Fed Fans – Roger Federer Talk

[Moxie]

You're less likely to win back to back Masters if worn out playing 4 or 5 sets; esp. on clay! All players would have fewer wins if BO5! :whistle:

Most of them aren't back-to-back. The reason they changed it was because Fed and Nadal played a long one in Rome and bailed on Hamburg, which isn't/wasn't a 1000. Both Roger and Rafa won a fair number of their 1000s in BO5. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's your man Djokovic that has made a meal on the BO3 at MS1000s. (Hint: None of his MS1000s wins was when the finals were played BO5.) B-)

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree with "one of the best," but the "probably" is the ridiculous part. He is undoubtedly one of the best ever. There is no question about that, just as there is no question that Rafa and Novak are also both two of the best ever.

Yes, I agree Roger is #one of the best ever. Rafa and Novak are #two of the best ever.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Most of them aren't back-to-back. The reason they changed it was because Fed and Nadal played a long one in Rome and bailed on Hamburg, which isn't/wasn't a 1000. Both Roger and Rafa won a fair number of their 1000s in BO5. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's your man Djokovic that has made a meal on the BO3 at MS1000s. (Hint: None of his MS1000s wins was when the finals were played BO5.) B-)

2007 Miami

 

[Ricardo]

I can say the same about you! I've been watching tennis on TV and in person for well over 40 years! All the talent wasn't reserved for Fed in the future; believe me! There were some true artist on the court who didn't have the advantage of homogenized courts, the new tech in rackets and nutrition, Tie-Breakers, and electronic line calling! Unless you're older than me and can still say Fed's the greatest, I wouldn't point fingers about someone embarrassing themselves! :whistle: :cuckoo:

Old and stupid, what’s to brag about? Over 40 years as couch potato and wheel chair tennis fan, means jack...sorry but it’s true.

 

[atttomole]

We may be splitting hairs here. I think it is inarguable that Federer is the most talented player to ever play tennis.

 

[Moxie]

2007 Miami

And Canada 2007. I went back and looked. I thought they'd changed it in 2007. Thanks.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

And Canada 2007. I went back and looked. I thought they'd changed it in 2007. Thanks.

No that was
7–6(7–2), 2–6, 7–6(7–2)

But the decision to change to b03 was definitely influenced by that Rome/Hamburg 2006 pullout

 

[Jelenafan]

We may be splitting hairs here. I think it is inarguable that Federer is the most talented player to ever play tennis.

He's no doubt a great champion, but arguably there have been many players through the years who had as much sheer talent and gifts, but alas they were not champions.

Vijay Armitraj was a maestro with a racket, silky smooth as was Adriano Panatta to name just two.

Rating best talent is subjective, results are not. That's why I find all this talk of "most talented ever" so silly.

 

[El Dude]

Yes, I agree Roger is #one of the best ever. Rafa and Novak are #two of the best ever.

Clever.

 

[atttomole]

He's no doubt a great champion, but arguably there have been many players through the years who had as much sheer talent and gifts, but alas they were not champions.

Vijay Armitraj was a maestro with a racket, silky smooth as was Adriano Panatta to name just two.

Rating best talent is subjective, results are not. That's why I find all this talk of "most talented ever" so silly.

I could add Rios to that group. Rating talent is subjective, I agree with you. However, I think it is very convenient to bring up the likes of Amitraj and Panatta to muddy the waters. They don't even come close to Federer. I think you know that.

 

[Jelenafan]

I could add Rios to that group. Rating talent is subjective, I agree with you. However, I think it is very convenient to bring the likes of Amitraj and Panatta to muddy the waters. They don't even come close to Federer. I think you know that.

Oh I agree,those players come no where near Federer's results, but that is why talent is so subjective, because IMO those players could look incredible during a match. They played mostly during the wood racket era but their touch was off the charts. I dare say there have been many players on sheer talent and gifts who look awesome but again they lack a champion's mental focus.

Rios is a good example, the man was a magician on the court. I daresay Nalbandian was incredibly talented and also had the type of game that could give Federer and others fits.

Of course the poster child of the group of incredibly talented but wasted opportunities players was Marat Safin. His size, speed and power and touch was impressive. Too bad that talent was attached to his brain.

 

[Carol]

25 years on....

 

[Fiero425]

Yes, I agree Roger is #one of the best ever. Rafa and Novak are #two of the best ever.

...and not very bright! Both Rafa and Novak have scheduled an exhibition over a year ago in Saudi Arabia! They're both "him" & "hawing" over going to a place where a reporter was obvious tortured and killed in their embassy! They say they need more info before making a decision! What else do they need? Maybe they don't want to give up the appearance money! I'm shocked by this!

- - http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/...oncerns-controversial-saudi-arabia-exhibition - -

 

[Moxie]

Oh I agree,those players come no where near Federer's results, but that is why talent is so subjective, because IMO those players could look incredible during a match. They played mostly during the wood racket era but their touch was off the charts. I dare say there have been many players on sheer talent and gifts who look awesome but again they lack a champion's mental focus.

Rios is a good example, the man was a magician on the court. I daresay Nalbandian was incredibly talented and also had the type of game that could give Federer and others fits.

Of course the poster child of the group of incredibly talented but wasted opportunities players was Marat Safin. His size, speed and power and touch was impressive. Too bad that talent was attached to his brain.

This is why valuing "pure talent" is overrated. So many think they know what "talent" looks like, and they love it, but they tend to undervalue all of the aspects of "talent," such as head, commitment, competitiveness, and tournament-to-tournament sturdiness. We keep asking why the youngsters and the Lost Gen can't run with the Big 3-4 and their + 1-3, but it's really that. And the +1-3 (Wawrinka, del Potro, Cilic) are at a far ways below due to injury and head.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Question to feddies:

Would you rather see Fed winning ugly like he did in Basel or retire keeping his legacy of "elegance and style" intact?
I am not talking about just the final (which I did not see), but his overall play at Basel. I personally would prefer the later.

Note: Winning ugly should be differentiated from winning with grit in competitive situations.

 

[El Dude]

Question to feddies:

Would you rather see Fed winning ugly like he did in Basel or retire keeping his legacy of "elegance and style" intact?
I am not talking about just the final (which I did not see), but his overall play at Basel. I personally would prefer the later.

Note: Winning ugly should be differentiated from winning with grit in competitive situations.

I don't think Roger can damage his legacy - what he's done he's done. In that regard, legacy's are cumulative; you can't really take away from them, unless you're Fiero for whom anyone other than the true greats sucks and all greats should retire as soon as they start slipping .

Look at Lleyton Hewitt. At the end of 2002 he looked like a potential all-time great. By the end of 2006, it was clear that he was more of a near-great, a guy who was number one for a period between eras of greats but not a true great himself. He played for another decade at essentially a journeyman level. This didn't take anything away from what he did from 2000-05, but it just didn't add anything.

Roger is what he is: the player with the greatest resume of the Open Era, and the defacto current GOAT. He could do a Hewitt for the next five years and it wouldn't diminish what he's already done. He might be surpassed by others (Rafa and Novak), but only because they accumulate better stats.

As for what I'd prefer, it is painful watching him play at this level but it will be more painful to see him gone. I'd like to see him play as long as he can win tournaments and has a vague chance at a Slam. That might be two or three years yet.

That said, I would also love to see him do a Sampras and win 2019 Wimbledon and then call it quits there and then. That would be epic. But I don't think he'll retire until it is 100% clear to him he can't win another Slam, and that will probably be a year or so after it is 100% clear to us - and it isn't 100% clear. I think he'll retire after Basel, not in the middle of the season. So we've got at least another year!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The results achieved are always cumulative. But, the mental picture that comes to mind once one thinks of Roger is elegance and artistry. If he keeps sucking for next five years and be around, that mental picture may not come any more. In that sense legacy can be damaged.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That said, I would also love to see him do a Sampras and win 2019 Wimbledon and then call it quits there and then. That would be epic.

It would be truly epic, if he can win 2020 Olympics Singles Gold and then call it quits.

 

[DarthFed]

Playing bad tennis now doesn't damage his legacy. What would damage his legacy is Nadal and/or Novak passing up his major total. If that happens then Roger goes down as some rich guy who was #1 for awhile and very dominant for a few years. Quite different from how we view him now. And he certainly can't win any more majors if he is retired.

I'm not ready to say he's done just yet. He has sucked for long periods of time on many different occasions since AO 2010. I know he's older now so chances just keep increasing that he is done but I wouldn't be surprised if he got lazy and content after #20. He knows what is at stake and should get back to playing adequate tennis soon.

 

[El Dude]

I don't buy the "best or you suck" mentality, Darth. Of course he wants to keep the majors lead over Rafa and Novak, but if he doesn't it isn't the end of the world and he's still always going to be considered one of the very best tennis players ever.

In the end, does it really matter? Even if he holds the lead, someone someday will surpass him. That is just the nature of the beast. And of course no matter what the final tally is, the title of GOAT will always be in dispute. That's part of the fun of it, no?

Don't get me wrong, I want Roger to maintain the Slam lead. I just don't see it as the end of the world if he doesn't, or that his greatness will be hugely diminished. As it stands, the three together are possibly--quite likely, really--the three greatest players in tennis history, so it isn't exactly bad company to be mixed with.