Is Federer That Good....Or is the Top 10 That Bad?

[Ivanovicfan]

OK, i am kidding, but with a bit of truth in it

truth? not at all...

[Cro Morgan]

Is Federer THAT good? Or is it a bit of an illusion because the rest of the Top 10 are really of quite a poor standard....(Nadal aside)

Combination of the two. I do believe Federer is the best ever, but there's no way he would run roughshod over the tour - as he does now - if Sampras and company were still in the game.

[Romain-FER]

I think you can't compare... The way of playing is really different than before. It is really more powerfull, quick etc... Maybe an ordinary player (top50 or top20) of today could beat the best players of olden times. So it's difficult to compare.
But I think that Federer is really good (too good ) . However, actually, competition is not really good. As you said, there are very few players who won a grand slam in the top10.
And indeed, when you look at the top 10... it seems quite poor...
Yes, Nadal is the only one who brings competition, but then, Davydenko, Blake, Ljubicic, Roddick, Robredo, Nalbandian, Ancic and Gonzalez do not form a wonderrful top 10. And I also think that former best players and grand slam winners who could have bring this competition, have almost all disapeared (they are not playing their best level), I'm speaking of guys such as Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Safin etc...

[Nike Sampras]

Hi everyone, this is an interesting topic, as we once again somehow relate it to the age old question who is better Sampras or Federer? Federer, with the exception of Nadal, i don't think has absolutely any competition compared to Sampras's era. Federer has great talent in keeping the ball consistentely in play and putting the oppenent in pressure, but then again thats how most players these days play. What happened to the days of a strong serve and volley, look at Brian Kendrick or something like that, he played Nadal in the wimbeldon second round and lost narrowly in 5 sets after 2 points away from causing arguably one of the biggest upsets in wimbeldon history. Regardless if the Wimbledon courts have slowed down, its still suited for a fast pace game, but these days when i watch wimbledon i see 15 or 16 shots in a rally before someone goes into the net, quite frustrating to be honest. But i would like to see how Federer would fair in the slams, particularly the faster surfaces, like hard and grass against players such as Ivanisevic, Becker, Courier, Agassi, Stich, Chang, Muster, Sampras. I dont think for now, anyone can replace the tennis played in the 90's and the bittersweet rivalries between the top 10 players. Anyway Oblivion Federer, id just like to point out a false fact you mentioned about Pete.

I mean, how many times did you see for example Sampras reach Roland Garros Final or even semi-final. He never did it. He only reached Quarter-finals and it was only once...

Sampras did reach the Rolland Garros Semi-final in 1996 and lost to the original winner, Yevengy Kalfenikov who was another fantastic shotmaker, who i doubt Federer could handle at that time. But i mean we cant compare eras, but we can compare players from different eras i think overall. Pete Sampras in my eyes will always be the king of swing

[jayl0ve]

Um...Federer's starting to scare me, he played so well against Djokovic last night that it was almost perfect. I thought Novak had a real chance but Federer was completely amazing.

[Al]

This is what I see;

Everyone does the same thing, no one brings any variety to the game. So Federer never has to do anything different to beat his opponents. All matches these days consist of lengthy rallies (regardless of the surface) and most are won because of errors & not because of winners.

How can that be a good judge of his actual skill level? Obviously it's not his fault which era he is born in or the standard of his opponents but those in charge of the game have caused the style of the play that ALL players use these days. And to be blunt it's boring & predictable & that's why Federer wins just about every match he plays. He never sees anyone doing anything different against him.

For me it's very hard to say Federer is the best ever not because of slams won but because he never has to deal with diverse players bringing different skills & tactics to a match. Everyone stands at the back hoping to outlast him in a rally. There are often alot of opportunities to move forward during those rallies & win the point but no one ever does & even when someone chances it they're crap! So it's easy for him to say he's the most consistant from the back of the court.....he doesn't have a great serve, he doesn't have the biggest forehand & his volley skills are average. Yes he grabs the angles & he has an amazing b/hand but he never has to adapt his game & we never see him put to the test because of this.

That's why for me Sampras is the best ever. He faced that variety from a bunch of guys that were a hell of alot more talented than anyone out there these days. He came out on top & dominated in a time when players were forced to try different tactics & do something different before the ATP turned every tournament into a virtual clay court event.

Federer would be Top 10 for sure during the 90's but he would not be No.1 or dominating like he does now, not playing the way he plays now.

Don't get me wrong I like watching Fed play, he's clearly based his game on Sampras & frankly if you wanted to be the best in the world there's no better model to copy, however sorry to all you Fed fans but if you saw the skill level of players in the 90's then I find it hard to believe you would think Fed is the best ever.

It's like I said a player is only as good as his competition & Federer has none & that's why his so called 'greatness' is a bit of an illusion for me.

[jayl0ve]

Sampras is my favorite player, I agree with you that he's the best, but Federer has to be no.2 or 3. Debates about whether or not Federer would shine in the 90's talent pool are pointless because he's playing now, against people who are in the top 10 now not 1994...I think the top 10 right now has some incredible players but Roger's just the best. He hits so deep, he's so consistent, he changes pace brilliantly as well as constructing points brilliantly. And Al, you said a lot of the times it looks like the other guy should really be coming to the net against Fed in some of these rallies...I agree, but part of Federer's gameplan a lot of the time is luring his opponent to the net and then hitting him with a passing shot.

I'd like to see Federer lose, as a matter of fact. You'll probably all laugh at me for this, but I think if Roddick makes it to the finals against Roger (yeah I'm just assuming Federer's making it that far), that he is going to give him a really tough time and has a real chance of winning...mark my words (unless I turn out to be wrong and Federer destroys him).

[Rob ITST]

I heard Agassi and Sampras talking about him the other day. Agassi seems to think he is the best, and Sampras only said he thought he could beat Federer on grass. Sampras didn't say he thought Federer was better, he just only talked about Wimbledon. Both predicted Federer would win 17-18 slams, which I think most people agree with, but doesn't answer the "Is he that good or is everyone else that bad?" question.

@ jaylOve: I don't think Roddick can beat Federer right now. If they both make the final, how about a little wager? Maybe 20 X-Box Live ranking points?

On a side note, I heard that Agassi said that Murray is a cheeser. I guess it doesn't matter if it's TopSpin or ATP, dropshot abusers are cheesy..... or maybe he was talking about TopSpin.

[jayl0ve]

have shame rob.

you know you can beat me right now...I'm trying to work my way up...not down! how would this wager work out? One of us just lets the other win until 20 points is gained? I might be down...I don't know if I believe in Andy quite that much yet but I think he's getting quite a bit better.

I'm watching the Murray/Nadal match right now; I heard Murray speak during the Roddick/Ancic match and he was talking about how his coach thinks he's completely abusing the drop shot...couldn't help but think of TS2. Murray IS kind of a cheeser! Lots of sliced out wide serves...way too many drop shots....I swear he's using no-momentum x shots to stay alive...he's good though obviously, but I think he definitely needs to cut out the drop-shot crap. It's a really good shot to use but not that often.

[Exorz]

I saw the hilights of Murray vs Nadal as I was working when the match was being played - is Murray hyped up?

I know a lot of people are going to say, well five sets against Nadal is a good performance bla bla bla but there was only going to ever be one winner. I think Murray has to change a lot about his game if he wants to be able to beat Nadal and Federer. The main thing is his attitude. When Nadal was behind and hitting some bad shots he kept his cool, he relaxed and when cornered he played his nickname 'El Toro' perfectly. Although he was behind at some points he never looked like he was going to lose. As soon as Murray hits a bad shot however, especially in the last set he throws a tantrum that a 12 year old would be proud of with most of his obscenities being aimed at Brad Gilbert. Is Murray a good tennis player or is he just a big cry baby who has a few nice shots but when the going gets tough he throws the rattle out his crib? Another noticable feature of his game which needs a lot of attention is his fitness. In set 5 he looked like he had just run a marathon and wasn't called Bekele. He looked shattered! Look to the other side of the court however and you see a Rafael Nadal who looks like he has just been out there five minutes!

"But he's a year younger than Nadal!" they will all say. And what did Nadal do last year at the same age? Win Rolland Garros of course! Oh and when he was 18 as well! Do you think Murray is really the next Nadal/ Federer or is it just a load of British bullshit? When they said we were sick of the gentleman that was Henman, I don't think they quite wanted an obnoxious idiot with the mouth of sewer either.

Exorz

[Rob ITST]

@ jaylove: Yes, we just give each other matches until the 20 points is passed. Actually, if Federer wins, we can just play a couple of ranked matches. If I can't take the points, then you can keep them. But if Andy wins, I'll give you the points. I'm not trying to sound cocky about beating you, I just think Roddick has no chance.

As far as Murray, there is no doubt that Nadal is better. But Murray is the type of player who will take longer to develop. Nadal is very one dimensional, Murray has options and must learn when to use different shots. Just like Sampras and Federer took longer to develop their games than their peers. (I am NOT saying that Murray is anywhere near as good as them) As far as his dropshots, at least it is nice to see someone doing something besides trying to knock the fuzz off of the ball. But yeah, it does seem a little cheesy. Really, I think Murray will be a very good player, he has a lot of natural talent and seems to use his brain. Plus he has Brad Gilbert, the best coach in tennis today.

[Xii0N]

I saw the hilights of Murray vs Nadal as I was working when the match was being played - is Murray hyped up?

I know a lot of people are going to say, well five sets against Nadal is a good performance bla bla bla but there was only going to ever be one winner. I think Murray has to change a lot about his game if he wants to be able to beat Nadal and Federer. The main thing is his attitude. When Nadal was behind and hitting some bad shots he kept his cool, he relaxed and when cornered he played his nickname 'El Toro' perfectly. Although he was behind at some points he never looked like he was going to lose. As soon as Murray hits a bad shot however, especially in the last set he throws a tantrum that a 12 year old would be proud of with most of his obscenities being aimed at Brad Gilbert. Is Murray a good tennis player or is he just a big cry baby who has a few nice shots but when the going gets tough he throws the rattle out his crib? Another noticable feature of his game which needs a lot of attention is his fitness. In set 5 he looked like he had just run a marathon and wasn't called Bekele. He looked shattered! Look to the other side of the court however and you see a Rafael Nadal who looks like he has just been out there five minutes!

"But he's a year younger than Nadal!" they will all say. And what did Nadal do last year at the same age? Win Rolland Garros of course! Oh and when he was 18 as well! Do you think Murray is really the next Nadal/ Federer or is it just a load of British bullshit? When they said we were sick of the gentleman that was Henman, I don't think they quite wanted an obnoxious idiot with the mouth of sewer either.

Exorz

You just fancy me (Nadal)

Seriously though... Murray is a good player and will get better, he will be a top 5 player in his life. His attitude is something that he can fix, and it will fix itself with a bit of maturity over a few years. He has some amazing shots, not just good, and he is getting better at a dramatic rate. His fitness will improve as he plays even more etc...

He is over-hyped though, but then so is David Beckham, he was never as good as the English press liked to make people believe. I think Murray can handle the pressure better than Chickenboy though (Henman) - because he is so confident that it comes out arrogant sometimes. This is what has been needed in UK for a while though, the tennis population in the UK - particularly Scotland, has dramatically increased since the arrival of Andy Murray on the big stage.

[jayl0ve]

Really, I think Murray will be a very good player, he has a lot of natural talent and seems to use his brain. Plus he has Brad Gilbert, the best coach in tennis today.

Exactly right, Murray plays a mean strategic/mind game rather than just always bashing the crap out of the ball...another Murray/Federer (two of the smartest players) match would be interesting.

[jayl0ve]

Wow...I guess ROB ITSTUSA and I's potential bet is now null and void (especially seeing as how Andy and Roger couldn't meet in the finals no matter what), but the semi-finals...Federer-Roddick 6-4, 6-0, 6-2...too good.