Australian Open Tennis '07

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Arnab
3 on grass (AO, USO, Wim), one on clay (FO).

And your point is?? He did have two or more of all slams.
No way one can compare Federer with Rob.

Originally Posted by Arnab
But not the calendar slam. Agassi wasn't really a great clay player. He was more of an all-surface player who got lucky in 1999 because of a depleted clay field. Muster was gone, Guga was yet to emerge. 1999 was transitional. If Agassi can beat Medvedev in 1999, 12 years into his tennis career, surely Federer can possibly find a Medvedev type at some point in his career as well?

But he hasn't. He only found Nadal.

The point of depleted field can be made of mens' circuit right now. As Federer faka mathey goal dicchey. Roddick is mentally weak. Hewet is way past his prime. Nadal is clay player. Safin has his share of injuries. Blake does not know his potential. French open is never easy for hard court players and that is a fact. Somehow Agassi mastered it and Federer still hasn't.

Originally Posted by Arnab
The Sampras I know made the semifinal of French only once. He never made it to the final.

Grinding out matches wasn't his style. Serve and volley was his best weapon which has no bearing in Clay.

Originally Posted by Arnab
Federer has already reached the final of French. He has also won 3 clay Masters Series.

Haven't won the French yet and that is the bottom line.

[thebest]

Men's tennis going through a lean period. Federer's only competitor is himself. Compare to that Agassi has to compete againest Becker, Lendle, Edberg at the beginning, Sampras, Chang, Muster in the middle, Hewit, Safin at end of his career. Compare to them Federer has a free ride. With the exception of Nadal, none of the present players can play two tournaments at the best of their capability.
I know at the end of his career Federer may be the greatest grand slam winner; but whether he is the all time best we have to take this also consideration.
BTW I am not an Agassi fan and Steffi Graf is the only one with golden slam in a calender year. In 1986 she won all glad slam tournament plus olympic

[reverse_swing]

Federer on way to greatness: Rod Laver
25th January 2007, 19:01 WST
Rod Laver says nine-times grand slam champion Roger Federer is a tennis artist and well on his way to becoming the greatest player to have ever picked up a racquet.Laver, himself considered by many as the best player ever, returned to Melbourne Park on Thursday to watch Federer's Australian Open semi-final against Andy Roddick in the arena named in his honour.
Asked if Federer could surpass Pete Sampras's benchmark 14 majors, Laver said: "boy, it certainly looks like he could".
"He's a great champion and has proved it all along that he plays his best tennis in finals. I think he's certainly on his way.
"When I look at Pete Sampras, we all thought, 'could you get any better than Pete Sampras and his mark as being a great, great champion?'
"I think Roger is really in the middle of his career ... wait and see on Roger. He's a great player and has won a lot of grand slams and the way he's compiling the grand slam titles, I think he's got a great chance of being the best ever."
Asked directly if the Swiss ace was the greatest player ever, Laver said: "I have to believe it because he's got every shot in the book".
"And his experience of late seems to be (that) he's stepping it up even further," said the California-based Queenslander.
"Just the shots that he uses in a match is quite incredible. He knows the safe zone and he knows when to hit out and go for winners.
"You don't see him being passed very often when he comes to the net and that's because he comes in at the right time. Sometimes (there is) the surprise attack and other times it's just (after) dipping the ball at a person's foot.
"I think the art of Roger is probably the best player I've ever seen."
Laver, 68, said Federer was in a league of his own right now.
"Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body," he said.
"It's hardly fair that one person can do all this - his backhands, his forehands, volleys, serving, his court position ... the way he moves around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground, and that's the sign of a great champion.
"And his anticipation I guess is the one thing that we all admire."
During an unparalleled career, Laver won 11 majors and remains the only man to have completed a calendar-year grand slam twice, having achieved the rare feat in 1962 and again in 1969.
He said he would love to see Federer pull it off.
"It's something he's very, very capable of winning and doing it but he's got to keep himself fit (with) injuries and that's something that's hard to do," Laver said.
"But if he could make it, that'd be just great because he's a great asset to the sport. He's a very modest champion."
Laver said it was impossible to say whether he was better than Federer.
"I guess I'm proud of his career as well as my own, but I think it's a feeling of it was a different era," he said.
"Wooden racquets were being used. Now, of course, you've got such more speed with serving and the spin on the ball.
"But also the other thing that Roger has that I don't think that I had was the amount of great champions that are actually in the draw.
"There are so many players now competing and the world is playing the game of tennis and I think that's the thing, it's hard to challenge and say my era was tougher than his era.
"But it was a matter of when you've got a small little racquet to play with ..."
AAP

Source

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
And your point is??

Point is Laver won his Calendar year Grand Slams on only two surfaces (grass and clay), Federer has to win it on 4 different surfaces (rebound ace, clay, grass, fast hard court), hence if he wins a Calendar year Grand Slam, it will be worth more than any one of Laver's CYGSs.

But he hasn't. He only found Nadal.

I am talking about future.

The point of depleted field can be made of mens' circuit right now. As Federer faka mathey goal dicchey.

I don't buy it.

Roddick is mentally weak.

Because Federer thrashed him and cut his balls off.

Hewet is way past his prime.

Hewitt is as young as Federer. Why he is "past his prime" is not Federer's business. If you are a pro and you are as young as Hewitt, you can certainly challenge Federer. Except that Hewitt also had his balls cut off by Federer.

Nadal is clay player.

And will be vanquished soon. Hopefully.

Safin has his share of injuries.

Not Federer's business. How has Federer stayed mostly injury free for the past three years, playing 80+ matches per season? What's his fitness secret? Federer is a better professional in maintaing his body in top top shape.

Blake does not know his potential.

What potential? He has not won a single match against Federer so far.

French open is never easy for hard court players and that is a fact. Somehow Agassi mastered it and Federer still hasn't.

Agassi won the French Open more than a DECADE after his debut in pro tennis. Before 1999, Agassi didn't even reach the semis of French Open since his 1992 foray into the semis. Federer turned pro in 1998 and has gotten better on clay for the past two years. Time will tell whether Federer can win the French Open at some point in his career.

Grinding out matches wasn't his style. Serve and volley was his best weapon which has no bearing in Clay.

Too bad. Couldn't complete the Slam with his deficient game.

Haven't won the French yet and that is the bottom line.

Er, no. The bottom line is after Federer hit his prime in late 2003, he has racked up 10 slams faster than any other player in the history of the sport. He has been called potentially the greatest player of all time by Laver, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Bolletieri, and a whole slew of former greats.

Sampras says he is a fan of Federer and thinks Federer can win up to 17 or 18 slams.

[Tigers_eye]

I am not sure if US open was grass in 1962 or 1969. It should be in hard court.

The point for Roddick, Blake, Hewet, Safin was made to show you how faka the field is now. You may not buy it but there is an arguement equal to yours Aggasi's winning the french. You don't have to buy my arguements, I just want you to see how weak your arguements are.

Greats didn't become great without humbleness. Pete, Rod, Roy would never admit they are the greatest of all time. Just as Tiger would say Jack is, Jack Nicholas would say he is not the greatest but Byron Nelson is or Byron would say Bobby Jones etc. Humbleness makes the greats greater than others and the fans decide that cause in reality in any sports measuring two players from era is impossible.

As I said there is no doubt Federer is a great player and the best in current game, but for him to be the greatest he must win French (at least in my book). I wouldn't require him to win a Calendar Slam to put by Rod Laver, Just a french open would do for me. But as long as he don't have that he is not the greatest of all time. 4th at best.

[cricman]

Reading a Thread like this makes wishful thinking look cool IMO. If Sampmras Came Back and took a WC at wimbledon got Fed in the 2nd round I think it be fun to watch.

Now that he is playing in Over 30 tour, he's still better than 80% of the field at wimbledon and I bet he could beat Roddick and Blake. And read this quote from Sampras.

"I've been hitting the ball pretty well and using the bigger racket with the new technology string," Sampras said. "It's really given me the ability to hit the ball better today than I did in my prime."

Just Makes you Wonder if he could put in a couple hours a day at the gym............. plus I think it would give the game bit of a lift.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
I am not sure if US open was grass in 1962 or 1969. It should be in hard court.

Well, it wasn't. Read the following:

The U.S. Open was originally played on grass until Forest Hills switched to Har-Tru clay courts in 1975. In 1978, the event moved from Forest Hills to its current home at Flushing Meadows, and the surface changed again, to the current DecoTurf hard courts.

The point for Roddick, Blake, Hewet, Safin was made to show you how faka the field is now.

I don't buy it. I explained why.

You may not buy it

Nope.

but there is an arguement equal to yours Aggasi's winning the french.

Er, no. Agassi, for example, did not rack up three French Opens in a row. Federer on the other hand has won 3 Australian Opens, 4 Wimbies (in a row) and 3 USOs (in a row). Agassi's winning the French Open only once in his entire career is not the same as Federer winning so many slams on different surfaces against different opponents in three years.

The field cannot remain depleted for more than three and a half years. The same Hewitt, Safin and Roddick won slams before Federer came to prominence, and they are all in the same age bracket as Federer. The obvious conclusion is that Federer in his prime is too good for these players.

You don't have to buy my arguements, I just want you to see how weak your arguements are.

I don't think they are weak. I have put plenty of thought into them.

Greats didn't become great without humbleness. Pete, Rod, Roy would never admit they are the greatest of all time. Just as Tiger would say Jack is, Jack Nicholas would say he is not the greatest but Byron Nelson is or Byron would say Bobby Jones etc. Humbleness makes the greats greater than others and the fans decide that cause in reality in any sports measuring two players from era is impossible.

Ok. Federer is probably one of the most humble champions in a long time. Everybody loves him.

As I said there is no doubt Federer is a great player and the best in current game, but for him to be the greatest he must win French (at least in my book). I wouldn't require him to win a Calendar Slam to put by Rod Laver, Just a french open would do for me. But as long as he don't have that he is not the greatest of all time. 4th at best.

Federer's career is not over yet. He is in the middle of his career. By the time he's done, he will probably end up winning much more than Sampras, Emerson, and Laver of course. If he pulls off a Calendar Year Grand Slam, he will definitely be remembered as the greatest modern player, no doubt.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by cricman
Reading a Thread like this makes wishful thinking look cool IMO. If Sampmras Came Back and took a WC at wimbledon got Fed in the 2nd round I think it be fun to watch.

Now that he is playing in Over 30 tour, he's still better than 80% of the field at wimbledon and I bet he could beat Roddick and Blake. And read this quote from Sampras.


Just Makes you Wonder if he could put in a couple hours a day at the gym............. plus I think it would give the game bit of a lift.

Sampras lost to grass court duck Georg Bastl in 2002, when he was still 29 years old, still training heavily in the gym and much fresher. Don't know how he can manage it past the initial rounds now, when he is 34+?

[cricman]

Originally Posted by Arnab
Sampras lost to grass court duck Georg Bastl in 2002, when he was still 29 years old, still training heavily in the gym and much fresher. Don't know how he can manage it past the initial rounds now, when he is 34+?

yet he won the U.S Open the next month? Plus don't think he'd like to end his carrer at Centre Court?

BTW: Agassi did make 2 French Open Finals before eventually winning it.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by cricman
yet he won the U.S Open the next month? Plus don't think he'd like to end his carrer at Centre Court?

Barely. He mustered all he had and went out with a bang in front of his home crowd. Awesome ending to his career.

If he comes back now, he will be butchered by Federer. He lost to 19 year-old dudher bachcha Federer back in 2001, on centre court. He was outaced, out volleyed and outplayed by a Federer who was still learning his chops on grass.

The peak Federer now will just kill him on the spot.

BTW: Agassi did make 2 French Open Finals before eventually winning it.

"Eventually" is not the right word.

Those finals were pre-1992. He lost to Ecuadorian Andres Gomez and American Jim Courier in those.

He "eventually" won the French in 1999, 7 years later! If he can do it, why can't Federer? Federer even grew up on red clay in Switzerland.

[Arnab]

On another note, I should stop posting about tennis here, too. It just happens that I know too damn much about the sport. So I get irritated very easily.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Arnab
On another note, I should stop posting about tennis here, too. It just happens that I know too damn much about the sport. So I get irritated very easily.

Fans have their own ways of making up their best ever. You have yours and I have mine. No one can say you are right or for that matter I am. I don't have to crown Federer as the best ever and I have my reasons. Let him win the French 1st.

Congrates Federer for winning the Australian open 07.

I think I have learned to agree to disagree here.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Fans have their own ways of making up their best ever. You have yours and I have mine. No one can say you are right or for that matter I am. I don't have to crown Federer as the best ever and I have my reasons. Let him win the French 1st.

Federer is still not the greatest in terms of achievements. But many former tennis greats have called him the best player ever to hold a tennis racket, in terms of technique, skills and athleticism. Federer fans are in the elite company of Laver, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, and many more tennis legends.