The question that was asked to FEDEX after winning the Masters cup was this "Q. If you were a coach, you have to say to a player, You're going to play Roger Federer. You have to do this, that and that. What would you say?"
And this is what Fedex replies "Don't even try, pal(smiling). No, it's going to be really, really difficult, you know. You're probably not going to win, but you can always try. I'm just kidding. I don't know. I'm not a coach - just yet. I'm still a player, so I won't answer."
How conviniently rediff misses "I'm just kidding."
Pathetic. Abusers are rightly banned, but who will ban these manipulative writers at Rediff.
I don`t think he will have a run away number like 20 grand slam titles...Maybe he would and that would make him special but I don`t think so..everybody has a number. Look at Sachin, everybody thought he would have 100 international hundreds and he just faltered. He hasn`t even overtaken Brian Lara in Test runs scored, yet. Even Sampras just managed to overhaul Ken Rosewalls 14 slams (or was it 13?). Federer will break Sampras's record but wonder what his motivation will be after that. I would think he would falter. I would be amazed if he reaches 20. But yes, he is the greatest undisputedly. Laver stands tall but I haven`t seen laver play but the rest starting with connors were pretty much one dimensional. Sheer versatility, audacious stroke play, touch, improvisation and demure are unmatched. Sampras became theatric at the end and Agassi was theatric in the beginning : - ). If there is one weakness in Federer it is that he can "fold" when playing against people who have beaten him like Nadal, Nalbandian (in juniors Federer apparently had never beaten Nalbandian) and oflate the argentinian canas, who came from drug ban, in tense situations. he doesn`t handle pressure well. Sampras was imperious in that department. But in everything else Federer is head and shoulder and more over other people. Some wouldn`t even in their dreams execute the shots he can try in a match. Amazing. But as I said before he would not reach 20 grand slam titles if he does he really is special.
Is Roger Federer the Best Tennis player of all times?
This question has been going on in so many commentary boxes in the past few years but you have to wonder, what exactly makes a player good on a specific surface such as clay and grass? Most people say that heavy topspin players are usually good on clay but then some people say that Jimmy Connors could have won the French if he wasn't excluded from it "during his peak".Similarily Roger would need to develop those heavy topspin like Rafa in order to get past the %u201CSpanish bulldog%u201D.
There is no doubt Roger Federer is the best in business today, but is he the best all round player? The answer is NO.Let us look into two players I really like to watch - Connors and Federer.They both were so talented that they could win on their least favorite surface.
Connors was obviously most comfortable on medium fast hardcourts while Federer was most comfortable on grass. Borg had Connors on the red clay similar to Nadal getting Fed on red clay.
My generation(at least in India) grew up watching Johnnie Mac,Ivan Lendl and Connors in the early to mid eighties ,then Boom Boom Becker and ever gentle Swedes Edberg & Wilander in the late 80%u2019s and then Players like Stich,Agasii,Sampras and Rafter dominating the mid to late 90%u2019s
Now to Rod Laver, the chink in Laver armor is that his Grand slam was accomplished at the time AO and US were played on grass. So he won slams at ONLY two surfaces.The only male player to wi
Leander can beat Federer when he plays him in a Doubles or Mixed doubles event. Not in Singles. Leander could also upset Federer if he plays Davis cup or in Olympics. Leander is like our filmy heroes (Who after taking Ma ka aashirwad thrash the villan or like Sehwag hitting a six after hearing his mother words) gets oodles of confidence when he plays for the country and can thrash anyone.
Federer is good... he may even be the 2nd best player of all time because Sampras was the best. Federer may win more grand slams, even the French open but he still cannot be compared to Sampras. Look at who Sampras had to contend with. Early in his career, it was Edberg and Becker, than Agassi and Courier. Inspite of such stiff competition he manged to win 14 grand slams and that's the testimony of his greatness. Federer does not have any competition what so ever. For all their claims, Nadal, Ferrer, Roddick, Gonslavez cannot be compared to Edberg, Becker and Agassi in terms of talent or achievments.
RE:Sampras was the greatest ever
by shreeju jose on Nov 19, 2007 07:06 PM
sorry rahul i dont think u have the facts right...rod laver is still considered as the all time best...federer is close to getting that title if he wins the french open...sampras hasnt won the french open either...and any clay clourt specialist could stop sampras on clay...sampras shone at a time when edberg and becker was on a decline...but edberg still managed to defeat him the only 2 times they met in a grand slam...courier was not that great player...he was lucky to win all those titles at a time when no one was on top of their game......yes agassi was a good player but even he had his limitations...mind u agassi himself said that roger could beat him from anywhere in the court unlike sampras...which just meant the versitality of federer...and if that isnt enough to prove my point..all u have to look back at the only time federer and sampras met in a grand slam...at the wimbledon...federer won in 5 sets.....sampras depended a lot of his serves...federer has much more weapons in his game.....
RE:Sampras was the greatest ever
by Claudy on Nov 19, 2007 07:04 PM
Federer is number 1 and is number 1 in the world of tennis. You cannot even compare him to Sampras. Sampras may have been good on grass and hard court, but when it comes to total dominance in tennis, Federer is the best and will remain the best. Hats off to Federer for winning the Masters which included some of the best in the world pitted against him and still Federer showing all his class and coming out number one. If Sampras was in his place today, I don't believe he would stand any chance against these guys today.
RE:Sampras was the greatest ever
by SaiSubramanyam Thoota on Nov 19, 2007 05:28 PM
You guys won't praise any current player. Previously, you would have said McEnroe was the best. Now its Sampras and if some other big player comes, u'll say Federer was the best. Remember, not having gr8 opponents was not Federer's mistake. You cannot compare players of different era.
RE:Sampras was the greatest ever
by mate on Nov 19, 2007 07:06 PM
Hi,
Federer came to picture when Sampras was in good form. He had to contend Sampras and Agassi initially and then had to fight the likes of Roddick, Nadal etc. Remember nobody has won titles with the consistency he has won and he has one of the best all round games. Sampras was very good player but his record in clay is questionable same can be said about becker, edberg. Ivan lendl was very good in all surfaces except Grass, Borg never won Aus or US open, Mcenroe never won French. The overall quality to play in all surfaces is something gifted and very few players have that (Agassi, Rod laver) and fedex is one among them. Nadal or Roddick or Even Nalbandian are extremely gifted and talented players, but when they play federer they look pedestrian not because they are not good, but Federer is too good.
RE:Great Khali....
by rajshrie on Nov 19, 2007 06:13 PM
what nonsense this is about a sport called tennis and not wwe. so go watch wwe on ten sports little kid.
