PDA

View Full Version : Is Roger Federer the Best Ever? [Merged]



Saj
28th January 2007, 23:55
Well is he better than Borg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe and Sampras?

Or is he just a big fish in a small pond, i.e. the current mens circuit is nowhere near as tough as it was in the past?

nadeem
29th January 2007, 00:33
Saj ppl like mcenroe, laver and many others reckon hes the best ever. He defeated Sampras at his peak at Wimbledon. And let me reassure you ppl like roddick, nadal, safi, hewitt would be a handful in any era. Fact is this guy is so damn good he'd make anyone look mediocre.

Taurus
29th January 2007, 00:43
Can't beat Nadal on clay, so I'd suggest he's not there yet. If he wins at Roland Garros, I'll acknowledge him as the best ever.

Oxy
29th January 2007, 00:49
I'm not so sure - he is GREAT, no doubt about that....but I just think if he had to play the likes of Conners, Borg, Mcenroe and then latterly, Edberg & Lendl - he would have had to share his Gran SLams around a bit.

Federer knows pretty much that he will either face Roddick or Nadal in the final - he eases his way into these finals.

Not so easy if there is a chance of meeting Conners/McEnroe/Borg - as they were constantly battling through the rounds against each other!

karachiite
29th January 2007, 04:07
I'm not so sure - he is GREAT, no doubt about that....but I just think if he had to play the likes of Conners, Borg, Mcenroe and then latterly, Edberg & Lendl - he would have had to share his Gran SLams around a bit.

Federer knows pretty much that he will either face Roddick or Nadal in the final - he eases his way into these finals.

Not so easy if there is a chance of meeting Conners/McEnroe/Borg - as they were constantly battling through the rounds against each other!

You make it sound like Roddick and Nadal are bad players. These 2 would be up there around the top 5 in any era. Apart from Federer, mens tennis is as close as ever. Bit like cricket without Australia.

Oxy
29th January 2007, 05:53
You make it sound like Roddick and Nadal are bad players. These 2 would be up there around the top 5 in any era. Apart from Federer, mens tennis is as close as ever. Bit like cricket without Australia.Not all - despite Roddick dip in form, hes a top player. I'm just saying that when there is only 1 player who can challenge you (like Nadal), then you are most likely to meet him in the final - I mean, how many finals has Federe got into?

The nature of the draws/seedings etc ensure 1 & 2 will only meet in the final!

In previous eras, there would have been more competition from the quarter/semis - and thats why Feder MAY have had to share some of those titles out.

But then - he may have been better than the lot of them. :D

Waseem
29th January 2007, 18:30
Saj ppl like mcenroe, laver and many others reckon hes the best ever. He defeated Sampras at his peak at Wimbledon. And let me reassure you ppl like roddick, nadal, safi, hewitt would be a handful in any era. Fact is this guy is so damn good he'd make anyone look mediocre.

I agree Nadeem, people think that players like Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc aren't that great players but the fact is that Federer makes them look medicore. I think Federer is best ever player and he will prove that by winning French open this year.

Roddick was playing GREAT tennis before facing Federer, he was beating everyone with ease and look what Federer did to him (HUMILIATED). Gonzalez had played unbelieveable tennis before facing Federer, his wins against Hewitt, Blake and Haas were of highest quality but even he couldn't win a set against Federer (although he came close).

Easa
29th January 2007, 19:26
Federer is just too damn good for the rest of the players on the ATP circuit. Thats the sad truth. I'd love to see another Sampras/Federer match though, when Sampras was at his PEAK. Sampras was my favorite player ever.

Toony™®
30th January 2007, 03:06
i saw that sampras match in 2001 when federer beat him and sampras was off form at that instant....he was struggling + it was past his peak. Sampras peaked imho in 1998 and considering Federer lost a round later. Federer was certainly not atthe level of game play today.

Sampras's first and second serve (combined) were better than anyones barring probably ivanesevic.


If i have to form an opinion, Federer would beat sampras and in straight sets except maybe on grass..which may go to 4.


Sampras did have to contend with at their peaks a greater set of alround players,
Rafter

Courier

Chang(for couple of years)

Agassi

Becker

Ivanosevic -

imo opinion the best server ever... he could pull an ace out of nowhere and serve an ace or put in a serve into the body at will.


plus the specialists

on clay such as Brugeuera ,Keurten and Moya.

on grass - Henman and klesser extent Rusedski



Nadal so far looks like a specialist and as admitted that on the other surfaces he is learning

But time wil tell

Roddick has a limited game imo...he has a booming serve but a weka backhand.


The only people who can challenge Federer who have the alround game are

Murray

Nadal

Safin

Ancic

Liubucic

PlanetPakistan
30th January 2007, 03:44
I don't know about Laver or Borg but i can say that Federer is better than Pete..

10 grandslams in 3 and a half years is no joke! Players like Hewitt, Nadal and Roddick are no joke and Federer has totally squashed them(except Nadal who is better on clay)! His record against Roddick is what 13-1 and in most of these matches Roddick has not just lost but been totally embarrassed...same thing with Hewitt!

When Sampras used to play he was simply "better" than the rest but Federer is on a different planet compared to his opponents and IMO these players like Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal are not much worse than Agassi(remember he went through a very rough patch in the mid 90s), Coureir and Chang

CricketBuff
30th January 2007, 03:55
Federer is the greatest ever Tennis player according to most of the experts. He has already won 11 grand slams and probably will finish in the high 20s if he continues and does not get burnt out. Compare this with Pete's all time record of 14 grand slams and you get the picture.

Toony™®
30th January 2007, 04:11
I don't know about Laver or Borg but i can say that Federer is better than Pete..

10 grandslams in 3 and a half years is no joke! Players like Hewitt, Nadal and Roddick are no joke and Federer has totally squashed them(except Nadal who is better on clay)! His record against Roddick is what 13-1 and in most of these matches Roddick has not just lost but been totally embarrassed...same thing with Hewitt!

When Sampras used to play he was simply "better" than the rest but Federer is on a different planet compared to his opponents and IMO these players like Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal are not much worse than Agassi(remember he went through a very rough patch in the mid 90s), Coureir and Chang


he was the yardstick..

Agassi was in awesome form in 1999 and heavy betting was onhim to beat sampras in the final of wimbledon but he lost in straight ssets.

Toony™®
30th January 2007, 04:19
I don't know about Laver or Borg but i can say that Federer is better than Pete..

10 grandslams in 3 and a half years is no joke! Players like Hewitt, Nadal and Roddick are no joke and Federer has totally squashed them(except Nadal who is better on clay)! His record against Roddick is what 13-1 and in most of these matches Roddick has not just lost but been totally embarrassed...same thing with Hewitt!

When Sampras used to play he was simply "better" than the rest but Federer is on a different planet compared to his opponents and IMO these players like Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal are not much worse than Agassi(remember he went through a very rough patch in the mid 90s), Coureir and Chang


he was the yardstick..

same articles written today on federer were written about Sampras.

sampras was at his peak between 93 -98.


Agassi was in awesome form in 1999 and heavy betting was on him to beat sampras in the final of wimbledon but he lost in straight sets.


Hewitt is another chang imo. Roddick's game is comparable to ivanesevic no better.
nadal is agassi but still developing.

I believe federer is better but is overall competition is weaker.

PlanetPakistan
30th January 2007, 06:56
he was the yardstick..

same articles written today on federer were written about Sampras.

sampras was at his peak between 93 -98.

Journalists are always looking for stories so i won't read too much in to that!
I agree that Sampras was in his prime from 93-98....yet he was never able to win 3 grandslams in a year while Federer has already achieved that feat twice (04 and 06). From 93-98(6 years) Sampras won 10 grand slams while Federer has won that many in 3 and a half years. Sampras's greatest tournment was off course Wimbeldon where he won 7 championships....Fed has already won 4 wimbs in a row and would most likely equal or beat Sampras's record of 7 titles!
Sampras's best result at the French open was a trip to the semis in 1996 while Fedrer has already been to the final.



Agassi was in awesome form in 1999 and heavy betting was on him to beat sampras in the final of wimbledon but he lost in straight sets.


Hewitt is another chang imo. Roddick's game is comparable to ivanesevic no better.
nadal is agassi but still developing.

I believe federer is better but is overall competition is weaker.

Roddick was really good in 04 and 05 played yet Fed crushed him in 05 and lost only 1 set in 04...Hewitt was a very solid player in 2004 yet was embarrassed in the 2004 US open final(lost 0-6,6-7,0-6).

Hewitt and Chang are comparable...same with Nadal and Andre but Roddick IMO is a lot better than Ivanesavic who i thought was merely a grass court bully...as a matter of fact Goran never made it to the final of a major other than Wimbeldon!

You might be surprised to know that Pete Sampras is my all-time favorite tennis player but from what i have seen i must say that Federer is quite significantly better and i will be very dissappointed if he doesn't break Pete's record of 14 grandslams!

Genghis
30th January 2007, 10:09
I can only comment on the Chang, Samprass and Agassi's ... And Federer is clearly better than them three. He has a complete game strong forehand, strong backhand, good serve, very few unforced errors. The fact that he has dominated those around him by such a huge margin speaks for itself. He has said he still sees himself playing till the London Olympics in 2012, so I guess he's going to break every record there is. WHAT A CHAMP!!!

OZGOD
30th January 2007, 11:10
Time will tell if he's the best ever. Certainly in the top 3 or 4 in the past 30 years.

Sampras had a pretty good run in the late 90s - I remember the same things being said about him as is being said about Federer now. I do think the competition was tougher then than now.

Toony™®
30th January 2007, 22:23
Journalists are always looking for stories so i won't read too much in to that!
I agree that Sampras was in his prime from 93-98....yet he was never able to win 3 grandslams in a year while Federer has already achieved that feat twice (04 and 06). From 93-98(6 years) Sampras won 10 grand slams while Federer has won that many in 3 and a half years. Sampras's greatest tournment was off course Wimbeldon where he won 7 championships....Fed has already won 4 wimbs in a row and would most likely equal or beat Sampras's record of 7 titles!
Sampras's best result at the French open was a trip to the semis in 1996 while Fedrer has already been to the final.



Roddick was really good in 04 and 05 played yet Fed crushed him in 05 and lost only 1 set in 04...Hewitt was a very solid player in 2004 yet was embarrassed in the 2004 US open final(lost 0-6,6-7,0-6).

Hewitt and Chang are comparable...same with Nadal and Andre but Roddick IMO is a lot better than Ivanesavic who i thought was merely a grass court bully...as a matter of fact Goran never made it to the final of a major other than Wimbeldon!

You might be surprised to know that Pete Sampras is my all-time favorite tennis player but from what i have seen i must say that Federer is quite significantly better and i will be very dissappointed if he doesn't break Pete's record of 14 grandslams!

i have no doubt federer is better... all i am saying federer pool of competition is weaker....

If I had to pick one player who has the game but doen't have the mental strength of federer or nadal is Safin.

That guy is awesome when he is fully fit and in the zone...but sadly his mind is a wreck.

probably an exaggeration about ivanasevic/roddick comparison..true is game is slightly better...roddick is a hardcourt specialist (brought up on it) and has the game for grass because of his serve.

Toony™®
31st January 2007, 17:24
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6316043.stm


However, the American believes that in his prime he could have held his own against the Swiss.

"I don't think one guy would have dominated the other," said Sampras. "I think our games are pretty similar. It would have been a great clash to see us in our prime.

"Roger is doing what I never did; dominate the way he is. He's lost five matches in two years, that's unheard of.

"But I feel like my game is too big to be dominated by someone. When my game was on, my serve was on, I felt I was tough to beat. I felt unbeatable."

PlanetPakistan
1st February 2007, 02:35
I see what Pete is saying! At Wimbeldon in particular all Pete needed was a big serve and a solid volley....however since the courts at Wimbledon really slowed down i feel that Roger would win but if they were to play at the fast courts of the early 90s then Pete would have a better chance!

The Legend
29th May 2008, 16:10
Who you think is better in these two great Tennis players? My vote goes to Feddy;)

Oxy
29th May 2008, 16:46
I still dont think he's the greatest - the last 12 mnths have proven this.

He is actually in decline!

SameerM
29th May 2008, 21:43
FEds wins on past performances.. BUT nadal is catchin up !!

Showman
29th May 2008, 21:56
Nadal has only really proven himself on clay, where he is simply unstoppable. There are better players then him though on grass and other surfaces.

Federer is going through a bad patch right now, I feel that he'll be back. Although with Nadal's form on clay, it'll be tough for him to win the French Open as long as Nadal plays. And Federer should still end up beating Sampras's record.

BD-fan
30th May 2008, 00:41
Federer is the greatest ever Tennis player according to most of the experts. He has already won 11 grand slams and probably will finish in the high 20s if he continues and does not get burnt out. Compare this with Pete's all time record of 14 grand slams and you get the picture.
Hello sir,
I know your comment was made on 2007 but do you still think he can win high 20? What is a high 20? 27+? Would like to know what is your expectation now? low 20s?

BD-fan
30th May 2008, 00:46
Pete beat him just few months back. Enough said. If the old man can do most of the current tennis super stars can't dream of, that speaks the standard of today's game.

Even Agassi in his prime would compete against Federer in ANY surface.

In my book Federer can only be the greatest if he gets the French. Else he will be great but many others will be ahead of him. Pete, Agassi, Rod Levar, Borg are among them.

He ain't Tiger Woods, nor he is MJ, definitely not ALI.

Geordie Ahmed
19th June 2008, 23:40
from bbc.co.uk/sport


Pete Sampras has dismissed suggestions that Roger Federer's four-year dominance of tennis is on the wane.

Seven-times Wimbledon winner Sampras believes Federer remains the man to beat despite the Swiss having won just two minor titles in 2008.

And Sampras has backed Federer to win his sixth consecutive Wimbledon title.

"He's still the guy most likely to win the majors. He's lost a couple but if anything that'll do him some good, it'll get him fired up," said Sampras.

"As great as Roger is he's going to have his losses and his bad days, it's just human nature to go through some lulls.

"The media need a story and something to grab on to, like he's lost his edge. He hasn't lost his edge.

"If he goes through the next few months and he's losing a lot and he doesn't contend for tournaments then maybe, but I don't see that happening."

Federer was thrashed by world number two Rafael Nadal in the French Open final earlier this month, winning just four games.

And Novak Djokovic, who beat Federer in the semi-finals of the Australian Open in January on his way to the title, says the Swiss is vulnerable.

He said: "Federer is still the number one in the world, but suddenly he feels a little bit shaken up because of a couple of losses.

"It's normal to have ups and downs after four years of absolute dominance.

"New names are coming, talented players who believe they can beat him and I am one of them. Suddenly he is a little bit worried."

Sampras, though, remains convinced that he will lose his record of 14 career Grand Slam titles to Federer.

And the American former world number one says he wants to be present when it happens - ideally at Wimbledon, a place he has not returned to since he retired.

Sampras will make his first return to London since Wimbledon 2002 when he plays in the BlackRock Masters Tennis at the Royal Albert Hall in December.

"If I were to step back on that court at Wimbledon it would bring up a lot of emotion, just because of what the place meant to me and how big it was to the sport of tennis," said the American, who makes his debut on the BlackRock Tour of Champions in Sao Paulo on Thursday.

"As much as I'm a full-blooded American and I love the US Open, there's just a certain romance that I've always had with Wimbledon.

"I didn't always express it with words but I think internally I just felt a great connection with the place, the court and the arena.

"I felt like that was what tennis was all about for me and I look forward to going back and enjoying that experience."

Geordie Ahmed
19th June 2008, 23:45
Pete beat him just few months back. Enough said. If the old man can do most of the current tennis super stars can't dream of, that speaks the standard of today's game.

Even Agassi in his prime would compete against Federer in ANY surface.

In my book Federer can only be the greatest if he gets the French. Else he will be great but many others will be ahead of him. Pete, Agassi, Rod Levar, Borg are among them.

He ain't Tiger Woods, nor he is MJ, definitely not ALI.

BUT Sampras didnt win the French either if i am not mistaken so wudnt you hold that against him aswell

12thMan
20th June 2008, 00:55
BUT Sampras didnt win the French either if i am not mistaken so wudnt you hold that against him aswellYes Sampras didn't win the French. There are very few players who have won all four majors - Aggasi won all four but people will not put him as the greatest

BD-fan
20th June 2008, 02:29
BUT Sampras didnt win the French either if i am not mistaken so wudnt you hold that against him aswell
Yes sir!! Most certainly. I have never mentioned Sampras is the greatest even though I became a huge fan of his after moving to US.

By the way, the pole do not match with the title of this thread. between Nadal and Federer obviously at this point Federer is way ahead. So ahead that Nadal can not catch him. How ever, with out the french Federer can not be the greatest. He will only get ahead of Pete once he wins the #15.

PlanetPakistan
20th June 2008, 03:07
then who do you think is the greatest?

octavian
20th June 2008, 03:08
you know that Nadal leads Federer in head to head 11 - 6 i htink ?

Geordie Ahmed
20th June 2008, 03:31
you know that Nadal leads Federer in head to head 11 - 6 i htink ?

I think your right it is 11-6 in Nadals favour BUT i think majority of those matches have been on Clay

Geordie Ahmed
20th June 2008, 03:34
Just checked and 10 of those 16 matches have been on Clay

2 on grass

2 indoor cement

3 on cement

12thMan
20th June 2008, 06:31
The thing is that you can compare players by looking at the number of majors. The other thing is to see the competition and the majors.

Many of us have seen Sampras in last 15 years probably. And we have seen his competition - Aggasi, Rafter, Kafelnikoff (spelling), Isaniciv (spelling), The Russiun guy (who some were rooting for who creamed Sampras in US open 5-6 years ago), there was another Russian or Easter European guy before who did good on clay had baldish hair etc.The competition was a lot higher before then now and there are cycles. If one or two of the russian guy were still playing or Aggassi then Nadal will have big competition on clay

PlanetPakistan
20th June 2008, 06:45
The thing is that you can compare players by looking at the number of majors. The other thing is to see the competition and the majors.

Many of us have seen Sampras in last 15 years probably. And we have seen his competition - Aggasi, Rafter, Kafelnikoff (spelling), Isaniciv (spelling), The Russiun guy (who some were rooting for who creamed Sampras in US open 5-6 years ago), there was another Russian or Easter European guy before who did good on clay had baldish hair etc.The competition was a lot higher before then now and there are cycles. If one or two of the russian guy were still playing or Aggassi then Nadal will have big competition on clay
thanks because you totally butchered his name :))

















but i don't want to spell it either

Xoib
20th June 2008, 21:42
thanks because you totally butchered his name :))















but i don't want to spell it either


Ivanasevic?

Geordie Ahmed
20th June 2008, 21:53
12th man that has probably got to be the worst attempt i have seen of someone spelling Ivanisevic's name :P

Taurus
20th June 2008, 22:01
Nadal is in no way comparable to Federer. Federer has won everything bar the French Open. Nadal has won nothing bar the French Open. I like Nadal, and think he'll win a few more Grand Slams in his career, but I don't think he'll ever have as profound an effect on the game of tennis as Roger Federer has done.

12thMan
20th June 2008, 22:12
I messed it up a bit but I tried hard (without looking on net) to type it right. I even made a correction to his name right after posting it :)

lahori
22nd June 2008, 11:04
I have to say that Sampras in his peak > Federer. When Sampras was in the zone there was no one who could break his serve, the only opportunity was to beat him in tie break and even in those it was tough to get a mini break.

PlanetPakistan
22nd June 2008, 19:48
Goran Ivanisevic was the 2nd best grass court player of the Sampras era. He made 4 wimbledon finals where he lost in 1992,94 and 98(twice to pete) before finally winning one in 2001. Even though was very good but IMO Andy Roddick of 2004-05 was a better grass court player than Goran had ever been so for Roger to thrash Roddick in 05 tells me that Roger at his PEAK was slightly higher than Sampras at his peak.

Xoib
23rd June 2008, 15:56
I am surprised Rafter never won at Wimbledon his game was ideal suited for grass court tennis.

lahori
24th June 2008, 08:31
Goran Ivanisevic was the 2nd best grass court player of the Sampras era. He made 4 wimbledon finals where he lost in 1992,94 and 98(twice to pete) before finally winning one in 2001. Even though was very good but IMO Andy Roddick of 2004-05 was a better grass court player than Goran had ever been so for Roger to thrash Roddick in 05 tells me that Roger at his PEAK was slightly higher than Sampras at his peak.

I disagree that Roddick was > Goran.

Goran beat 4 very dangerous players on his way to Wimbledon victory in 2001. This included Roddick, Safin, Henman and finally Rafter. His only real hurdle throughout his career was Sampras who stood in his way twice, had it not been for him Goran would have been 3 time winner. That plus he was my favorite since I'm lefty just like him :)

PlanetPakistan
24th June 2008, 20:58
I was a big fan of Goran too but other than serve and volley i thought his gam was significantly inferior than Roddick of 04-05 who was on a high after the winning the US open in 03

BD-fan
24th June 2008, 22:24
You don't need peak Sampras to beat Federer. An Old retired one already did. straight sets :)

As for the best ever: Rod Laver 1962 and 1969 Grand slam winner.
Roy Emerson also won Career grand slam. 6 Aus, 2 each Wimbledon, US, and French.

They are the complete Tennis player. Had one came in a different era each would have won over 20 Grand slams.

Jimmy Conners had won 109 singles title.

Agassi won a career grand slam too.

Pete still ahead of Fed with 14.

PlanetPakistan
24th June 2008, 23:30
You don't need peak Sampras to beat Federer. An Old retired one already did. straight sets :)

As for the best ever: Rod Laver 1962 and 1969 Grand slam winner.
Roy Emerson also won Career grand slam. 6 Aus, 2 each Wimbledon, US, and French.

They are the complete Tennis player. Had one came in a different era each would have won over 20 Grand slams.

Jimmy Conners had won 109 singles title.

Agassi won a career grand slam too.

Pete still ahead of Fed with 14.
I hope you are NOT saying the following

Agassi>Pete

BD-fan
26th June 2008, 23:40
I hope you are NOT saying the following

Agassi>Pete
Overall, judging all surface Agassi is complete tennis player. Pete is one of my hero's how can he be below agassi? :) I didn't like the flaired flasy Agassi. I like the more humbled taklu agassi.

Showman
7th July 2008, 01:49
Nadal has just dethroned Federer at Wimbledon on grass. Does this mean, that the best player in the world is now Nadal?

12thMan
7th July 2008, 01:50
No way. nadal is not close. There are too many before him like Sampras, Aggasi etc

lahori
7th July 2008, 01:50
Nadal has just dethroned Federer at Wimbledon on grass. Does this mean, that the best player in the world is now Nadal?

If he can win as many grand slams as Roger. sure

Showman
7th July 2008, 01:52
I don't mean all-time. All-time, ofcourse Federer is much farther than Nadal.

But the best player, right now? Can we still call Federer than best right now?

Geordie Ahmed
7th July 2008, 02:05
Right this moment Nadal is the best - has won 2 grand slams so has the edge BUT Federer i would say is still the best player in the world - altho Nadal not far off

James
7th July 2008, 02:43
Nadal has two slams after this and I think looked like the better player today. He has the strengths of any high-quality all round player but his forehand raises him another level or two, which maybe is Federer's level.
let's face it the match however memorable was a story of Federer hanging on by a thread for many hours and throwing the kitchen sink at Nadal, until he finally succumbed. Not forgetting Nadal's beating of Federer at the French Open this year, when it stopped being about clay being Federer's weaker surface, and was more just a mauling. Is Nadal better than Federer? no way, Federer is still the king and there are a lot more matches like this to come if he is to be dethroned. But I feel that both men will go to bed tonight feeling that Nadal has the edge at the moment.

Geordie Ahmed
7th July 2008, 02:47
Nadal has two slams after this and I think looked like the better player today. He has the strengths of any high-quality all round player but his forehand raises him another level or two, which maybe is Federer's level.
let's face it the match however memorable was a story of Federer hanging on by a thread for many hours and throwing the kitchen sink at Nadal, until he finally succumbed. Not forgetting Nadal's beating of Federer at the French Open this year, when it stopped being about clay being Federer's weaker surface, and was more just a mauling. Is Nadal better than Federer? no way, Federer is still the king and there are a lot more matches like this to come if he is to be dethroned. But I feel that both men will go to bed tonight feeling that Nadal has the edge at the moment.

Good post - i agree with you, Nadal was definately the better player today BUT Federer was stubborn and was hanging on there - Federer made way too many errors

I think a break from Tennis will do him good (after the US Open ofcourse)

James
7th July 2008, 02:56
I dont look at the stats but I think Federer had a few double faults, and what felt like a noticeable amount of unforced errors from the baseline, which is very unusual for him. The fact he lost to a net is probably the fitting climax- the standard he played today would still have beaten most players, but making so many errors wasn't quite good enough to beat an in-form Nadal.

I said before the game to one of the guys I watched it with, it feels like Nadal's trophy because he has gone through wimbledon this year making good players look poor, whereas Federer has walked it as he has been taking advantage of some crap performances, particularly from Safin. Nadal was always going to be that little bit more on his toes IMO.

You are right, if he can iron out these errors after a break from slams, Federer is the man to beat again. I would be very surprised if Nadal won on the US hard courts mind you, so goes to show I don't think he is the best, personally. just playing the best at the moment.

Oxy
7th July 2008, 04:57
Interesting stat.

Federer made 65 unforced errors in all his matches this Wimbeldon (before the final)

In the final alone he made 45 unforced errors.

12thMan
7th July 2008, 05:13
Interesting stat.

Federer made 65 unforced errors in all his matches this Wimbeldon (before the final)

In the final alone he made 45 unforced errors.my chinese commentary was not telling me this but he was making a lot of errors

Oxy
7th July 2008, 05:17
my chinese commentary was not telling me this but he was making a lot of errors

Unforced?

12thMan
7th July 2008, 05:33
well I will call them unforced but Ching Lu might have said "ayee yo mama" so I can't tell.

Showman
22nd July 2008, 03:13
Federer ranked No. 1 but Becker says Nadal is world's top male tennis player

TORONTO — Roger Federer has the world No. 1 ranking but there's no doubt in Boris Becker's mind who's the best player in men's tennis.

That distinction, Becker contends, belongs to Spain's Rafael Nadal, who is ranked second behind Federer despite having beaten the Swiss star in both the French Open and Wimbledon finals this year.

"Obviously in the world rankings there is still a No. 1 called Federer," Becker said Monday during a news conference at the Rogers Cup. "But I think if you talk to anybody in the world of tennis who is considered for now the No. 1 player in the world, it's the winner of the French Open and Wimbledon.

"I think there's a change in the position at the moment."

Becker, 40, was in town for two reasons. First, he was scheduled to face Toronto's Daniel Nestor in an exhibition match Monday evening, after which he was to be formally inducted into the Rogers Cup Hall of Fame.

"I'm very very proud and honoured," Becker said. "It's one of the biggest tournaments in the world.

"Hopefully I'm able to hit a decent backhand and a good serve but it's not about the result (against Nestor)."

Nadal and Federer combined to make plenty of decent backhands and serves in this year's men's final at Wimbledon. Nadal captured the grass tournament's championship with an epic five-set rain-interrupted thriller against Nadal that required more than four hours to complete. Many tennis pundits have called the match the best-ever in the men's game.

Nadal, 22, became the first player since Bjorn Borg in 1980 to win the French Open and Wimbledon titles back-to-back.

Becker says while Federer remains one of the sport's elite players, Nadal has simply overtaken the Swiss star.

"I think it's a case where Nadal has just improved to a level that nobody expected," he said. "Federer is playing as good as always.

"But you can only give credit to Nadal for really raising his game to another level and winning."

Becker believes tennis needs rivalries like that of Federer and Nadal.

"Tennis needs players that bring out the best in each other," he said. "Tennis is in a good place right now having Federer and Nadal really at the very top of their careers.

"Whoever saw the Wimbledon final, I was just amazed at the quality of play from both players."

Becker appeared in three Rogers Cup events. He captured the title the first time he came to Canada in 1986 before reaching the semifinal the following year. He remains the only German man to have won Canada's biggest tennis tournament.

Becker enjoyed a brilliant 15-year career before retiring in 1999. He captured six Grand Slam singles titles (three at Wimbledon, two Australian Open titles and the U.S. Open), Olympic doubles gold at the '92 Barcelona Games, and two year-end ATP Tour World Championship crowns. In 1985 he became the youngest-ever Wimbledon winner at age 17, a record that still stands.

Overall, Becker captured 49 singles titles and 15 doubles crowns. He reached the World No. 1 ranking in 1991 and in '03 was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame.

And when Becker retired, he stopped playing tennis cold turkey.

"I didn't pick up a racket for two and a half years after I stopped," he said. "That's always difficult when you stop something you love so much and been doing for so long.

"Today, I probably enjoy tennis more because it's my hobby. I don't play every day anymore but I have some exhibitions and some senior tournaments so I do enjoy it a lot."

Becker's athleticism and never-die attitude on the court always made him a fan favourite wherever he went. Fans always admired his tenacity and the reckless abandon he often displayed in diving to reach volleys.

But Becker also made headlines off the court.

In 1993, he married Barbara Feltus, an actress and designer, and the couple had two children. Before the marriage, Becker and Feltus posed nude for the cover of Stern, with the photo being taken by Feltus' father.

However, the couple endured a very messy divorce in January 2001, with the pre-trial hearing broadcast live in Germany. Becker was granted a divorce Jan. 15, 2001 after reaching a US$14.4-million settlement and custody of Noah and Elias.

The following month, Becker admitted fathering a daughter, Anna, with Angela Ermakova in '99. He originally denied paternity but made the admission following a DNA test.

In 2002, Becker was convicted of tax evasion after admitting he lived in Germany from '91 to '93 while saying he resided in Monte Carlo. He was fined $500,000, put on two years probation and ordered to pay all court costs.

"You don't to be in the paper every day or on television every day," Becker said. "Germany doesn't have many other good tennis players or good sports stars so naturally I was in the spotlight."

As for this year's Roger's Cup, Becker expects Federer and Nadal to be the players to beat.

"Well, everybody playing is supposed to play here," he said. "Obviously our focus will be on Roger and Rafa and how they recover from the Wimbledon final.

"It will be exciting how both men recover and how others will come close and challenge them."


Link (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5cDyp4XvL7UZ-5_enfxcDFPJgng)

PlanetPakistan
22nd July 2008, 07:09
Becker is spot on. Nadal has won 2 out of the 3 grandslams this year while Fed has none and thats enough for me to call Nadal the best in the world.

freelance_cricketer
26th November 2011, 21:54
Beat Nadal and Ferrer to reach the final of the ATP world Tour @ O2 Arena, London :14: :)

To face to winner of match between Tsonga and Berdych in final.

SempreSami
27th November 2011, 00:18
Oh I do hope he wins this *** so everyone fawns over him some more.

So I can laugh when he fails to win another Grand Slam tournament next year.

Gigii
27th November 2011, 00:30
Oh I do hope he wins this *** so everyone fawns over him some more.

So I can laugh when he fails to win another Grand Slam tournament next year.

Why would you laugh? Fed isn't getting any younger and is competing (and beating) two players that will surely rank as two of the best ever. No doubt that this is the greatest era of men's tennis. Federer and Nadal have already booked their place in tennis history and after the season Djoko has just had, whatever he does else in his career, will rank him amongst the best.

I think Fed will win another few Grand Slams before his retirement. Whether he gets to 20, I doubt it though.

SempreSami
27th November 2011, 00:50
Greatest era? Before Nadal emerged, the only person who had the tools to match Federer was Safin, but then had a knee injury which seriously hindered his movement.

It amuses me when he loses because I'm sick of his smug face and fawning by every casual tennis fan ever. Plus his post match comments at the US Open after Djokovic beat him were utterly classless.

Gigii
27th November 2011, 18:48
You don't come across as bitter at all...

freelance_cricketer
27th November 2011, 20:32
Tsonga won the other semi final.

Federer v Tsonga in the final now :)
Should be a great contest.

chaiwala
27th November 2011, 22:30
I think Nadal will surpass Federer by the end of his career. Aged 25, and already has 10 grand slams. Not to mention, he has a head-to-head record of 17-8 against Federer.

gameovais
28th November 2011, 02:23
What a sore loser Federer is. His post match comments when he lost to Novak in the US Open were nothing short of pathetic.

Instead of being magnamonious in defeat like everyone else in the game, he was a bitter little cow.

You know what Federer said? Novak was lucky to beat him. Oh really Roger? Was Novak lucky to win 3 sets? You might get lucky winning one or two points during the course of a 4 hour game, but not 3 sets.

Great player Federer is, but unfortunately I will always remember him for these petty and pathetic comments he made after the US Open defeat.

gameovais
28th November 2011, 02:27
I think Nadal will surpass Federer by the end of his career. Aged 25, and already has 10 grand slams. Not to mention, he has a head-to-head record of 17-8 against Federer.

Nadal has done an outstanding job, but is he losing his touch lately? Against the big boys he's come in for a serious hiding lately. It seems that a lot of the players especially Novak are currently playing with 10% more power than Rafa. Even though he still seems to have the same level of athleticism, but but I get the feeling Rafa is stunned by the sudden increase in the power hitting from the baseline by guys like Novak and Tsonga.

I hope Rafa does get up a level, I don't think he's dropped, I just think the others have gone up a notch. I mean if Rafa played the same level of tennis as he did in the US Open final vs Novak against anyone else in any other time period, he'd have won, but such was the agility and power on display from Novak that everything Rafa threw at him, he just kept blasting it back.

kingusama92
28th November 2011, 02:36
What a sore loser Federer is. His post match comments when he lost to Novak in the US Open were nothing short of pathetic.

Instead of being magnamonious in defeat like everyone else in the game, he was a bitter little cow.

You know what Federer said? Novak was lucky to beat him. Oh really Roger? Was Novak lucky to win 3 sets? You might get lucky winning one or two points during the course of a 4 hour game, but not 3 sets.

Great player Federer is, but unfortunately I will always remember him for these petty and pathetic comments he made after the US Open defeat.

He was frustrated.

Federer is one of the classiest athletes across all sports. During his peak, he was the most humble champion around.

Everyone slips up. Very unfair to hold that against him.

gameovais
28th November 2011, 02:55
He was frustrated.

Federer is one of the classiest athletes across all sports. During his peak, he was the most humble champion around.

Everyone slips up. Very unfair to hold that against him.

No I don't think he's very humble at all. I've heard 2 other post match conferences from previous slams and he wasn't exactly acknowledging Nadal outplaying him.

I think it's because he's so used to winning and being the front runner and leading player in the sport than when the rare defeats (recently more regularly) dp come along, he can't handle them.

Like I said great player, but I will always remember him for those US Open SF post match comments .

Fireworks11
29th November 2011, 03:45
Say what you want about Roger but he's on another planet. Yeah he has a bit of stylish swagger (Nadal is more humble) but he's a true gentleman. Success ignites pride, it's how you deal with fame that matters. Everyone is different.

Just won the ATP World Tour Finals. That's another $1m thank you very much. Life.

freelance_cricketer
29th November 2011, 16:44
Keep your comments haters, FEDERER beats TSONGA in the final !

Late to inform as i was busy in other stuff. Well played Roger :14:





Federer sets tournament record by winning 100th final

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/111127084602-federer-triumph-story-top.jpg

CNN) -- Roger Federer fended off an audacious comeback by Jo-Wilfried Tsonga to win the ATP World Tour Finals for a record sixth time in London Sunday.

A pumped up Federer wrapped up a 6-3 7-6 6-3 victory over Tsonga in his 100th career final to end 2011 on a conspicuous high note.

Consecutive titles in Basel, Paris, where he also beat Tsonga in the final, and at the season-ending championships have seen the Swiss maestro reclaim the No.3 spot in the world from Britain's Andy Murray.

But he had to withstand a mid-match onslaught from his French opponent, who broke Federer as he served for the match at a set and 5-4 to the good.

Tsonga also saved a match point in the second set tiebreaker before leveling at one set all.

But as in the first set, Federer broke Tsonga again in the eighth game of the decider and made no mistake when he served for the championship for the second time.
I couldn't be more happy my season ends this way. I'm exhausted, Jo sapped every last energy out of me today
Roger Federer

"I couldn't be more happy my season ends this way. I'm exhausted, Jo sapped every last energy out of me today," Federer said.

His triumph lifted the Swiss maestro out of a tie with Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras for titles at the ATP's end-of-season finale. It was his 70th career crown.

It will also compensate for failing to add to his 16 grand slam crowns this season as Novak Djokovic, who failed to make it out of the round robin group stages in London, dominated with three.

Rafael Nadal, who beat Federer in the final to win the French Open title, was also eliminated at that stage as he lost to Tsonga in a deciding match.

Earlier, third seeds Max Mirnyi and Daniel Nestor beat the Polish pair Mariusz Fyrstenberg and Marcin Matkowski 7-5 6-3 to win the ATP World Tour Finals doubles title

SempreSami
29th November 2011, 17:24
You don't come across as bitter at all...

Thank you for your input.


He was frustrated.

Federer is one of the classiest athletes across all sports. During his peak, he was the most humble champion around.

Everyone slips up. Very unfair to hold that against him.

And all those times he's audibly sworn at the umpire during changeovers mid-hissy fit over his opponent challenging? Players like Murray often show their frustration but mainly direct it at themselves, Federer's bordering on acting like he's bigger than the game, like Serena Williams.

kingusama92
29th November 2011, 17:34
And all those times he's audibly sworn at the umpire during changeovers mid-hissy fit over his opponent challenging?

"All those times" is an exaggeration. It's only been a couple of times.

The Del Petro one, he was completely right. It was a blatant lack of consistency by the umpire.

Anyway, every player has a few moments like those. Still feel he's been classy considering the level he's played at.

Gabbar Singh
8th June 2012, 22:59
Yet another grand slam loss for Federer against one of his major rivals today. Choked the 2nd set with unforce error after unforced error.

How can this man be the 'best ever' when he has such a poor Slam record against his main rivals Rafa and the Joker?

In Grand Slam matches Nadal leads Federer 8-2 and even when you take away the French Open matches (although I'm not sure why people go down the 'oh but these were on clay' route ) he leads Federer 3-2.

Then we have Djokovic vs Federer where they are locked at 5-5 in Slam matches.

So here we have a player who has not dominated over his current era rivals yet folks are proclaiming him to be the 'best ever'?

Truth is, when under pressure Federer has time after time thrown away grand slam matches through unforce error after unforce error.

He's a fantastic player no doubt but he's not the best. Rod Laver holds that title - and no I've never seen him play live but then neither have most cricket fans seen Bradman play yet there is no doubt he is the best batsman ever.

saad1024
10th June 2012, 01:03
Most GS titles

1. Roger Federer 16
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
4. Rafael Nadal 10
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals

1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
5. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
= Rafael Nadal 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals

1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Rafael Nadal 4
5. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3
= Novak Djokovic 3

GS semi-finals

1. Jimmy Connors 31
2. Roger Federer 30
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
10. Rafael Nadal 16

Consecutive GS semi-finals

1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Novak Djokovic 7
4. Ivan Lendl 6
5. Novak Djokovic 5
= Boris Becker 5
= Nadal 5
8. Rod Laver 4
9. Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4


All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969


Three Slams Per Year

Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year

Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year

Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:

1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most Grand Slam match wins

1. Roger Federer 237
2. Jimmy Connors 233 wins
3. Andre Agassi 224 wins
4. Ivan Lendl 222 wins
5. Pete Sampras 204 wins


Year-End Championships

1. Roger Federer 6
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1

1. Pete Sampras 286
2. Roger Federer 285
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1

1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1

1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage

1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

The GOAT debate should have been over when Federer won his 15th slam at Wimbledon '09. But anyway...

James
10th June 2012, 01:37
A very lean couple of years for Roger. No doubt at one point in the past he was looking like he would be the best ever, but that's slipped away. Nadal and Djokovic are the kings at the moment.

On a side note, I hope that Murray wins a Slam at some point. Even if it's just one, and a bit cheeky. He is a fantastic player, but he happens to be playing at a time when three of the greatest players in years are also active. In many other eras, a player the quality of Andrew Murray would have won a Slam.

withlovefrom vizag
19th June 2012, 16:01
Yeah,FEDEX is the man.
He is one of my fav athlete along with MSD.
But RAFA,he never give up....best quality in him

Pakistaniboy
19th June 2012, 16:09
Even though Rafa is my fav tennis player, you cant deny that no one can match the class and hunger for victories of Federer.

Roger is immense, a legend and the best tennis player ever IMO.

freelance_cricketer
20th June 2012, 02:50
The thing about Federer is that he's still up there making semis and finals. This guy's just a machine really and is far from finished. Mark my words he will regain his top spot very soon. This man does NOT quit !

freelance_cricketer
6th July 2012, 20:22
Stunner !


This guy has been quality even in tough times. I am so glad he beat Djoker.

freelance_cricketer
6th July 2012, 20:24
The thing about Federer is that he's still up there making semis and finals. This guy's just a machine really and is far from finished. Mark my words he will regain his top spot very soon. This man does NOT quit !

Don't look back now Fed.

PerfectionPersonified
6th July 2012, 20:25
roger best ever

Anfield
6th July 2012, 20:29
The thing about Federer is that he's still up there making semis and finals. This guy's just a machine really and is far from finished. Mark my words he will regain his top spot very soon. This man does NOT quit !

If he wins on Sunday he will be no 1 again. unbelievable.

on a side note. Federer did an Afridi today. lol

pakcricketfan
6th July 2012, 21:39
Some really classy tennis from Federer today! Absolutely majestic.

saj001
6th July 2012, 21:45
Is there any doubt?

chaiwala
7th July 2012, 00:12
Federer will still have to win the next match. Murray is just as hungry for a title, I don't think it will be easy for Roger.

freelance_cricketer
7th July 2012, 00:28
Do not forget Tsonga. The guy who actually has been causing problems to Federer recently. But anyway he has done better than Djoker and Nadal which matters a lot after people wrote him off.

James
7th July 2012, 14:17
Maybe he could be the greatest ever one day.

freelance_cricketer
7th July 2012, 17:00
He's 14-1 against 'players not named Nadal' in GS finals. Slim chance for Murray

James
7th July 2012, 17:07
McEnroe said that 'Novak got up on the wrong side of bed' and I'm inclined to agree there. Roger fan here, but he hasn't won a Slam for a long time, took advantage of a slightly disappointing Djokovic performance in the semi, and is no longer an invincible grass court player. But he is still the favourite. He's been there and got the t-shirt, while the usual massive pressure on Murray is now approaching obscene levels.

freelance_cricketer
8th July 2012, 23:00
7 Wimbledons

kingusama92
8th July 2012, 23:01
I'd say he is.

Just look at his record, it's stunning.

chui_kadoo
8th July 2012, 23:03
Cant see him winning many more Grand Slams though. Probably win 1 or 2 more before his body gives up.

Anfield
8th July 2012, 23:33
IMO Djokovic was annoyed by the fact that he couldn't get points on Federer's serve. He was winning with ease. Djokovic always finds hard to win against Federer. He has been saving match points against Federer, can't be lucky all the time.

freelance_cricketer
8th July 2012, 23:47
1.Rod Laver
2.Borg-Federer



My rating. Federer slightly ahead of Borg who could have achieved bit more i guess.

chui_kadoo
8th July 2012, 23:58
I rate Pete Sampras slightly higher than Federer on grass. Just imagine Pete Sampras and Federer being born in the same era.

Hassan Qureshi
8th July 2012, 23:59
he has played in a relatively poor era, doesn't have the titles to show for it but Agassi will always be the greatest for me.

freelance_cricketer
9th July 2012, 18:02
Federer Best ever Tennis Player

He is still The Best

Massive Federer fan here but i believe he wouldn't seal the deal until he beats the crap out of Nadal in French Open someday. Remember the one clay title he got was in Nadal's absence.

Laver
Borg-Federer
Sampras, Nadal

in this sequence.


If Federer beats Nadal on clay i'd put him right at the top ahead of Laver and Borg.


Borg won 5 Wimbledons, 6 Roland Garros all at the age of 25.

talha3
9th July 2012, 18:37
^ But Nadal is considered the best clay court player of all time. So if he does beat Nadal at the French, he'll of course seal the deal. But even if he doesn't, you can't deny him as the best all round player of all time. Who is to say that Laver would have won the French open with Nadal there? Borg never won the Australian or US opens.

withlovefrom vizag
9th July 2012, 18:48
Federer's elegant single handed backhand:heart:

yup,Roger must beat Rafa in roland garros...may be next year!!

Geordie Ahmed
9th July 2012, 19:01
Massive Federer fan here but i believe he wouldn't seal the deal until he beats the crap out of Nadal in French Open someday. Remember the one clay title he got was in Nadal's absence.

Laver
Borg-Federer
Sampras, Nadal

in this sequence.


If Federer beats Nadal on clay i'd put him right at the top ahead of Laver and Borg.


Borg won 5 Wimbledons, 6 Roland Garros all at the age of 25.

BUT if Federer not winning enough French titles is held against him why is Borg failing to win a single Aus or US Open not held against him?

chui_kadoo
9th July 2012, 19:05
I reckon Nadal will end up as the best ever. He is only 26 years old and already racked up 11 grand slams. He will probably end up winning 10-11 French open titles.

An amazing talent

saj001
9th July 2012, 19:07
Federer>>>>>>>>>>Nadal.

chui_kadoo
9th July 2012, 19:11
Federer>>>>>>>>>>Nadal.
In 5 years it will be Nadal>>>>>>>>>>Federer.

Federer is almost 31 and cant see him winning many more Grand Slams. In tennis terms he is an old man.

freelance_cricketer
9th July 2012, 19:23
BUT if Federer not winning enough French titles is held against him why is Borg failing to win a single Aus or US Open not held against him?


Which is the reason why i put them together behind Laver. Roger's consistency, longevity is phenomenal so is Borg's supremacy on surfaces poles apart and achieving 11 slams at 25.

freelance_cricketer
9th July 2012, 19:26
In 5 years it will be Nadal>>>>>>>>>>Federer.

Federer is almost 31 and cant see him winning many more Grand Slams. In tennis terms he is an old man.

Quite possibly. He will have lift his game on other surfaces though. Just one slam each in US and Australia. He's been the Murray to Federer and Djoker time and again on hard courts. :P

Geordie Ahmed
9th July 2012, 19:29
Which is the reason why i put them together behind Laver. Roger's consistency, longevity is phenomenal so is Borg's supremacy on surfaces poles apart and achieving 11 slams at 25.

Roger also had 11 slams at 25

freelance_cricketer
9th July 2012, 20:04
Roger also had 11 slams at 25

But Borg's 11 include 5 Wimbledons and 6 Roland Garros. These two have always meant the most and Borg's the only man who can boast of supremacy on both. That does go a lot in favour.

Personally, i'd pick Federer over Borg.

chui_kadoo
9th July 2012, 20:11
Quite possibly. He will have lift his game on other surfaces though. Just one slam each in US and Australia. He's been the Murray to Federer and Djoker time and again on hard courts. :P
Im sure when Federer retires Nadal can cash in on those hard courts as well. Murray will never beat him in a grand slam so Nadal has got everything going for him.

freelance_cricketer
9th July 2012, 20:27
Im sure when Federer retires Nadal can cash in on those hard courts as well. Murray will never beat him in a grand slam so Nadal has got everything going for him.

Age's on his side and he can become a real beast. I just have a feeling players will never let him settle completely on other surfaces. At a time someone will always be there to take it away from him like Djoker these days. Probably Murray in next few years and another random guy. How old is Tsonga? :13:


Federer's achievements are phenomenal keeping in mind how much he achieved in a short while. Don't just go by age, he accumulated a dozen grand slams and loads of ATP titles in 4-5 years. Simply Phenomenal !

withlovefrom vizag
9th July 2012, 20:46
Im sure when Federer retires Nadal can cash in on those hard courts as well. Murray will never beat him in a grand slam so Nadal has got everything going for him.

i dont think so,Murray vastly improved his game.
Rafa can claim French open but i dont think he'll win the other three..!

chui_kadoo
9th July 2012, 20:50
Are u sure??
He comprehensively defeated young World no 1 Djoker.
Who knows Nadal is only 26 and already has 11 grand slams. Federer is almost 31 and wont win many more Grand Slams. Age is with Nadal and he is unbeatable on clay. The best ever clay player

chui_kadoo
9th July 2012, 20:51
i dont think so,Murray vastly improved his game.
Rafa can claim French open but i dont think he'll win the other three..!
Why not? He has already won the Australian and US open and Wimbledon. He can win them again

chui_kadoo
9th July 2012, 20:52
Age's on his side and he can become a real beast. I just have a feeling players will never let him settle completely on other surfaces. At a time someone will always be there to take it away from him like Djoker these days. Probably Murray in next few years and another random guy. How old is Tsonga? :13:


Federer's achievements are phenomenal keeping in mind how much he achieved in a short while. Don't just go by age, he accumulated a dozen grand slams and loads of ATP titles in 4-5 years. Simply Phenomenal !
We will see after 5-6 years. Tsonga is 27.

Liverpoolred
9th July 2012, 21:32
I reckon Nadal will end up as the best ever. He is only 26 years old and already racked up 11 grand slams. He will probably end up winning 10-11 French open titles.

An amazing talent

Exactly.

I think its worth noting that Nadal has beaten Federer in the Wimbledon and Australian open final,whereas Federer has never beaten him at the French open.

The only occasion on which Federer won the French open was when Nadal lost to Robin Soderling.

freelance_cricketer
9th July 2012, 21:37
Who knows Nadal is only 26 and already has 11 grand slams. Federer is almost 31 and wont win many more Grand Slams. Age is with Nadal and he is unbeatable on clay. The best ever clay player

Bjorn Borg will challenge Nadal's clay and Federer's grass supremacy. He dominated both while dealing with players of the caliber of Connors and McEnroe.

Don't just believe in modern day media promoted phrases.

freelance_cricketer
9th July 2012, 21:39
Exactly.

I think its worth noting that Nadal has beaten Federer in the Wimbledon and Australian open final,whereas Federer has never beaten him at the French open.

The only occasion on which Federer won the French open was when Nadal lost to Robin Soderling.

Nadal beats Federer clearly in head to head stats but you can't just take them alone in consideration. The same Nadal has a losing record to one Nikolay Davydenko. Doesn't make Davydenko better than Nadal does it?

Anfield
9th July 2012, 22:39
In 5 years it will be Nadal>>>>>>>>>>Federer.

Federer is almost 31 and cant see him winning many more Grand Slams. In tennis terms he is an old man.

by keep winning on the clay court? He would be remembered as best clay court player ever.. that's it!

Anfield
9th July 2012, 22:41
Im sure when Federer retires Nadal can cash in on those hard courts as well. Murray will never beat him in a grand slam so Nadal has got everything going for him.

no way. Have you forgotten the beating Nadal got from Djokovic on hard courts? He absolutely pummeled him on hard courts.

freelance_cricketer
9th July 2012, 22:53
Nadal's not being allowed to dominate on hard courts all the way. Everyone's flawed.

Anfield
9th July 2012, 22:56
Consecutive Semi Finals. Quarter finals. Most grand slams.. sure he is THE BEST!

withlovefrom vizag
10th July 2012, 00:02
Majority going for Roger:D

leatherface58
10th July 2012, 00:56
damn right he is the best.he is weak on clay but that's still stronger than other player's strength

Sent from my MT11i using Tapatalk 2

Liverpoolred
10th July 2012, 03:49
Nadal beats Federer clearly in head to head stats but you can't just take them alone in consideration. The same Nadal has a losing record to one Nikolay Davydenko. Doesn't make Davydenko better than Nadal does it?

Indeed,he does:)

I feel Nadal deserves credit for beating Federer on courts he doesn't favour,and since Federer hasn't beaten him at Roland Garros, surely Nadal is doing something right.

Nadal is also relentless in the way he continues to battle even in points that most players would give up on, and he often ends up winning those as well.

Xohaib
10th July 2012, 07:17
nadal clay court bully :P

chui_kadoo
10th July 2012, 18:17
by keep winning on the clay court? He would be remembered as best clay court player ever.. that's it!
He has won every major so he is not just a clay court bully. He has won wimbledon twice beating Federer in the Final.

Has federer beaten nadal in the french open? I dont think so.

Remember hes only 26 and can pick many more grand Slams. Nadal is a genious and I reckon when he finishes his career he will be regarded the best ever.

Liverpoolred
10th July 2012, 20:12
He has won every major so he is not just a clay court bully. He has won wimbledon twice beating Federer in the Final.

Has federer beaten nadal in the french open? I dont think so.

Remember hes only 26 and can pick many more grand Slams. Nadal is a genious and I reckon when he finishes his career he will be regarded the best ever.

Federer hasn't taken more than a set off Nadal at RG in any single match, whereas apart from Nadal beating him at Wimbledon, he even took 2 sets off him in the 2007 final, before going down valiantly.

pakistanalltheway
10th July 2012, 20:16
One of the best easily

chui_kadoo
10th July 2012, 21:01
Federer hasn't taken more than a set off Nadal at RG in any single match, whereas apart from Nadal beating him at Wimbledon, he even took 2 sets off him in the 2007 final, before going down valiantly.
Exactly. Many folks on here seem to keep forgetting that fact.

Liverpoolred
10th July 2012, 21:18
Exactly. Many folks on here seem to keep forgetting that fact.

By saying just cause Nadal has a negative win-loss against Davydenko doesn't make Nadal an inferior player to him,one poster is even suggesting Nadals terrific win-loss record against Federer counts for nothing.

chui_kadoo
10th July 2012, 21:43
By saying just cause Nadal has a negative win-loss against Davydenko doesn't make Nadal an inferior player to him,one poster is even suggesting Nadals terrific win-loss record against Federer counts for nothing.
Any way Nadal is only 26 and has got many years left on the clock. We will see in 5 or 6 years time.
I can see him achieving atleast another 2 wimbledon titles, 5 more French opens, 2 more US Opens and 2 more Australion opens. That will take him to 22 grand slams in total and make him the best ever.

By the way I am also a big Liverpool FC fan

Liverpoolred
10th July 2012, 21:50
Any way Nadal is only 26 and has got many years left on the clock. We will see in 5 or 6 years time.
I can see him achieving atleast another 2 wimbledon titles, 5 more French opens, 2 more US Opens and 2 more Australion opens. That will take him to 22 grand slams in total and make him the best ever.

By the way I am also a big Liverpool FC fan

You have it worked out well, I'm sure he can lift these hard court and grass titles a couple more times, and in all honesty, he will most likely triumph in every remaining RG he participates in.

Nice to know:D. Very few of us here on PP.

SempreSami
10th July 2012, 21:53
Records like Federer's weeks as World #1 will probably stand for a long time, as Djokovic is likely to prevent Nadal from ever having as good a year as either Djokovic had in 2011 or Federer in 2006.

Haroon786
4th June 2015, 17:20
Bump.

Abdullah
4th June 2015, 17:37
It is Federer for now- and always will be until Nadal wins one each of the other slams (Not French).
Don't see that happening

Mamoon
4th June 2015, 17:47
Without question, Federer is the best of all time. It's laughable to say Nadal is better than him, given how much reliant he has been on clay, but no doubt the best clay player of all time and an all-time great in his own right.

Djokovic is playing brilliant tennis these days and if he can keep this up for another 3-4 years, he can go down as the second best of all time, but I think catching Federer is pretty difficult.

Federer at his peak played the greatest level of tennis ever played, regardless of what the critics say regarding the level of competition he had, I'd say he had competition but he made them look incredibly inferior.

I don't think Djokovic of today can beat Federer of 2004-2008.

Neferpitou
4th June 2015, 17:47
Yep yeap yeap.

bones
4th June 2015, 19:53
Slam count is what determines it for me. If slam count is tied, then you look at other things like *** titles, masters titles and time as world no 1.

Based on that Fed is the greatest of all time.

I still think Fed's earlier slams were much easier for him to win that the slams he won 2008 onwards because of the young charge (Novak + Rafa + Mayabe Murray) being so much better.

The_KING
4th June 2015, 20:34
Federer is the best. And it's not just about the slams or the weeks at number 1. It's also about consistency. He made like 34 consecutive grand slam QF, 23 consecutive SF and reached 18/19 slam finals between 2005-10. That kind of consistency will never be matched. And he is still in the top 4 at 33 and that's despite not even playing at 50% of the level that he played at during 2004-09.

Nadal is great too but to say that he is the best is a joke. His resume is too clay inflated and he doesn't even have a world tour title. The only real thing Nadal has over Federer is the H2H and I admit as a Federer fan that it's a terrible H2H but no player is perfect.