1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Roger Federer is amazing.

Discussion in 'Sports Talk' started by Dawgphood001, Jan 31, 2007.

  1. Dawgphood001

    Dawgphood001 The Professional Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,503
    Location:
    541 Oregon
    Seriously. There hasn't been an athlete who owns people this consistently since Michael Jordan or Zidane. Watching Federer play tennis and its apparent that he truly is on his way to being one of the greatest ever, even if you don't know tennis at all.

    His performances at Australian Open are clear examples of this. "He's become the first male tennis player in the open era to win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least three times each, as well as the first player to win three consecutive Grand Slam singles tournaments on two separate occasions." -Wiki.

    All without dropping a set.:eek:

    As an example, watch him against Andy Roddick in the 2007 Australian Open Semis:

    VS. Andy Roddick
     
  2. Red Door

    Red Door Man of Mayhem

    Joined:
    May 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,665
    Location:
    USA #1
    O RLY?

    Seriously, he's the best, ever.
     
  3. Berrie

    Berrie Proud father

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,118
    Location:
    Belgium
    I think it was already clear for some time that he will eventually break every (male) tennis record there is to break.
    The only slight sign of possible weakness was last year when he lost a few times against Nadal (mostly on gravel). If he succeeds in winning Roland Garros a couple of times (thus succeeding where, for example, Pete Sampras failed) then he will truly be the greatest tennis player ever.
     
  4. Darkness

    Darkness Shadow creature

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,755
    Location:
    Rotterdam, the Netherlands

    He doesn't even need to win Roland Garros. All he needs to do is break Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam wins. Then he'll be the best ever. He only needs 4, so theoretically he could have the record next year.
    But winning Roland Garros would cement his case. I think he can do it. Maybe even this year. Nadal still doesn't look completely healthy, and Federer seems to be rolling just fine.

    On hardcourt and grass Federer is the best. Only a bad day can beat him on those surfaces. On clay he's still slightly behind Nadal, but IMHO Nadal is the only one that is even close to Federer (and it really isn't all that close)...
     
  5. Lambert Simnel

    Lambert Simnel One across

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    5,117
    Location:
    Winterhold
    He's very, very good, for sure. But his lifetime record against his main contender in men's tennis, Nadal, is 3-6. Frankly, Nadal owns him on clay. Hell, Nadal owns everyone on clay.

    Nadal is also still very young, and may develop further.

    It makes the tennis scene more interesting than it has been for ages, and there's a number of very good younger players (eg Djokovic, Murray) who are maturing quickly as well, which should add to the interest. But it's difficult for me to see Federer as a clear "best of all time" with his record so far against Nadal.
     
  6. dgfred

    dgfred Sports Freak

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,256
    Location:
    N.C., USA
    What about Gonzalez? How is he on clay? He thumped Nadal in Australia :eek: . Federer is a beast :king: .
     
  7. Riffraff

    Riffraff Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Munich
    Gonzales is good, but I think he pretty much just played the tournament of his life, especially the quarter and semi final. It isn't certain that he'll keep up that level.

    Oh yeah and Federer clearly rules.
     
  8. Darkness

    Darkness Shadow creature

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,755
    Location:
    Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    That stat is skewed, IMHO. The only reason that Nadal has a winning record over Federer is that Nadal is a beast on clay. Federer is good on clay, so they still tend to meet later in the tournament.
    On grass and hardcourt Federer is a beast and Nadal is pretty good, so they still meet often, but it is less likely.

    Grass/hardcourt
    Federer - Nadal, 3-2
    Clay
    Federer - Nadal, 0-4

    Do keep in mind that the clay season is only about 4 months, grass and hardcourt rule the other 8 months.
     
  9. Dawgphood001

    Dawgphood001 The Professional Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,503
    Location:
    541 Oregon
    Federer at this point is only remotely challenged by Nadal. People keep saying that Andy Roddick is also a Federer rival, but that is a pathetic statement. Even Andy Roddick admitted this when he said "In order for this to be a proper rivalry, I'm going to have to start winning some matches!"

    Even still, Federer owns Nadal on everything but clay. If he can just work on his clay skills then he will be unstoppable for many years to come.
     
  10. Berrie

    Berrie Proud father

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,118
    Location:
    Belgium
    Gonzalez is good and he will remain a top 10 player the next couple of years because he is a good all-round player. That's also his weakness. He is good on every surface, but not oustanding in any particular field. So it's unlickly he will win much grand slam or other major tournaments, but I see him reaching the quarter finals very often.
     
  11. Lambert Simnel

    Lambert Simnel One across

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    5,117
    Location:
    Winterhold
    Darkness, sure, I'm not trying to say Nadal is as good a player as Federer. It's just whenever discussion of "the best of all time" come up, usually it's accepted that to be a true great, you need to have had formidable opposition during your reign at the top, and also to have the edge over that formidable opposition. If Federer continues to win majors, but doesn't have the edge in matches over Nadal, I reckon he'll still be seen as one of the all time greats, but it will tend to be caveated somewhat.

    Regardless of them having played a disproportionately large number of matches on clay, we still have a simple stat that Nadal has beaten Federer twice as often as Federer has beaten Nadal. Frankly, it surprises me, but there we go.

    Dawg, "Federer owns Nadal on everything but clay" - I dunno. 3 wins to 2 doesn't seem enough to justify this claim.
     
  12. phoenix_night

    phoenix_night Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Yeah, especially with 2-2 on hardcourt...
     
  13. Azale

    Azale Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    18,723
    Location:
    Texas
    On the surface he is supposedly weak at, he still gets to the Finals. I would say that shows his dominance.

    Poor Roddick, without Federer he might have about 4 Majors by now. Federer is just the most dominating guy in sports right now.
     
  14. Darkness

    Darkness Shadow creature

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    6,755
    Location:
    Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    All true. But if he continues at his current pace he'll finish his career with 20+ grand slams. And then his record vs. Nadal won't matter at all. It's all about the titles. The head-to-head doesn't matter that much IMHO.
     
  15. NKVD

    NKVD Cossack

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,686
    Location:
    Stalingrad, Québec
    nadal on steroids can beat him...he's better than Jordan and Zidane...he's dominating his sport more than Tiger Woods if you ask me.

    the only player that dominated as much as him that I can see is Jahangir Khan in Squash...he was unbeaten for 5 years...he won the british open 10 times in a row...


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahangir_Khan

    and the man to beat him did become as dominant for 10 years...and squash is not easy sport it's as hard on the joints as tennis.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansher_Khan

    but from my eyes i've never seen a so dominant player in any sports
     
  16. mitsho

    mitsho Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    Location:
    Europe, more or less
    he is Swiss btw. ;) and from Basel, actually from the Baselland. And yes, that's where I am from, really just from the local region ;). I remember some years ago when he wasn't famous, played a grandious tournament at the Davidoff Swiss Indoors, fought himself into the final where he just got beaten by Tim Henman, that was a time. Then sometimes later he won his first tournament, I think it was in Milano, then Wimbledon, he beat Sampras. And that's about the time he is known to everyone.
    He really is an amazing person, on the court and off it! I remember when back in highschool, state wanted to cut all sport lessons, we organised a petition against it and we got his signature on the list too. ;)
    Well, it doesn't matter, but he is amazing ;)

    mitsho
     
  17. drkodos

    drkodos Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,861
    Location:
    Renting-a-tent
    Golf is a bit tougher to be dominant in. You are always playing the entire field. In tennis, one can tailor their game to beat particular players, and one always knows who they will be facing next, one on one.

    But all that said, I agree that Federer is one of the greatest atheletes of this or any other generation.
     
  18. NKVD

    NKVD Cossack

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,686
    Location:
    Stalingrad, Québec
    i totally agree...its of course easier to be dominant on a one on one sport than team sports like hockey or football...Even if Wayne Gretzky could score 4 goals in a game Kelly Hrudey could still let 5 shots in every game...
     
  19. Berrie

    Berrie Proud father

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,118
    Location:
    Belgium
    :bump:

    After Nadal's victory in Monte Carlo, it's:

    Grass/hardcourt
    Federer - Nadal, 4-2
    Clay
    Federer - Nadal, 0-5

    So that means 4-7 in Nadal's favor. And Nadal is unbeaten on clay for 67 matches in a row!

    The title of this thread should change to: "Roger Federer is simply amazing and Rafael Nadal is amazing on clay."
     
  20. Grisu

    Grisu Draghetto Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,463
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Switzerland
    :lol: indeed, Nadal is truly awesome on clay, though Federer is more balanced, dominating the rest :)
     

Share This Page