It's not just winning , But Winning in style , all the maestros of all games had pull backs at a point of time, But champions comeback in stlye .. This ability to roar back from the depth of miseries proves one to be the best and thebest of times ! He is one among them ! Sure He is ther and Ther are Miles to go before he sleeps!! Congs FEDEX !
What ever said and done even people who praise nadal would know from inside that Roger is best. Nadal is definately good but cannot be compared to Roger. He probably will be forgotton like micheal clark(?)the oriental origin guy, goran ivanisavich, jim courier, that australian shorty of recent times(i forgot his name) andy roddicks, pat cash, ......
Re: bloody hindi
by Ashish Shinde on Sep 10, 2008 03:50 AM
What bloody Hindi? if you look at the % of people who understand Hindi in INDIA it would be ....
The only other language that comes close is English.
And don't be moronic and talk crap and unity in diversity at the same time.
There can be no unity until stupids like you exist. What do u want Tamil / Kannada / Telugu to be the national / official language ? or would u prefer English dumb ...
Re: Re: bloody hindi
by Ashish Shinde on Sep 10, 2008 03:52 AM
And if hindi is a foreign language then get the hell out of India. Doin't call yourself an Indian because unlike you I will say Tamil / Telugu and Kannada are Indian languages.
Re: Best of List between 1975-2005
by bhavin chahwala on Sep 10, 2008 12:59 PM
well,I would disagree in putting Becker ahead of Edberg and Lendl.. The list should be,
Re: Best of List between 1975-2005
by Tarun Arora on Sep 10, 2008 06:24 AM
Hummmmmmm ... i would replace Wilander with Jim Courier! Lendl would be ranked ahead of Becker n Agassi. Federer at top of the list!
Re: Best of List between 1975-2005
by Narendra Nimmagadda on Sep 10, 2008 10:14 AM
You just got rid of Laver who is the only person to complete the Grandslam [ that too twice, once as an amateur and later in open era after loosing his prime time by turning professional ] by shrinking the list to 1975 to 2007. I feel Laver shouldn't be forgotten when we talk about the greats of Tennis as he dominated both the amateur tennis and the open era
Let's count greats of the Open era, which started from 1968
I will place Federer on top of the list, followed by Borg, Laver, Lendl, Connors, Sampras, Becker, McEnroe, Agassi, Wilander, Nadal & Jim Courier.
If you just check the stats, Federer is simply unbelievable.
Federer: 13 GS Winner, 4 Time GS Runner Up [ all 4 to Nadal ], 5 Time GS SF [ all to Eventual Champions ]. 237 weeks as No.1. Only person after Laver to reach Finals of all the GS in an year [ winning three ]. Only one of three Players to win 3 GS in a row
Borg: 11 GS Winner, 5 Time GS Runner. Played Australian only once.
I think the term god is the most constantly changing term in terms of tennis supremacy...At every regular interval someone rule the court for some time and we say "this person is the god"...only to see the "god" dethroned by someone else... I know its a little philosophical, but it would have really been a lifetime's show had the following players turned out in the same competition at the same time with one coming out as the champ: 1. Borg 2. Connors 3. Lendl 4. McEnroe 5. Willander 6. Edberg 7. Becker 8. Agassi 9. Sampras 10. Federer
I am sticking to the players whom most of us of this generation has seen playing... Who do you guys think will or would have won that championship????
Federer was lucky not to meet Rafa in the final. Rafa knows how to attack Federer and beat him - the weak backhand of Federer. When rafa plays Federe he keeps on attacking Federer's backhand. Unfortunately Murray was comparatively a tired player after his semifinal and also did not concentrate and attack federer's backhand. Those who saw the highlights of the final and semifinal could easily notice that Murray was not at his best in the final. Anyway Hats off to roger for his great achievement on and off the court.
Re: RF
by sdt on Sep 09, 2008 10:27 PM
So nadal won 2 slams nothing great for past few years federers consistently winning 3 slams. Pathetic 5ool cant even judge from the ways of play. Nadal is only a hard-hitting m@niac. Federer is a different class altogether.
Re: RF
by i_am_wat_i_am on Sep 10, 2008 12:38 AM
YEA YEA.. KEEP BROODIN... FEDEX IS THE BEST AND HE WILL STILL BE THE BEST... nadal has won say one wimbledon luckily n the french open... lets see hw long he carries on... but fedex is different, he has class tat separates him from the rest... and all you losers can do is speak of watever that dint happen..
Re: RF
by chelsea on Sep 09, 2008 10:12 PM
You're forgetting that this is a hardcourt tournament. It is way faster than Wimbledon. Andy Murray was the first seeded player that Nadal met in the tournament and he lost. Federer would have won even if Nadal was in the final. i think the reason why Federer wanted Nadal in the final was to beat him and show his critics that he can beat nadal also.
Re: Krishanan is emperor
by Rajesh Ray on Sep 09, 2008 08:56 PM
Are you mad ? Surely patriotism has not blinded you to make such an absurd and laugahble suggestion !
Re: Re: Re: Krishanan is emperor
by S Tilwalli on Sep 09, 2008 09:24 PM
Where had King Roger gone? He was always the best. He reached 3 Grandslam Finals & 1 semifinal. Isn\'t that a achievment!!. The problem is that he has really created a monster out of himself. People expect him to win each and every match. Sampras was consistent only in Wimbledon. King Roger is consistent is all slams. Except for the defeats as Roland Garos. Reaching roland garros for 3 years continuous is an achievment itself.
