[prima donna]

Let's be serious ... no old man is going to knock Roger off his pedastool (one which he has earned to sit on and reign as the King Of Tennis)

So, which of the youngsters has the game to possibly trouble Roger in the future ?

I'd say, in this particular order:
1). Gasquet
- Beautiful one-handed backhand, just so carefree and loose. Made some shots that I've only seen Roger make (in a losing effort to Ginperi), this guy offers the entire package.
His forehand is high quality.
Backhand is superb.
He has power, precision and is fearless as a lion. His only potential weakness could be, a lack of variety and his serve could use some improvement ... which will come along as his body matures ... he is still quite young and not done growing in height & his shoulders will get a tad wider as well. Most of all, Gasquet is a FAST court player. If he actually had a good serve, we could be looking at a rival for Federer ... ON GRASS & HARD COURTS!
2). Monfils
I think that Gael Monfils is filled with potential and could end up being a combination of Marat Safin / Andy Roddick, Andy Roddick's power, Marat's body, flexibility and strength, also his variety. Monfils' game could use a little maturing, he should add in a few slices and play points more patiently. He stands 10 feet behind the baseline, plays too much like clay points, needs to utilize his strength, step inside the baseline ... take the ball off the rise. The only thing that could get in his way is a lack of mental strength, which showed after Djokovic was able to con him this 1st US Open ... experience teaches all however. The only way to beat Roger is using power and precision, which is what Marat was able to do in Australia ... Monfils has it.
3). Nadal
Nadal is Roger's NEW Nalbandian, i don't see this kid as much trouble ... honestly. Roger played terrible tennis and nearly had him in a 5th set, until being forced to play in the dark ... which was unfair to him ... all excuses aside ... Nadal won "fair and square" , but the gap between Nadal & Fedex is small ... if there is one ... it's to Federer's advantage ... I don't see why many believe Nadal to be so much trouble for Roger ... they've played 1 time when he had heat stroke, another time on an extremely slow surface in Miami and in Paris, where Federer nearly took it to a 5th set even with 60 UFE ... if he cleans up his play and improvises his strategy on clay a tad bit ... possibly improve net play also ... why could he not dominate Nadal ? I just don't see it, I'm sorry. I know everyone wants to create a rival for Roger, but Nadal isn't the one ... he's a young Carlos Moya ... I'd still go with Roger ... ON ANY SURFACE against Nadal.

All of his Top Spin is a tad difficult for Roger to adjust to, but we know our Swiss friend loves a challenge and it's only a short period of time before he begins to dominate their "rivalry"


Realistically speaking, Monfils has the best physical attributes, Gasquet most raw talent, Nadal probably the most mentally strong. It will be interesting to see, but I look forward to Federer V Gasquet in the future for sure ... if you want to take down the King you need to be young & vibrant ... not old and approaching retirement ... no disrespect intended towards Andre.

 

[prima donna]

Interesting point of view. But it won't prevent you to be eaten alive by rafatards on this board. :lol:

Well, for sure. I fully expect that.

However, Nadal is all hype as of right now ... he's only proven himself on Clay, but let's not make this thread about Nadal. He's not a complete and all-around player, his game is defense on clay.

Gasquet, Monfils, Berdych bring forth versatility. Once Roger figures Nadal out, what other options does he really have ? None, offense can adjust, defense can't.

 

[prima donna]

1. Gasquet has a good serve when he is healthy.
2. All youngsters will improve and adjust their games, it is not easy to predict how their matchup with Roger will evolve. For example, Monfils has obvious technical deficiencies on which he can work on, you cannot make the claim at this time that clay will always be his favourite surface.
3. Excuses and justifications for Roger's loses are easy to come, i can add to what you said that during the Berdych match in Athens it was windy, very hot and Roger felt like committing many unforced errors. According to this logic, Roger's recent match in Hamburg shows how their rivalry will evolve in the next 15 years, no need to consider the Athens match.
4. You forgot to mention Berdych alltogether.

I haven't watched enough of Berdych to really say much of anything about him, however, I did include him in the poll. I saw a glimpse of his talent against Agassi, he seems to be really hot or cold ... also lacking in the conditioning area ... took out Nadal also in Cincy, yes ? Quite a game he must have to take out Roger and his new so-called rival. I expect he may pose a bit of trouble in the future, but we shall see how it is handled.

Roger's genius talent can be neutralized with power and cleverness. Safin played a hell of a match in Australia, to this day, I still see flash backs of it and that defeat still haunts me ... almost as much as the between the leg shot Roger attempted on match point. This guy Berdych hits the ball clean and early, his mobility and fitness right now isn't where it should be ... so who knows until then ? The cool thing is, these kids can play on every surface ... this new batch coming out of Europe ... I'm really anticipating what's to come in the next few years ...

Djokovic's game, eh, I don't think can cause many problems. Also, Safin beat him 0-1-0 at the Aussie Open, don't hold your breath against Roger ....

 

[prima donna]

Also, what about Murray? I mean, it's a touch silly to discuss "young players" and leave him and Djokovic out. Even the always nice "other" option would have done.

The poll itself blows. So don't whine that this thread becomes about Rafa, when you asked for :devil:

Murray is a modernized version of Tim Henman, not very strong, plays the percentages & safe tennis. He might be affective if we were still using wooden tennis racquets and ancient equipment. Possibly could have been a factor in the days of Bill Tilden. I mentioned the players that have the physical & mental attributes, as well as games that could trouble Federer. The ability to adjust and adapt. Murray's serve is a tad spotty, his groundies lack pace and the old trick of using your oppositions pace against them is counterproductive against Fedex. He gives you really none.

If I were to mention Murray, that would be as questionable as mentioning Donald Young. It's just a tad silly to me, sounds like rubbish.

 

[prima donna]

If I'm not mistaken, the thread starter already got banned from this place once before...whined about the ban on another board and he's now back in full glory

(am I right or am I right?)

Wow, this is lots of negativity simply because I feel opposed to Nadal's chances against Fedex.

In response to your question:
Thread deleted, maybe a tad inappropriate, implying that Nadal would be dismissed from the U.S Open within the first week.

I've really said or done nothing wrong, I didn't mention a few players in this thread because I didn't think they could trouble Roger ... if you feel different ... then I guess the purpose of the board would be to add your input ...

Berdych has beat big time players.
Monfils has the body and game.
Gasquet has the raw talent.

I just don't want to create hype and build up players that haven't done anything yet, shown any potential or could just end up being disappointments ... otherwise we will be here all day ... I don't care much for Djokovic, but that had little to do with me not including him. More so, the fact that I was not impressed by his game.

 

[prima donna]

Then why put Nadal in the poll as you mentioned he lacks the attributes to trouble Federer?

Well, my personal opinion is contradicted by Federer's losing record (regardless of the conditions) to Nadal, the last time they played Roger lost. Regardless of what I think will occur between these two in the future, the fact remains Nadal has a winning record against Federer for the time being and has thrown off his timing in 2 of their meetings.

I'm obligated to include Nadal, believe me, If I had a choice in the matter I would have left him out. Lots of players give Roger trouble in the first few meetings, only later to be properly dealt with.

 

[prima donna]

I appreciate the sport of tennis for what it is, a sport of the mind and body. Tennis is a game of chess. Strategy is everything. In this modern era, body plays a larger role it seems. I respect all styles of play, no matter how hard on the eye they are. This Gasquet kid is the real deal, he has it all. I watched him play and it's plain scary. I've never been a fan of any particular player, more a fan of their game.

It's not as if I am on any Gasquet, Monfils or Berdych bandwagon. I just state what I see, that's that.

I admire Federer's game much like anyone else, I also admired Bjorn Borg's game, though that was before my time, also admired the game of Rod Laver. Thank God for ESPN Classic and TTC.

I'd just like to set the record straight, has nothing to do with "hating" another player or any of that. I don't even know why Casta felt the need to bring up something that occured weeks ago, it's as if you're looking for trouble. This board has less drama than a few others and normally great tennis discussion. If you wish to take up something with me said on another board, well, post and we shall speak there. I'm not here to ignite a riot.

 

[prima donna]

He thinks that the inclusion of Murray would necessitate the inclusion of Donald Young!

He called Murray a "modernized Tim Henman"!

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!



Dude, who is even talking about Rafa anymore?

HE THINKS MURRAY IS A MODERNIZED TIM HENMAN.

I can't handle it!

Murray is a tad on the frail side, his game isn't very up to date. Quite old-fashioned, has many holes and is attackable. His speed and agility are not there. He doesn't show much "natural" talent or flare. A guy like, well, Andy Roddick could simply dismiss him in 60 minutes with elementary tactics.

JUST HIT THE BALL HARD.

He's too attackable, he's a defensive player, but doesn't have any speed ? I mean, he settles too much for a passive mode of play. I don't quite understand the hype of Murray, I've always seen it of a joke.

I can't get it with Murray.
He's not finesse, because he's not nearly efficient/precise enough. Doesn't show much raw ability.
He's not defensive, he's not fast enough and his body is frail, even if he tried to be on the defensive, may end up with his eye socket hanging out against a player like Safin, Roddick or Monfils. Guys that bang the ball.

So, what gives ? Technician ? Defensive strategy ? Power game ? Tim Henman worked with what little he was given, a 6'1" body on a 160lbs soaking wet frame. Murray is what comes about from years and years of refusing to lose the "country club mentality" of only allowing priviledged/wealthy Brits participate in sports such as Golf & Tennis.

 

[prima donna]

OK, I agree, THAT was a bit silly to compare Henman to Murray.

For sure, they don't have near the same game.

But, same body type, physical abilities and so on. Tim was a great player but could only do so much, he reached a point and he could go no further his physique would not let him.

Murray will be the same way, didn't they used to have him listed at 6'0 + and 150lbs ? Kim Clijsters outweighed him at 5'8" for crying out loud ....

 

[prima donna]

Since I'm what Crazy Canuck would call a Gasquettard, I shall respond to this part of the post.

1) FH is high quality? Sure, it produces winners, but a bunch of UEs as well.
2) Can't disagree about the BH.
3) Fearless as a lion? Hmm...
4) Lack of variety? Hmm...
5) Serve isn't good? You must have only watched his Cincy and USO matches.
6) You neglected to mention his lack of fitness, which has been a great liability.

Unless he improves on some of his weaknesses, I don't think he will beat Jesus Fed in the near future.

At Monte-Carlo, Jesus Fed was off his game, but still made the match tight. And the claycourts weren't watered, of course.

He should do more with slices and spins I mean, as far as the variety is concerned. I feel he does not mix it up against his opponents, which gives them far too many openings and is to blame for his UFE.

Also, his serve is mediocre. I saw him against Fed in MC, and Live in Hamburg. That could use major improvement.

Conditioning seems to be a problem for lots of the young players, probably due to lack of self-discipline off the court. I'm sure this will improve along with his game.

He's one hell of a talent and shot maker, just clean up the game a bit and add to that serve ... variety also ... he will have a pretty game.

 

[prima donna]

a bit :haha:

They have different playing styles and Henman turns into dust, he plays like crap... Murray is on his OWN way...

My Tim Henman comparison was in relation to their frail bodies and not their games. They are not physically gifted, at all. Very non-athletic and slow.

 

[prima donna]

I´m still waiting for an accurate description of any of the players mentioned by the poster who started this thread. I mean, have you ever seen these players playing? I bet no, pay up.

Oh god, is this the way you choose to behave when your favorite is demeaned ? I respect Nadal's accomplishments, but as a fan of Federer's since 2001 am not intimidated at all. He's a small cookie. Seriously, Gasquet has a big game and is majorly intimidating. I think a lot of people misinterpeted what was being said, when I mentioned that Tim Henman and Murray were similiar. I meant their lack of physicality, athletic abilities and so on. Relax, papi chulo!

 

[prima donna]

Nah, you´re on your right of considering Nadal as low as u wish, but, I mean, hehe, Murray description is ridiculous, you haven´t seen Berdych playing if you say he moves bad and, Gasquet´s fh is far from being such a dangerous weapon, it´s too inconsistent by now. I think you haven´t seen much of Djokovic and also Monfils´ description is far from being a good one. My fake descriptions are as accurate as yours, trust me . Any more brilliant theories?

To be truthful, I think you're nitpicking because of the Nadal comments, but very well.

Monfils stands 10 feet behind the baseline, that's exactly how he blew it to Djokovic, whom took advantage and came inside the baseline ... was able to carve up angle after angle. I haven't seen much of the young man (Djokovic), but after what Marat did to him ... the way he did it to him ... hmm ... not concerned. Berdych's movement could use major improvement, especially when you consider his age! Then again, maybe, when playing Agassi anyone gets flat-footed and starts moving terribly. Just wondering, what to do against Federer if your movement and conditioning is that spotty. I think he has a chance, good shot maker and returns with major pace, but spotty game, one minute he's making UFE after UFE. The next he's right back in your face. That's a description from a commentator, are you going to criticize that one as well ?

If you're looking for a fight, because maybe you don't feel you're getting the respect deserved ... talk to James Blake or Berdych, maybe THINGS would be different. The fact remains, I was dead on with Gasquet. He is a young stud and the rest remains the truth. Once Monfils decides to stop camping out behind the baseline and be more aggressive, use his excellent physique he will surpass moonballers / clay courters easily to challenge Roger.

 

[prima donna]

So, your argument is that:

-Monfils plays way behind the baseline because that is how he played against Djokovic.
-Djokovic does not stand a chance in the future against Roger because he was blown of the course by Marat. I created a thread on GM, inspired by your thread, among others, where based on this line of reasoning i prove that the true challenger of Roger is Konstantnos Economidis.
-Berdych does not move well. Are you aware that Berdych has already won against Roger in an event called the 2004 Olympics that was ranked #2 on Roger's goals for 2004?

I'm rating these players at their best and at their worst.

There are just as many positives and negatives for each argument.

Monfils was forced to retreat behind the baseline even more so than normal by Djokovic's play, imagine what Federer

would do if he was reduced to this much desperation. Young or not, nerves or not. Really, he has not showed much

promise against the Top Players, but in fairness hasn't had to play many as of yet. I will give Gael a break, but

Roger is excellent at spotting the smallest flaw in your game.

I did NOT say he was constantly in a dirtball format, but often times retreats to the baseline (10 feet behind it),

reacts defensively and even tries to SLIDE on a hard court.

Murray and Henman are similar in the sense that they are both frail, but even Henman could keep his lunch down.

Pathetic, this Murray guy's body is going to give him some serious problems. He'll probably spend most of his career

injured.

Each game is approached differently, with a different strategy. I'm aware of that, each opponent. Thing is, like a

magic act, Federer can clone himself into just about any player in the world. If you hate net play, bam, Federer is

capable of transforming into Edberg. Any SMALL thing that troubles you, Federer can do. So, it's only fair that if

Andre Agassi left Berdych flat-footed regardless of his 2004 triumph to assume that the next time he plays Federer,

he's going to be MORE than just flat-footed. Right ? Right.

It's as if some people are thinking slow almost, I expected quicker thinking and more common sense.

Berdych is also very big and I'm sure improving his movement would be on a list on his coaches plans, very tall and he runs every bit of it. Sort of like a Sharapova situation going on. Growing into his body.

 

[prima donna]

Wrong, he´s the new McEnroe.



Nice theory. A Swiss youngster was thrashed by Bruguera 5 years ago 6-1 6-1. Many idiots said he wouldn´t ever be a top player. I think you will be able to solve the equation

Yeah and I'm sure, Djokovic is the next Roger Federer. Face it, most youth is 90% hype and never live up to what their so-called "potential"

Do you have any idea how ridiculous this little game that you're playing is ? You can't seem to understand that half of what's been posted about these players is how they react under pressure situations.

Agassi starting moving Berdych around, Berdych was tripping over his feet and nearly cracked his skull. Okay, imagine Federer starts to "move" him around, yeah, that'll go REALLY well ... especially when Roger's at his best.

Berdych was exposed.

Monfils was exposed by Djokovic and the only thing that can save both players is youth, hopefully they'll improve and grow out of these poor habits. It's almost like you don't even seem to understand the confusion between Murray & Henman, it was more so physical abilities and not with regards to their games.

Now, I apologize if I offended you with my remarks regarding Nadal. I'm sorry that I don't see anything but a guy that will earn a living playing Clay Tournaments. I'm really sorry if I think he'll pull a Muster and pretend Wimbledon doesn't exist. I apologize. Whoever said Nadal supporters would try to give it to me was right, these people are seriously getting wound up over nothing. This is like I was attacked for a prediction that the kid would be bounced in the 1st week in NYC, got laughed off the board and even banned for creating the thread. I guess 50 people reported me. Oh well.