Federer: "I am very far from being the best tennis player of all time"

[Total Power]

Miami - Roger Federer has his dreams - like being a rock star or scoring the winning goal in a World Cup final with a spectacular overhead kick. But when it comes to his own profession, there is no time for daydreaming for the top player in men's tennis. "I am very far from being the best tennis player of all time," he said in an interview with Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

At 25, Federer dominates tennis like few players have done in history. He already has 10 Grand Slam titles, and he looks like the man to end a 38-year wait since Australian Rod Laver achieved the Grand Slam, winning the four greatest tournaments in the same year.

"Of course I have clearly earned the praise and all that, but at times I wish people gave me a bit more time and said, 'OK, you do great stuff, etcetera, records, etcetera, but we will only evaluate you after the end of your career and only then look at whether you really were the best or even came close,'" Federer said.

"If I keep on like this for the next two years, then it looks like I will be (the best). But we are not going to see that for a long time. One must always look at the game this way - if I stopped (playing) now, would I be the best player of all time? No, not a chance."

German Boris Becker for one does not think Federer is the best in history and claims today's top 10 players are less strong technically and psychologically than those of the 1980s and 1990s.

Federer does not enter that debate, but does feel that so much praise poured on him may be annoying to the sport's former greats.

"Sometimes it is really too much for me. It is clear that I should not be compared to the best sportsmen of all time, like Muhammad Ali, or to the best tennis players. It is of course logical that some former players get almost angry about it, because there is already so much talk of it. One just comes across it and goes 'huh!', and gives a side-swipe," Federer explained with a laugh.

"I do not provoke that, it's the media. Respect is important," he stressed.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/41724.html


Just what i said about the top players in the 80s and 90s being superior than the present generation

 

[Cameron_K]

I have been saying it for some time, this is one of the weakest top 10's you will ever come across. The talent at the top (the first 2) would challenge anyone in the past but after that it gets very thin very fast.

 

[Geddy Lee]

Well gee I wonder why Becker would say something like that.

A guy like Ljubicic on fast or indoor would destroy anyone from the 80s. If Federer wasn't so good and Nalby, Ancic, Ljubo had slams than people wouldn't be able to put forward this argument.

Crap Top Ten =/= Top Ten without several slam winners

 

[Syd Kennets]

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/41724.html


Just what i said about the top players in the 80s and 90s being superior than the present generation

So you want federer to go back in time and beat the top 10 from 1990 do you?

This is the reason you dont compare eras. Just enjoy his play.

 

[Dave The Man]

Very Scary

 

[Total Power]

So you want federer to go back in time and beat the top 10 from 1990 do you?

This is the reason you dont compare eras. Just enjoy his play.

Did you read the post? he was talking about the top 20 in general, not about federer or nadal. Anyone with any knowledge of tennis would agree that this is the weakest top 10 for a long long time.

 

[Total Power]

Well gee I wonder why Becker would say something like that.

A guy like Ljubicic on fast or indoor would destroy anyone from the 80s. If Federer wasn't so good and Nalby, Ancic, Ljubo had slams than people wouldn't be able to put forward this argument.

Crap Top Ten =/= Top Ten without several slam winners

You are saying that Ivan Ljbucic, with the worst returns and passing shots will beat the likes of Mcenroe and Edberg on fast indoor courts

Secondly its not about slam winners.Its about the variety. Guys like davydenko, robredo..2nd grade serve and volleyers like Ancic, journeymen tennis players like Haas etc...they wouldnt be in the top 10 in the 1990s. Where is the variety in todays game? can you name a decent serve and volley player in todays game? there are many players in the game of tennis who are good against baseliners but crap against serve and volley players, cause their passing shots suck.But we would never know who they are in today s game because of the lack of variety. The power has improved, so has fitness and technology. But tennis is becoming dull, with 30 stroke rallies becoming all too common and this is the exact reason why people hated clay court tennis previously

 

[LukeParkerno1]

TP, dead agreed and you know I agree with you regarding the vartiety in the game, or lack of variety in the game. That is why Wimbledon will just annoy me like noting before, as no doubt a baseliner will win it again!

 

[matty p]

In a years time, the top 10 will be very strong again. Once young players such as Djokovic (whos just reached top 10), Murray, Gasquet and Berdych replace Ljubicic, Nalbandian (just left top 10), Davydenko and Robredo in the top echelon of the game, the top 10 will be strong for many years to come with Federer, Nadal, Gonzalez and Haas also retaining their spots.

 

[Geddy Lee]

You are saying that Ivan Ljbucic, with the worst returns and passing shots will beat the likes of Mcenroe and Edberg on fast indoor courts

Secondly its not about slam winners.Its about the variety. Guys like davydenko, robredo..2nd grade serve and volleyers like Ancic, journeymen tennis players like Haas etc...they wouldnt be in the top 10 in the 1990s. Where is the variety in todays game? can you name a decent serve and volley player in todays game? there are many players in the game of tennis who are good against baseliners but crap against serve and volley players, cause their passing shots suck.But we would never know who they are in today s game because of the lack of variety. The power has improved, so has fitness and technology. But tennis is becoming dull, with 30 stroke rallies becoming all too common and this is the exact reason why people hated clay court tennis previously

He sure would. But it's futile to compare eras. Especially when you complain about the lack of variety that your favourite player has heralded in. Luckily, thanks to Roger Federer, young kids these days in top tennis playing countries are being trained to be all-court players, and we will have magnificent viewing in 10 years time. And here is your tennis lesson Total Power:

Every Tennis Era was full of clowns. (credit goes to hitchhiker of MTF)

Open Era

1968-1969 Laver Returns
A 30-year-old man, ancient in tennis terms, won the grand slam. That should be your first tipoff that this was a clown era of the highest order. Have you actually looked at who Laver had to beat in those slam finals? Gimeno? Rosewall, even more ancient than Laver?
Newcombe, who was Laver's bitch? And Roche, a known slam final choker?
Sure, Laver was no clown, but in an era of clowns, is it any wonder he won
the slam? All he had to do was show up. Players over 40 were making slam
SF. Major clown alert.


1970-1973 Old Men and The Clown Prince
The best player of the era was nicknamed 'The Clown Prince' which is a giveaway in itself. Like most clowns, Nastase could make you laugh, make you cry, and occasionally flip you off. Other notable highlights from this era include 37-year-olds winning slams, noted clowns **** Crealy, Zeljko Franulovic, and Patrick Proisy making slam finals, and a fitting capstone, the majority of the tour refusing to play at holy Wimbledon. Sacrelige!
Bunch of freaking clowns.

1974-1980 Connors and Borg
Connors and Borg ... and that's pretty much it. They had cakewalks to every
slam final, and why not? They played in a supremely clownish era. Borg won
5 Wimbledons in a row? Playing mainly from the baseline? WTF?
Ashe? Vitas? These guys had dropped all pretense and actually looked like clowns as the pictures show.


Ashe:

Vitas:

Vilas? His one French title came when Borg decided not to show. The next
year Borg ripped away the mask and revealed the Vilas clown, 6-1 6-1 6-3.
We'll toss in the fat clown Edmondson for the hell of it.


1981-1984 McEnroe the half-clown
Mcenroe was lucky he didn’t play like a clown because he both looked and acted very clownish.
As for his competition? Clowns across the board. Connors was a old man with an old racquet. The fact that Connors himself was still winning slams should give you a big clue about the rest of the players. Lendl sucked before 1982. Chris Lewis ring any bells? Johan Kriek? Top ten players from this era include Gene Mayer , Jimmy Arias, Jose
Higueras, Henrik Sundstrom, Anders Jarryd, Eliot Teltscher, and Peter
McNamara. What did they all have in common? That's right, none of them
ever made so much as one slam final, and they were all clowns.




1985-1989 Lendl the dour clown
What can you say about the best player of the era losing 11 slam finals? If
you said it must be a clown era, you get a big pile of shredded newspaper
thrown in your face. Pernfors? The silky smooth but ultimately worthless Mecir? Curren? There was promise with Bonking Boris, but he pulled a big clown maneuver by setting himself up for sustained greatness and then letting down time and again. And
Wilander? A player who reaches the pinnacle and then essentially quits?
Must be a Swedish thing.

Lendl the robot clown:

1990-1992 Edberg and Courier
Two worthy champions, and then? Old Lendl, unfinished Sampras, downward
sliding Becker. The clowns of this era were proud to wear bright, bold
colors:

Top ten players included Karel Novacek, Guy Forget, Emilio Sanchez, and Brad Gilbert. Thats clowns winning ugly.


1993-1994 Early Sampras
Sampras winning everything in sight. Why not? Playing giants like Pioline,
Martin, one-slam wonders Chang and Goran (their slams being far, far removed from this era), how could he help it? Edberg got old, Becker still off Bonking somewhere (no slam finals 1992-94), Agassi perfecting his zen clown technique.


1995 Anti-Clown
Finally, after years of waiting, we have a non-clown year. Agassi and
Sampras at the peak of their powers, Muster turns in one of the greatest
clay seasons ever, and Boris is resurrected. All hail 1995, the anti-clown era!

1995:

1996-1998 Late Sampras
Mental Rios. Corretja. Rusedski. Bjorkman. Kucera. Henman. Yes, these were days when giants walked the court ... giant clowns. Sampras often played left-handed to keep it interesting. The clowning glory of this era occurred in 1996, when MaliVai Washington made the Wimbledon final. Thats right, MaliVai freaking Washington made the Wimbledon final.


1999-2000 Agassi and the Clowns
Four straight slam finals seems impressive, until you bring in the clown
factor. Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov. When Agassi played the one
non-clown, Sampras, he got destroyed. Drunk clown Voltchkov made Wimbledon semis. Lapentti? Kiefer? Norman?
All top players. Or should I say, top clowners. Some guy from Brazil was
#1 in 2000. He looked like a clown.

2001-2002 The Hewitt Era
I should probably be prosecuted for even writing 'The Hewitt Era'. This guy
was #1 for two straight years. Hard to believe? Not when you examine the
clowns he had to deal with. Young, no experience in slams, known final choker Nalbandian in Wimbledon final? An old feeble Sampras who didn’t even care anymore? Not much more to say here. Oh wait, yes there is. Thomas Johansson and Albert Costa, slam champions. Clowns.

2003 Roddick was #1.
The title says it all, really. Although the picture below sums it up.

 

[Back Pocket Rocket]

The last post is one of the best that I have read on here And I agree with most points!

 

[Total Power]

He sure would. But it's futile to compare eras. Especially when you complain about the lack of variety that your favourite player has heralded in. Luckily, thanks to Roger Federer, young kids these days in top tennis playing countries are being trained to be all-court players, and we will have magnificent viewing in 10 years time. And here is your tennis lesson Total Power:

Not sure what you want to prove, but did you read my post? playing goran in a 1990 fast wimbledon surface is not the same as playing Nadal in 2006 slow surface.Ask any tennis expert, if playing Krajicek (although he had 1 slam) on a fast grass court was any easier than playing Nadal on clay for example. Its about variety.A guy like Ljbucic is ordinary.He has never even made a slam final, and he is like what? 26? he made 1 semifinals probably, if i remember correctly and here u have him beating Mcenroe and Edberg.When he is unable to pass 2nd grade serve and vollyers like Ancic and Henman, how do you expect him to beat Edberg? or maybe its the fact you rate Henman higher than Becker or Edberg? its not about quantity its about quality. A guy like Becker would destroy a guy like Robredo on any non clay surface.Guys like Pioline and co are technically pretty good.I dont know they are referring guys like Mecir as clowns, just because they dont have any slams maybe?? compare their technique with say, henman or ancic, if you understand anything about tennis, you will notice the difference.

Can you name some all court tennis players? lets check out some top juniors? Donald Young? Gael Monfils? Brian Baker? Sam Querry? whoelse am i missing out? Richard Gasquet? Novak Djokovic? these guys couldnt volley to save their life and they ARE supposed to be the top juniors/teenagers around.
How are they ALL COURT players, please explain

Here is a question for you Geddy Lee, if the top 10 is so strong, how come the present generation is being dominated by Fed and Nadal? leave those 2 out and all you have are a bunch of players with little or no success on major tournaments. Check out the difference between number 2 and number 3. 2000 race points. Can you see a difference in class? i can understand federer being a legend and being so dominant.But even if we leave him out...there is a big gap between Rafa and the rest.

 

[red+black]

Most tournaments and three of the four Grand Slams used to be on grass, now there's just Wimbledon and a small handful of grass events left. Not only that, but the grass season is so short, and it's about time a larger break was put between the French and Wimbledon to give time and justice to a full grass court season. I think this a bigger issue in tennis than all the talk about pushing the Oz back to March.

Blame tennis administrators for the direction of tennis, not coaches or players. Why would any player in their right mind bother honing their skill on grass and developing their serve/volley game? Tennis admistrators have made it clear that that kind of player will not be successful today, hence we are left with an army of drones. Pete Sampras (and to a lesser extent, Ivanisevic and Rafter) was the last of his kind, and considering he was able to do this in an era post-Kooyong is testament that he was a brilliant player that bucked the inevitable trend.

 

[Total Power]

Three of the four Grand Slams used to be on grass, most tournaments used to be on grass, now there's just Wimbledon and a small handful of grass events left. Not only that but the grass season is so short, it's about time a larger break was put between teh French and Wimbledon, rather than the sole focus on pushing the Oz to March.

Blame tennis administrators for the direction of tennis, not coaches or players. Why would any player in their right mind bother practicing on grass and learning to serve/volley? Tennis admistrators have made it clear that that kind of player will not be successful today.

If an average serve and volleyer like Henman can be a top 10 player for a long long time, why cant serve and volley tennis succeed? it was rafter not so long ago that made the wimbledon finals.Ancic being a very ordinary serve and volleyer, still a top 10 player.Why they cant succeed? i dont see a reason.

But i agree with you on the fact that blame tennis administrators. People used to HATE clay court season because we used to have 30 stroke rallies. Now we have 30 stroke rallies on grass courts. Ridiculous. Whats the difference between RG and Wimbledon now? very little

 

[red+black]

If an average serve and volleyer like Henman can be a top 10 player for a long long time, why cant serve and volley tennis succeed? it was rafter not so long ago that made the wimbledon finals.Ancic being a very ordinary serve and volleyer, still a top 10 player.Why they cant succeed? i dont see a reason.

Maybe there's no reason why they can't, but there's very few left, and none that are successful. Henman is proof that moderately decent serve and volleyers can be top players, yet most, almost all, choose to not go down that path. Rafter was further proof but unfortunately he didn't have a full career.

And the lack of server and volleyers has also been a disadvantage to many baseliners that have brilliant passing shots. Who can forget when Hewitt was at the top of his game, such as at the US Open a few years back?

 

[Geddy Lee]

Not sure what you want to prove, but did you read my post? playing goran in a 1990 fast wimbledon surface is not the same as playing Nadal in 2006 slow surface.Ask any tennis expert, if playing Krajicek (although he had 1 slam) on a fast grass court was any easier than playing Nadal on clay for example. Its about variety.A guy like Ljbucic is ordinary.He has never even made a slam final, and he is like what? 26? he made 1 semifinals probably, if i remember correctly and here u have him beating Mcenroe and Edberg.When he is unable to pass 2nd grade serve and vollyers like Ancic and Henman, how do you expect him to beat Edberg? or maybe its the fact you rate Henman higher than Becker or Edberg? its not about quantity its about quality. A guy like Becker would destroy a guy like Robredo on any non clay surface.Guys like Pioline and co are technically pretty good.I dont know they are referring guys like Mecir as clowns, just because they dont have any slams maybe?? compare their technique with say, henman or ancic, if you understand anything about tennis, you will notice the difference.

Can you name some all court tennis players? lets check out some top juniors? Donald Young? Gael Monfils? Brian Baker? Sam Querry? whoelse am i missing out? Richard Gasquet? Novak Djokovic? these guys couldnt volley to save their life and they ARE supposed to be the top juniors/teenagers around.
How are they ALL COURT players, please explain

I beg your pardon, I don't think I explained my point clearly.

Roger Federer has beaten the dominant baseline players like Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal (on grass and hard) by using an all-court (A-C) game. He did quite alot of serve volleying when he was growing up (which coincidently is why Nalbandian owned him) but he himself has grasped the clear advantage of A-C tennis.

So the trend and bleak future of, as you described, 'clay tennis on non-clay courts' is shattered by this guy playing A-C tennis. It has become apparent that a guy with X amount of talent playing A-C tennis will be able to more-often-than-not beat a guy with X amount of talent playing baseline tenns. This patten will filter down through professional coaches/ academies to students/ young players, as these coaches grasp the same realization that Roger did.

In a nutshell, Federer has changed the way young kids (10-14 year olds) are being taught tennis at the very best academies, so that in 10 years time, we will have less baseliners than we have today.

 

[Geddy Lee]

Another point RE: my post on page 1.

People have very selective interpretations of what the tennis Top Ten has been like throughout history. There have been heaps of lacklustre players in the top ten in the open era and I don't think people can say that this is the worst just because of Federer's dominance. In fact, the two biggest factors that haven't helped the cause (and my argument) are the dominance of Federer and the strength of the men's game, where #100 can beat #10 in a GS and suddenly the Top Ten is a joke. (!!!) I don't subscribe to that train of thought at all.

Look at Robredo, he's an absolute phoney, but nonetheless his scenario is this:

He has Federer on top, IMO the GOAT, all court perfection. So the number #1 in the world is the strongest #1 there's ever been.

Way below him, at #100, you have some player who is the strongest #100 in the history of the game (because of the incredible depth of tennis). In the past, #100 would have been an absolute clown, but now he could even beat Robredo at a GS if Robredo has a slightly off-day.

So he's got great pressure from both sides and it's easy to see why the Top 10 don't win as many Tier 1 events these days.

 

[SunKing]

I have to agree with Fed he is far from the greatest ever,top ten probably. Look at his competition? Roddick? Hewitt? His only serious competitor is Nadal and that's on clay. Compare that to the genius McEnroe,IMO the best player ever by a country mile. He had to contend with the genius of Borg,Connors,Lendl,Wilander,Becker,Edberg and later in his career Sampras & Agassi You could mount a similar argument for Borg,without the master McEnroe he could have won seven maybe eight straight wimbledons and probably a couple more french. The GOAT has to come down to Borg or McEnroe. Imagine if Federer had to compete with Borg,Wilander,Edberg,Lendl,Connors,Becker etc instead of Hewitt & Roddick Also agree about todays top ten,absolutely weak apart from the top 2 or 3.

 

[Back Pocket Rocket]

I have to agree with Fed he is far from the greatest ever,top ten probably. Look at his competition? Roddick? Hewitt? His only serious competitor is Nadal and that's on clay. Compare that to the genius McEnroe,IMO the best player ever by a country mile. He had to contend with the genius of Borg,Connors,Lendl,Wilander,Becker,Edberg and later in his career Sampras & Agassi You could mount a similar argument for Borg,without the master McEnroe he could have won seven maybe eight straight wimbledons and probably a couple more french. The GOAT has to come down to Borg or McEnroe. Imagine if Federer had to compete with Borg,Wilander,Edberg,Lendl,Connors,Becker etc instead of Hewitt & Roddick Also agree about todays top ten,absolutely weak apart from the top 2 or 3.

So what you are saying is that because Federer belts whoever he plays and makes them look stupid then he can't be the best tennis player of all time. What's he meant to do? Let them win a few Grand Slams so their record looks better thus making his competition better. I reckon it is a glowing endorsement that he is the best player of all time in that no one can touch him!

 

[Total Power]

I beg your pardon, I don't think I explained my point clearly.

Roger Federer has beaten the dominant baseline players like Roddick, Hewitt and Nadal (on grass and hard) by using an all-court (A-C) game. He did quite alot of serve volleying when he was growing up (which coincidently is why Nalbandian owned him) but he himself has grasped the clear advantage of A-C tennis.

So the trend and bleak future of, as you described, 'clay tennis on non-clay courts' is shattered by this guy playing A-C tennis. It has become apparent that a guy with X amount of talent playing A-C tennis will be able to more-often-than-not beat a guy with X amount of talent playing baseline tenns. This patten will filter down through professional coaches/ academies to students/ young players, as these coaches grasp the same realization that Roger did.

In a nutshell, Federer has changed the way young kids (10-14 year olds) are being taught tennis at the very best academies, so that in 10 years time, we will have less baseliners than we have today.

Lets go back 4 years, prior to federer domination? how many serve and volleyers (upcoming or early 20s) were there? all the upcoming players or New Balls Please players then (Roddick, Nadal, Hewitt, Ferrero, Blake, Haas) and teenagers like, Mathieu and co were all baseline players.Players like Henman and Rafter were the last true serve and volley but their roots were way back in the early 90s.

The fact is, the development of serve and volley tennis stopped mid to late 90s not after federers domination

 

[Geddy Lee]

Lets go back 4 years, prior to federer domination? how many serve and volleyers (upcoming or early 20s) were there? all the upcoming players or New Balls Please players then (Roddick, Nadal, Hewitt, Ferrero, Blake, Haas) and teenagers like, Mathieu and co were all baseline players.Players like Henman and Rafter were the last true serve and volley but their roots were way back in the early 90s.

The fact is, the development of serve and volley tennis stopped mid to late 90s not after federers domination

It's not S&V, it's all-court tennis = baselining + S&V. Learning how to volley and how to play the net proficiently to a) end the point quickly with the right approach tactics and b) to throw S&V in as variety/surprise. Tommy Haas started playing like this at Memphis and IW.

Coaching trends in the 21st Century have (basically) gone like this: Hewitt destroys Sampras, Henman, Rafter regularly; everyone gives up on S&V. Then; Federer destroys baseliners with amazing all-court tennis - I believe this will filter down to be the new trend, and thus we will have more appealing tennis to watch in 5-10 years time.

 

[Total Power]

It's not S&V, it's all-court tennis = baselining + S&V. Learning how to volley and how to play the net proficiently to a) end the point quickly with the right approach tactics and b) to throw S&V in as variety/surprise. Tommy Haas started playing like this at Memphis and IW.

Coaching trends in the 21st Century have (basically) gone like this: Hewitt destroys Sampras, Henman, Rafter regularly; everyone gives up on S&V. Then; Federer destroys baseliners with amazing all-court tennis - I believe this will filter down to be the new trend, and thus we will have more appealing tennis to watch in 5-10 years time.

I basically disagree with something here.Hewitt did never really destroyed the likes of Sampras or Rafter, (henman was his pegion).Hewitt did beat a tired sampras in the US open final, however other than that it was pretty level. Guys like sampras finished their career with a slam.Beating the likes of Agassi, Haas, Schalken, Roddick.All solid baseliners.

Rafter finished his career on a high as well. Wimbledon finals, again.He finished his career as a top 10 player, highly successful as well. 2 wimbledon finals in 3 years time is a great achievement if you ask me.

You can say Hewitt owned him but the fact his, rafter was still very successful and due to his injury runing his career,he couldnt win wimbledon.Id bet my house on it that if it wasnt for his injury, he should have atleast 1 wimbledon.He was extremely unclucky not to win one.He also regularly owned guys like robredo, haas, guga and other top baseliners on tour, even on a slow grass surface.

 

[Monkeyboy]

Fair points. I'd slot Fed in at around 2-3 if he was playing against some of the greats in the 80's/90's as well. Rafa around 10-15.

Monkeyboy.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Well gee I wonder why Becker would say something like that.

A guy like Ljubicic on fast or indoor would destroy anyone from the 80s. If Federer wasn't so good and Nalby, Ancic, Ljubo had slams than people wouldn't be able to put forward this argument.

Crap Top Ten =/= Top Ten without several slam winners

Exactly. The game is more geographically widespread now than ever and there is more money than ever so it stands to reason it is more competitive.

Becker thinks the players who consistently beat him were better than the ones Fed consistently beats. Now I wonder why that would be.

 

[Total Power]

Exactly. The game is more geographically widespread now than ever and there is more money than ever so it stands to reason it is more competitive.

Becker thinks the players who consistently beat him were better than the ones Fed consistently beats. Now I wonder why that would be.

I agree but does that mean they are better players? take for example a guy like Haas. He did survive the sampras era where he was nothing special and he is still nothing special. Just a journeyman. A guy like Ljbucic is better than, say...a guy like Becker??? Ljbucic never even made it through to a grand slam semis and here we go compare a guy with a multiple grand slam winner. .Take for example Robredo, Blake, Davydenko, Gonzalez. They are all veteran (in terms of tennis anyway) players who have never been to a slam semi final, let alone win it (Gonzo, once this year i know). The era is dominated by Federer and Nadal, where these 2 are a cut above the rest. There is no doubt more money in it, but has the standard of tennis improved?? wouldnt you like to see shots like topspin lobs, diving volleys etx for a change? they are almost extinct now. The racquet technology makes things look better, but is it really better?? Nadal drops the ball so short all the time, he will get killed against a guy like Rafter.These days people are reluctant to come to the net and attack him.Thats why he gets away by dropping the ball short and make it difficult for a guy like Federer to hit a winner cause of the topspin and bounce. Attack him, Nadals weakness is his passing shot, exploit it. But no one can do that or afford to do that unfortunately.I said that 1000 times before and i will say it again, hitting a passing shot under pressure is one of the toughest thing to do in tennis.Imagine coming up with a passing shot, break point down, with a guy like rafter in the net, instead of grunting like a moron and waiting for an unforced error and then say...COME ON. Meh...not my style anyway

I always though contrasing style of tennis is the best thing that can happen to tennis. For example, i would give my left nut to watch a match between Rafter and Federer (at their peak). Way more interesting than Federer and Nadal. That is good for tennis, we need characters, different styles and so on. Just my 2 cents worth