If you really feel that you are a tennis enthusiast, please read up on players of the past, at least from Pancho Gonzalez onwards, if not as far back as Budge and Tilden.
A google search will yield enough results.
Informed of a more comprehensive grasp of the players of this sport and their achievements, one will easily restrain oneself from shouting hoarse in favour of just one or the other of the exponents of the game today who we watch on television and remain quite, quite unaware and ignorant of the sterling players of the past.
Then, perhaps, a much more constructive discussion, not argument, could be joined.
Re: Some PERSPECTIVE please !!
by Bala on Jun 24, 2009 04:37 PM
I Have read about all the players of the past. Did lot of googling.. Did everything you suggested.. Thanks god I did all those things..
I was initially thinking Federer is the King of current tennis. Now I came to know that Federer is the King of all time tennis.
In a comment below VYANKATESH REGE has enumerated several points which are being copy and pasted here so that one does not have to go searching for them below:
" I believe that cynics, like some seen here, have following expectations from Federer
1. When he retires, he should have positive H2H against all players he played against, especially Nadal, although he is 5 years younger 2. He should complete the calendar grandslam twice 3. He must defeat Nadal in French Open final. If Nadal fails to reach finals, its Federer's fault 4. He MUST have completed the calendar grandslam in the year in which he retires 5. He must have Olympic Singles Gold Medal, defeating Nadal on the way 6. If his interviews are found "arrogant" or "disrespectful", he would not be called the Greatest "
Vyankatesh, you have absolutely got it!! This is great stuff!!
Wittingly or otherwise, you have more or less put down what Federer would need to have done for anyone to lay claim to his being the greatest tennis player ever.
Everyone commenting here, including myself, has said over and over again that Federer is surely ONE of the greatest players ever. The difficulty arises in asserting that he is THE greatest player ever.
Yes, let him win all four slams in the same calendar year, at least once.
No emphatic table-thumping of personal opinion but the force of real achievement.
If he is THE all-time great why has he not been able to achieve what Budge and Laver did.
Re: This is GREAT, Vyankatesh !! (it sort of ryhmes, too)
by tennis fan on Jun 22, 2009 06:41 PM
point no.6 is completely off the wall as no one ever even suggests that Federer is arrogant or disrespectful. In fact, he and Nadal are the best ambassadors for their sport.
Re: This is GREAT, Vyankatesh !! (it sort of ryhmes, too)
by tennis fan on Jun 22, 2009 06:38 PM
points no. 4 and 5 are not too relevant as Federer is quite unlikely to win the grand slam even once let alone in the year he retires and the Golden Slam would be nice though, again, most unlikely.
Re: This is GREAT, Vyankatesh !! (it sort of ryhmes, too)
by tennis fan on Jun 22, 2009 06:25 PM
Yes, let him defeat Nadal in a direct match as Nadal defeated him at Wimbledon for it to be said that in the time that he played Federer did AT LEAST ONCE win the French Open against all the best opposition.
Re: Re: This is GREAT, Vyankatesh !! (it sort of ryhmes, too)
by tennis fan on Jun 22, 2009 06:30 PM
No need to necessarily defeat Nadal in the Final, any match along the way would do except that the way the two would be seeded it would be most likely that they meet in the Final.
Re: Re: This is GREAT, Vyankatesh !! (it sort of ryhmes, too)
by tennis fan on Jun 22, 2009 06:35 PM
cooldiffusion is also saying that Federer is one of the greatest but is not an automatic shoo-in for being called THE greatest just because he has won one French Open and without facing the preeminent player on clay of this era.
On the other hand, Nadal has faced Federer again and again on the latter's prized surface, kept improving every time and finally beaten him last year.
Hope all Roger Federer's so called "critics" will have the brains and wisdom to acknowledge the age difference between him and his other contemporaries! What Federer has achieved in the past 7 years in Grand Slams(14 titles which includes victories in 5 consecutive years in Wimbledon & US Open) speaks volumes of his amazing fitness levels as he relies more on playing technique/style unlike other players who rely on sheer and brute power & athleticism (and thus withdraw from major Grand Slam(s) due to injury (I am reminded of the phrase "developing cold feet"!). Only Bjorn Borg dominated French Open and Wimbledon (total 11 Slams) during his era but he could not win US Open.
It will be fair to compare Federer's feats as of date with other player(s) records only after (and if) they remain physically fit and play till Federer's current age. Before this, any comparison will be unfair. Till such time, may the brains of Federer's critics be laid to rest as currently they may be afflicted with brainitis(similar to tendonitis)!!
If Roger Federer baiters here are to be believed, the following is the outcome:
1. Roger Federer is very lucky to have won 14 Grandslams since his break-through year 2003 (when he won his first Grandslam), because the field was very weak. 2. Nadal is a better player because he has been facing a better opposition, which includes Roger, of course. These people forget that the opposition for both Roger and Nadal have been the same since 2005 (the break-through year of Nadal when he won his first Grandslam). Nadal is only 22 and has already won 6 Grandslams, so he will only improve. Roger won his first Grandslam only after 20 and is already 27. Since Nadal beats Roger regularly, he is better than Roger and faces a stiffer opposition!!! 3. Roger is lucky to have won the French Open this year, because Nadal lost in 4th Round to someone else???? People forget that Roger beat the same `someone else' in the finals. Their argument, if it had been Nadal, Roger would not have won!!! 4. Roger was lucky to win 2008 US Open because Murray was in a Grandslam finals for the first time and raw. 5. Roger won all his other Grandslams against Rodick, Hewitt, Safin and even twice beating Nadal in Wimbledon, because the first three were weak opponents and Nadal was improving on the other surfaces though he was king of Clay! 6. The conclusion: Roger is a lucky winner and all other Champions, past and present, are better than Roger!! Roger to that!!!
Re: Roger Federer is so lucky!!!
by kareem on Jun 22, 2009 08:43 PM
I hade been wachuing tennis from pet sampras era,..starting ivan lendel mats vilander , boris becaker. stfen etc.. doidn't allow hismto do much.. vasudevan born in 2002 ..small kid, thinking musile power better than brain, horrible sound better than silky smooth shot, all players even nadal also says federe is best eventhought they are not brilliant like u..mud or brin in your head?
Re: Roger Federer is so lucky!!!
by gokul chandrasekar on Jun 22, 2009 08:16 PM
i guess u should try winning 14 majors.U might just get lucky.the whole point is nadal fans dont respect federer.when nadal gets to 14 talk then and who knows by that time federer might have 20.so i guess u should shut up for now
Re: Roger Federer is so lucky!!!
by VASUDEVAN V on Jun 22, 2009 05:03 PM
Add to the above: If Roger wins Wimbledon this year, he won because Rafa was not there. If he loses, he lost even though Rafa was not there. So he is not a great player!!!
Re: Re: Roger Federer is so lucky!!!
by tennis fan on Jun 22, 2009 07:32 PM
see Vasudevan, this is what one means by lack of focus and concentration and being emotionally over-wrought!!
who is saying, as you allege here, that Federer is not a great player?
but THE greatest(??), now that is quite another matter. :)
Roger slice ... Nadal Retrieves Roger forehand down the line ...Rafa retrieves Roger backhand cross court ... Rafa retrieves Rafa whacks one a mm inside right hand corner at the baseline... game over, tournanment over. Roger is crying ... ees too much, I cannot take it...Rafa is comforting him ... it is ok baba ... I will let u win next 2 slams.
Re: Nadal too good
by VASUDEVAN V on Jun 22, 2009 05:04 PM
Rafa slides, retrieves and his knee is gone. Where is the fitness baba for playing like that over a number of years!!!
Re: Nadal too good
by Bala on Jun 22, 2009 04:19 PM
Continuation.. Roger Crying.. and comes back to win Frech open.. Now Nadal cries.. due to joint pain. Nadal ...Iodex lagavo Iodex..
Re: Re: Nadal too good
by Kudhikannan on Jun 23, 2009 05:15 PM
Roger is standing downcast he has been thrashed quite fast weeps inconsolably at wimbedon at the australian he hysterically comes undone his legacy is in tatters surely his 14 win still matters?
He is not playing in an era that is extremely competitive..... Barring Federer, Nadal, Djokovic when he is fit and A Rod, there are not too many guys out there who are capable of going all the way and beating the champions....
The early to mid 90s era was certainly more competitive....besides Courier, Agassi, Sampras, Becker, there were others who were almost equally good and capable of going all the way..... Petr Korda, Yevgeny Kaefelnikov, Thomas Muster, Michael Stitch, Bruguera, Krajicek were all champions at some stage and had good record against the champions in grand slams and other tournaments..... Today, the gap between Fedex/Nadal and the rest of the crop is yawning to say the least...only Murray seems to be catching up; Hewitt and Nalbandian fell by the wayside, A Rod and Safin lost their drive to compete at the highest level and Djoker's fitness levels have become a joke...
A two horse race is never a great thing for a sport like tennis......takes the charm away!!
Re: Federer is the greatest but.................
by Anurag Rathore on Jun 22, 2009 02:44 PM
I would say like that: P.Sampras is Grass King, R.Nadal is Clay King but R.Federer is King of Tennis.
Re: Re: Federer is the greatest but.................
by Bhasmasur Rakshas on Jun 22, 2009 03:03 PM
Even Borg was grass king...winning 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles was no mean feat........but Nadal is undisputed clay court king even though Borg won the French open 6 times......
Reason is that Nadal would add atleast 3 more French titles before he turns 27.....
Re: Re: Re: Federer is the greatest but.................
by Bala on Jun 24, 2009 04:58 PM
definitely not.. The machine Nadal is on a depreciating mode..
Re: Re: Re: Federer is the greatest but.................
by Bhasmasur Rakshas on Jun 22, 2009 03:20 PM
He cries too much.......more than even a woman would.....
Re: Re: Re: Federer is the greatest but.................
by Anurag Rathore on Jun 22, 2009 03:24 PM
This moron was saying before French Open that Federer can only beat Nadal in his dream! After Wimbledon: 1.Federer won US Open 2.Federer reached in final of Aus Open 3.Federer Won Madrid masters(thrashed Nadal in straight forward sets) 4.Fedrer won French Open(Nadal faced humiliation in his own yard)
How many Garandslam finals Nadal made after last Wimbledon?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Federer is the greatest but.................
by Anuraug Rathor on Jun 22, 2009 03:28 PM
Hello clone boy.I said Fedex can beat Nadal in French Open only in his dreams.It isnt my fault if you cant read.After last Wimbledon,there were 3 "garandslams" of which Nadal did win one...Nadal lost to Soderling in his own yard and that too carrying an injury,not to Fedex,whom he beat in Fedex's homeyard last Wimbledon.Get your facts straight.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federer is the greatest but.................
by Anurag Rathore on Jun 22, 2009 03:32 PM
Oh! when Federer lost Aus Open last year due to Flu, where were your comments? Madrid final was played on Clay where Nadal lost in straight forward sets.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federer is the greatest but.................
by Anuraug Rathor on Jun 22, 2009 03:35 PM
Dork,are you insane?I need not comment about Fedex's losses due to flu or swine flu or whatever.It is the Fedex fans who concentrate more on what Rafa is doing and Rafa's record.They are more concerned about Rafa than their hero.I'm sure you celebrated the fact that Rafa withdrew from Wimbledon!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federer is the greatest but..............
by Anurag Rathore on Jun 22, 2009 03:52 PM
Your another foolish prediction:
Re: Re: Federer's fortune On Jun 04, 2009 12:15 PM Permalink
Now that Rafa is away,crybaby Fedex can dream of winning.Where is Verdasco by the way?He would beat the hell out of Fedex.All said and donr,Fedex wont win here.He wont win a 14th slam either.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federer is the greatest but..............
by Anurag Rathore on Jun 22, 2009 03:41 PM
I show you mirror what you have said till now.
1st:
Re: fedex................ On Sep 10, 2008 09:22 PM Permalink
Very well said PUNEESH.Only God can beat Nadal in Paris.For that matter, he starts favorite in SW19 as well.
Most people on this forum except for 2 or 3 don't seem to have watched too much of tennis or read about tennis prior to the Federer-Nadal era. Federer is one of the greatest, Nadal is not one of the greatest. Nadal has a ways to go before he can come into the category of one of the greatest .. for instance winning the US open and winning another 5-6 grand slams. But one of the places where he has an edge is in his encounters with Roger ... he has overshadowed Roger over the last couple of years and that has diminished Roger's legacy for the moment... but wait it is legacy that is still being written by Roger so maybe in the next couple of years he will dominate Nadal ...maybe he won't. Once the next couple of years play out we can conclude the debate of where Federer belongs.
Re: And the same ... over and over againt
by Vyankatesh Rege on Jun 22, 2009 01:34 PM
Tan,
Really good balanced message. But is H2H with Nadal critical in Federer's assessment as a great? In the 13-7 H2H, 11 matches have been played on clay, which is Nadal's preferred surface. What this tells us is 1. Federer managed to beat clay finals or semis consistently....beating the rest on the way and fell to the best on clay 2. Nadal wasnt even top 2 on hard courts till this years Aus Open final and lost to some lower ranked player while Federer managed to win other grandslams
As I mentioned somewhere else, since Nadal's breakout slam (2005 French Open) Federer won 10 grandslams, Nadal 6 so the H2H pales in comparison to this. Tennis is not about the top 2 or 4 players, its about the entire field as the recent French Open showed us
Re: Re: And the same ... over and over againt
by VASUDEVAN V on Jun 22, 2009 02:02 PM
The correct way of putting it is: Nadal has dominated on Clay and as Federer happened to be the 2nd best player on Clay during Nadal's domination, Nadal has such a lopsided record against Federer. After all, remember Nadal has won 23 of his 38 titles on Clay! So, the legacy of Federer is: The best on surfaces other than Clay for 5 consecutive years and the 2nd best on Clay during the same period. Let Nadal, Murray and others to follow achieve this type of domination! Hence, Federer can certainly lay claim to be the greatest in the Open Era till some one beats it with a even better record...
Re: Re: Re: And the same ... over and over againt
by cooldiffusion on Jun 22, 2009 02:18 PM
Nadal is 22 and has already won 6 slams, he was 18 when he won his first slam. Federer was 22 when he won his first slam which is rather late to win a slam for the so called greatest but can be explained by the fact that he could win as long as Sampras and Agassi and Hewitt to a less extent where dominating the scene. He started winning when there was no competition and then lost his grip when a young Nadal started maturing as a tennis player at the age of 21. Roger Federer isn't the greatest ... if he was he would not have struggled the way he has ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: And the same ... over and over againt
by VASUDEVAN V on Jun 22, 2009 02:46 PM
If Federer had no competition, the same goes for Nadal. After all, who except Federer has challenged Nadal over the last five years. Only Federer and since Nadal has such an overwhelming record over Federer during that period, why is that Nadal could not win more Slams from 2005 through to 2008?
Re: Re: Re: Re: And the same ... over and over againt
by Tan on Jun 22, 2009 02:24 PM
You make some valid points in this post and in your other posts but don't disrespect greatness ...Roger has hit a rough patch against Nadal but every champion goes through a rough patch and great competion makes a champion greater, in some ways it defines their legacy. Ali and Fraizer, Magic and Bird, Gavaskar and the West Indies pace attack of the 70's ...so let this play out before jumping to conclusions.
