|
|||
|
Message Boards
|
|||
| Omigod - Mad dog strikes again - a very 'enthusiastic' and 'energetic' summation of the RG final - he gets really overexcited, screaming and everything, spit must have been flying. I'd like to see have a go at Djokovic Wouldn't see that on Oz TV... http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/22825103/vp/25061839 #25061839 small ad first before the video |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You could be right Len - too much primping and powdering and not enough practising... It must be a serbian thing... http://www.mensvogue.com/health/feature/articles/2 008/04/djokovic The tiny princess will need to produce something good quick because his tight match against Roger all those months ago has worn off and been forgotten. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I wonder though if our Princess in Waiting (aka. Janko T) would have better results if he focused on his tennis game as much as he does with his star-shots. For a model, he is a pretty ordinary player with one close result that has summed up / over hyped his career to date. http://cornedbeefhash.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/tsf -exclusive-janko-rests-on-a-hammock/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Love it skip. Great pickup and post. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Well, I bet they're thinking that they're lucky to be in the right place at the right time... Take out the space... http://cornedbeefhash.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/bal lkids-in-heaven/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Geoff if you would like to purchase the book, go to: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/catthumbs.html?CRE F=949 You can access it through the ATP website but thats the direct link. They have a profile on every single player. Federer's profile is 4 pages long. He has got so many achievements in there. And you get a very detailed run down of all the grand slams, masters shields, etc. etc. There is hardly anything that you wouldn't be able to find. The book only costs about $20 - $25. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Weekend...Now I know why you have all those figures at your fingertips. I really must hunt that book down. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Yes sprarepart, Kuerten was good. He won it 3 times. 1997, 2000, and 2001. The difference with Borg and Federer really was the time they peaked. Borg didn't take any time finding his feet. He holds the record for the most titles by the time he was 25. I think its 54. Federer peaked later in his career. Not until he was about 22 and a half. I have a book called the 2008 Official Guide to Professional Tennis which has basically all the information you would want to know about the current players on the circuit up until the end of 2007. Federer's record at that time win/loss was 315-24 (.929) since 2004 when he started to find his feet. In 2004, his winning percentage was .925. In 2005, his winning percentage was .953. His record in matches win/loss was 81/4. It was the highest since McEnroe finished with .965 and 82/3. I wish I could show you the book as you would be able to see all the records he has broken etc. He went 41 straight matches without a defeat from the end of 2006 until the first round of the Dubai Open in 2007. That included picking up the US Open, the last ATP Masters shield he could play in, the Tennis Masters Cup, and the Australian Open. Another one to mention in regards to the Masters Cup is he has the highest winning percentage of any other player which currently stands at .897. Win/Loss 26/3, winning it 4 out of the last 5 years and the other year, he made the final only to go down to Nalbandian in 5 sets. There was a lot more to that match. You had to have watched it and known the situation at hand to realise just how great a feat it was to take Nalbandian to 5. It was a great match. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Weekend- Kuerten was quite good at the French | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Also Nye, I disagree regarding your chicken and egg argument. The only way we can compare players from different times is by looking at their tournament record. If they had weaker opposition then this comparison becomes harder. I would put forward that I think Federer's oppostion has been weaker than in some other eras and hence he may have had an easier ride. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| But he also rarely travelled outside of Europe. He dominated the French and Wimbledon, but did nothing elsewhere. Age is a very difficult comparison too. Borg came on earlier and left younger. Federer came of age later, yet will have a longer career. If Federer was a precoscious 16 year old like Lleyton Hewitt then his record may be greater, but he took his time to find his feet. What would Federer's career winning percentage be if he quit at 25? I'd bet it would be higher than it currently is due to a 'poor' patch at the start of this year. Borg quitting at 25 may have protected his record somewhat. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I found this interesting: "Borg was astonishing in this study considering he basically retired at age 25. People are now talking about how Roger Federer today is the greatest of all time and how Federer is tracking ahead of all the old timers like Borg. Frankly that is so wrong. Federer as of September 9, 2007 has won 51 tournaments. Federer is 26 now so a comparison at about the same age between the two is quite appropriate. Borg won 77 tournaments by the time he retired at age 25, which is 26 more than Federer had done at this present time at the age of 26. Borg won 11 majors in 27 attempts. Federer has won 12 majors but in 5 more attempts. Borg has a lifetime .855 winning percentage and Federer as of now has a .803 lifetime winning percentage. How can Federer be called the greatest of all time right now if he’s not even the best player of his own age. This is not meant to downgrade Federer but it’s to show the greatness of Borg that he can leave a great player like Federer in the dust. The competition during Borg’s playing career was excellent. Borg played among others McEnroe, Connors, Vilas, Laver, Rosewall, Ashe, Nastase, Orantes, Newcombe, Tanner all while they were in their prime or at worst still excellent players. Borg can be argued to be the greatest player of all time and is clearly by a decent margin the best of the Open Era." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| There was never a dominator at Roland Garros during the 90's. The only other person to dominate it has been Borg with his 6 titles, which includes 4 straight from 78 - 81. It must have been won by at least half a dozen players during the 90's. Federer has had Nalbandian who had a record of 5 - 0 against Federer prior to the Masters Cup in 2003. Roger went on to win 8 out of the next 9 encounters. That was over the space of about 3 years and most of the times they met were in big matches. Nalbandian very rarely left the top 10 during that time. Hewitt who was No. 1 in the world also held a similar record against Federer. Prior to Roger reaching No. 1 in the world, Hewitt had a 7 - 2 record on him. Hewitt hasn't beaten him since. In 11 encounters. A Rod was also No. 1. and has always been around the top during Federer's reign as No. 1. Their record is 15 - 2. Nadal is one of if not the only player who has a superior record over Federer. Their's is 11 - 6 in favour of Nadal. If you look at the encounters though, 9 of the 11 wins have been on clay. It would take some research but I doubt anyone has had so many close encounters with Nadal on clay. Federer may have lost most of them but nearly every time he has taken a set off him as well as pushing him to tie-breakers or 7 - 5 in the set. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| It's a bit of a 'chicken and egg' scenerio. Are the others looking worse due to Federer or is Federer looking better because of the others? I think back to the mid-late 90s and Pete and Andre were basically alone at the top for the most part. Rafter had a cameo for a while, a few others bobbed up and down, but it was really just those two. Right now we have the big 3 - Fed, Rafa and Novak. You look at each grand slam and wonder who the fourth semi finalist will be! But I think the fact that Federer has been a constant at at least the semi final stages over the past 5 years has proven his ability. I, personally, have never seen a player produce as many 'wow' shots as Federer. Rafa has a few, but Federer just does things on a court that nobody else can. If Rafa didn't exist then Federer would be the king of clay too. So while Nadal wins all in front of him on the dirt, Federer is second on that surface (easily) and well in front on all others - I doubt anyone else can boast this record. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nye, I don't think anyone would try to make the argument that Nadal was the best. I think there was a bit of a lull in the competition as Safin and Hewitt dropped off and Djokovic and Nadal came through. I don't really rate Roddick. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nadal has only won the French - mind you 4 times in a row! But Fed has won BOTH Wimbledon and the US in the past 4 years. If he can win both for a fifth straight year (Wimbledon alone for the 6th) then I think he is looking at a record that may never be broken! A good sign as to how good he is - look at the reaction around the world when he DOESN'T win a title! That shows how much we EXPECT him to win - it is a suprise if he doesn't. I think the standard of men's tennis over the past 5 years has been quite good. Guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nadal and Djockovic are very good - granted Hewitt and Safin have dropped away, but they were damn good around 2004. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| And by the way I'm here to be convinced. I was wondering if this obvious dominance by Nadal at the French meant he could be still considered the best of all time. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Good points but I don't think you can compare money now to that in the past. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I've just been doing some reading about the shenanigans that happened in the 70's. Seems that it was only by the very late 70's that the playing field evened up. With players like Connors being banned from events, its understandable that no one was able to dominate back then. Few interesting points are that the US open was played on clay so even though Borg was winning in France on the clay he couldn't emulate in the US on the same surface. Also although Federer was dominating I think you need to compare him to the opposition. Do you think until now (when he has had Nadal to compete with) that he has had opposition of the calibre of greats like Connors McEnroe and Borg? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Last but not least sprarepart. I had put this in another thread but copied it over here for you and added the extra details that needed to be put on. Federer has made it to 16 straight semi-finals now. Roland Garros 2004 was the last time he didn't make it through to the last 4. Since then it has been: From 2004 - 4 straight Wimbledon finals for 4 straight Wimbledon wins, 4 straight US Open Finals for 4 straight wins. 4 straight Australian Open Semi-Finals with 2 Final appearances winning on each occassion. Winner in 2006, & 2007. Lost to the eventual champion in 2005 (Marit Safin), and in 2008 (Novak Djokovic). 1 French Open semi-final in 2005 followed by 3 straight Final appearances, 2006, 2007, and 2008 only to be beaten by eventual champion Rafael Nadal on every occassion. And prior to that, he won the Australian Open in straight sets in 2004, his second Grand Slam which had followed No. 1. Wimbledon 2003. Another factor you might be able to take in. 228 weeks in a row at No.1. He hasn't lost that crown since he got it on February 2nd 2004. With A Rod, Hewitt, Ferrero, Safin, Nadal, and now Djokovic to name just the ones I can remember breathing down his neck. At one stage he finished with over 8100 points in a calendar year. No-one has even got close to that. And he was the first to break $7 million in prize money for a calendar year, a feat he has done twice now. As well as winning the ATP race I think for 4 straight years from memory. Not too bad a record. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Think of every player considered a 'great'. How many have dominated - and I mean DOMINATED like Federer? We are talking about a guy who has won twelve Grand Slam singles titles (three Australian Open, five Wimbledon, four US Open) and four Tennis Masters Cup titles. He made ten consecutive Grand Slam men's singles finals as well - another record. THAT is domination. Even when he doesn't win a grand slam event, he invarioubly makes at least the semi finals. 15 finals appearances in the past 20 grand slam events is amazing and I cannot think of anyone who can match that sort of consistent play in the big events. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Post 1970 is when the tennis association went professional. They consider this age to be when the tennis players became more "equal" when it came to their achievement. Equal meaning they each had the same chance as the others to be as good as they could be. Prior to that, the tennis players weren't playing in all the tournaments they could and wanted to. There were only a select few that did before 1970. Why Federer has been so dominate and many refer to him as the greatest of all time is he has been able to win on all surfaces. The only big tournament played by the best of the current era he hasn't won is the French Open. Yet he has made it to the semi-final in 2005, and the finals in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The only person that has held him back from winning it is Nadal. Federer has beaten him on clay before. Snapped his winning streak at Hamburg last year. A clay court title with most of the best tennis players in the world on display. He has won that tournament 4 times. 5 finals and 4 titles. Only lost it once in the final, this year to Nadal. The only person throughout that whole streak to come close to matching him was Federer. In 2006, they played out the Rome Masters final in what was a best of 5 sets. Federer took him all the way to 5 and was able to hold match point on him. No-one has even come close to that. Rod Laver was a great player. Twice won all 4 Grand Slams in the same year but he didn't dominated it like Federer has. Sampras holds the record for the most Grand Slam titles but half of them are at Wimbledon. On one surface. The furthest he ever made it at Roland Garros was to the semi-final and I think he only did that twice out of about 12 - 14 attempts. With Borg, he never won the Australian Open even though he hardly came over here. But he played in 4 US Open finals only to be beaten every time. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Actually now I think about it you are probably right in some regards as the number of surfces have increased over time. But I think if you were dominant on grass and clay (which I would consider the two extremes) then that would prove you were dominant no matter what surface. Hence someone like Borg would be up there but Sampras and Federer just haven't been able to dominate on clay and hence are great but not the greatest. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cos I would have said Rod Laver for starters. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Pty Limited. All rights reserved. Advertise with Us - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Help |