Mens Tennis Forums banner

Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That?s a really difficult call.

51K views 420 replies 157 participants last post by  redshift 
#1 · (Edited)
Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

An interview with: ROGER FEDERER. (was the 1st place)
Saturday, August 25, 2012


THE MODERATOR: Questions, please.

Q. Both McEnroe and Agassi said in the World Team Tennis match this July that tennis right now at the top, men’s tennis is the toughest ever. Do you think you four guys are the toughest maybe in history in terms of competing against each other and winning events?

ROGER FEDERER: I’d say no, but I don’t know. Just because you look back maybe 15 years, then you have Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and Agassi, I don’t know who else. Those guys weren’t good or what? Do you know what I mean?

You look back, further back, 20 years, and you have the Connors and the Lendls. Those weren’t good either? I mean, I don’t know. So for me I think that’s respectful.

It’s just different times and definitely more athletic, there’s no doubt about that. But then again we don’t play doubles. We don’t play mixed. Maybe we play less matches today because it’s more taxing, but we do play less best‑of‑five set tennis than they used to play. You can’t compare really.

but we have somewhat of a golden era right now. I feel that truly. It’s nice to see Andy making his move at the Olympics, nice to see Novak having an absolutely ridiculous year last year, and then Rafa and myself still being around. It’s definitely good times. Past that you still have great champions as well. It’s very interesting at the top right now, and the depth I think has never been greater than right now. There’s no doubt about that.

But then best ever? The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

http://richtweets.com/2sloc

:clap2:
 
See less See more
#289 · (Edited by Moderator)
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

Perhaps the point is that on average, it shouldn't be possible for a tennis player to be "at his peak" all the time. It shouldn't be possible to be 290+ total weeks at number 1. Just ask Nadal and Joker about being number for more than 200 weeks - not even close. It shouldn't be possible for a player to be number 1 for 237 consecutive weeks in this modern era, or to be in 10 straight slam finals, 23 straight slam semi-finals, 34 straight slam quarter-finals (and counting) and to have 14+ Grand Slams so quickly. Just ask Nadal when he lost in the 2nd round to Rosol or to Soderling in the 4th round.

Every player should have an off day, particularly when it comes to Slams.
 
#292 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

Can you imagine the articles if Roger had said: "Yes, certainly, we are the best ever." The tards and lots of fans would view that as hubris, not a help to RF's sublime public image.

Plus the next question would be, "So you've had the most weeks as Number 1 among the Best Ever Generation, so by logical extension aren't you the Greatest of All Time?" Then there'd be articles about a haughty Fed --- certainly not what the boardrooms of his sponsors want to see.

Besides, most people think he's the GOAT, there is no upside gain for him proclaiming it.

Roger handled the question in the best possible way. He is perfection personified, of course. What did we expect?

:worship::worship::worship:
 
#295 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

When Roger eats the pizza, the door slams shut.
 
#298 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

Roger didn't order dominos, Berdych crashed through the rotting door.
 
#301 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

It is a fiasco. Serena literally wins slams by overpowering her opponents and barely running at all.
 
This post has been deleted
#307 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

if you look at the highest number of matches played against each other by top-players, there are two trios which stand aside for the longevity on top : Fed-Nadal-Djokovic and Connors-McEnroe-Lendl.

Add Murray on one side and Wilander on the other side and you have quattuors which lasted long on top as well.

Lendl-Wilander-Edberg-Becker are a little bit behind.

Connors-Borg-McEnroe was very strong, probably the strongest with Fed-Nadal-Djokovic, but lasted less long.
 
#308 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

Who would be fool enough to believe you are best four.

:haha:
 
#312 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

For a person who worries about arrogant people in general, you spend a big amount of time talking about how other players suck so bad and how humble Federer was despite all evidence that showed Fed's sociopath personality.
 
#313 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

Heya :sobbing: I love you so much
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nole Rules
#314 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

federer wanted to admit that his tennis was the best ever, but he decided to placate sampras, and insult agasssi

even nadal wasn't spared from his verbals, being accused of cheating, one dimensional, too physical for the arrogant swiss

he spent years insulting murray before he got put in his place after being cheeky one time too many
 
#317 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

I'm not usually someone who underrates the past, but I do actually believe that the top-4 we've had since 2008 is the best I've ever seen on such a long period.

In the beginning of the 80s there was McEnroe-Lendl-Connors then Wilander joined them, but it was not really the best period of all those players except 1984 for McEnroe (but he was disappointing in 1982-1983), and overall I think that in the period we've lived in the last 5 years, the top-4 was better.

However, I feel we may reach the end of that big top-4 period soon, as Federer and Nadal might decline, and after that, Djokovic and Murray might feel quite alone considering the absence of youngsters.

I think in the future, tennis fans will cherish the years we've lived in the last 5-6 years.
 
#318 ·
#319 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

http://www.gazzetta.it/sondaggi/vot...sultati&referrerAction=vota&idSondaggio=11545

doesn't mean much, but if you think about it, in a global survey, the results would be similar.
I must say this list looks quite ridiculous. Boxers will balk at seeing Ali 5th, whereas the best boxer ever - Sugar Ray Robinson - is not mentioned. I don't think Basketball aficionados will be impressed with Magic Johnson's inclusion and Michael Jordan's exclusion.

And I really don't think Bruce Lee would be 12th in a global survey....nor Callipatira 13th. Not to mention Ribot 14th, which - if anyone should wonder - is a horse.
 
#320 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

" Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call. "

I can just see the difference what he says what is on his mind and like this when he says something because he has nothing else to say so blurts something like this
 
#321 · (Edited)
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

" Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call. "

I can just see the difference what he says what is on his mind and like this when he says something because he has nothing else to say so blurts something like this
let me correct you a bit here. Roger: "I'm the best ever and I do NOT care abbot the rest 3 fools, they are nobodies comparing to ME, myself and me"

Nadal (if asked the same question): 'Clay is the only legitimate surface, all 4 slams should be played in Paris, no'
Nole; 'my 5 slams are worth more than 17 because I've had to fight that Swiss ballerina and that Clay God moron. quality over quantity'
Mandy: 'I'm just happy that I've managed to join big 3 and be in this conversation'.
Safin| 'who cares about slams, I'm the best looking tennis player ever and I slept with over 25,000 women/drank 1000 litters of vodka, still winning slams, that's all that really matters'
Nalbandian| 'I've eaten more burgers than Fed/Nole and Nadal combined can even imagine, f'uck them all, they are just a bunch of sissies, can't even look at that anorexic/bulimic #1 we have right now ...I'd rather have sex and eat than play tennis, tennis is over so rated'

:p:D:D:D

Merry Christmas everyone. :wavey:
 
#324 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

How many times did top 4 reached semis in the past 5 years? At least 3/4 always there. Old Fed only tells the truth.

Even a replacement number #4 made it .
How many? Well, let's see. Five years, let's include AO 2008, that is 21 slams. Number of SFs:

Federer: 17/21
Nadal: 14/18
Djokovic: 15/21
Murray: 12/21
 
#326 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

This is a weak era.
As opposed to 90's and early 2000's when clowns like Chang were in top 5 and serve bots like Krajicek and Ivanisievic were winning slams :wavey:
 
#327 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

Even with Nadal dropping out - not much changes.

The only era that had similar competition was Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Lendl.

If you look at the time spent in the top 5, Federer still has a ways to go to match Connors. Nadal has a career trajectory similar to Borg, and then you have McEnroe/Lendl for Novak and Murray, respectively.
 
#331 ·
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

I think he means Nadal spoils it for the three of them because clay is not a real surface.
Is that why Noserer cried like a little girl when he won RG?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top