It's the equiqment -- namely, the high-tech racket -- that mainly does the talking. The level of the competition sucks, and that's the only way to describle it. Everyone's game is relegated to baseline. Serve-and-volley, which takes a great deal of talent as well as technique, is not just a dying breed -- it's already dead, thanks to all-powerful rackets. You can basically serve great, stay behind or near the baseline, and rip passing shots through those who dare to come to the net. In the old days, even traditional baseliners/counter-punchers like Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, and Ivan Lendl played lots S&V on grass. Clay-court specialists such as Nadal are all we have today. There are no grass-court specialist like Goran Ivanisevic or Pat Cash, there are no hard-court specialists like Patrick Rafter, let alone players who excelled on both surfaces such as Edberg and Becker. The game has long become boring and is losing fans faster than JVG losing his hair. Randomness of the competition results does not translate into greatness.
I really don't know about that. It just so happens that I used to watch lots of tennis, and jus began watching again with this grand slam for the first time in a few years... I have to say I'm very impressed... I don't think the racket really matters because everyone can get the top racket in the game so, just like 10 years ago, you assume that everyone is playing with a racket best-suited to them. But the truth is, I only came into this thread to say that I watched the game and Federer really made Roddick look like a child. He was so unbelievably good and made it look so easy. Roddick even took his frustration out on a cameraman... What a prick. I do see the the comparisons peopel are drawing with Sampras... I haven't seen the Borg play except for a few of his classic games... But Sampras had the same aura of invincibility about him. Even when he'd lose, the opponent would know that it was because Sampras wasn't at his best. Great players.
R-Fed (cant believe i called him that) has to be on 'roids or somethin' doesnt he? Short of a serious injury he's gonna go down as the G.O.A.T Never seen anyone dominate like he does, not Jordan, not Dream, not Pharlap Nobody!!
Ive gone out with Roddick a couple times and he's more of a prick in real life than on the court. I enjoy watching him lose. Very much so.
What are you talking about. Federer plays with racket that is essentially 90 square inch version of the prostaff Stefan Edberg, Chris Everett, and Sampras played with. It doesn't have any magical powers. Agassi's racket is essential a head racket to replicate the prince graphite he grew up playing with. Federer is just the best tennis player of all time. He has it all. Even Laver said so. He moves like Chang, serves like Becker, he has the best one handed backhand I've ever seen, can go to the net as needed like Conner, and can return serves like Agassi. All the previous champs were one trick ponies with weaknesses. Federer doesn't have any.
I think he was the first not to rely only on his natural talents much like Tiger. Agassi actually was the first but he well into late 20's before he figured it out.
The post to which you replied was mainly aiming at the rest of the crowd and the competitions amongst themselves, not Federer. Indeed Federer is the most complete player the game has ever seen, and he is using essentially the same kind of racket Sampras and Edberg were using. That's very remarkable in its own right, considering that 1) Prostaff 6.0 has fairly small sweet spot (less control), and not as stiff (ie. less powerful) as most other popular rackets used by today's players; 2) Federer plays mostly from the baseline. But as I said, between peak Sampras and Federer, it is a toss-up who will come on top when they play each other on fast court. Federer has the complete package, better service return, better backhand, and overall better ground stroke. Sampras's bread and butter - serve, volley, overhead, running forehand are more lethal. I'd give edge to Sampras on grass, since Federer's volley is a suspect at times. On hard court, Federer may have the upper hand since 1) the match tends to last longer (unlike on grass, Sampras usually stays back on his 2nd serve when playing on hard court), 2) ball bounces higher thus more suitable to Federer's semi-western grip forehand to generate top spins. Also, Federer's top-notched physical condition will start to manifest if the match extends to the 5th set.
The most demoralizing weapon of all time in tennis: Sampras' flying overhead smashes <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SJqdmflECbw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SJqdmflECbw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> Can Federer produce those?
How often do you see Federer ever float any balls over the net like that. Sampras wouldn't get very many opportunities. Sampras was a stud but he was not a complete player which is why he was not successful on clay. Federer holds a 1-0 career record against Sampras. At wimbeldon no less. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4XSje6Aptac"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4XSje6Aptac" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> N
Have you ever seen anyone do this. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_fqbznoeEOI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_fqbznoeEOI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
A 1-0 lifetime record sure means a lot against an over-the-hill Sampras. Even at the twilight of his career and having lost more than a step or two, Sampras showed considerable skills that took Federer to 5 sets. Although Federer, who had closely studied Sampras' game, played the match of his life in the 2001 Wimbledon, he could not quite get over the hump until guys of his comtempory such as Safin, Hewiit, and Roddick started to fall apart and self-destruct, and Agassi started to contemplate the retirement. Credit to Federer who keeps improving his own game and putting stranglehold on his former "rivals," but the weak competitions are also an undeniable reality. Indeed Sampras' individual clay court record, especially in French Open, is not something to write home about. But it should be particularly noted that he single-handedly carried Team USA to their 1995 Davis Cup Finals victory by winning three best-of-five matches on his worst surface -- red clay, against the Russians in Moscow. His three matches included two singles and a doubles, beating then clay court powerhouse Yevgeny Kafelnikov twice on his home turf, despite suffering from severe leg cramping at the end of the 1st rubber and having to be carried off the court by the teammates. To me, this legendary feat of Sampras is enough to make up for much of his mediocre record at the French.
I agree that Sampras had lost a step (or several) by then, but he was still the defending Wimbledon champion. You could use a similar argument in saying that Federer was a virtual nobody...a 19-year-old kid who was still finding his game...and managed to burst onto the tennis scene by beating the guy who had won 7 of the last 8 Wimbledon Championships that year in 2001. Federer's contemporaries didn't just fortuitously start to fall apart and self-destruct, thereby paving the road to his current success. Between 1999 and 2003, men's tennis suffered from parity...not from a lack of quality players. Tournaments played during those years were completely wide open, as is evident by the fact that each of Federer's contemporaries: Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Gaudio, Ferrero (and guys from 1/2 generation earlier like Kafelnikov, Agassi, Kuerten, and Johansson) all managed to win Slams. A number of people said similar things about Sampras when he was unbeatable on grass in the 90s: "It's different nowadays. The great grass court players of the previous generation like McEnroe and Borg aren't around anymore. The toughest guy he has to face on grass is Ivanisevic, etc. etc." Fact of the matter is...Federer, like Sampras, broke through and elevated his game above those of his contemporaries. The competition didn't just suddenly decide to break down and start playing worse.
