Roger Federer Eclipses Pete Sampras For Total Weeks Ranked At No. 1 [Video]
by Staff | July 16th, 2012, 9:41 am
  • 209 Comments

At times it looked very unlikely, but Roger Federer has finally taken the ATP’s total weeks at No. 1 record from Pete Sampras. As of the Monday, July 16 rankings, Federer has spent 287 weeks at No. 1, surpassing Sampras’ 286.

“It is really an amazing feeling for me to have regained the No. 1 ranking on the ATP World Tour,” said Federer. “I had set a goal with my team to try and get back to the top of the rankings, but I never thought with the depth in the game this year that I would have been able to get it back so quickly. I am extremely proud and honoured to have beaten Pete’s record as he was my childhood hero and I have always looked up to him.”

Added Sampras, “Great effort. The hardest thing to do in sports is the ability to stay on top. Roger has been able to do so by great play and durability.”

Federer returned to No. 1 just last week after his stirring seventh Wimbledon title. The Swiss will remain ranked No. 1 for a few more weeks until the Olympics when rival Novak Djokovic has the opportunity to retain his top position.

Current total ATP weeks ranked at No. 1:
Federer 287
Sampras 286
Lendl 270
Connors 268
McEnroe 170
Borg 109
Nadal 102
Agassi 101

ATP video tribute:

Nike tribute:

Nike Federer

Nike Federer



Credit Suisse tribute:

credit suisse

credit suisse



Federer is scheduled to return to tennis at the end of the month for the 2012 summer Olympics in London.

A video from Federer:


Also Check Out:
Pete Sampras: Murray Just Can’t Hang Back And Hope Roger Misses
Sampras: Nadal Can Pass Federer in Total Slams
Pete Sampras Has Lost His Tennis Trophies?
Roger Federer Practices with Pete Sampras Ahead of Indian Wells [Photos]
Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Agassi Team-Up in Hit For Haiti Exo

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get Tennis-X news FREE in your inbox every day

209 Comments for Roger Federer Eclipses Pete Sampras For Total Weeks Ranked At No. 1 [Video]

Angel Says:

I’ve never seen anybody as good at something as Roger is at Tennis. Haters cannot question anymore his GOAT status, it’s just insane.
Congrats Roger, you are THE MAN.


skeezer Says:

“Added Sampras, “Great effort. The hardest thing to do in sports is the ability to stay on top. Roger has been able to do so by great play and durability.”

Yes Maestro, you ARE the Man!
Congrats! #1 All time.

Tennis X, thanks for great write up and pics ;)


skeezer Says:

If you are a Roger hater, watch the Vid. All the past Tennis greats know the man, studied him, the player, and describe him well. If your still a hater after that, it just means your jealous, face it.


RZ Says:

Truly an amazing accomplishment for Federer to get back to #1 in the “Djokodal” era! I’m glad he was able to get those 2 weeks (and counting) to get the record.


Brando Says:

NICE VIDEO- and congrats to roger!

noticeable how none of the greats called him a GOAT, why? because they don’t entertain that BS talk the media does to sell their products and fans do since they have nothing better to do!

LMAO, funny how edberg (feds childhood hero) said that roger is PROBABLY one of the best of all time!

Either way, now it’s roger’s time so congrats once again to him and i AGREE with edberg- ‘the game does need him to carry on’, for sure!


metan Says:

Congratulation to newly crown king of grass roger federer, for breaking another record,

You have set up a bar for others to look up to you, well done!


Number99 Says:

Congratulation Maestro! Simply the best!


jamie Says:

Octozone: Roger Federer is not done yet

http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/column_octozone-roger-federer-is-not-done-yet_1714772

All the analysis can be put on hold and comparisons to rest because the debates have no meaning at all. Astrologically, Roger Federer is the best tennis player ever. And he is not finished yet!

Federer was born in 1981 when one of the rarest of celestial configurations occurred — Uranus the planet of innovation and excellence was at its deepest exaltation point.Additionally, an exoplanet, which we call ‘Planet Y’ — the real ruler of the zodiac sign Virgo, symbolising perfectionism and sublime artistry, was also at its zenith of brilliance in his horoscope.

This is superior to the one-dimensional horoscopes of players born in different eras. This also makes him dangerous in a way that once the effect of Uranus starts waning and you start writing him off but he comes back with a bang with the power of ‘Planet-Y’ and vice versa.

Article continues below the advertisement…

Talking about contemporaries, nobody has a horoscope better than the Swiss great. However, hard they try, Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal will have fewer victories and Grand Slams compared to Federer. The current No 1 will retire qualitatively and quantitatively as the best ever to have played tennis.

The 30-year would be an exception to the rule that tennis players peak during 27-30. He may well play at his best even at 33-35. The period till the end of 2015 looks a bright patch for Federer. He would add at least three more Grand Slams to his kitty if not more. It is surprising to note that a 1981 born male has never won an Olympic gold in tennis singles.The Swiss maestro definitely has chances to clinch it at London.

—Lobo is a city-based astrologer


steve-o Says:

Congratulations, Roger! Here’s to several more years at the top!


trufan Says:

The GOAT debate was settled In July 2009 – after Federer won his 15th slam, and the French just a month earlier.

Since then, only irrational Fed haters have been slinging mud, just like it happens in politics.

Fed broke many more records in the last 3 years.

Now, in July 2012, with his 17th slam and no 1 ranking record, the only debate left is whether Federer is the GOAT of ALL INDIVIDUAL sports.

tennis GOAT is far and well settled.

Given the popularity and breadth of tennis across the world, its hard to come up with any other athlete who has excelled that much in an individual sport.

And please, don’t come back with swimming records. Its like saying – lets have wimbledon played as single set, best of 2 with tie break, best of 3 sets, best of 4 sets with tie break, best of 5 sets, wimbledon in the morning, wimbledon in the evening – its ridiculous how many swimming events and medals are created which are so similar to each other.


trufan Says:

Imagine how many olympic golds Usain Bolt would have won had they had 25m, 50m, 75m, 100m, 150m, etc. etc. races.

BTW, his 9.58 in 100m, and 19.19 in 200m – that’s WAY out there. I don’t know if either of them will be broken for a long time. Just like the 8.95m in long jump.


Mark Says:

@ Jamie. Now that Fed has clinched his 17th GS there will be dozens of “Lobo’s” singing his praises. Let us see what happens down line for everybody not just Fed. It seems Jamie you are extremely interested in astrology, I also think you read too much and are getting confused with all the different predictions. You post dozens of different links here, trying to confuse us as well. Keep it simple.


andrea Says:

wowza! another record broken.


skeezer Says:

@trufan

re; settled in 2009. Nailed it!


gannu Says:

heartiest congrats feddy bear…damn happy to see you get that record!…I am thinking of booking tkts to barclays atp tour world tour finals! have never seen u playing and want to do that once in my life..so lets see!


alison Says:

Roger Federer is without doubt the worlds greatest ever tennis player granted,and amongst the best ever sportsmen and woman ever also granted,but i feel its unfair to call him the best overall sports person ever,as every sport is completely different,its apples and oranges,im not a hater,but sorry this is just my opinion.


skeezer Says:

Fed has posted on his FB page a vid saying thanks to all his fans for supporting him in getting 287!, FYI


Alok Says:

YESSSSSSSSSSSSS, ROGER, you showed em. congrats on getting back the No.1 ranking and surpassing Sampras’ record of weeks at No. 1.


Brando Says:

@Alison:

COMPLETELY AGREE.

I mean when you have athletes like MOHAMMAD ALI who have graced the world of sport, there is NO WAY people would even go as far to call him the greatest sportsman ever.

IF there was poll done of some sort that asked pro athletes from various sports, writers, looked at achievement, impact in their sport, global impact, fame, level of respect etc- fed would come NOWHERE NEAR MUHAMMAD ALI.

Boxing, like tennis, is an individual sport and IF people look at ali and his achievement they quickly realise he was the BEST OF THE BEST- he BEAT EVERY BIG NAME in his ERA- DODGED NO ONE.

then when you look at the charisma, the reach into other world such as entertainment etc- its a clear NO CONTEST!

LOL- IF federer were to take a walk downtown Basel and so did Muhammad Ali i wonder who the locals will be more excited to see?

Local kid who has done good or the ICON FOR ALL AGES!


john Says:

Agreed.

Comparing different sport greats is pointless.

As a huge Fed fan, why would you want to put him under that kind of pressure anyway?

Having to answer questions about stuff he never even claimed was true.

Popularity inst necessarily a measuring stick(in my opinion) since old time greats wont be as popular as time passes and newer generations are born.


trufan Says:

People sometimes make someone into an icon – far inflating their real achievements. How many people in the world participate in Boxing? How many countries? Is there really that level of competition there? And frankly, it should not even be called a sport. Its barbaric.

The locals in Basel may be more excited to see Anna Kournikova, but that doesn’t make her a better sportsperson than she was.

And the so called “fight of the century” between Ali and Frazier? Ali lost.


alison Says:

Thanks Brando BTW love that Rafas part of that list at no 7.


skeezer Says:

NOWHERE NEAR MUHAMMAD ALI….

Didn’t Ali win the Heavyweight Championship of the World 3 Times?

Didn’t Fed get to # 1 3 times?

Just saying

But not saying that imo Fed is GOAT of ALL INDIVIDUAL sports, that is entertaining, but a stretch.


Dave Says:

skeezer: “Tennis X, thanks for great write up and pics ;)”

Yes, kudos to Sean Randall and his staff. Even though Federer doesn’t seem to have been their favorite player — and I’ve given Sean and Tom grief over the years — they’ve run a site that, nowadays, overall is fair to Federer. A site that Fed fans can enjoy being on, for the site blogs and the community here. We rank you guys No. 1 as well [but don't think I'm getting soft, hehe].

Brando, the owner of one of my favorite restaurants used to be a boxing champion in his late teens but then he gave up (in his 70s now, plays golf, lol). We talked about Federer, Tiger and Muhammad Ali last week. He said boxers consider Sugar Ray Robinson a greater boxer than Muhammad Ali. And he’s right. I have watched most of Ali’s biggest fights. Ali is an icon, but you have to separate the entertainment from the pure boxer. “Robinson was named the greatest fighter of the 20th century by the Associated Press, and the greatest boxer in history by ESPN.com in 2007. The Ring magazine rated him the best “pound for pound” boxer of all-time in 1997, and its “Fighter of the Decade” for the 1950s. Muhammad Ali, who repeatedly called himself “The Greatest” throughout his career, ranked Robinson as the greatest boxer of all time. Other Hall of Fame boxers such as Joe Louis and Sugar Ray Leonard said the same.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Ray_Robinson


Dave Says:

Poll in LA Times (Samprasland): Is Roger Federer the best tennis player of all time? 85.5% Yes, despite the grudging comments of the writers.


alison Says:

JMO lets just say Federer GOAT ot tennis,Pele GOAT of football,Ali GOAT of boxing and leave it at that,its all a matter of opinion anyway,theres no right or wrong answer.


trufan Says:

Tiger Woods is not even in that discussion. First he has to reach Jack Nichlaus 18 slams. Next, gold has to become popular enough around the world so that millions of kids play it – so that there is enough competition. Just a few rich kids in rich countries playing and competing for golf doesn’t create that much competition.

That’s why Spain winning the Soccer world cup and the Soccer Euro cup twice is such a big deal. Its the most played sport in the world – so that much greater competition. Tennis is up there in individual sports.


Dave Says:

Australian Poll: Who is the greatest sportsperson of all time? Federer first at 32% over the great Australian cricketer Don Bradman (27%), Michael Jordan (14%) and Muhammad Ali (10%). If Federer was Aussie instead of Swiss, how many more votes would he have gotten?
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/is-federer-the-greatest-ever-20120709-21s4u.html

“Sir Donald Bradman of Australia was, beyond any argument, the greatest batsman who ever lived and the greatest cricketer of the 20th century.”


trufan Says:

I think if he stays healthy, Fed will try and play the full rest of the season to get that sixth year end No. 1 ranking record if he can. He can pick up a lot of points are Montreal and Cinci, and at the USO. He didn’t play Shanghai masters last year, so he can pick up points there. Basel, Paris, London are all indoors, so he should be OK there. Olympics is on grass. Heck, he could be No. 1 heading into the AUS open, where he could again pick up points! Only after that does he have a serious challenge – saving Rotterdam, Dubai, IW points, then Madrid, Paris, Wimbledon….

In all likelihood, if he stays healthy, he could be No. 1 right upto March.

Or he could lose it in 3 weeks!

Either ways, I don’t see Nadal having 4 more years at No 1, or Djokovic having 5 more years at No. 1. So his record will stay for a while.

As records are extended, they get tougher and tougher to beat. Its not obvious that they get broken all the time.

I go back to the long jump record. Bob Beamon jumped 8.90m in 1968, which remained till 1991 when it was increased to 8.95m. Its been 21 years since – so basically, in the last 44 years, there have been only two jumps 8.90m or over….

Sometimes records stay for a long long time.


Mark Says:

@ Brando. Great post.


trufan Says:

I think of ALL the athletes participating in the Olumpics this year – if you were to pick out the top 5, or even top 3, Federer would be in there.

The “green again” lawns at Wimbledon, best of 3 tennis, supreme confidence – Federer has the best shot of anyone.


Dave Says:

Steve Flint: “(Federer) will remain at the top for at least a while. Djokovic has to protect a Masters 1000 win in Canada from last summer, a final round showing in Cincinnati, and a U.S. Open triumph. Federer has very little to protect from that period: he lost in the round of 16 in Canada last summer, fell in the quarterfinals of Cincinnati, and was beaten by Djokovic in the semifinals of the U.S. Open. After the Open in 2011, Federer won Basle, and then took the Masters 1000 crown in Paris, and the season-ending Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in London. Perhaps then Djokovic might have the incentive to make it back to the top of the mountain, but the view here is that Federer will almost inevitably finish 2012 at No. 1 in the world. That is a remarkable accomplishment for a man who is about to turn 31. But he has moved back to the top step by step. Since his jarring loss to Djokovic at the Open a year ago, he has won eight tournaments, far more than anyone else in that span. All of the leading players will have a chance to add substantial ranking points to their records at the Olympic Games back at Wimbledon beginning in late July, but Federer figures to do very well there. If Djokovic fares better at the Olympics, he might briefly move past Federer again, but not for long.
Steve Flint: “will remain at the top for at least a while. Djokovic has to protect a Masters 1000 win in Canada from last summer, a final round showing in Cincinnati, and a U.S. Open triumph. Federer has very little to protect from that period: he lost in the round of 16 in Canada last summer, fell in the quarterfinals of Cincinnati, and was beaten by Djokovic in the semifinals of the U.S. Open. After the Open in 2011, Federer won Basle, and then took the Masters 1000 crown in Paris, and the season-ending Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in London. Perhaps then Djokovic might have the incentive to make it back to the top of the mountain, but the view here is that Federer will almost inevitably finish 2012 at No. 1 in the world. That is a remarkable accomplishment for a man who is about to turn 31. But he has moved back to the top step by step. Since his jarring loss to Djokovic at the Open a year ago, he has won eight tournaments, far more than anyone else in that span. All of the leading players will have a chance to add substantial ranking points to their records at the Olympic Games back at Wimbledon beginning in late July, but Federer figures to do very well there. If Djokovic fares better at the Olympics, he might briefly move past Federer again, but not for long. I am convinced Federer will win at least one or two more majors before he puts the racket down for good, and he just might take three to realize his goal of 20 majors. Perhaps his biggest obstacle—other than a revitalized Djokovic and Nadal, or an always enterprising Murray—will be his back, which has acted up three times this year.”
http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=11156


alison Says:

No offence but it all gets rather irritating IMO,its not enough that Federer is the GOAT,now he has to be the GOAT of all GOATS.


trufan Says:

At the end of 2006, Federer was SO dominant that he had the equivalent of 16,800 ranking points based on today’s scale. Imagine that… That is also a record. Nobody has ever held the No. 1 ranking at such level of points.

In the coming few years, the ranking is likely to change hands many times between the top 3 (Murray doesn’t have a shot).

I do hope Delpo gets back to winning ways on hard courts. He’s been a bit disappointing lately. And Raonic. I think of the younger lot, these two have the maximum game. Would be nice if they can both break into the top 8, which gives them a huge advantage in slams (since they don’t have to face another top 8 players till the QF).


trufan Says:

Alison,

Ya, I understand your pain. Its rather irritating for those who dislike Fed.


Humble Rafa Says:

No offence but it all gets rather irritating IMO,its not enough that Federer is the GOAT,now he has to be the GOAT of all GOATS.

The GOATest is trying to cement his GOAT-hood in his GOAT-land. Feels like I should pack up everything and live in a cave for a few days until the euphoria subsides.


Humble Rafa Says:

The “green again” lawns at Wimbledon, best of 3 tennis, supreme confidence – Federer has the best shot of anyone.

Tommy Haas and Llyeton Hewitt want to talk to you.


alison Says:

Trufan i actually like Federer,i think his achievements are amazing,the only thing im doing is been a fair and objective poster,still if you dont believe then me then fair enough,as theres not much i can do about that,but then thats you with the problem not me,as i have already said in my above post i agree hes the best tennis player ever,and sits amongst the best ever sports people ever,but i just dont see why he has to be theee overall best sports person ever,its my opinion and im entitled to it,just like you are entitled to yours,as every sport is different,just because i dont agree with everything everyone says does not make me a hater,you have me tagged all wrong.


john Says:

Lmao…

So Feds status has been upgraded from GOAT to GOAT herder.

or the UberGOAT


john Says:

@Mark

What will you do if Feder wins the Olympics?

Will you be able to keep this up for six more months?


Mark Says:

@ John. “IF” is a very big word!!


Dave Says:

We know that boxers would consider Sugar Ray Robinson the GOAT of boxing (not Muhammad Ali). We know that footballers would consider Maradona or Lionel Messi the GOAT of football/soccer (not Pele).

The people best qualified to choose the GOAT of all sports/athletes would be the world’s greatest sports legends from all sports — such as the members of the Laureus Academy.
http://tinyurl.com/bmua5jx


skeezer Says:

Mark says

@ John. “IF” is a very big word!!

It’s a bigger word for you.


trufan Says:

Humble Rafa,
How are your knees? Hope the butts OK too. Have missed your comments!!

(Don’t forget to wash your hands before you eat!!)


The Great Davy Says:

What kind of ‘Great’ list cannot include The Great Davy.?

Just for this I take out anger by breaking Jurko Nieminen. I up 5 4 now, please go on and tell me how to milk my GOATs.


Ray Says:

LOL! it’s fun to see federer haters come up with childish and immature ways to demean fed!

The man is a Legend! The Greatest athlete of all time! [Usain Bolt and Michael Jordan are the only other athletes I believe is in Fed's league!]

What these 2 unique Sportstars do is combine excellence, majesty and success like no other sportsman/woman I have seen!

Federer with his leadership abilities added in, you have to ask if he can be compared with the GOATs of other fields -like music, literature and so on, becuase Fed’s game is as intellectual and aesthetically beautiful as the greatest music/books of all time!

Allez Fed!


trufan Says:

I think Lendl’s 270 weeks at No. 1 deserves a lot of credit too.

The guy had the toughest competition of all. He started out with Borg, then Connors, then McEnroe (faced all THEIR peaks), then had to face Wilander, Becker and Edberg at THEIR peak, and in his twilight years, had to face Sampras and Agassi. COME ON, that’s ridiculous level of competition! he didn’t play a SINGLE week when he didn’t have at least a couple of these top players (6+ slams) at THEIR peak. The guy got no break.


Ray Says:

Check the ATP page. For a moment, I thought it was rf.com! LOL!

The tennis universe bows to the God of Tennis! Great tribute tennis-x, but the ATP trumped you big time!


john Says:

@ray

thx for sharing

I have that shirt hehe.


The Great Davy Says:

What I tell you people. Every time I hear about Federer’s goats I bake bagel from now on. Jurko Nieminen weeps under The Great Davy!!!


trufan Says:

For people who forget how out of this world Fed’s records are (remember 2004-07 period??), here’s Pete Sampras’s best, year, 1994 (when he was 23):

2 slams, 3 masters titles, 77-12 match record, 10 titles, won the YEC.

As for being a sporting player and a gentleman – some on this forum still try to find SOMETHING that fed might have said that might sound arrogant.

Here’s Sampras about Rafter:

1. In 1998, after Rafter defeated Sampras in the Cincinnati Masters final, Sampras, at the time winner of 11 Grand Slams, when asked about the difference between himself and Rafter, famously stated “Ten grand slams”, that a controversial line-call cost him the match, and that a player had to come back and win another Grand Slam title in order to be considered great. The two met in the semifinals of the 1998 US Open, with Rafter winning in five sets. Sampras cited a leg injury as the reason Rafter won, an attitude that upset the generally mild-mannered Aussie: “He really does say some funny things at the wrong time”, said Rafter, “We are out there busting our guts and he doesn’t show a lot of respect at the end of the day. He tries to play down the reason why he lost, giving no respect to the other player, and that is what really upsets me about him and the reason I try to piss him off as much as I can.”

2. Following his successful defense of his 1997 U.S. Open title by defeating Mark Philippoussis in the 1998 final, when asked about Sampras’ earlier comments about having to win another Grand Slam in order to be considered great, Rafter replied: “Maybe you can ask him that question, if he thinks that now. For me, I won another Slam, and it hasn’t sunk in yet. It’s very, very exciting for me, especially to repeat it”. For his part, Sampras said about Rafter, “When I see him holding the US Open trophy, it pisses me off.”

And I think everyone on this forum raves about Sampras, how great he was as a player, etc. etc.

Do the comparison yourself.


trufan Says:

And BTW, this is not Rusedski we are talking about. This is Rafter, one of the nicest guys on the tour, about whom Sampras was so nasty.


alison Says:

Ray i never actually said anything to demean Roger,the only thing i said was that although hes the greatest ever tennis player,i just dont think hes the overall greatest sports person ever,as all sports are different,its apples and oranges, JMO thats all,so why look for an argument that doesnt even exist?


Mark Says:

@ squeeeeeeeezie. iF I rule the world……..


Mark Says:

LMAO. All these Fedthugs fawning over the “Legend”. Me thinks the so called legend needs to work on his flawed H2H against the Great Rafael Nadal. The legend gets whipped time and time again. Doesn’t sound so good, does it????


trufan Says:

Say something new Mark, its getting old, and doesn’t mean anything. Bruguera had a winning record against Sampras too. But he got whipped by other players. You win a slam by beating 7 players, not 1. Same with No. 1 ranking – you have to beat 20-30 different players over the course of a year, consistently, to get to No. 1. If you perform poorly against lower ranked players like ROSOL, you drop down.


john Says:

Lmao even more Mark.

And we all no you ain’t laughing, your crying..

Your not even a Fed fan yet you keep visiting this thread….

That makes you one sad creature.

And your precious went out vs Rosol..

Sad Sméagol.


Mark Says:

@ John. So you think this thread belongs to the fedthugs? You are sadly mistaken. This is an open forum for everybody including fed haters. So suck it up buddy. We are not going anywhere and I for one will continue to annoy the likes of you! Enjoy!!


trufan Says:

So finally, Mark himself admitted he is a “fed hater”. Lets be objective about our comments – no need for hate!!

Seems like he got “Rosoled” too – don’t know which one hurt more – Nadal losing in the second round, or Fed winning and getting to No. 1. LOL, both happened!!


john Says:

@Mark

I never said the thread was only for Fed fans, you said that.

I said your a sad creature that reminds me of Smeagol from lord of the rings.

And the point I was trying to make is that all the Fed fans are happy over 287 but your a sour grouch.

The fact that you visit this thread with the sole purpose of annoying Fed fans makes me laugh at you.

That is what makes you a SAD CREATURE!!


john Says:

@truefan

Agreed lol.

I mean poor Mark has had a ruff couple of weeks.

Better ignore..Cant help it though-must-ruffle-his-feathers.. cant stop.


Angel Says:

The GOAT title is just no good enough, it might look a little be too much (maybe) but I think we should call Roger GOD, it’s shorter easier and more apropiate, no mean to disrespect Roger thoughm


Mark Says:

Hey big John. Seems your feathers are well and truly ruffled!!


john Says:

I’m a Rooster ready for battle.

Watch your back


Mark Says:

^^ Hahaha. Am shaking in my boots!!


trufan Says:

17 >> 11
6 >>>> 0
290 >> 102

The three most important records for tennis – slams won, YEC won, weeks at No. 1 (Fed is guaranteed upto 290, until after the Olympics).

Nadal, or anyone else for that matter, would any day trade the left side stats for the right side stats, in exchange for any H2H. Wouldn’t you? Which one would you prefer – left side or right side??? Mark probably wouldn’t have the courage to answer this question directly.


trufan Says:

As for Nadal not being done – Fed is not done either!! I am not sure who will be in a better shape at the Rio Olympics in 2016 – a 35 year old Fed, or a 30 year old Nadal (perhaps in crutches??).

Given the HUGE disparity in these stats, and that Nadal is now past 26 (where all tennis players fall off a cliff in terms of performance) – I don’t see Nadal being able to climb THIS mountain, ever. And the mountain still grows!!


trufan Says:

6 is a BIG number – until Nadal wins at leat 2 YEC, has been No. 1 for at least 200 weeks, and has at least 5 more slams – we shouldn’t even be including him in the same conversation with Federer.

Oh, with Djokovic whipping him regularly, and Fed on faster surfaces, isn’t likely to happen.


trufan Says:

Actually, if you think about it – has there EVER been a 5+ slam winner who never won the YEC? I don’t think anyone has been as one-dimensional as Nadal (Clay, Clay, Clay).


Rick Says:

Thought this might be of some interest.
Percentage of weeks spent at Number 1 by age (Mens)

Age Percent
20 1%
21 6%
22 13%
23 14%
24 19%
25 18%
26 11%
27 6%
28 5%
29 3%
30 1%
31-33 1%

75% of the Weeks Spent at Number 1 were by those from the ages of 22-26


trufan Says:

Exactly supports what I have been saying all along – tennis players fall off the “performance cliff” after 26. 23-25 is when most hit their peak.

Nadal is 26.


john Says:

Whats wrong with Federer ?

Why does he keep winning?


trufan Says:

Interesting Stat Rick.

Fed first became No. 1 when he was 22+, and remained there till just around when he was 27. Its been a roller coaster since then. that’s the 75% range you mention.

Oh boy, don’t show this to Nadal. At 26+ of age, where is he doing to get almost 4 years of No. 1?

Though he can certainly boast of the longest No. 2 ranking (perhaps Becker was close??).

But a big difference between a bride and a bridesmaid.


skeezer Says:

trufan at 4:28

:)

Rafa fans,

I don’t think you would get so much Rafa beatdown talk if you had less of the Sméagol types(aka Marcie). Its not fair to the good Rafa fans,who really do know who they are. For the most part, the good Rafa fans have let the Fed fans bask in the glory for awhile(Thanks!), and it is much appreciated. Nole fans overall have been awesome. Fed has been knocked by posters for 2 years with olderer, arrogant, retire, will never get another slam, #1 again? Lol…etc, etc. Some estatic Fed fans have went over the top in celebration, but keep in mind that some of the same dodo thrown at Fed(the desperate H2H comparisan is my personal fav) the last 2 years has just been hurled back. Maybe now we can all get back to some sensability
(doubt it, lol!)


Ben Pronin Says:

Dave, tennis-x is a Federer-biased site, honestly. He’s everyone’s favorite player here.

And trufan, that’s pretty unfair. Swimming is harder than tennis even if the events seem similar.


john Says:

Online Poll Australian Open.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/fancentre/poll/day10.html

Probably already posted(if so sorry)

Cant believe Nadal placed 2nd with 12.25 percent.

What an insult to the other Greats.

Although I agree Fed deserves the top spot.
Most voters clearly don’t know there tennis.


steve-o Says:

@john: in the words of the inimitable Marat Safin, he wins because “he has all the skills, and he uses them.” Also, he really loves tennis so he’s highly motivated to keep playing.

It’s not any more complicated than that.

People insist on judging him by the standards that past champions set. That’s why they keep predicting that he won’t be able to continue at a high level into his thirties.

That’s a mistake, because he is the standard, as he’s proved yet again today.

Like Ali, Federer does things that before him were unimagined. Insisting that he can’t do X or Y or Z merely shows a certain narrow-mindedness and lack of imagination.

Just go with the flow, y’all. He won’t be around forever, and you’ll miss him when he’s gone.


trufan Says:

Ben,

Even if you feel swimming is harder – its harder for everyone. In a relative sport, you have to beat others at the same task. Easy or hard.

Though I don’t agree that tennis is easier than swimming. Returning a 130mph serve or hitting a 85mph top spin forehand – as hard as it gets. And in best of 5, it gets pretty physical too. Its not a 1 or 2 or 3 minute sprint.


Ben Pronin Says:

Trufan, have you ever swam competitively? You think they’re just sprinting for a few minutes? And you think that’s not physical?

Why is returning a 130mph serve or hitting an 85 mph as hard as it gets? That’s like saying the amount of rpms Ray Allen puts on his jump shots is as hard as it gets. Hitting a forehand millions upon millions of times without ever missing, that’s where the difficulty lies. Not in how hard or fast you hit it.


trufan Says:

Ben,

Did you ever swim competitively, or play tennis competitively?

A 30 shot rally in tennis, going on for 40, 50 seconds or more, sucks everything out too. And then you have to keep coming back for more, sometimes for 3, 4, 5 hours.

They are both difficult in their own ways. Its wrong to say one is more difficult than the other.

The LEVEL of competition may, of course, be different. And remember, in each sport, you are beating the next guy – there’s nothing absolute.

And try hitting a forehand when the air has been sucked out of your lungs.


trufan Says:

And Ben, BTW, where and when did I say swimming was not physical? Don’t imagine things.


skeezer Says:

“Hitting a forehand millions upon millions of times without ever missing, that’s where the difficulty lies”

Not.

Your theory belongs in the Guiness World records. Lots of “how many times can you hit a ball?” are there by less talented athletes/hobbyists.

And in what scenario to win a tennis match would require you hit the ball “millions upon millions of times without ever missing”?


skeezer Says:

Ben,

Never mind my post, didn’t know this all started with swimming comparisan. ;(


Ben Pronin Says:

Yes to both. The average tennis match is hour and a half, maybe 2 hours. Matches that go longer are an exception.

Why is it wrong to say one is more difficult than the other? First of all, that’s why you have said twice now. Second, swimming is more physically demanding than tennis.

Try hitting a forehand when the wind has been knocked out of you? Tennis is short sprints. You’re not covering as much distance as you think and you stop all the time. If you want to talk about what sucks the air out of your lungs, try swimming 40 laps nonstop while attempting to maintain at least 75% of your top speed. Breath control is one of the hardest and most important things about swimming and you never have a chance to stop and just take a breath (unless you’re some kind of idiot) during an event. In tennis, if you play a long point, you can take a few seconds before your next point to recover. In swimming, once a race starts, you either go all out or you lose, no breaks.

Technique-wise, tennis is more complicated and inherently more difficult. It’s pretty easy to get away with imperfect technique in swimming, especially if you’re already fast. Michael Phelps is a pretty great example of that. But in tennis, you don’t have the luxury of screwing with your technique. If you hit your shots wrong you’re screwed every time. And you risk injury. But once you know how to hit a forehand, hitting it really hard isn’t anywhere close to being the hardest thing ever.

But 5 hours of tennis vs 5 hours of swimming from a purely physical standpoint, swimming is infinitely harder. It’s not even funny.


madmax Says:

What a tribute to Federer! A wonderful article written by SI.com, and here is an excerpt. The olympics points are also detailed for those of you unsure (including me!).

But with questions swirling about his resiliency, consistency — and let’s face it: his age — combined with the sudden rise of Novak Djokovic, Sampras’ record was looking pretty safe.

But after his crushing loss to Djokovic at last year’s U.S. Open, Federer embarked on a steady climb back, finishing 2011 undefeated with a 17-0 record and continued his form when the calendar clicked over, making the semifinals of both the Australian Open and French Open, going on another 17-0 streak in the spring, before topping it all off with his seventh Wimbledon title, 17th major title, first major since 2010, and return to the No. 1 ranking. That he was able to attain this record in just three stints at No. 1 speaks to his consistency and dominance.

“It took Sampras 11 periods at No. 1 to set the previous record”

I WASN’T AWARE OF THE ABOVE FACT WHICH MAKES FEDERER EVEN MORE OF AN ATHLETE AND SUPERMAN, (IF THAT’S POSSIBLE?!).

With all the top men out of action until the Olympics, he’s assured to keep adding to the tally. But let’s not assume his reign will end there. While he’s only 75 points ahead of No. 2 Novak Djokovic (and a whopping 2, 170 ahead of Rafael Nadal), Federer has a good chance to widen the gap at the Olympics, where the point distribution will be as follows: gold: 750, silver: 450, bronze: 340, fourth place: 270, quarters: 135, third round, 70, second round: 35, first round: 5.

Djokovic would have to make the quarterfinals to have a chance to catch Federer, and if they both make it that far, Roger just needs to match Djokovic’s result to stay ahead. Not that Roger cares about that. He’s going for singles gold, one of the few accolades (along with a Davis Cup title) that has eluded him, and he’s the favorite going into the tournament. Given his otherworldly display eight days ago on Centre Court, it’s hard to bet against him.


madmax Says:

I haven’t read all the posts here yet, but I will tomorrow. Trufan, around a year ago, Ben said that Darts was a sport and that it was more difficult to play Golf than tennis.

I am still pondering his response, even now.

Margot, I watched the murray and fed wimbledon match again. It was brilliant. A brilliant match. Andy Murray was brilliant. Wasn’t he?

Some of the shots he played were “other worldly”. Some of the rallies these guys played were just awesome.


dari Says:

CONGRATULATIONS TO.ROGER FEDERER.
besides his amazing twnnis I love about him how he just keeps showing up for more after all his success. I didn’t see number 1 coming so fast, but what can you say, roger always gives some happt surprises.
Proud to be a fed fan and look to his example of pulling off tye magic time and time again when it doesn’t look possible!

HAPPY INTERNATIONAL ROGER FEDERER DAY!


Ben Pronin Says:

I’d like to see the post where I called darts a sport. And golf isn’t a sport either but the technique is harder to grasp than tennis.


skeezer Says:

“darts. In the same class as Pool


Ben Pronin Says:

At least pool requires some thought.


dc Says:

Golf is game, not a sport. There isn’t much physicality involved in Golf to call it a sport.

Sure – for a lazy bums & older people, walking for few hours is a physical torture and hence some would call it a sport.


dc Says:

Ben Pronin Says:

At least pool requires some thought.
—————————————-
Golf also requires thought & skill – you need to decide what to wear (thought) & tie your shoe laces (skill)


RZ Says:

Madmax, I haven’t re-watched the Wimbledon final but I’m still in awe of Fed’s drop volley on the run in the 2nd set that gave him set point. Both beautiful and crazy!


Dave Says:

madmax: ” “It took Sampras 11 periods at No. 1 to set the previous record”
I WASN’T AWARE OF THE ABOVE FACT WHICH MAKES FEDERER EVEN MORE OF AN ATHLETE AND SUPERMAN, (IF THAT’S POSSIBLE?!).”

This list shows the difference between the two players. Sampras is player No. 11 (April 1993 – November 2000) and Federer No. 23 (2004 to 2012). During the period that Sampras accumulated his 11 period his 11 periods as No. 1, 8 other players took the No. 1 ranking from him or during his era (some did it multiple times). On the other hand, during Fed’s era, he broke the record in only 3 periods and only 2 other players were No. 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players

Sampras needed 11 periods to reach 286 total weeks as No. 1
Lendl 8 periods to 270 weeks.
Connors 9 periods to 268 weeks.
McEnroe 14 periods to 170 weeks.
Borg 6 periods to 109 weeks.

This puts Federer’s dominance in context — to me, it’s one of Federer’s key attributes in the GOAT debate — not just tennis players, but all athletes. It’s not just Fed’s record number of slams but the way he dominated the men’s tour as the No.1 player that is unique. Unlike other sports like golf, our one-year ranking system gives challengers more opportunity to displace the top ranked player.


Kimmi Says:

Yoohoooo! unbelievable. congrats roger!! great effort to get to No. 1 again. good luck for the rest of the year.


Dave Says:

List of toughest/hardest/most difficult sports based on study by a panel of sports scientists and other experts:

Boxing is No. 1
Ice Hockey No. 2
American football No. 3
Basketball No.4
TENNIS is No. 7
Swimming (distance) No. 36
Swimming (sprints) No. 45
Golf No. 51
Billiards No. 59
Posting on tennis blogs No. 105
Darts (no beer) No. 333
Darts (beer in hand) No. 666
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills?sort=total_rank#grid


Dave Says:

But grand slam tennis can be played at a tougher level than determined by the ESPN study.

“Tennis by the numbers adds up to an ironman effort

Think about this. You are a tennis player, and your coach says, “We’re going to do some grand slam training, so I want you to do 1100 sprints for eight to 10 seconds over the next six hours.”

Dave Martin, senior sports physiologist at the Australian Institute of Sport, knows what he thinks. “It’s insane. Nobody does that,” he told the Herald yesterday. But incredibly, that is the equivalent of the workload asked of Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal in their five hour, 53 minute Australian Open final.

Martin, like most observers, was awed by the physical and mental grit shown by both players at the Rod Laver Arena. And he didn’t waste time number-crunching while looking back to a report by AIS student David Hornery titled A Review on Fatigue in Tennis.

In terms of energy expenditure, Martin rated the Djokovic-Nadal final on a par with the hilly stages of the Tour de France, despite the more “intermittent” efforts in tennis. “Tennis is the ultimate [in] intermittency. Rarely does a point last for more than 10 seconds,” he said. “Estimates [for a grand slam match are that] 10 to 15 per cent of total time is engaged in play, which means in six hours, they’re probably only engaged in actual intensity for about an hour.”

But the numbers, based on AIS research, reveal the astonishing truth. Martin said: “Three hundred and sixty points were won. For each one, you can look at about 10 metres of sprinting covered at about 10 seconds of effort – that is probably 3.5 to 4 kilometres of distance [run]. That would have been done with around 1100 sprints. That is between 150 and 200 sprints per hour.”

Read the rest…
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/tennis-by-the-numbers-adds-up-to-an-ironman-effort-20120130-1qpp8.html


Kimberly Says:

Wow, this thread made for a great read! Love the espn link Dave i see golf is below table tennis lol. I am of the golf is not a sport camp!


metan Says:

LIMITED FOR RAFA FANS ONLY

just found new VIRUS named GOAT, it has been afflicted many people now days, this virus so deadly worst then cancer, amnesia and hiv.

It affected the brain coz people can’t think very normal. Some who has been suffered with this virus even think human is EQUAL to our creator GOD.

Please you all BE VERY CAREFUL N BE AWARE of this virus

Btw, GOAT VIRUS MEANS GREEDY OF ALL TIME


skeezer Says:

Nice to see Tennis above Soccer ( although obvious…duh! ). Soccer is the only sport where you don’t need arms, just 2 legs and a Head. Why is it so popular world wide?

Dave,

Disappointed that they never included Bocce ball, the all time drinking game, which requires talent, skill, grit, determination, athletic prowess, stamina, fitness and always a 12 pack on ice on the side.

Of course, then, how can we forget the famous winter Olympics sport, “Curling”. Life with a Broom never felt so good.

Enjoyed the 8:16 read. Can’t deny that almost 6 hour match and seeing Rafa looking to sit down during the Ceremony, that was some Iron man stuff they laid out in the final!


dc Says:

@
metan Says:

LIMITED FOR RAFA FANS ONLY

just found new VIRUS named GOAT, it has been afflicted many people now days, this virus so deadly worst then cancer, amnesia and hiv.

It affected the brain coz people can’t think very normal. Some who has been suffered with this virus even think human is EQUAL to our creator GOD.

Please you all BE VERY CAREFUL N BE AWARE of this virus

Btw, GOAT VIRUS MEANS GREEDY OF ALL TIME
————————————————
people infected with this virus are prone to pick their butt.


Ben Pronin Says:

How does the virus affect those who don’t believe in God?


metan Says:

@ben pronin,
They are the sources! Instead of how does it,,,,,,,,,,


Michael Says:

This is another feather in Roger’s cap. Not that it was necessary to justify him as GOAT. This only solidifies his position as GOAT. I think this one will come after the continuous semi and quarter final streak of Roger and these are amazing achievements in the annals of the Sport.


Michael Says:

How does the virus affect those who don’t believe in God?

God created bacteria and virus to affect everyone including the believers and unbelievers.


Michael Says:

Did anybody give Roger any chance to become No.1 again ?? Yeah he stumped them with his performance. That is Roger – the KING OF KING.


Mark Says:

squeeeeeeezie. How many times have you read and re- read Lord of the Rings??


madmax Says:

Okay, need to deal with Mark first of all this morning. Never come across a more angry, jealous, arrogant guy in my life. Really feel sorry for you Mark that you don’t have it within you to congratulate Federer for his successes.

Mark, accept the power of the mighyt fed. You will feel so much better for it. I don’t know who said this before in this thread, it made me smile – “accept the power Mark of the mighty fed”, get yourself some tacos or popcorn, kick back and just enjoy those incredible tennis shots.

Please don’t worry about the head to head with rafa, if that is all you have to go on, then I feel sorry for you.

What I would suggest is that you count the amount of slams/masters and other tournaments Rafa has won, I think you will find them very top heavy. More than 72% of his tournaments are on clay.

Wow. And for all the kudos which goes to rafa as the greatest tennis player ever on clay. It kind of ignites the argument that really, this is his specialism, isn’t it Mark? Don’t you think? Would LOVE to hear your views here. Take away his clay court achivements Mark and what do you have?

An achievement nevertheless. Love Nike’s new advert Mark. Here is what it says:

The Legend. Confirmed.

Love it!

Mark Says:

LMAO. All these Fedthugs fawning over the “Legend”. Me thinks the so called legend needs to work on his flawed H2H against the Great Rafael Nadal. The legend gets whipped time and time again. Doesn’t sound so good, does it????

July 16th, 2012 at 4:14 pm

I actually think he has worked hard on his h2h with Rafa and worked hard on his game. Hence the wins he has had over the last 9 months. May be he doesn’t win anything again Mark, I don’t care. He is the best and I am so proud to be a Federer fan. For someone who doesn’t like Federer, you sure spend enough time writing about him. Stick to the rafa threads and then perhaps you will stay calmer.

Mark, it actually sounds great! I love the rafa/roger rivalry. Means that Federer has become a better player, and even so has rafa. They both admit it. It’s just unfortunate that crappy fans like you fail to understand the tactics of a tennis match, that it’s not just about head to heads. *clearing throat*, Nalbandian? God Mark, you are really uneducated.

Please continue to call me Madthing, I really love it. You just show your narrow vocabulary. Not only that, if H2H is the only thing you have to go on, you know zero about tennis.

Dave, I know. I know! Thanks for picking up on “that fact”. Makes Federer even more of a legend. Mark, if you send me your email, I can send you a poster of Federer, smiling at you, saying “More Legend”. It’s really classy!

Ben, come on! You and I had a massive discussion about this a year ago, could be a bit longer now. I told you about the sprint runners and the fact that Keely Holms was 36 years old when she won double gold, it went on for weeks. You absolutely exhausted the argument about age and that Federer was on the decline. You ranted for weeks.

You then continued with the fact that Darts players could be called “sportsmen”. I disagreed, I mean how could a pot bellied, beer swigging man be called an athlete? Come on!

Then you went on to golf and said how fit you had to be to walk around an 18 hole course. If I had a weekend to re-post all of those Ben, I would.

But I have better things to do with my time and if you don’t remember this conversation, then it couldn’t have registered so strongly with you, which would surprise me because I remember everything you said. Spend a bit of time, if you would locating them and lets relive it!


Mark Says:

@ Madthing. Ranting and raving! Gosh, you really are in some mental turmoil. If you look back you will find my post after Wimbledon final which read “Well done Fed”.


Mark Says:

For all those interested and who have access to Sky Sports channels watch Sky Sports 2 at 6 pm tonight and repeated at 9.30 pm – Sporting Greats – Rafael Nadal. I shall be watching!


st4r5 Says:

Titles of Roger Federer in many articles in newspapers and other written publications:

1. GOAT
2. TMF
3. King of kings (in tennis world)
4. Lord of lords (in tennis world)
5. Saviour (in tennis world)
6. God of tennis
7. Tennis superman
8. Majesty
9. Great one

I may have missed a few more…


alison Says:

^Great post perfectly summed up,GOAT of tennis,end of story^.


alison Says:

Mark thanks for telling us that,i had no idea,as i am working till ten o clock tonight,i will have to record it.


metan Says:

@mark,
Any link that I can see it, can’t find in hong kong n singapore


MMT Says:

“RZ Says: Madmax, I haven’t re-watched the Wimbledon final but I’m still in awe of Fed’s drop volley on the run in the 2nd set that gave him set point. Both beautiful and crazy!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0BOVp4NVB4&feature=related

That really was a beautiful point in so many ways. Murray’s serve was good, but the return was perfect – taken well out in front of him, landing inches from the sideline. Then keeping his concentration after the net cord and that inside out forehands moving back and to his left.

But the point changed with that cross-court forehand that pulled Murray wide, followed by the cross-court backhand 6 inches off the ground that pushed him to he other side. If you look at Murray’s position just after those two shots they were both in the doubles alley. The drop volley, good as it was just sweet overkill.

The only thing you can fault Murray for in that point was playing Federer’s forehand too much, but that’s easy to say because if you’ve been beaten by his forehand over and over again, it’s natural to try to avoid it.


scineram Says:

“LOL- IF federer were to take a walk downtown Basel and so did Muhammad Ali i wonder who the locals will be more excited to see?”

I would run to him asking “Could you give me an autograph, Jo? Good luck for Basel Indoor and the WTF.”


Dave Says:

madmax: “Ben, come on!…You ranted for weeks. You then continued with the fact that Darts players could be called “sportsmen”. I disagreed, I mean how could a pot bellied, beer swigging man be called an athlete? Come on!”

In this two minute video we will see the time, sweat, pain and skill the darts athlete needs to achieve a perfect game in the tough sport called ‘darts’. We will never mock this ‘sport’ again…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_Ret8ZLh48

Kimberly: Finally, we have all the proof we need that golf is closer to roller skating than an actual sport. We have protected the honor of tennis… and table tennis :)

skeezer: Bocce, lol. Man it’s tough to find a study that includes Bocce. Maybe on Italian sports sites :)


Kimberly Says:

I haven’t read all the posts here yet, but I will tomorrow. Trufan, around a year ago, Ben said that Darts was a sport and that it was more difficult to play Golf than tennis

___________________________

i imagine Ben had just returned from a bar playing darts after having ten cocktails/beers when he wrote that post.

Golf is huge down here and I constantly argue the golf/tennis quesiton. Its so ludricrous. I play mostly singles but even a doubles match is a way more physical than golf.


metan Says:

@ john,
Thanks for the link, I am dying to see rafa come back, most of all I wish him speedy recovery, his knee, I pray hard for it.


Mark Says:

@ metan. Sorry no link to the TV programme. You probably do not get Sky Sports where you are.


jamie Says:

Old but interesting article

============================

http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2012/07/2012_wimbledon_roger_federer_a.html

2012 Wimbledon

Roger Federer and that elusive last hurrah
Published: Thursday, July 05, 2012,

By Douglas Perry, The Oregonian

We rarely realize we’re seeing a last hurrah while it’s happening. When Rod Laver was completing his 1969 Grand Slam at Forest Hills, who out in the stands thought he’d never come close to winning another major title? When John McEnroe cruised past Ivan Lendl in the 1984 U.S. Open final, who figured he’d never win another — and would only reach one more major final?

Which is why the exceptions — Pete Sampras at the 2002 U.S. Open, for example — really stick in the mind. When Pistol Pete broke a two-year title drought for his record 14th major we recognized we were seeing something special — the end of an era played out with a bang, not the typical whimper.

So you might want to enjoy every stroke Roger Federer offers up on Friday in his semifinal against Novak Djokovic. We haven’t been able to savor, or really even to think about, Federer’s last hurrah, because he’s never had that late-career fall in the rankings that warns us of what’s happening.

It’s been hard for Roger to come to terms with what’s happening, too. After he won the 2010 Australian Open for his 16th career major title, he said he thought 20 was within reach. He’s been stuck at 16 ever since. A long losing streak — and that’s what it is when you’re Roger Federer and you’ve gone more than two years without a major — can destroy a man, eat him right up. It’s a terrible way to end a career, but it’s how most champions go out.

Federer now knows he isn’t going to make it to 20 majors. One senses he’d be happy to hang up his racquets with 17, especially if that last one came at Wimbledon, tennis’ greatest tournament.

Here’s his last chance, and it looks like he’s taking it. On Wednesday, well into Wimbledon’s second week, he finally looked consistently sharp in his straight-set dismantling of Mikhail Youzhny. Cynics will say, hey, it’s Youzhny, an underachieving, 30-year-old Russian who’s long been an easy out for Federer. True enough, but Youzhny has been hitting the ball with flair all tournament, and it was a Wimbledon quarterfinal, which is when you have to start showing your best form if you hope to win the title.

Djokovic, in the very prime of his career, has showed he’s ready to defend his title. He crushed Florian Mayer in the quarters to set up a second-straight major semifinal — and third in four majors — between him and Federer. Nole, of course, has won those last two showdowns in majors, and he will be a big favorite in this one. After all, he’s the number one player in the world.

But we cannot, we must not, count Federer out. Yes, he’s nearly 31 years old. Too true, he’s struggled to maintain his confidence when facing the younger Nole and Rafael Nadal on the biggest stages in recent years. Recent history surely will be on his mind when he takes the court on Friday.

But it will be Centre Court — where he has secured his greatest triumphs, flown higher than any tennis player ever has. He knows what he can do out there, and if he can get off to a good start, hears that ball cracking off his racquet like cannon fire, he will believe he can do anything, beat anybody, even now. He matches up against Djokovic better than he does against Rafa. And he matches up against anyone and everyone quite nicely on grass, where his slice sticks lower to the ground and he can really make his approach shots count.

Djokovic’s run over the past 18 months has been astonishing. A second Wimbledon title — and fourth major of the past five — would be a great accomplishment. But it would pale compared to one last hurrah for Roger Federer.

– Douglas Perry

=========================

This wimbledon title could very well be Federer’s last hurrah. He has to wait 2 years just like Sampras from 2000 to 2002.


jamie Says:

Edit:He had to wait 2 years just like Sampras from 2000 to 2002.


jamie Says:

Also Fed has now 3 more slams than Sampras. Pete won 3 more slams than Borg. Fitting.


john Says:

@metan

Pleasure.

I am sure he will be fine.

——————–

Just go with the flow, y’all. He won’t be around forever, and you’ll miss him when he’s gone.

July 16th, 2012 at 6:01 pm

@steve-o

thx for reply, nice post :)


skeezer Says:

jamie,

jamie? Nice post on the Fedster and thanks for that :), nice read.


skeezer Says:

“Just go with the flow, y’all. He won’t be around forever, and you’ll miss him when he’s gone”

Second that!


trufan Says:

Fed’s comparisons to Sampras are completely off.

When Sampras won the USO in 2002, it was due to HUGE amounts of luck (the highest player he faced on the way was ranked No. 6 – a 32 year old Agassi). Before that, Sampras had gone 2 years and 28 tournaments without a single title, and war ranked No 14 or something.

Federer, on the other hand, has won 8 titles in the last 9 months, was ranked No 3 before the tournament and now No 1, and has been winning consistently, and reaching deep in majors.

Sampras was on his way out when he got lucky with his last slam.

Federer is very much in the thick of things – and is even ranked No 1 now!!!

Completely different scenario….


Ben Pronin Says:

The fact that I play darts when I’m at a bar drinking beer with my buddies is exactly why darts isn’t a sport.

This is a never ending debate, though. Which sport is harder? It also greatly depends on the individual. A guy like Federer was simply born to play tennis and you can see it. The same can be said about Michael Phelps and swimming. But you can’t say the same about Lebron James, because he could’ve been a phenom in football, too. That’s why he’s the best.

I’m not really getting the God stuff. I’m not going to specify my beliefs, and I don’t think anyone should have to. But let’s not get tangled in this, please be respectful of everyone.


trufan Says:

If Federer gets Sampras’s luck (not having to face a top 5 player to win a slam) – don’t you think Federer will still win EVERY SINGLE SLAM??

He actually beat the reigning no 1 (Djokovic) AND no 4 Murray to win wimbedon. Did not sneak by with luck at all.

Sampras was lucky to get to 14. Federer has gotten to 17 in spite of so much “tough luck” along the way. There is absolutely no similarity between the two.


Sienna Says:

Fed won his 17th with greta conviction beati the #1 4 in the world. He beat all the in form players. going through Djoker and Murray was the most difficult slam possible.

His on top of the world playing the best tennis possible .
HE IS THE STANDARD.


jamie Says:

Federer & Mirka vs Hewitt & Molik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoEpkZyPo0k


SG1 Says:

trufan…take it easy with the Sampras bashing. Federer’s accomplishments are beyond reproach. However, his first 7 majors were won in the tennis vacuum left by Sampras’s retirement and Agassi getting on in years. Federer was 7-0 in major finals until the competition showed up. Since that time, he’s had a record of 10-7 in major finals. Definitely still great, but not nearly as good as his 7-0 slam final start.

Federer has won Wimbledon. The surface most suited to him at this point in his career. I don’t think there are a lot more majors out there for him to take. Australia, the USO and the FO are very physically demanding for a tennis player in their 30′s. I don’t see him winning any of these slams again. At least as I see it, he’s got one shot at a major a year. If he fails, he goes into a 2 year major slump again.

As for Sampras being lucky, I think not. Sampras was the best athlete to ever hold a tennis racket. He wasn’t the best ball striker and he didn’t dance around the court like Fed. He had effortless power, moved beautifully and could play any part of the tennis court.

I actually think Sampras, if anything, was unlucky. He hurt his back before the 99 USO. A major he probably would have won. And while it can be dismissed, Sampras’thalassemia had a serious impact on his longevity and durability. And one other thing. Sampras won 14 slams going forward, playing attacking tennis. The margins for error are hole lot smaller when you hit flatter shots. McEnroe only won 7 majors, Becker 6, Edberg 6 as well. Sampras, playing an attacking style, blew away his attacking contemporaries in terms of results.

Federer’s record definitely makes him the GOAT but anyone who think Sampras was lucky to get 14 slams clearly never saw him play!


Dave Says:

I declare madmax the winner — by a beatdown — of the ‘darts and golf are not sports’ conundrum (at least it seems to be a conundrum to a very, very few people). The things that Fed fans have to deal with each day in order to bring some sense to nonsense.

******

Jamie: “This wimbledon title could very well be Federer’s last hurrah. He has to wait 2 years just like Sampras from 2000 to 2002.”

First, here’s the big difference between Sampras and Federer: Sampras failed to win any type of title between 2000 Wimbledon and 2002 US Open. On the other hand, Federer won 12 tournaments between 2010 Australian Open and 2012 Wimbledon: 2 sub-slam World Tour Finals (2010, 2011), 4 Masters 1000 (2010 Cincinnati, 2011 Paris, 2012 Indian Wells, 2012 Madrid), 4 ATP 500 tournaments (2010 Basel, 2011 Basel, 2012 Rotterdam, 2012 Dubai), 2 ATP 250 (2010 Stockholm, 2011 Doha). How many players have won 12 titles during that period? I had said before that Federer has still been playing at a high level and consistently – he just needed to catch the wave at some point so he could surf on the confidence of winning. Several times it seemed as if he caught the wave but either injuries or inopportune losses or his vacations led to a loss of momentum and derailed him temporarily.

Second, when Douglas Perry wrote about Fed’s last hurrah, it was BEFORE the Djokovic match. After Roger won Wimbledon, Perry no longer brought up the last hurrah. Instead Perry declared that Federer is a tennis immortal who could continue winning more slams: “And now there’s Federer, who, even after dominating the sport like no one ever had, has refused to quietly fall behind in his later years as the script indicates he should. That script was written for mere mortals in the lead roles. Federer, with his record 17th major title, has reaffirmed that he’s a tennis immortal… He’s now got to be considered the favorite going into the Olympics… Federer’s Grand Slam record, whatever it ends up being.” Compare Perry’s exuberant talk after the Wimby final with what Perry said just before the Djokovic match: “Roger Federer and that elusive last hurrah… It’s been hard for Roger to come to terms with what’s happening, too… Federer now knows he isn’t going to make it to 20 majors. One senses he’d be happy to hang up his racquets with 17, especially if that last one came at Wimbledon, tennis’ greatest tournament. Here’s his last chance…”

What Steve Flint said after Wimbledon probably summarizes the best thinking on where Fed is headed: “I am convinced Federer will win at least one or two more majors before he puts the racket down for good, and he just might take three to realize his goal of 20 majors. Perhaps his biggest obstacle—other than a revitalized Djokovic and Nadal, or an always enterprising Murray—will be his back, which has acted up three times this year.” Roger’s high risk game relies a lot on confidence and momentum. IF he can surf this wave he is on, he is certainly capable of accomplishing this. Of course no one can predict the future, so no scenario (either way) is impossible.


skeezer Says:

SG1

Gotta side with you here. Sampras was not Lucky to get 14, maybe a little to GET # 14. BUt he surely deserve all the Slams he got, he was that good. His play was undeniable. And he played in an ERA that was very enjoyable. When Agassi was in top shape, they had some wonderful matches to watch. The contrast in styles was a wonder to watch. The knock on Sampras will be forever is vanilla personality on the court and off. I didn’t like it either. Too bad it may shadow his likeability, but we are in the ERA of personality and Candy looks more than ever ( Rafa Butt? )….along with the admiration of the great athlete. The package has more requirements it seems for fans…….It all started with MTV!


Daniel Says:

Interesting about the age factor.

Seems, at least this generation, that all the greats achieve their peak year when 24 yld: Fed 2006, Nadal 2010 and Djoko 2011. and 26 is the last big year for almost all tennis players, after that they fade.

Not picking on Nadal, but if he fail to win US Open 2012 or AO 2013, it seems pretty much he will never reach Roger in the Slam count, specially with his physical game. Unless he proves as wrong again and can repeat a 2010 year like, will see.


metan Says:

@ ben pronin,

Your post @ 12:12
Last paragraph, was it for me.
I apologize, not only for also for other, I didn’t mean to disrespect others believe or other things, but this discussions abt Roger goat is just useless n bring us no where, one of the poster Roger fans even called Roger GOD.

Millions people died n ready to die for their faith but none in human history there is one people die for tennis goat,

If I show this to bunch of fanatics religion here, they will start to protest n demand this web to close down.
Imo, Roger already got what he deserves it , close the subject n move on,,,,PEACE,


metan Says:

Add for you, sorry


Michael Says:

I do not think Roger is the GOD of Tennis because I do not believe in God.


Michael Says:

SG1,

However, his first 7 majors were won in the tennis vacuum left by Sampras’s retirement and Agassi getting on in years. Federer was 7-0 in major finals until the competition showed up. Since that time, he’s had a record of 10-7 in major finals. Definitely still great, but not nearly as good as his 7-0 slam final start

Tell me. You say it is weak competition which Roger exploited. But do you know the H2H of these young guns namely Djokovic, Murray and Nadal against veteran players like Ferrer, Davydenko, Roddick etc. It is very tight. Even at this advanced age, whenever the veterans face these so-called young guns, they give them a fight. This shows that it is a myth to say that the competition was easy during Roger’s time ie. the first part of his era.


steve-o Says:

@SG: It’s unwise to put limits on Federer. He has more ways to skin the proverbial feline than anyone else who’s ever played the game. His game doesn’t require a lot of physical exertion. He places the ball perfectly outside his opponent’s strike zone, so that they can’t use their full power; he mixes up his game to deny his opponents rhythm and confuse them, and he can attack and shorten the points.

Federer’s technique isn’t just pretty; it’s efficient, too. It’s a great advantage to float across the court like Baryshnikov when your opponents are clomping around like water buffaloes, sweating and grunting as they heave their muscled bulk this way and that, putting enormous strain on their bodies. He’s not wasting a lot of energy scrambling or muscling the ball; he uses his legs and torso at maximum efficiency to generate the power for his groundstrokes, not his arms.

He can find ways to win all of the Grand Slams, even Roland Garros. And I think he will win all four majors again before he ends his career.

As far as the “weak era” canard which is so often used to denigrate Federer’s achievements (as you have done), the competition was there–he just crushed them. It’s not that they were that weak but that he’s that strong.

He was so dominant that he shut out all the players of his own generation. Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero–we’re not looking at mooks here, these players were all world #1 and Grand Slam champions. Roddick and Hewitt for sure would have won a few more Grand Slams if Federer had not been around. But he defeated them repeatedly in Grand Slam play, often in the finals and semifinals.

There are also some players like Nalbandian, Davydenko and Haas who repeatedly met Federer in semifinals who might have had a shot at Grand Slam glory, if not for him.

It’s not that the field were particularly weak compared to other eras–he was just so completely and utterly dominant. On all surfaces, too–unlike Sampras he’s strong on hard courts, grass, and clay. There was no place the other players were safe. And he was so consistent, week in, week out making the finals of nearly all the big tournaments, everywhere–and usually winning. Unlike any champion preceding him he almost never lost early in Grand Slams, which meant he never gave them any golden opportunities to take advantage of his absence.

If Federer had not been around the others would have won more Grand Slams and the field would have looked stronger. Paradoxically, his very dominance made them look weaker because he kept them from winning more.

Let’s keep in mind that Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are all at least five years younger than Federer! It’s ridiculous to expect a player to beat Grand Slam champions five years his junior. Yet that’s what he’s expected to do.

He is not just #1, but the #1 of all #1s, and this latest record is merely a formal confirmation of a fact which most of us knew long ago.

Shit, he’s won the most titles of any player this year (5, along with Ferrer). He’s won on all surfaces. And they aren’t Mickey Mouse tournaments, either: one Grand Slam (same as Djokovic and Nadal) and two Masters (same as Nadal). And this in the supposedly most competitive era ever!

Where are all the young bucks who should be full of vim and vigor, laughing merrily as they lustily rake in piles of trophies? How on earth are they letting this geriatric–a married father of twin girls–get the jump on them, let alone grab the top spot from under their noses?

They’re younger, they’re stronger. Why can’t they keep up a winning pace as long as he can?

Why do people have so much trouble seeing what’s in front of their noses? Federer’s dominating the game at nearly 31 years of age. Not just making one final run on his last legs, like Sampras. He’s the best player in the world again.

Or do people not understand what the #1 ranking means now that Federer has it again? Do they think he won it by getting lucky or by getting hot for one tournament? That’s ridiculous–he’s won eight titles in the last nine months. And again, on all surfaces.

Since the semifinals of last year’s USO, he’s made at least the semis of every tournament he’s played in but one, Miami. And that one early loss wasn’t to a young hotshot, a Nadal or Djokovic or Murray; it was to a veteran of Federer’s own generation, Roddick.

As for people dismissing Federer’s chances at the US Open, he co-holds the Open Era record for the most titles won with Connors and Sampras, except that unlike them he won five in a row! Two years in a row he’s been one point away from the final and the year before that he was two points away from the title. His chances at winning this year are as good as any man’s–and a lot better than most, I’d say.

Federer is known for his ability to stretch a lead. All his opponents say that it’s very dangerous to let him get ahead, even by a tiny margin–that he can very quickly seize the momentum and rocket to the finish line given just a small chance.

Well, he has the lead in the points race now, however slim. And he is going to do his damned best to stretch that out.


Polo Says:

If you don’t like Federer, you can always find ways to diminish his achievements, the same way that you can always find fault in any person you dislike. But a true lover of tennis who views the game without bias can fully appreciate his greatness on its own and without the need to belittle the achievements of others.


Sienna Says:

Phil Taylor is a mental giant. His achievements should not be taken lightly. He took a whole sport out off amateurism and reallybuilt a genuine professional sport that is dvelloping.

THE POWER

But ofcourse it is not tennis associazione Fed is at this moment in time among the «5 greatest atletes of all time.


Stella Says:

Right now RF is tennis. And like Stefan Edberg said the longer he stays in the game the better it is for the sport. Yes Nadal is a great player…why? Because he has 11 slams and Djokovic is also a wonderful athlete because he has 5 slams .Even Roddick will probably make the Tennis Hall of Fame and he only has ONE!!!

In tennis it’s all about the slams and rightly so as they are so hard to come by and it takes an exceptional talent and great tenacity to get even one.
Why do you think Britain was so excited about Murray winning Wimbly? Because it’s a slam!

Roger just won #17 at age 30 and got back to #1. Some of you may not like him but by God you have to appreciate what the man has done.


Nadal Says:

RF is GOAT. RF is GOD. RF is new the normal. RF is the standard now. RF is Tennis……blah blah…

But his head to head against Nadal is poor at best. Do you guys realize that ?


tfouto Says:

Nadal welcome to this forum…

I hope you knee is alright. Have you talked with Rosol? How is your head-to-head with Rosol? And the grass h2h? Rosol is a better player then you until you have a better h2h with Rosol.

Vamos!!!


dc Says:

@Nadal Says:

RF is GOAT. RF is GOD. RF is new the normal. RF is the standard now. RF is Tennis……blah blah…

But his head to head against Nadal is poor at best. Do you guys realize that ?
—————————————————-Yes, we realize that, but that doesn’t diminish his accomplishments – do you realize that?

btw – who do you as a Nadal fan think is that best player of this era?? Give us some strong supporting evidence of how this person has dominated the tour better than anyone else.


Polo Says:

Federer wins Wimbledon and regains number one 1ranking. Wimbledon is his 17th major win. He has has been ranked number 1 for 286 weeks (and counting). Then all of a sudden some people talk about him playing the numbers game… and equate his name to women ranked number one who never won a major. Such unfair talk is totally devoid of common sense and outright idiotic.


john Says:

@WTF (from other thread, I replied here cause it seems dead)

Fed is #1 in the computer only

=========

Really now…

Its very disappointing when people speak like this.
————-

Players like Wozniacki, Safina, and Jankovic have reached #1 without winning slams.

—–

What on Earth does that have to do with Federer?
There seriously is no comparison there, I’m sorry.

The natural order will be restored?

So from now on the natural order of the below predators and omnivores is
Zebra>Wild Pig>Lion

Just like the natural order in tennis should be what exactly?

no1 player(5 grand slams)
no2 player(17 grand slams..WHAT!)

There is nothing more natural than Fed holding the no1 ranking.

No one deserves it more.

And come on!…the Goat at no1..that’s as natural as It gets..

Its like walking around naked in the woods lol: El Natural.


john Says:

Apologies for the weird way(format)that came out.


Polo Says:

The natural order in tennis has already been restored! What sort of order do other people want?
Djokovic had a great 2011. He has a lot to prove that it was not a fluke year. I would be happy to see Djokovic do it again but until then, it will remain a fluke year in tennis when he was able to dominate while 2 of the greatest tennis players in history were still very active.


john Says:

They don’t want Fed at no1.

Its not “natural” for a 17 time grand slam champion to be no1…

I mean how lucky is this guy?

He was no1 for only 286 weeks(pathetic)and now he is number 1 again! what!

Definitely luck I mean what are the odds..

This guy is just a lucky fluke like Wozniacki…

He stinks even more than her cause he has nothing to show for his career…

Only Goat status, Grand Slam record, Weeks at no1.. Theses records are dirt compared to Safina’s achievements.


Polo Says:

It does not really matter if there are some people who are not happy that Federer is number one again. Fortunately, there are not that many of them because the majority of tennis fans are not so stupid and they acknowledge the great achievements of Roger regardless who their idol may be. Liking or disliking is subjective. The records that Federer has amassed is objective…it is reality…it is a fact…whether one likes it is immaterial. It is what it is.


trufan Says:

SG1:

you said “As for Sampras being lucky, I think not. Sampras was the best athlete to ever hold a tennis racket. He wasn’t the best ball striker and he didn’t dance around the court like Fed. He had effortless power, moved beautifully and could play any part of the tennis court”.

If he was the best to ever hold a racket – why such a miserable record on clay – 24-13 at the French, only one semi.

As for competition, Sampras had ZERO competition from 1996-98, when Agassi goofed off and he won 5 or so slams. Even before that, he had only Agassi, since Becker and Edberg were washed out by 1992. Sampras really started his title machine in 1993.

And after 1998, Sampras just one a couple of Wimbledons, and got VERY LUCKY at the 2002 USO. He wasn’t even winning 250 titles then, so it WAS LUCKY for him to win the 2002 USO without facing ANY of the top 5 players at that time!

Federer destroyed Hewitt, Safin, Agassi and Roddick during the 2003-05 period (the so called pre-Nadal period), to win 6 slams. Remember, they have all been ranked No 1, have multiple slams (except Roddick) – Agassi was ranked No 1 in 2003, Roddick finished No 1 in 2003, Hewitt, Safin and Roddick were at their peak 2003-05. Then came Nadal really in 2006, and 2008 onwards Djokovic started winning matches and slams.

And remember, Nadal and Djokovic are 5 and 6 years younger. When did Sampras have to face a 5+ slam winner 5+ years younger? NEVER.

But the Fed winning machine still continues, and he is ranked No 1!!


Ben Pronin Says:

You guys are getting to new levels of ridiculousness. The ATP has an article that lists the accomplishments of Federer and Sampras side by side. The only thing Sampras has on Federer is 6 year end number 1 finishes. Federer blows him out of the water in everything else. Here’s the fact: Federer is better than Sampras. That’s it. The numbers prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, please, trufan, explain to me why you have to put down Sampras. Why? Did he offend you somehow? Didn’t tip you well enough one time? Sampras is one of the all time greats no matter how you spin it, poor record on clay or not. And if not for Sampras going on various tirades to break several records, who knows where Federer would be? I know Federer doesn’t set out to break records in the same fashion, but maybe he wouldn’t be so hungry to win all of these slams if he didn’t have Sampras’s records to look at as a benchmark.

Sampras was Federer’s predecessor. It makes a good deal of sense that Federer has surpassed him. Doesn’t take away from Sampras and certainly doesn’t mean he should be bashed. You don’t hear Federer saying “yeah Pete sucked I’m way better.” No, instead he says how he idolized the guy, was inspired by him, and is thrilled to be matching and breaking his records.


trufan Says:

“So, please, trufan, explain to me why you have to put down Sampras. Why? Did he offend you somehow? Didn’t tip you well enough one time?”

Ben, please do degenerate your dialogue and comments even further. Why stop at this? I am sure you will prove me right in your next post.

I have only stated facts about all players. Don’t get your panties in a bunch! If I have misstated any fact, please let me know. I am waiting!


Polo Says:

I believe that trufan was merely trying to dispute somebody’s comment that “Sampras was the best athlete to ever hold a tennis racket.” It is a flawed statement which was very open to debate. Trufan mentioned very valid points.


Sienna Says:

The H2H is balancing out as we speak. Rember fed is winning 2out of3 atm. By the end of the year it will be along the line of something like 18-14 or 19-14 or 19-13

It depends on the fact if rafa is reaching the rounds to meat Fed. Fed is again the standard in tennis we still have to see if rafa is up for the challenge and if he can reach the new high level fed is playing .


trufan Says:

In the rest of the season, if they meet, it is more likely that Fed will beat Nadal. Its mostly faster surfaces, and remember, outside of clay, Fed is still 8-6 on Nadal.

As for H2H, though this has been stated SO MANY TIMES before:

Fed and Nadal have met 28 times, but 14 have been on clay. Given that Clay is less than 25% of the ATP calendar (especially considering the top tournaments that top players play – 3 masters and 1 slam on clay – 4 out of 19 or 20 tournaments that most top players play, except Nadal who plays 5 clay tournaments, sometimes 6), under normal circumstances, they should have met 7 times on clay, 21 times outside of clay.

Had that happened, the H2H would have been almost even (say 12-9 outside of clay, 1-6 on clay, for a 13-15 H2H).

Now why didn’t that happen? Fed regularly made clay finals during 2006-10, while Nadal did not make that many non clay finals (remember, they could only meet in finals then, since they were ranked 1 and 2 for a while).

Had Nadal been better outside of clay, or Fed been WORSE on clay, they would have had a more even H2H.

Ironic, isn’t it? That Nadal being better outside of clay (than he was) and Fed being worse on clay (than he was) would have actually favored Fed in their H2H??????

So stop twisting the wrong inference from their H2H.


Skorocel Says:

skeezer: The knock on Sampras will be forever is vanilla personality on the court and off. I didn’t like it either.

Who the hell cares about Sampras’ personality? Actually, I’d regard him as one of the best role models you could get in tennis. No scandals on or off the court, always very professional in his approach, no stupid delaying tactics between the points or a come on after every single opponent error, etc, etc. But above all, he will be forever remembered as perhaps the best attacking player in the history of the game, and that’s all what counts. If you want to see theatrics, go to Broadway, not Wimbledon. Btw, didn’t they once compare Federer’s on court behavior to that of Sampras? I, at least, can’t think of any other player right now who would resemble Pete’s on court manners more than Federer…


trufan Says:

Borg’s on court (and off court) manners were impeccably unparalled! By and large, most top players have been like that, with some exceptions.

Borg was really the best. McEnroe quite the opposite. Connors was also not that great in the manners department. Wilander and Lendl went about their ways stoically. Becker was lively, but always sporting. Edberg was very nice on court too. Agassi had some “flair” early on, but the latter parts of his career were really remarkable in terms of behavior. Sampras was very good on court – though off court he would make some nasty statements from time to time (like against Rafter). Fed is quite nice. Nadal would be nice too, except for his constant delay tactics and strategic bathroom breaks (and time violations on virtually every point). Djokovic has been quite up and down too, but seems to have settled down now.

Did I miss anyone?


steve-o Says:

Sampras defended his lack of charisma by saying he wasn’t there to charm people but to win matches, which is a fair point.

But since he himself put so much emphasis on his being the winningest, now that he’s not the winningest anymore, it prompts a reevaluation of why people liked him.

Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Agassi were never the winningest, but they are remembered because they brought something unique and interesting to the game that others did not.

So let us pursue the same line of thought about Sampras: aside from his dominance, what do people love about Sampras’ play? The big serving, the explosive athleticism; what else? Then there are those who found his very lack of charm charming.

As far as Federer’s on-court comportment, I think he draws a lot more from Edberg (who was one of his early favorites). That cool, elegant demeanor that hides the inner fire, and the smooth, silky movement and flawless technique.

Sampras’s famous hangdog look and lolling tongue is pretty far removed from Federer. It may have been his way of conserving energy to compensate for his thalassemia.

For myself, I’ve always thought Federer, when he’s standing on-court, resembles a drawn bow in the moment just before the arrow’s release.


trufan Says:

At the end, really nothing else matters but one number – singles slams won. That’s what defines a players place in history.

17 > 14 > 11. Its pretty simple.


john Says:

@trufan

Kinda agree.

Say Nadal gets another 7 French crowns(pathetically I know).

Would you consider him greater?


john Says:

lol hypothetically, sorry about that.


Dave Says:

SG 1: “However, his first 7 majors were won in the tennis vacuum left by Sampras’s retirement and Agassi getting on in years. Federer was 7-0 in major finals until the competition showed up. Since that time, he’s had a record of 10-7 in major finals. Definitely still great, but not nearly as good as his 7-0 slam final start.”

These are the type of misleading and big myths that could only be perpetuated by the Goa’uld or Ori.

First, which is better: 7 finals from 12 slams (7 titles) or 11 finals from 12 slams (7 titles)? Federer’s first 7 slam titles: he was 7-0 in those 7 finals from 11 slams between 2003 Wimbledon and 2006 Australian Open — but Federer did not reach 4 finals (R4, R3, SF, SF). Federer’s next 7 slam titles: he was 7-4 in those 11 finals from 12 slams between 2006 Wimbledon and 2009 French Open — Federer did not reach only 1 final (SF). What’s more, this second span includes Federer’s ‘slump’ between 2008 Australian to 2009 Australian due to mononucleosis and recurring back injuries. You could argue that Federer was incredible during that second span where he did not make only 1 final in 12 slams and/or the competition was tougher during that first span where he did not make 4 finals in 11 slams.

It is also a big myth — actually total nonsense — that Federer won his first 7 majors in a tennis vacuum. You have to look not only at who Sampras/Federer played, but also who they lost to.

The competition Sampras faced throughout his peak from 1993 Wimbledon to 1998 US Open was arguably weaker than what Federer faced during his first seven titles between 2003 Wimbledon to 2006 Australian Open or what Lendl faced in the 1980s. This is 2012, yet you just have to watch Nadal struggle 4-6, 7-5, 6-4 against David Nalbandian at 2012 Indian Wells. Or see record numbers of players from Federer’s generation who played Wimbledon and the French Open. Several players from Federer’s generation would probably have posed problems for the Sampras generation: Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrer, Safin, Davydenko, Coria, Ferrero, Gonzalez, Henman, Moya, Haas, Ancic, Ljubicic, Youzhny, Fish, Baghdatis, Robredo, Blake, Stepanek, Melzer, etc. — remember that Sampras actually lost to several lesser unheralded players at the Slams worse than anyone on this list. As well, both Hewitt and Safin beat Sampras at the US Open finals and they were top players at a time when they were challenged by the aging Sampras/Agassi generation on court surfaces that were as fast and lower bouncing as in the 1990s. It is essentially the Federer generation that sent off the Sampras generation into history (with the exception of Agassi, who was a better and fitter player after 1998 than he was during Sampras’s peak from 1993 to 1998).

Federer did not allow the best players of his generation to get their ’fair share’ of major titles. Federer dominated and eclipsed the winning players of his generation like no other player in modern tennis history. In the 30 grand slam tournaments held between 2003 Wimbledon to 2010 US Open, Federer won 16 slams (53%) – from 2003 Wimbledon to 2010 Australian Open it would be 59%. Since 2003 Wimbledon, the only 9 players who have beaten Federer at the grand slams have been Nadal (No. 1, 2, 5), Djokovic (No. 1, 2, 3), Safin (No. 4), del Potro (no. 6), Soderling (7), Nalbandian (No. 13), Berdych (13) and Tsonga (19), Kuerten (No. 30, three-time French Open winner). Every player who beat Federer is a grand slam champion or finalist, and Fed lost (on his worst surface) to only one player outside the top 19. Although Sampras had lost to the young guns of the Federer generation (Safin, Hewitt, Federer), Roger Federer has yet to lose a Slam match to a young gun from a similar generation.

Sampras generously allowed many players to win grand slam titles — and it was really Sampras who lost to low-ranked players from a tennis vacuum (actually more like the tennis twilight zone). In the 30 grand slam tournaments between 1993 Wimbledon to 2000 US Open (Pete did not play 2 slams in 1999), Pete Sampras won 12 slams (40%). During this span, Sampras lost 16 matches to these 14 players: Agassi (ranked No. 1, No.2), Rafter (No. 3), Courier (No. 7), Kafelnikov (No. 7), Safin (No. 7), Krajicek (No. 13), Petr Korda (No. 16), Karol Kucera (No. 20), Jaime Yzaga (No. 23), Gilbert Schaller (No. 24), Philippoussis (No. 25, No. 40), Magnus Norman (No. 65), Ramon Delgado (No. 97), Andrei Medvedev (No. 100). Sampras lost 8 of those 18 matches to players ranked worse than No. 19. Furthermore, after 2000 (from 2001 AO to 2002 USO), Sampras lost 7 of these 8 slams to Hewitt (No. 4), Safin (No.11), Federer (No. 15), Todd Martin (No. 54), Andre Gaudenzi (No. 69), Galo Blanco (No. 76), George Bastl (No. 145). 4 of these 7 losses were to players worse than No. 19. Sampras did not play in two Grand Slam tournaments in 1999, when his decline had already begun.


Kimberly Says:

I don’t think Roger will ever beat him on clay again. Maybe madrid. I doubt they will even play much on clay from here on out. roger clearly put very little effort into the clay court season this year which paid off. I think most of their matches going forward will be on outdoor hard unless they are in the round robin group together at the YEC as rafa is evem more unlikely to go deep enough indoors to meet federer. So the head to head may even out somewhat.


Ben Pronin Says:

The idea that their h2h will “even out” is hilarious. Maybe it’ll get slightly better for Federer, but it’s always going to suck because the most important matches will be won by Nadal.


skeezer Says:

“The idea that their h2h will “even out” is hilarious.”

What its even more hilarious is h2h talk in tennis.

Really who cares other than Rafa fans? Not Tennis historians and tennis greats. When all said in done, Slam totals carries the most weight in tennis history, so who gives a rip?


metan Says:

@ben pronin,

Thanks for the article, it’s great indeed.


tfouto Says:

How is h2h Nadal-Davydenko. Nadal-Rosol grass?

Davydenko and Rosol are better then Nadal?

Stop the h2h non-sense…


alison Says:

The h2h is pretty much the same as the GOAT debate something in tennis i just dont particulaly care about,Rafas my fav and the only thing i care about is that he has 50 titles,11 of them been grand slams,i dont care who he beats in the final to get the titles either.


metan Says:

@Alison,, well said.


Dave Says:

The great Swiss player who beat Pete Sampras, George Bastl (now age 37), played the Hertogenbosch qualies this year. Swiss and their longevity, thanks to Ricola breath mints.
http://www.parlonstennis.com/album/20090120/george_bastl.jpg


Dave Says:

Hi Kimberly: I see it differently. I think Federer is going to make at least one last big push to win the French Open, preferably in 2013 (unless the No.1 ranking is a factor) or in 2014. He would probably want one more French Open title to give him two Career Grand Slams. He knows his physical ability to pull off the French Open will be limited probably to the next two years at most.

I see Federer’s expected South American exhibiton tour after this 2012 WTF (Brazil and Colombia, Tsonga and Delpo I think) as possibly laying the ground work for him to play the February South and Central American clay tournaments (Chile, Brazil, Argentina and/or Mexico) possibly sometime from 2014 to 2016 — in preparation for the French Open and also possibly for the August 2016 Brazil Olympics. Federer is very planned and does not do things by accident (he could make much more money with less travelling effort doing an exhibition in Russia, Japan or China than in South America).

Federer made an effort to win the 2011 French Open but, after a physical match with Djokovic, wasn’t able to sustain the effort long enough in the final to beat Rafa. He had to pull out of 2011 Halle citing groin injury but he was probably tired as well — he probably wouldn’t have pulled out of Halle (a tourney he loves and is loved at) if not for physical issues. It’s possible he injured himself against Djokovic in the semifinal — a match he would have wanted to stop Novak’s momentum. When he lost that French Open I thought he wouldn’t make a similar effort this 2012 French Open simply because of the packjed Olympic schedule. It would have been stupid of him to overextend himself at this French Open and then fail to capitalize on the three grass events.

Roger played his clay season strategically in line with his goal of retaking the No.1 ranking. He dropped Monte Carlo to rest. He put in a lot of effort to win Madrid — which was evident from his very first match (which was against Milos Raonic) — the consequence of his Madrid efforts was a hip injury. Instead of pulling out of Rome to recover, he played on with the hip injury and used his efficient play to gte as much rankign points as he could (except for a second set slip up against Ferrero). He knew he was in no shape to battle either Djokovic and Nadal… and was tanking his semifinal match against Novak until the crowd started to cheer crazily for Roger (and then Roger idiotically put in more effort to try to win the second set and Djokovic tigtened up). If Roger could adapt to Rome’s red clay — so quickly after the Madrid final — beating clay courters easily (Berloqc, Ferrero, Seppi), why was Federer so out of sorts in the first week of French Open 10 days later? My guess is Federer probably took time off to recover form that hip injury, because his game looked out of practice in the first week of the French Open, worse than what it was at the start of Rome. Or maybe the lack of commitment to winning that the FO showed in the early rounds. He was prepared to sacrifice this year’s French Open for the bigger picture — remaining fresh and injury free in order to do well on grass and regain the No.1 ranking. Federer certainly did not want to leave the French Open with his hip injury worsened or with new injuries. All he had to do was get to the FO semifinal and hope Nadal wins the title (had Djokovic won FO, it probably would have put the No.1 ranking out of reach until at least US Open). Federer knew that he already got what he wanted — more points from his 2012 clay season than his 2011 clay season. It turned out to be the right move as he has taken advantage of the grass season.

On Rafa and the YEC: I think Rafa will make a push to try to win at least one year-end championship over the next three years. He knows the history — every great player since the 1970 Grand Prix Masters championship first started won the YEC except Nadal, Newcombe and Wilander. It is the fifth most prestigious tourney in tennis.


jamie Says:

Dave thinks Fed tanked the RG SF this year against Nole. You don’t say. I suppose Fed also tanked the Rome SF, right? LOL. No. Nole and Nadal are better on clay than Fed now. Clay is a young man’s surface. Nole and Nadal are better on clay than Fed NOW. If Nadal does not win RG next year or in 2014 it will be because Nole, the second best player on clay atm, wins it. Not because thirty-something Fed wins it. Get real, Dave.


jamie Says:

Fed’s best chance of winning another major will be at Wimbledon or at the USO.

FO and AO are too slow for him. He is not going to grind another FO or AO win. The SF and final played during the night at the AO are very slow.


jamie Says:

The H2H is overrated. I’d rather have 17 slams than owning the H2H against a top player.

What’s the point of Nadal owning Fed in the H2H when Federer has 6 more slams?

Fed’s the winner here.


jamie Says:

I doubt Nadal will ever win the YEC.

He is mediocre indoors. Just 1 title and look who he played in the Madrid 2005 final. LOL.


jamie Says:

The fact that Nole lost the #1 to thirty-something Federer and not to twenty-something Nadal shows what a stinking pile of sh!t Nadal has been off clay for almost 2 years. ZERO titles off clay since October 2010. LOL.


SG1 Says:

Boy, there are a lot of Federer fan boys in here. And how they’ll cry if Nadal or someone else breaks Fed’s slam record and rationalize why Federer is still better.

Let’s get something straight! I never said Sampras was the best player ever. Please point out where I said that. I said, and I stand by it, “Pete Sampras is the best athlete to ever to hold a tennis racket.” Michael Jordan was a better athlete than Federer or Sampras. He won’t be passing Fed’s slam record any time soon nor can he hold a candle to Federer as a tennis player.

Of course my stating that Sampras is the best athlete to hold a racket is my opinion. I have to say that so many people taking such offence to to my opinion is damned empowering.

It seems that people read what they want to read. I do remember acknowledging Fed as the GOAT, did I not? Of course to the fan boys, this just isn’t good enough. Maybe we should erect some kind of monument to Federer at the Vatican. Just thinking out loud of course. Yeah, and we can show him mouthing off at the ref like hedid at the USO match against DelPo. Classy stuff. Athletes are not Gods. Most of them aren’t even good role models. Federer’s a tennis player, the greatest ever. But, he’s also just as flawed as the rest of us.


Ben Pronin Says:

The more Dave posts, the more ridiculous he sounds. Or is it just me?


SG1 Says:

And by the way steve-o, you are dreaming in techicolor if you think will win each slam one more time. He has an outside chance of winning another USO and he’s always got a shot at Wimbledon. The AO and FO? Not a chance. Those tournaments are just too physical and don’t reward Federer’s shots the way faster surfaces do.


noogie Says:

@SG1
What if you are wrong and Steve-O is right. I could imagine the egg on your face.


noogie Says:

Could anyone plse tell me why Kneedal is never injured during the clay season. That guy is so faked.


jamie Says:

@SG1

Nadal will never get close to 17.

Best case scenario for him will be winning 13 slams.

He won’t even tie Sampras.


Dave Says:

jamie Says:
Dave thinks Fed tanked the RG SF this year against Nole. You don’t say. I suppose Fed also tanked the Rome SF, right? LOL. No. Nole and Nadal are better on clay than Fed now. Clay is a young man’s surface. Nole and Nadal are better on clay than Fed NOW. If Nadal does not win RG next year or in Ben Pronin: “The more Dave posts, the more ridiculous he sounds. Or is it just me?”
It’s just you. Remember, we have reliable sources who remembered you once claimed that darts and golf are sports.

*****

jamie: “Dave thinks Fed tanked the RG SF this year against Nole. You don’t say. I suppose Fed also tanked the Rome SF, right? LOL…Get real, Dave.”
Are you the poster who relies on that ridicolous astrology? Who needs to get real, again? Furthermore, if you had read my post carefully, you should have understood that I said Federer tanked both the Romes and French Open semifinals. Federer had a hip injury during the clay season (and he had a cold during the Djokovic French Open semifinal) — it made no sense for Federer to battle Djokovic to the bitter end.

Clay is a young man’s surface? How do you explain Federer beating Djokovic — when he was at his peak last year — in the 2011 French Open semifinals, widely considered the best match of the year (see link).
http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2011/12/giving-them-the-index-finger.html

And how do you explain Federer winning a clay Masters this year, while Djokovic has no clay titles? Furthermore the match stats of the Nadal-Djokovic match are similar to 4 of 5 Nadal-Federer matches. At the end of the day, Djokovic is no more effective against Nadal at Roland Garros that Federer was. Federer actually had more chances against Nadal at 2011, 2007 and 2006 FO finals than Djokovic had at 2012 FO final. I know you idol Djokovic, but you need to think more sensibly.

*****

SG1, tennis expert Steve Flint is more bullish on Federer than you are: “I am convinced Federer will win at least one or two more majors before he puts the racket down for good, and he just might take three to realize his goal of 20 majors. Perhaps his biggest obstacle—other than a revitalized Djokovic and Nadal, or an always enterprising Murray—will be his back, which has acted up three times this year.”
http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=11156


steve-o Says:

Hey SG1: maybe if you didn’t post passive-aggressive bullshit diminishing Federer’s accomplishments:

his first 7 majors were won in the tennis vacuum left by Sampras’s retirement and Agassi getting on in years. Federer was 7-0 in major finals until the competition showed up. Since that time, he’s had a record of 10-7 in major finals. Definitely still great, but not nearly as good as his 7-0 slam final start.

you wouldn’t get lengthy posts like Dave’s and mine tearing your claims apart. You’re like a kid who punches a beehive and then wonders why the hell his hand hurts so much afterwards. In short, if you complain about your sore behind, just don’t offer it to be kicked so often.

Sure, you are free to offer your opinion–and when that opinion consists of baseless, vicious canards that attack my favorite player’s achievements, I will duly defend him. How can you expect otherwise?

And I don’t know why it’s so important to you to set limits on what Federer can do and scoff at any suggestion that he can go where no man has gone before.

I just enjoy what he does. If you don’t, that’s fine. But I don’t see why it’s so crucial that you pooh-pooh his chances to accomplish even more. Maybe it merely reflects a lack of imagination on your part, but only you know what it is.

Hating Federer (and you clearly do, and a great deal, whatever you disclaim) is like hating Superman. Says a lot more about the hater than about anything wrong with Superman.

Superman ain’t perfect either; I’m sure he gets annoyed sometimes too. But like Superman, Federer is objectively awesome. He’s that rare person who’s honest, who is what he appears to be rather than trying to pose as something he isn’t, who’s pure-hearted, and working constantly to accomplish great things in the field he loves.

Some people find that threatening, and so they lash out. It’s merely their own flaws they’re lashing out against, flaws which they’re usually not conscious of and which they try to hide from themselves, but which are brought into sharp focus by the presence of an honest man who doesn’t hide from himself, who faces the challenges of his life straightforwardly and without fear.


Ben Pronin Says:

Where are the sources and where is the evidence? There’s still more of an argument to be made there than the things you say. You make absurd claims about tanking and whatnot. It’s bs, and you have 0 proof. You’re not Federer, you’re not a part of his team, and you can’t read minds.


Brando Says:

@Ben Pronin:

‘The more Dave posts, the more ridiculous he sounds. Or is it just me?’

NO IT’S NOT JUST YOU- I FEEL THE SAME ALSO!

P.S, did you know according to dave roger lost to roddick at miami this year ‘since he HAD RAFA ON HIS MIND’!

Yep, apparently rafa’s resignation from the ATP council, led to roger’s loss to andy at MI!

Talk about being logical, LMAO!


SG1 Says:

Steve-o…you need to relax…a lot. You stated something to the effect of “Why can’t Federer go where no one has gone before”. Uh, hello, the giy has 17 slams and 33 or so semi-finals. That’s way beyond what anyone has done before. He’s already there.

And if Fed does win 20 slams, well then I’ll have egg on my face. So what. Nobody in here ever been wrong before?

And my statement that he was 7-0 when the likes he was playing was an old Agassi, Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick stands…in my opinion. Anyone here want to claim that Djokovic, Nadal and Murray aren’t as good as Roddick and Hewitt. That’s a bad argument.

Federer beat everyone in front of him. That’s a all a guy can do. But to state that his competition in his first 7 majors was as good was what he’s faced in his last 15 or 17 is ludicrous.

Somehow, and I’m just guessing here, if Lendl hadn’t played against Borg, Becker, McEnroe, Connors and Edberg, Sampras and Wilander, he might have a few more majors (maybe a lot more).

Hell, if most of those guys weren’t around he’d have Federer like major totals. Unfortunately for old Ivan, he had a whole career surrounded by other great players. The majors were divided up.

Once Djokovic and Nadal showed up (and DelPO), Fed’s dominance in major finals took a bit of a hit. Why is this such a big deal to admit? He still has an outstanding slam finals record. His problem has been Nadal. But, if Nadal hadn’t been around, we may never have seen Roger soar to new levels. Competition is essential to greatness. Fed’s 17 majors are worth more than being 24-0 if he’s beating tomato cans to be 24-0.

Somehow, I think Roger would be the first to admit that he wouldn’t be the tennis player he is today if Nadal hadn’t showed up. Even if it means losing some majors to him.


SG1 Says:

Imagine the lashing I would have gotten from Steve-o if I hadn’t acknowledged Fed as the GOAT. A scary thought….


SG1 Says:

Jamie…I actually agree with you. I’m thinking that Nadal has, perhaps 2, maybe 3 more slams in him. His game is so draining and demanding physically.

And now, with Djokovic in the mix, it will be very tough for him. Djoker is a touch match-up for Nadal. The big spin shots don’t seem to bother Novak. And it appears that Nadal can not longer mentally intimidate Djokovic.


Dave Says:

Ben Pronin: Actually, for years, I’ve found most of your arguments to be dubious or absurd despite your over-confident belief in your strong views. Probably no one here provides more evidence to back up what they say than I do, yet I’m not going to bother to provide any further evidence to you. You just have to learn to believe what I say because what I say about Federer often happens or turns out to be true much more often than it does not – such as Federer returning to No.1 when people like you were overconfidently putting it down as BS and never going to happen. Those who have followed Federer closely for years tend to be able to understand his patterns much better than people like you. In other words, I have much more credibility on things pertaining to Federer – and you don’t. If you think what I say is BS, I could not care less because your opinions on Federerlack credibility — and I sure haven’t learned anything insightful about tennis listening to your ego yap.

******

Brando, brando: When have you started an argument with me and won? It’s like 13-0, yet you want to make it 14-0? Shouting through capital letters doesn’t work either.

What I said was that the fallout from ATP Player Council president Nadal unprofessionally publicizing his resignation from the ATP Player Council – while the Player Council was in the middle of negotiating with the Grand Slam organizers for more prize money – during the Miami Masters tournament no doubt upset and distracted Federer and took away his focus from his match against Roddick. As Player Council president, Federer players the dual role of part tour stakeholder and part player union leader Name me any other top 3 player who has volunteered to be Player Council President in the past – there isn’t because it’s too time consuming, yet Roger wants to do it for a third consecutive term. Unless you have been an executive committee member of a large association/society or held an executive position with a large organization – you probably cannot understand what I’m talking about because you probably believe these things get done by magic and you believe it’s easy to just keep such work issues from distracting you because you have never faced such issues. Roger is not a robot.

It’s questionable why Nadal chose to publicize his resignation to the news media (instead of keeping it quiet, as it is an internal matter to the council and the players) and chose to make it an issue during a big tournament (when Nadal could have quietly resigned after Miami). Ivan Ljubicic, a former Player Council president, reveals that Nadal is a political animal at playing politics to put obstacles in order to get what he wants (see link). Rafa knows exactly what he was doing and what impact he was hoping for.
http://tinyurl.com/ckkyg7l

The Roddick match was a match Federer would have likely won on any other night had he not been distracted. There was nothing in Roddick’s performance that Federer would not have handled based on his performances since Rotterdam. In hindsight, the facts support my views even more — Roddick was crushed the very next day by a clay courter Juan Monaco leading to a string of 6 straight losses (Andy failed to win even a set in his first four losses) and went the next three months without winning any match until the week before Wimbledon. Even before Miami, Roddick lost early in every tournament he played in 2012 (always first or second match, except third match at Delray beach): by the time Roddick reached Miami he was a serial loser. He was a player waiting to be crushed. But Federer, who has a soft side for his friends on tour, wasn’t going to destroy his friend’s confidence. Roger made the mistake of trying to play the match close, beat Roddick without crushing him – and on a night when he had other things on his mind, it took only few mistakes here and there for the match to get away from him. [Since 2008, when Federer was healthy – i.e., not in slump due to mononucleosis, pneumonia or back injury – he lost to only four players ranked worse than about No. 20: No. 48 Julien Benneteau in 2009, No. 32 Lleyton Hewitt in 2010, No. 34 Andy Roddick in 2012 and No. 87 Tommy Haas in 2012 all in in 4-6 final sets (instead of Federer’s typical 6-7 or 5-7 losses). Is it a coincidence that all four players are Fed's friends from his generation? Is it a coincidence that Federer, during a period he was playing at a high level, would lose to such players he mostly owned and figured out long ago how to how to beat?]


Ben Pronin Says:

Dave, show me your evidence for Federer tanking his match against Haas.

I’m not going to deny that I have an ego but I don’t care to discuss that here. I always try to give reasonable facts to back up any claims I make. You just say things like you’re in Federer’s head. Zero evidence.

SG1, I agree with most of what you said. Well, everything. But the way Federer has lost to Nadal in the slams is just weird to think about at this point. No knock on Nadal, but some of the things Federer has done to lose to Nadal are just about as puzzling as some of things magical things Federer has done to beat just about everyone else. But Nadal definitely forced Federer to step up his game, although he’s never really shown it against Nadal himself, he’s shown what he’s developed (drop shot comes to mind). I think Djokovic deserves some credit, too. Based on the way these two have played each other in the big matches recently, they have both made each other better players. Djokovic used to struggle like crazy against the slice to his backhand. Now it doesn’t affect him as much.


Sienna Says:

Dave
Youre killing them, be a little bit carefull with the bodyparts.


Sienna Says:

Remember Ben P Roger is again the new standard in mens tennis.
He has asked Rafa a question for the third time and I doubt Rafa will answer this time.
Rafa has reached his I physical and mental capacity.
Roger has finally broken his spirit.
He needed to use gritt and tenacious planning and relintless reluntless winning all year round but he did it.

Also djoker cannot follow but he has the luxuary to sit this one out.


Brando Says:

@Dave:

‘When have you started an argument with me and won? It’s like 13-0, yet you want to make it 14-0?’

Are you being delusional again now dave? or is it that you haven’t taken your medication for a while now?

I mean IF i wanted to argue with a stubborn mule of poster who cannot JUST ONCE credit the opponent for beating their fav, then i’d choose someone like sienna or even truidiot!

Top story: Raonic Toilet Adventure; Federer Tested Wed. in ATP Paris
  • Recent Comments
Rankings
ATP - Oct 27 WTA - Oct 27
1 Novak Djokovic1 Serena Williams
2 Roger Federer2 Maria Sharapova
3 Rafael Nadal3 Simona Halep
4 Stan Wawrinka4 Petra Kvitova
5 Tomas Berdych5 Ana Ivanovic
6 David Ferrer6 Agnieszka Radwanska
7 Kei Nishikori7 Eugenie Bouchard
8 Andy Murray8 Caroline Wozniacki
9 Marin Cilic9 Na Li
10 Milos Raonic10 Angelique Kerber
More: Tennis T-Shirts | Tennis Shop | Live Tennis Scores | Headlines

Copyright © 2003-2014 Tennis-X.com. All rights reserved.
This website is an independently operated source of news and information and is not affiliated with any professional organizations.