Roland Garros/French Open

[Delinquent]

I don't want to go on repeating myself so I'll try my best to keep this short. Needless to say, I disagree about the lack of quality in Federer's era. Sampras and Agassi were still playing when Federer rose to dominance. Both of their careers were effectively ended by Federer. Sampras was certainly in his twilight years but Agassi had several years of great tennis before he called it a day. I watched a very competitive Agassi get destroyed by Federer on a number of occasions. Federer raised the standard of men's tennis to a level that even Agassi could not compete. Indeed, Agassi himself, who obviously played throughout Sampras' reign, acknowledged Federer as the greatest of all time.

"Roger is the best I've ever played against," Agassi said. There's nowhere to go. Roger makes you play on the edge. You need to play the craziest tennis you've ever played."

"Pete was great, no question," said Agassi, who lost 14 of 34 matches against the Californian. "But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger."

In Federer's case, Agassi said, opponents reach a point of no return. "With other guys you play - and I've played a lot of them over so many years - there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do [Roger] potentially has an answer for, and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision. He plays the game in a very special way. I haven't seen it before.

"He's the only guy I've ever played against where you hold serve to go 1-0 and you're thinking, 'All right, good'. And I'm not just making fun of it, I'm literally telling you the way it is. He can hurt you at any point. You're serving 30-love. He wins the point. It's 30-15. The pressure you feel at 30-15 is different than [playing] anybody else. So there's a sense of urgency on every point, on every shot.

He's not the only one either. Most of the greatest players to play the game acknowledge Federer as the greatest. Boris Becker frequently refers to Federer as the greatest, despite having played in one of the most competitive eras in tennis history. Why is that?

The fact is, many people live in the moment, and forget the past. They see the Federer of today getting overwhelmed by the man who may yet go on to steal his accolade of being the greatest. Nobody could compete with Federer when he rose to dominance - he was simply too good. It's to his credit, (and the likes of Nadal and now Djokovic) that men's tennis is so healthy today. Nadal has had to raise his game to compete with Federer, and he's done it admirably. I didn't think he had it in him when he was just a skinny little teenager. The whole tennis world has had to adapt to close the gap on Federer. It happens every now and again in sport, where an individual changes the way the game is played.

Federer did that, and whether Nadal goes on to break his record is neither here nor there. Both are remarkable players and tennis is all the better for them.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

So to paraphrase what you're saying, "Until Federer came along, men's tennis was shit and he bought it up to the level it is today." That's how it's coming off ... Agassi was near the end of his career - and so he and Becker say he's the best ever - If Player X N and Z that you admire say that Nadal is the best ever, will that change your opinion? Nope, so I don't see how it backs up your argument.

The whole tennis world has had to adapt to close the gap on Federer.

I don't see that to be honest. This isn't like Jonah Lumo in the mid 90s ... Nadal didn't 'adapt' to become as good as he is, or change his fitness requirements etc ...

I do find it odd however that you complain how people are undermining Federer (no one is, we're just not putting him on the same pedestal you are), and then you undermine the greats who played in the last 20 years.

 

[Delinquent]

[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=45509.msg1348344#msg1348344 date=1307978391]
So to paraphrase what you're saying, "Until Federer came along, men's tennis was shit and he bought it up to the level it is today." That's how it's coming off ... Agassi was near the end of his career - and so he and Becker say he's the best ever - If Player X N and Z that you admire say that Nadal is the best ever, will that change your opinion? Nope, so I don't see how it backs up your argument.

The whole tennis world has had to adapt to close the gap on Federer.

I don't see that to be honest. This isn't like Jonah Lumo in the mid 90s ... Nadal didn't 'adapt' to become as good as he is, or change his fitness requirements etc ...

I do find it odd however that you complain how people are undermining Federer (no one is, we're just not putting him on the same pedestal you are), and then you undermine the greats who played in the last 20 years.
[/quote]

You do a great line in misinterpretation LTW. You're putting words into my mouth, and it does you no favours at all.

Firstly, nowhere have I said that tennis was shit before Federer arrived - I simply said that Federer has improved it immeasurably.

Secondly, I haven't heard anyone call Nadal the best ever (yet), so it's a moot point. I have, repeatedly however, heard the greats wax lyrical about Federer. I'm inclined to agree with them. That's all.

Thirdly, to suggest that Nadal hasn't adapted his game, or indeed his 'physical requirements' is frankly laughable. He quickly recognized that he needed more power to compete, and thereafter went from being a spindly little kid, to a brute of a man, and one of the most powerful on tour. He also recognized that he needed to adapt his game on surfaces other than clay - for instance, to compete with Federer on grass, he began to develop his net game, and practised taking the ball earlier on the return. That was clear in his Wimbledon triumph over Federer in 2008. Every step of the way Nadal has sought to address weaknesses in his game - he is quite possibly the most dedicated professional ever to have played the game. How you could suggest he hasn't adapted is just beyond me. Do you have more than a passing interest in the game?

And please point out where I have undermined the greats of the last 20 years. Seriously, where? The only person doing that is you with your failure to give Federer the credit he deserves.

 

[Avmenon]

I've watched every player mentioned in the last 10 posts on TV, some since the early '80s.

Federer is the best player I've ever seen.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=45509.msg1348372#msg1348372 date=1307979956]
Firstly, nowhere have I said that tennis was shit before Federer arrived - I simply said that Federer has improved it immeasurably.

You've made it seem that Federer took an 'average' sport to new levels because of his demolition of retirement bound Sampras and 'Last Legs' Agassi.

Secondly, I haven't heard anyone call Nadal the best ever (yet), so it's a moot point. I have, repeatedly however, heard the greats wax lyrical about Federer. I'm inclined to agree with them. That's all.

Check out what people were saying about Federer when he was Nadal's age.

Thirdly, to suggest that Nadal hasn't adapted his game, or indeed his 'physical requirements' is frankly laughable. He quickly recognized that he needed more power to compete, and thereafter went from being a spindly little kid, to a brute of a man, and one of the most powerful on tour. He also recognized that he needed to adapt his game on surfaces other than clay - for instance, to compete with Federer on grass, he began to develop his net game, and practised taking the ball earlier on the return. That was clear in his Wimbledon triumph over Federer in 2008. Every step of the way Nadal has sought to address weaknesses in his game - he is quite possibly the most dedicated professional ever to have played the game. How you could suggest he hasn't adapted is just beyond me. Do you have more than a passing interest in the game?

He's improved himself to compete with his main rival. He was a clay court whiz who mastered Roland Garros, and then realized he had to work on other parts (i.e. weaknesses) to ensure he could dominate the other circuits. You can attribute this entirely to Federer, again - I attribute it more to him wanting to be the best. That's what the best do. You imply that all his changes come because of Federer, I just think they come from the player you rightly call "the most dedicated professional to have played the game." I never watched tennis btw, only Nadal and Wayne Ferriera.

And please point out where I have undermined the greats of the last 20 years. Seriously, where? The only person doing that is you with your failure to give Federer the credit he deserves.

It seemed to me that you imply the level of tennis was average until Federer came along and pulled everyone up. I personally enjoyed the competition of the 80s and 90s far more than what we had with Federer before Nadal came along. I've given Federer credit, I just don't look at him as the best. Though I may change my stance now as Avvy is never wrong
[/quote]

 

[Delinquent]

You appear to be arguing with what you *think* I'm implying, rather than what I'm actually saying. Which makes this a pretty pointless discussion.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

ok - you said Federer raised the level of the sport, which I don't agree and says the sport is now at a better level than it was BF (Before Federer). What does that say about the era BF?

 

[Delinquent]

Precisely nothing. It just says that the standard of men's tennis has risen since Federer arrived. Which it undoubtedly has.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=45509.msg1348701#msg1348701 date=1308036523]
Precisely nothing. It just says that the standard of men's tennis has risen since Federer arrived. Which it undoubtedly has.
[/quote]

a) Isn't this like comparing footy today to footy of the 80s? "Standards" have risen, or players have become faster, stronger, more aware of their diets etc?
b) Would players in the BF era be able to compete today?

 

[kingjulian]

I quite frankly don't remember Nadal being the skinny kid.

He was quite the beef-cake when he won at Roland Garros as a teenager...

He had the competitive spirit to take it up to anyone, when he came around. He may have lost his early rounds of games against Federer in other surfaces, but those were some of the best entertaining 5 setters, i have ever seen.

For much of Federer's career Safin, Roddick and Hewitt were his closest rivals. As much as I like Safin's character, he isn't all that. Goran Ivanisevic, the man who couldn't quite make it in the previous era, helped himself to a sneaky grand-slam. All four, i've mentioned here are players i like (Hewitt not so much), but they are not really strong competition, are they?

You have not answered the major griping point that LeTallec etc have....'He had no real competition to achieve what he did.' You have just gone on to say that other famous people think he is great, so he must be. People change their opinion quite frequently. It was not long ago Michael Schumacher was considered the greatest racing driver, ever......recently people think (quite ridiculous to be honest) he fluked his way to seven titles. I'd consider people's opinion as a valid argument when both players in question have finished their full career. Which is at least 5 years away.

 

[Avmenon]

I dont know if Federer is the greatest player ever, the competition he's faced is something to take into account.

I'm just saying he's the best player I've ever seen.

 

[Delinquent]

[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=45509.msg1348969#msg1348969 date=1308064709]
I quite frankly don't remember Nadal being the skinny kid.

He was quite the beef-cake when he won at Roland Garros as a teenager...

He had the competitive spirit to take it up to anyone, when he came around. He may have lost his early rounds of games against Federer in other surfaces, but those were some of the best entertaining 5 setters, i have ever seen.

For much of Federer's career Safin, Roddick and Hewitt were his closest rivals. As much as I like Safin's character, he isn't all that. Goran Ivanisevic, the man who couldn't quite make it in the previous era, helped himself to a sneaky grand-slam. All four, i've mentioned here are players i like (Hewitt not so much), but they are not really strong competition, are they?

You have not answered the major griping point that LeTallec etc have....'He had no real competition to achieve what he did.' You have just gone on to say that other famous people think he is great, so he must be. People change their opinion quite frequently. It was not long ago Michael Schumacher was considered the greatest racing driver, ever......recently people think (quite ridiculous to be honest) he fluked his way to seven titles. I'd consider people's opinion as a valid argument when both players in question have finished their full career. Which is at least 5 years away.
[/quote]

You've inadvertently illustrated my point about Federer with your Schumacher example. That is, that people are very quick to forget his achievements and the tennis he produced after a bit of time has passed.

Anyway, as for answering yours and LTW's questions - I covered everything in detail the last time this came up, and I've been pretty explicit here also. I've already repeated myself too much, and I've seen nothing new here to warrant going over it again. It's best we just save ourselves some time, I think.

No offence.

 

[Avmenon]

I really dont get why this issue is so thorny.

Should competition faced be one barometer used to determine the greatness of a sporting competitor?..Of course, it is important.

The competition faced shows the mental strength required to be considered truly great, to be able to measure up when the chips are down.

But you must still look at the individual quality possessed by that competitor in comparison with the abilities possessed by another competitor.

Yes, perhaps if Federer had faced Nadal earlier in his career he may have won less Slams (though i personally feel that the idea that tennis is less competitve now is an utter myth). It only looks that way because they're totally outclassed when they face Federer.

Since we're on F1, if Vettel wins next years Championship (in addition to the title he should winthis year) he'll be on the same number of titles as Ayrton Senna.

Anyone think they're equals?

 

[Delinquent]

I agree totally Avvy. Although I'm not sure it's a thorny issue as such. I'm just bowing out because we've done this to death before in one of the 'Greats' threads. It's just covering old ground.

I do agree though that people are too quick to dismiss Federer's competition. Take Agassi (who is widely acknowledged as one of the greats), for example. He was playing some of the best tennis of his career when Federer burst onto the scene. Federer's period of dominance begun in 2003 when he won Wimbledon, and then defeated Agassi in the end of year Masters final. Agassi didn't retire until 2008. Federer holds an 8-0 record over him.

I also agree that the crop of players he defeated would have been champions in their own right (and have since become champions in their own right) were it not for Federer. And they wouldn't have looked out of place either. It's just that Federer was too busy re-inventing the game to care for their reputations. It's to their credit that they've stuck to the task and continued to close the gap, although that has been accompanied somewhat by a slight decline on Federer's part.

Like you say Avvy, you can only comment on what you see. I've watched tennis since I was a youngster and Federer is by far and away the best I've ever seen. And his record supports that. For me it's a bit of a no-brainer. Anyway, I'm definitely going to shut up now.

 

[kingjulian]

Nah... i don't really have a problem saying that he is a great player. I doubt anybody on this thread has.

The problem is with the super-duper-latives in use.

He is the greatest player ever.
He re-invented tennis.
He raised the level of tennis to such a high level.
You have even gone on to pretty much claim, he is the reason we have a player like Nadal today.

It's tough to argue against such strong opinions, and at the same time it's tough to not say a word about it. I've had my say, and you're right, this isn't really turning out to be a great discussion....


Avvy...Senna has three titles. Schumacher won 7, but he still couldn't surmount Senna's legendary status with the sport's followers. I doubt Vettel's second is going to do anything. Senna's legend is partly due to his unfortunate death. People cut a lot of slack for it. When a talented sportsman dies due to the sport he loved, he becomes a legend. We have witnessed this many times over. Even in F1 itself. There are some very very staunch Clarke, Villeneuve followers still.

That's not the case here.....why would anyone have a problem considering Nadal as an equal to Federer or even slightly superior? He has dominated the game at a time, when Federer is actually still playing at his peak. When comparing players from different era, fans often justify their bias by saying you can't really compare as they played in different era. But here you have the proof of the pudding right in front of your eyes....i'm frankly baffled.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=45509.msg1351202#msg1351202 date=1308357054]
Nah... i don't really have a problem saying that he is a great player. I doubt anybody on this thread has.

The problem is with the super-duper-latives in use.
[/quote]

Yup, anyone who doesn't place Federer in top 1-5 of all time is Glocky (I don't agree with 1 but he definitely warrants being in that discussion) ...

 

[Avmenon]

[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=45509.msg1351202#msg1351202 date=1308357054]
Nah... i don't really have a problem saying that he is a great player. I doubt anybody on this thread has.

The problem is with the super-duper-latives in use.

He is the greatest player ever.
He re-invented tennis.
He raised the level of tennis to such a high level.
You have even gone on to pretty much claim, he is the reason we have a player like Nadal today.

It's tough to argue against such strong opinions, and at the same time it's tough to not say a word about it. I've had my say, and you're right, this isn't really turning out to be a great discussion....


Avvy...Senna has three titles. Schumacher won 7, but he still couldn't surmount Senna's legendary status with the sport's followers. I doubt Vettel's second is going to do anything. Senna's legend is partly due to his unfortunate death. People cut a lot of slack for it. When a talented sportsman dies due to the sport he loved, he becomes a legend. We have witnessed this many times over. Even in F1 itself. There are some very very staunch Clarke, Villeneuve followers still.

That's not the case here.....why would anyone have a problem considering Nadal as an equal to Federer or even slightly superior? He has dominated the game at a time, when Federer is actually still playing at his peak. When comparing players from different era, fans often justify their bias by saying you can't really compare as they played in different era. But here you have the proof of the pudding right in front of your eyes....i'm frankly baffled.
[/quote]


I don't know if he's the greatest player ever, but he is the greatest player I've seen.

Though Nadal's power is something phenomenal to watch, no argument there.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=45509.msg1342703#msg1342703 date=1307108531]
Wimbledon has been the most difficult grand slam for him so far but considering his form this year, its quite a safe bet
[/quote]


Good call. Made me a few quid. Thanks.

 

[Le Chacal]

[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=45509.msg1359445#msg1359445 date=1309782920]
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=45509.msg1342703#msg1342703 date=1307108531]
Wimbledon has been the most difficult grand slam for him so far but considering his form this year, its quite a safe bet
[/quote]


Good call. Made me a few quid. Thanks.
[/quote]
You're welcome!
I thought about your bet when i was watching the final yesterday 🙂

 

[Wizardry]

[quote author=Avvy link=topic=45509.msg1348989#msg1348989 date=1308066621]
I dont know if Federer is the greatest player ever, the competition he's faced is something to take into account.

I'm just saying he's the best player I've ever seen.
[/quote]

Yep, he's the best player I've seen as well and, something I never thought I'd say, he's the most talented player I've ever seen. I thought Nastase was the most talented I'd ever seen, then McEnroe arrived on the scene and he was something to behold. His victory over Connors in the Wimbledon final was a masterclass. Some great players came through after that but none as talented as Agassi who went beyond the genius of McEnroe and sometimes looked as though he was using magic. Federer, however, plays everyone of the shots that all of these guys played and he's made them look normal.

I don't quite agree with Del that Federer came along during Agassi's peak. Agassi continued to reinvent himself and, had he taken himself and his training more seriously he'd have surely dominated as well. Some people seem to forget that Andre was playing with Connors, McEnroe, Lendl and got beat in a French semi by Wilander. There's four legends from two generations ago and Agassi beat them all. Then he played through the Becker, Sampras, Edberg, Courier era and beat them as well. Anyone who saw what he did to Becker in the semi's at Wimbledon (before being injured) knows what I mean about magic. Sampras said that all the players in the locker room would only say one thing - they were glad it was Becker and not them out there on court.

That said, Agassi's comments are illuminating. Sampras once said that Hewitt had taken the return of serve to a level he'd never seen before, that his ground strokes were unbelievable. Federer has made him look average. Lendl was once considered nigh on unbeatable yet today he says Federer is the only player he'd pay just to watch him practice. These sort of factors have to be taken into account as well.

What Federer did is incredible because of who he did it against. Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Sampras, Courier etc were all incredible but they followed the pattern of tennis - they're almost a product of tennis and the sport. The courts changed from lots of grass etc to hardcourts. The raquets changed and continue to change. Anyone who wants to pick up a raquet that McEnroe used will get the picture; the raquet, the balls, the courts - they've all changed to the advantage of the power hitter. Borg, Wilander, McEnroe, Nastase etc would be decimated by the power game of today. Out comes Ivan Lendl, Boris (Boom Boom) Becker, Andre Agassi, Pistol Pete Sampras, Jim Courier etc. These players dominated largely through sheer power. Add in some of the others like Stich, Goran etc - they got there through thunderous serves with huge racquets, fast balls and quick hard courts. Out of the blue comes Federer. He beats them all with a game that, by all rights, shouldn't be successful. McEnroe said the power of the new racquets made the net an unsafe place to be in the modern game - but Federer managed it. Nastase said the power of the new racquets removed the need for touch - but Federer made it work. Yet at the same time he could over power Agassi, Courier and Sampras.

For me its not the statistics of grand slams that make him the best. It's the fact that he could have played in any era and been successful. He could have won with players like Laver and Rosewall and Emerson with touch, placement and precision. He could have won with players like Nastase, McEnroe and Borg with guile and genius. He did win with players like Sampras, Agassi and Nadal using all these plus incredible power.

Nadal, Courier, Lendl - none would have had a hope of being number one in an age that used wooden racquets. Put Federer in any era with any racquet and condition - he'd be able to win more often than not. That's what makes him the best - not my favourite or the favourite of many others but, still the best ever.