Some players are indeed lucky as they dont face stiff challenge and Roger is one of them.In last three decades,all the champions of big events had atleast a dozen top players as challengers and any one of them cud win.Take the case of Bjorn Borg-he had Jimmy Connors,Ili Nastase,John Mcneroe,Evan Lendl,Stefan Edberg,Mats Wilander,Andre Agassi,Michael Chang,Pat Cash,Michael Stich and many more.All of them were winners in one Grand Slam event or the other.You cud never predict who will make the semi finals,but in the last 5 years there's been nobody worth the name of a champion who cud really scare Roger except Nadal.Roger always had smooth sailing upto finals not losing a set cause there was no challenger.Indeed lucky to be born in this era of no challenge.Of course this doesnt mean that Roger is not the top notcher.His game,ability,coolness and perfect Gentlemanly game does deserve accolades.
RE:The Tennis Greats.
by VASUDEVAN V on Jun 18, 2008 03:11 PM
Dear Lilamber Joshi: There is another way of looking at this. One can say that Federer was so great that he made others look like novices. The fact is, when Sampras came along, the same was said about Borg - that the opposition that Sampras faced was better than the opposition faced by Borg. The fact is,if Rod Laver had not turned professional the number of Grand Slams he won would have been greater than 30! Remember, Road Laver won the Grand Slam (all 4 majors - Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Open) in 1961, turned professional and when the open era came in 1969 he immediately won all the 4 again. Between 1961 and 1969 he was not allowed to play the majors because he was a professional. So, there is no end to these arguments. If what you say about Federer is true, then the same applies to Nadal also. Nadal is great on Clay only because there is no opposition for him on Clay! This is a futile argument. It is not Federer's or Nadal's fault that the opposition is so weak! Tendulkar is supposed to be the greatest batsman, but he does not have a 300 in Test Cricket, but Shewag has two 300 plus knocks in Test Cricket! Can you say Shewag is greater than Tendulkar because of this! Let us not question the great achievements of Federer just because his opposition is supposedly weak! Next, one will say the same of Tiger Woods in golf also!
RE:The Tennis Greats.
by Sandy on Jun 18, 2008 08:19 PM
Yes, Australian cricket team is also very "lucky" to win three world cup since they face no competition. Indian team in 1983 was the all time best since it defeated all time great West Indies.
(Others, please join me in citing similar comparisons in other games)
RE:The Tennis Greats.
by citizen on Jun 18, 2008 10:44 PM
your facts wrong, He did not play with Agassi, Chang, Cash, Stich. I also doubt if he played with edburg, lendl and some of other players you mentioned. I do not thin Natasse(has he won a grandslam) is in the same league as John Maccenro. It is wrong to say that. Mens tennis is becoming more and more competitive over the years. I would say Federer is a genius. Look at what he did to Leyton Hewitt(the man who was taking tennis world by storm when he arrived on international scene has lost all the confidence due to repeated drubbings from federer)
RE:The Tennis Greats.
by VASUDEVAN V on Jun 18, 2008 03:20 PM
Mr.Lilamber Joshi: Your argument is futile. There is another way of looking at it. Federer was so great the past three years that he made others look like beginners on Court! These type of arguments go on since times immemorial. The same was said of Borg when Sampras came along - that Borg did not have the same quality of opposition that Sampras had. Remember that Rod Laver would have won in excess of 30 Slams but for the fact he turned professional immediately after winning all the 4 majors (Grand Slam) in 1961. Professionals were not allowed to play the Majors and once the Slams were made open in 1969, he promptly won all the 4 majors again. Is it Federer's fault that his opposition is so weak? The same argument can be applied to Nadal also - that he has won 4 French Opens only because there is no good opposition for him on Clay. Perhaps, you will say the same about the achievements of Tiger Woods also! Tendular is supposed to be the greatest batsman. But he has not hit a 300 plus score in Test Cricket. Shewag already has two 300 plus scores in Test Cricket. Does this make Shewag greater than Tendulkar? These are futile and never ending arguments. Instead of indulging in such futile arguments let us accept the greatness of Federer with no strings attached and also agree that this year Nadal and Djokovic are better than Federer. Let us not belittle Federer. He is a great Champion!
RE:RE:The Tennis Greats.
by citizen on Jun 18, 2008 10:56 PM
I agree with you. Fedex is so good that he rendered other players trophy less(most of the times) whenever he entered any tournment. It is same as (as Sandy pointed out below) since australia has won 3 worldcups back to back, and are No. 1 test team, you can not say that they are a lucky team.
RE:Over-Hyped
by Anoop mane on Jun 18, 2008 07:04 PM
Hello, Master do you know anything about a sport called TENNIS, If you had then this comment is absolutely uneducated blunder.Federer is greatest ever and will win French open in the years to come.Hope you will know about tennis at that time.
Too much is made of Federer's losses this year. Please remember, Federer dominated Tennis for the past three years like no other Tennis player (except perhaps Rod Laver, the greatest ever). There is no doubt that Nadal is at the peak of his form. But Nadal's game is totally physical and brutal. How long will he last with this physical game? It is also doubtful whether he can he ever dominate the game as Federer has done over the last three years. Yes, Nadal has 4 French open titles and innumerable titles on Clay. But on other surfaces his achievements are next to nothing as on date, even though he did reach Wimbledon finals the last 2 years and won his first grass court event at the Queen's this year. Even if Nadal beats Federer this year to become the Wimbledon Champion, this will only mean that this year Nadal is a better player than Federer. But, Federer is greater of the two by miles as of now and even Nadal admits it. Irrespective of whether Federer wins another Grand Slam or not, let us salute this great champion with 12 Grand Slam titles, 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals and innumberable other titles on all surfaces, including Clay. Perhaps he will turn his game around this year from Wimbledon onwards as in the past. All Federer fans wish and pray that this happens, because there is no better sight on a Tennis court than Federer in full flight!
I dont believe that Fed's days are over.. he is just in a stage of form-out; he will recover. How ever, Nadal is becoming day by day, so i doubt how long he can hold No.1 spot...
As much as I am a Roger fan, it would be overly optimistic to think he will rise from the ashes - the past few months have show signs of a waning star and the capitualtion at Garros could be the death knell. I hope he proves us wrong and comes back to lift the Wimbledon. Like Amritraj predicted "Nadal will win the Wimbledon, before Federer wins the French Open"! Be that as it may, there is none to hold a candle to the likes of Borg or Sampras.
Roger has been a lucky man,he has got the least competition to face...no pet sampras,no agasi,no pat rafter,no ivanosovich...he is playing with some kids,who dont have it enough to be a champion...He is the only champion who is not tested enough.. this has been the only year he is really tested.
RE:LUCKY MAN.
by citizen on Jun 18, 2008 02:06 PM
I disagree with you. Each era is different. Pat rafter and Ivanosovic are not in the same leage of agssi and Sampras, fedex could have beaten them. Why this is the only year he is tested and why not previous year ? We had same set of players. 2 grand slamfinals this year is not a bad achievement at all. I am sure he will come back to form in wimbledon. He is fighting a illness this year. He had it during australian open.
My prediction : Fed to win Wimbledon and US open this year.
RE:LUCKY MAN.
by hari rao on Jun 18, 2008 04:41 PM
Your post smacks of ignorance. Fedex was so good that he did not allow any one to become like Agassi or Sampras or Pat Rafter. When Rod Laver has himself admitted Fedex's greatness, what is your problem man? Go and take some tennis lessons before you start commenting about others.
RE:RE:will come back strongly
by madan menon on Jun 18, 2008 03:33 PM
May be he is not in top form. But he will definitely hit back. The No.1 favourite for Wimbledon is still Fedex. There is no comparison for him.
I am a tennis lover and more so an ardent Roger Fan.His classy back-hand,forehand and cross court volley was a treat to watch.Even his opponent was stunt for his impossible returns and movement on court. But in recent matches Roger is not even nearer to his shadow.His body language is changed,movement is slow,his zeal is no longer there.He looks shattered and exhausted.Is it because of his busy schedule or the art of Tennis is deserting him. shadow of
RE:FEDERER
by sania on Jun 18, 2008 01:41 PM
perhaps he is exhausted...he should take a vacation for a while...it's not necessary to play each and every tournament that comes
RE:FEDERER
by DAWA JACOB on Jun 18, 2008 01:49 PM
he is playing all tournaments possible,cause its his only chance to win many cups...cause till last year he had almost no competition..
Being an ardent FedEx fan its heartbreaking 2 see him play these days....... Definitely the others {Djokovic n Nadal (u need a class even if u r playing 2 shadow of Roger)} are catching up with Federer not coz they have improved but for Roger is going down! the deft touches which happened to be on the line at will are becoming unforced errors the slice has lost its shine, the movement in the court going awry n the service not helping him either.........4get the clay courts even during the Australian Open, Federer has been playing differently. You don't see him dominating and being consistently aggressive towards his opponents anymore. He's staggering, as we all saw in the Federer-Tipsarevic match which ended in a lucky 10-8 win for Federer. Then there's that Djokovic match where he was beaten in straight sets. Nybody absolutely nebody is beating him. What is going on?
Either he is getting bored and thinks that he is better than everyone else, so he doesn't exert that much effort into winning his matches anymore. I m sure being a class he is he wont do so atleast at French Open, Or that like every champion, once you reach the highest top, the only way to go is down.
