|
|||
|
Message Boards
|
|||
| Federe had no decent competition until Nadal came along and Nadal owns him. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Retonal you are nothing because you post nothing. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Winning 3 out the 4 Slams in one calender year is not the same as winning 4 out of 4 Slams in one calender year.I was not the person who anointed winning the 4 Slams in one calender year[The Grand Slam] the Holy Grail of tennis.But it is and Federer hasn't done that.As for the players you named that he soundly beat.In finals he is 2 all against an aging Agassi and never played Sampras in a final.I doubt if he played Gustavo Kuerten at his peak and never met him in a final.Hewitt was past it when he lost to Federer at the U.S Open in 2004.Andy Roddick was probably his greatest rival until Nadal came along.As for Nadal,Fedex has played him 7 times in Slam finals for 5 losses.On a career head to head basis Nadal leads 13-7.Federer at his peak has a far inferior record against Nadal who may not be at his peak yet.Rod Laver had to beat guys like Roy Emerson[who owns more Slams than Laver],Tony Roche,Ken Rosewall and John Newcombe to name a few.These 4 players are considered some of the greatest to ever play the game and own 85 Slam titles collectively. The talent in general that Laver had to beat was way superior to Federer's victims.Get your facts right BOZO. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nah he just says all that s?h?i?t to fire up the Federer fans. There's always one in every messageboard. As my friend sushiboy once said. It be a sterile place without old Zedhead. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| zedstar@ymail.com anything this I D I O T post is s?h?i?t |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| "Federer routinely played near flawless tennis. This is why it was onesided" you mean like the time he thrashed Hewitt 6-0,7-6,6-0 in 2004 U.S. Open final? You so right! but not always. Remember how badly he lost to Rafa at last years RG final? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| McEnroe & Borg played some of the great finals. The matches were great to experience, but you couldn't call it flawless on either side. Federer routinely played near flawless tennis. This is why it was onesided. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <Federer lacks that ability otherwise he would have already achieved the calender year Grand Slam> Federer for 3 out of 4 years won 3 Slams and was finalist at the other suggests he does Z. His run of 5 consecutive wimbledons, 5 consecutive US Opens and 4 consecutive RG finals - not to mention 3 Aus opens - usually in the same year only adds to that. <Federer's supposed dominance is all the more reason why he cannot be compared to Laver given that Laver faced a far more competitive environment> This is not the case. Federer faced many different opponents that are considered modern greats and soundly beat them during this period. Roddick, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Kuertin, Rafter, Hewitt. All specialists in different aspects of the game all former #1's too. Laver contested many tournaments against the same names time and time again, winning most but losing many too. The trip to the semis or finals would have been shorter and less taxing as they would have been no-names. Federer didn't just compete better. He upped it a level or two. Nadal is destroying his body just to compete. His failure to contest at RG, Wimbledon and likely US Open supports this. Federer wasn't just at the top during this period. He was hardly beaten at all. In fact it was front page news if he was beaten. Upping it a level doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't playing in a competitive arena. Gonzalez, Del Potro, Baghdatis, Roddick, even Soderling etc were playing brilliant tennis when they met Federer in their finals or semis and got demolished. Nadal playing at his peak ONLY JUST beat Federer in the Finals at Wimbledon last year and again at the Aus Open this year. Federer is a safe bet for any GS final at any time, on any surface. It is likely he will take away 3 Slams this year too. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You've missed the whole point of the argument my non-intellectual friend.Laver not only had a great all round game but the mental fortitude to triumph in all 4 Slams against players who were capable of beating him in other less important matches.Federer lacks that ability otherwise he would have already achieved the calender year Grand Slam.Federer's supposed dominance is all the more reason why he cannot be compared to Laver given that Laver faced a far more competitive environment.You just said yourself you fool. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I'm going to be very patient with you because you're a younger fan, lol. Actually Bjorn did come to Australia in the years 1974 and again 1980 and 1982. The 80's he was here for a series of lucrative exhibition matches, and in '74 won a grasscourt tournament here in Adelaide. He played the Australian after but lost in the third round to Phil Dent. Dude if you are into Borg or just want to review his career he has a website. ---- Is that aimed at me? Hahahaha, I did say rarely! 3 times at the Aus Open was it? Hardly a regular now was he. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A tactical placement game only gets you so far these days. Hingis is a classic example. Great player, great technique but you need more strings in your bow these days. You need that and another weapon (or two). In the 60's it was enough to get the ball in service-wise and outplay them with groundstrokes. Not so today. The arguement about equipment has always been silly. Their opponents had the same equipment, just like today. It is not like Rosewall et al had modern equipment where Laver had wooden rackets and dunlop shoes. That is just stupid. Federer and Nadal currently have a career 13-7 head-to-head. In the first half of 1963, Laver was beaten badly by both Rosewall and Hoad. Hoad won the first 8 matches against Laver, and Rosewall won 11 out of 13. This was the year after his first grand slam - not so dominant after all. And it seems as though they came up against each other alot in tournaments. Maybe it had to do with less players per competition, maybe they always played the same competitions. Maybe the rest of the competition weren't really competitive. You also forget that Federer has a Gold Medal in doubles. I am not saying that Laver was bad, or not worthy of his status as a great player - even GOAT, but we still have to be objective right? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Santoro cannot be compared in any shape or form to Ken Rosewall.You are forgetting that there were some pretty handy players around when Laver won his 2nd Grand Slam.He did not have all the extra help via personal coaches,physicians,racque t and footwear technology that most of the top players enjoy today.I still think Laver had less in his favour than Federer.Don't forget that Laver won many Slam doubles titles as well.Federer only plays singles. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I'm going to be very patient with you because you're a younger fan, lol. Actually Bjorn did come to Australia in the years 1974 and again 1980 and 1982. The 80's he was here for a series of lucrative exhibition matches, and in '74 won a grasscourt tournament here in Adelaide. He played the Australian after but lost in the third round to Phil Dent. Dude if you are into Borg or just want to review his career he has a website. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| True. Borg rarely came to Australia - until the 90's, a lot of top players avoided the trip down here. BAck in Laver's day, I am sure many players missed at least one of the Slams each year - and the talent pool was very small (eastern Europe, Asia and Sth America hadn't really taken on the game at that point, like they have now). One this for sure is, a champion from one era would've been a champion in any era. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Don't get me wrong Laver was a great player - one of the greatest. He won two grandslams and was a top player for many many years. Borg is also one of the greatest also. He was a top player that won 6 consecutive French opens and backed up with 5 consecutive Wimbledons. Federer not only has those records from the previous post, but he has ticked off a career grandslam, and about to contest for his 6th Wimbledon in 7 years and his 6 consecutive US Open. Winning grandslams is not the only requisite for GOAT IMHO. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| What if Laver only won those particular tournaments over his career- 61-73 Would that mean he was the greatest ever? I disagree with those that rate a player purely on this criteria. Except for those two years (and a couple of months either side, Laver had merely been one of the top three. Gonzales, Rosewall & Hoad on one end, Rosewall, Emerson, Newk & Ashe on the other. He was not nearly so dominant as Federer, and yes he won his second grand slam at 31 an age that Fed hasn't reached yet for one, and two an age in the modern game that many would consider one being past it and ready to retire. Why because the game is so much more competitive, if your body fails you even slightly in many games due to age, reflexes or wear and tear you are done. Rosewall was in the top 10 at 42, Connors won a Slam at 39, but Santoro is retiring at 36 and he is the oldest on the tour. Why is he retiring? "...[I am] an endangered species in the modern, powerful game of tennis...The game is too powerful now. You cannot play that kind of game any more" ... referring to slice & tactical play. Ergo... if you play slice, the modern player is fast enough to get to the ball with enough time to make an easy and decisive winner. To stand out as much as Federer (and Nadal) in an era where this is the norm takes much greater effort than playing the same old slice game time and time again on effectively the same court surface (grass) Sometimes the whole Laver/two grandslam/GOAT thing has a lot of "say it enough times and it must be true to all people" Laver didn't dominate the way that federer has. This is a fact. Federer in many ways has far superceded what Laver did. Really there is only two things that he hasn't done greater than Laver. Win two grandslams and retire. In the modern game however, I personally would rate winning 3 out of 4 Slams, 3 times in 4 years and his run of GS semis and GS finals to be a greater achievement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bugger, sushiboy I left out brain cells. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| <<are we talking about your brain cells now?>> What do you think? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I still have millions left that the booze hasn't killed yet. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| are we talking about your brain cells now? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| grsydney - my friend the way i look at it is if it's good enough for Laver then it's good enough for me. Laver comes across as a very wise and humble man. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Thanks Vice. The best quote from that article is; "One thing is for sure: he's the best player of his time and one of the most admirable champions on the planet. That's certainly something worth crowing over.' Read it yourself Zb. You know S.h.i. Laver sure knows what he is talking about which is much more than can be said about your pathetic little outbursts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| hi nicola, don't worry i have now found the TIME article link you were refering to called FEDERER : THE ARTISTRY OF THE WORLD'S TOP TENNIS ACE. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100/art icle/0,28804,1595326_1615754_1615743,00.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Pty Limited. All rights reserved. Advertise with Us - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Help |