|
|
#241
09-09-2007, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: it\'s official
Everyone says Federer doesn't have any rivals, and that he isn't challenged the way Sampras was, etc. This may be true, but don't you also have to consider that maybe Federer is so good, that he just doesn't have anyone who can really challenge him?
I mean, the reason Agassi, Courier, Rafter, etc. challenged Pete was because they were great players, each winning multiple slams. However, with Federer winning so many slams, perhaps he IS THAT MUCH BETTER THAN EVERYONE else. I mean, there are only so many Grand Slams tournaments that players can win, and the fact that Federer is winning every single one of them not on clay courts is remarkable. True, there are matches where his opponents seem to choke away big opportunities, but that is all because of how good they know they have to play against Federer. AND...you never see Federer choking in these big moments. He simply wins, and you can't take that away from him. I'm not saying that he doesn't have the same competition that previous generations have had. I'm just saying you have to consider the fact that he is THE GREATEST OF ALL-TIME, and not just some great tennis player who keeps "running good." 
|
|
#242
09-09-2007, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: it\'s official
i think novak's a great player and has a great future ahead of him. he made what, the semis of the french, wimbeldon and the finals of the us open? He's right now the 2nd best hard court player in the world. He's got a sick serve, a forehand that at least when i watched in the 1st set seemed just as powerful as Feds and a strong backhand. and he's only 20 years old.
Yah, he choked. I think he suddenly realized at 40-love in the 1st set that omg i'm about to take a set from the best tennis player of all time. and he got nervous. I dont think you can really say that he's gonna be a choker his whole career or how big a failure he is- i think that he has just as good a chance as nadal (if not greater) to be the first guy not named federer to win an australian/ wimbeldon or us open.
|
|
#243
09-10-2007, 12:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: it\'s official
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone says Federer doesn't have any rivals, and that he isn't challenged the way Sampras was, etc. This may be true, but don't you also have to consider that maybe Federer is so good, that he just doesn't have anyone who can really challenge him? I mean, the reason Agassi, Courier, Rafter, etc. challenged Pete was because they were great players, each winning multiple slams. However, with Federer winning so many slams, perhaps he IS THAT MUCH BETTER THAN EVERYONE else. I mean, there are only so many Grand Slams tournaments that players can win, and the fact that Federer is winning every single one of them not on clay courts is remarkable. True, there are matches where his opponents seem to choke away big opportunities, but that is all because of how good they know they have to play against Federer. AND...you never see Federer choking in these big moments. He simply wins, and you can't take that away from him. I'm not saying that he doesn't have the same competition that previous generations have had. I'm just saying you have to consider the fact that he is THE GREATEST OF ALL-TIME, and not just some great tennis player who keeps "running good." [/ QUOTE ] It's no doubt to consider that Federer is just so good he basically obliterates the notion of there aren't any other great tennis players in his era. Sampras stated that this era has many good players, but not great ones. You have to look at a solid indicator like Andre who's pretty much played during 3 different eras of tennis. Even though Andre has never beaten RFED, he pushed Rfed to 5 sets during the hurricane 2004 US Open and also had a very competitive first 3 sets at the 2005 US Open. I think a prime Andre can put a dent in one of Rfed's 12 freaking grand slams. Also a B.Becker, Edberg would have as well. You think a Jim Courier would lose his own serve at set point up 40/love? I really think Djokovic wouldn't be good enough to beat say a Pat Rafter or even a Kuerten in their primes. Also I would have to say Rfed runs pretty damn good to not have missed a grandslam in the past 5 years due to injury.
|
|
#244
09-10-2007, 01:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: it\'s official
gump,
"It seems to me the world is on the cusp of catching up to him." I think it's more that most opponents aren't able to push Federer to his limits. He definitely has a lot more than what he showed today.
|
|
#246
09-10-2007, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: **Official 2007 US Open***
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Rfed does seriously run good....everytime I'm watching him, it's like Rfed why do you run so good? I guess if u're sooo mother [censored] good, you make your own luck. He's just lucky to play in an era with a whole bunch of choke jobs. I don't think players like Andre, Jim Courier would give an inch to this guy. But ppl like Fernando Gonzo and Jopkovic have no problems shooting themselves in the foot. [/ QUOTE ] Let's be fair; this was his first grand slam final. Any number of great players have choked on similar occasions. [/ QUOTE ] Well he talks about wanting to be number 1, he should at least execute like one. He's played in some big matches already, even beating Rfed in one. Nothing to take away from Novak, he had a great tournament and for the most part outplayed Federer. I think RFED runs so good that he lives in an era that there aren't any GREAT tennis players. Plenty of Good tennis players, but not great ones. During Pete's career he had to deal with Andre, Courier, Edberg, Becker, even some guys like Pat Rafter, Goran, Guga, and later Safin and Hewitt. Rfed has Nadal. [/ QUOTE ] i'm not so sure i like that logic. yes you can "judge a guy by his enemies" but it also takes a certain level of skill to win 12 grand slams and make 10 consecutive grand slam finals, no matter how "just good" your enemies are. federer makes the game look easy when he's on and has the mental toughness that takes him above and beyond when he is physically outmatched. he has no significant holes in his game. it should also say something when agassi (one of the guys you're using as a base to talk about sampras) talks so highly of federer. knowledgeable tennis commentators/plaers aren't saying "he's possibly the best to ever pick up a racket" just because his competition isn't as good as sampras's was. and just another quick note, i think roddick is quite a bit like rafter and has a very similar game and federer dispatched with the absolute best andy had to offer. it was extremely close, but fed pulled through...just like sampras. and sampras didn't battle with all the greats you mentioned when they were at their absolute best (sampras did battle agassi at his absolute best) just think that in 1 year, it is possible that federer will have won more grand slams by 26 (or 27) than the greatest player before him did in his entire 15-20 year pro career. that would be an absolutely insane accomplishment. Barron
|
|
#247
09-10-2007, 01:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: **Official 2007 US Open***
[ QUOTE ]
tennis seemed more like poker when i watched it today. maybe i'm just playing too much poker [/ QUOTE ] except for the almost zero luck factor involved in tennis.
|
|
#248
09-10-2007, 02:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: **Official 2007 US Open***
[ QUOTE ]
and just another quick note, i think roddick is quite a bit like rafter and has a very similar game [/ QUOTE ] What?
|
|
#249
09-10-2007, 02:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: **Official 2007 US Open***
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] and just another quick note, i think roddick is quite a bit like rafter and has a very similar game [/ QUOTE ] What? [/ QUOTE ] i was about to say the same thing, this basically discredits the rest of his post.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
