davydenko, Blake etc.. As he was just flatout the more talented legend.
agassi more than 15 years old nole???

that 15 years old nole owns nadull.

"baby" nadal owns agassi in hardcourts.

man , stop to say bullshits without any sense.

accept the reality , federer is better than sampras , even roddick defeated sampras in clay!!
12-02-2011 05:34 PM
SetSampras
Re: Will there be another Roger Federer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fed4ever View Post
I'm not sure how you can accuse anyone of being biased and not taking things into context since you're the king of hypocrisy and using selected data. I posted all of Sampras' and Federer's wins and losses from the 6 year period of their prime against top 10 opponents in each of the 4 Slams and provided thei rankings at the time. I didn't cherry pick stats like you always do or throw in names of players he never faced or faced when they were out of the top 10 just to try to artificially impress.

In the 24 grand slams played between 1993-1998, Pete Sampras beat a top 10 ranked player only 16 times. Between 2003-2008, Federer beat a top-10 ranked player 31 times. Who had the easier draws?

You're going to try to make some argument that it's the quality that counts not the quantity, but Sampras only faced Agassi twice in that span going 1-1. Who was Sampras beating to win his Slams? It wasn't Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, Rafter, Rios, Kuerten, Moya, Kafelnikov, Philippoussis, Bruguera. He was 0-5 against these players between '93-'98 when they were in the top 10.

Roddick is pretty much equal to Chang. Similiar careers, similiar abilities etc.

Explain to me how beating Agassi once, Chang twice, Ivanisevic, Kucera, at the US open is more impressive than beating Djokovic twice, Hewitt twice, Roddick twice, Agassi twice, Davydenko twice; Murray; Blake and Henman?

Explain to me how beating Courier, Chang and Muster at the Australian is more impressive than wins over Agassi, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Gonzalez and Robredo?

Explain to me how 1 win over Courier (on a ridiculously fast sun-baked RG surface where Pete served 28 aces and Courier served 27!) with losses to Schaller, Norman, and Delgado at the French and 1 SF as your best result is more impressive than beating Nalbandian, Robredo, and Davydenko, and making 3 finals only losing to arguably the best clay-courter ever in Nadal.

Explain to me why beating Ivanisevic twice, Becker twice, Courier; Chang and Martin at Wimbledon is much more impressive than beating Roddick 3 times, Nadal twice, Hewitt twice; Ancic?

Explain to me why we should ignore the fact that starting from Wimbledon '93, Federer only lost to Nalbandian (13) at the US, Guga (30) and Nadal (5, 2, 2, 2) at Roland Garros, Safin (4) and Djokovic (3) at the Australian and Nadal (2) at Wimbledon. However, starting from Wimbledon '93, Sampras lost to Yzaga (23) , Korda (16) and Rafter (3) at the US, Philippoussis (40), Kucera (20), Agassi (2) at the Australian; Courier (7), Schaller (24), Kafelnikov (7); Norman (65) and Delgado (97) at the French and Krajicek (13) at Wimbledon.

When looking at the real hard data and not just the imaginary stats in your head, there is nothing that you could possibly say to any rational person that can convince them that Sampras was beating up on tougher competition. As much as you make fun of baby Nadal or baby Djokovic or dismiss the qualities of Hewitt, or Roddick, Murray etc., the fact is they were all in the top 10 at that point and all playing well enough to win had Federer not been around.

Sampras only had 16 wins in 24 tournaments against top 10 players! What is so impressive about that? Keep in mind that as much as you bad mouth Federer's peers, Agassi and Ivanisevic were known as being mental midgets in the 90s, Chang was weaponless, Becker was aging and Courier was burnt out.
What you FAIL to take into account there FedmugFederphilia boy and that you can't seem to get through your little skull, is that that 90 consisted of SPECIALISTS... I repeat moron.... SPECIALISTS.. THerefor guys who accelled generally just on that one surfaces and you would have to run into that person during that time years. On clay, you had to run into Courier, Burugera, Muster Kafelnikoc, Medvedev etc..all the time... From there you run into Goran, Rich, Becker, Edberg, Agassi etc.

Thus a big reason why you didn't see guys getting to finals everywhere. The game was a completely different animal.. NOt like today's homogenized slow surface baseline play, where you have a guy like Murray or Nadal reaching the finals or semis of a French, and following it right up on grass. 100 TIMES easier to do that today with the strict baseline game.. Years ago, damn near impossible. So yes there wasn't that same 1-2 threats all throughout the year under all the homogenized slow conditions but there were specialist threats everywhere. No on was getting free rides.
Quote:

Explain to me how beating Agassi once, Chang twice, Ivanisevic, Kucera, at the US open is more impressive than beating Djokovic twice, Hewitt twice, Roddick twice, Agassi twice, Davydenko twice; Murray; Blake and Henman?


Explain this? Quite simple really.

Beating Agassi on hardcourt>>>> ANY Hewitt. WHos the more accomplished player?/ Whos the bigger threat? Whos the more talented opponent? Whos the legend? Thank you. And defending champ Hewitt at the USO lost to Andre in 2002. He failed to beat even old Agassi.


Agassi are>>>>>>>>>>> Beat ANY fucking A-MUG you want to throw out there. Yea the same A-MUG who was pissed on by Pete at the USO and who Andre has the 5-1 h2h over

Goran>>>>> any A-MUG you want to argue on grass.. I know it and you know it. Roddick with the hardcourt slam... Goran 10 times then grass champion, pointy nose assclown Roddick is.
But yes Im supposed to think Roddick is greater then PROVEN CHAMPIONS.

In fact, the only guy I put Roddick over in your stupid question.. Is Kucera. ROFL Hell you may as well just put slamless clowns like Davy, Blake etc.. on par with Kucera. All slamless. No need to be talked about

Agassi> 15 year old DJokovic at the USO.. Sorry

And forget it. Courier>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANYTHING Fed deal with from the 04-07 time period. I shouldnt have to mention that.. We can compare legacies

Do I really have to argue Pete's rival, to your fucking "Can't win a set in a slam final and continues to let my home country down cause I'm such a mug on the big stage" Mugray.


Rafter in the late 90s was better then Roddick on hardcourts.. And on par with the main threat Roddick on grass during that time period

Becker was aging but he sure as hell was MORE of a threat then he even prime Roddick, Davydenko, Blake etc.. As he was just flatout the more talented legend.

Edberg the same who was still #2 in the early 90s and could beat ANY of Fed's contemporaries on hardcourts
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome