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

[LukeParkerno1]

I agre TP, and we may be the only two that see it this way. I find watching tennis to be extremely repetitive half the time unfortunately. It is a absolute joke that Federer is probally the best volleyer around and yet he is absolute rubbish compared to a real volleyer in say Rafter for example.

 

[Back Pocket Rocket]

I agre TP, and we may be the only two that see it this way. I find watching tennis to be extremely repetitive half the time unfortunately. It is a absolute joke that Federer is probally the best volleyer around and yet he is absolute rubbish compared to a real volleyer in say Rafter for example.

Federer has more talent in his left nut then Rafter If they were both in their prime, playing on grass and both serve volleying it would be a straight sets victory to Federer!

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No it would not, especially if they played on the grass in Wibledon say in the 1990's/early2000's where the grass was quicker and where you could not stay at the baseline. It is a tradjedy that Wimbledon is won from the baseline. IMO would you see a total baseliner in Nadal even get close to a final 10 yrs ago in Wimbledon..um no, and even TP will agree with that. Rafter's volley's in general are better than Federe's. As I said it is a disgrace that Federer is seen as one of the better volleyers around as he has a pretty ordinary volley compared to Sampras or Rafter.

 

[Back Pocket Rocket]

No it would not, especially if they played on the grass in Wibledon say in the 1990's/early2000's where the grass was quicker and where you could not stay at the baseline. It is a tradjedy that Wimbledon is won from the baseline. IMO would you see a total baseliner in Nadal even get close to a final 10 yrs ago in Wimbledon..um no, and even TP will agree with that. Rafter's volley's in general are better than Federe's. As I said it is a disgrace that Federer is seen as one of the better volleyers around as he has a pretty ordinary volley compared to Sampras or Rafter.

I can see your point, but I think Federer gets easier volley's due to his serve and great approach shots whereas Rafter used to come in on any old shit hence making his volley's tougher. Rafter also didn't win a Wimbledon in spite of his "great" volleys so I think this can also tell a story.

Also Wimbledon hasn't been won from the baseline since Hewitt. And he only won because Sampras was done and Federer was just getting warmed up!

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Rafter didn't win Wimbledon due to injury and the fact he ran into two great opponents that probally would have beaten Federer on grass as well, especially in my opinion Sampras but that is another thread. Also consider the other great players in Rafter's era as well. And Wimbledon not winning from the baseline..well sorry I never knew Andy Roddick was a serve/volleyer (yes he didn't win but he got to the final), would not have happened 10 yrs ago. And Federer is more a baseliner than a serve/volleyer. It is a joke he is the best serve/volleyer around.

 

[Geddy Lee]

I can see your point, but I think Federer gets easier volley's due to his serve and great approach shots whereas Rafter used to come in on any old shit hence making his volley's tougher. Rafter also didn't win a Wimbledon in spite of his "great" volleys so I think this can also tell a story.

Also Wimbledon hasn't been won from the baseline since Hewitt. And he only won because Sampras was done and Federer was just getting warmed up!

Nice post.

There are a fair few better volleyers on the ATP than Federer, nearly all of these are on the doubles tour or sometimes both tours. Max Miryni is the best volleyer to my eyes.

And Bomberno1, you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think Roddick plays baseline tennis at Wimbledon. He comes in to the net A LOT.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Look all a man can do is beat what he is asked to beat.

Is Federer the greatest ever? Arguably so arguably not.

Has he in the past 4 years been more dominant than anyone over any 4 year period in the open era and has his era of dominance come when the game has been most geographicallly widespread and rich? Yes on both counts.

Answering yes to these questions means that insofar as it is possible objectively to judge then Federer is the greatest of the open era.

 

[Total Power]

Nice post.

There are a fair few better volleyers on the ATP than Federer, nearly all of these are on the doubles tour or sometimes both tours. Max Miryni is the best volleyer to my eyes.
.

None of you are actually getting what i am trying to say.I am talking about variety in tennis, i am not comparing federer with rafter. If federer played on a fast low bouncing vintage wimbledon surface, i can guarantee you, he would have a really really tough time

 

[LukeParkerno1]

And Bomberno1, you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think Roddick plays baseline tennis at Wimbledon. He comes in to the net A LOT.

He is mainly a baseliner, he is definately NOT a serve/volleyer even at Wimbledon!

 

[Jono]

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.

Haha you're dreaming. Ljubicic and Ancic are nothing more than solid players. You're saying they'd beat the likes of Becker and Edberg etc.? Ridiculous claim.

 

[Geddy Lee]

Haha you're dreaming. Ljubicic and Ancic are nothing more than solid players. You're saying they'd beat the likes of Becker and Edberg etc.? Ridiculous claim.

Top 10 players these days play at a much higher level than those 20 (even 10) years ago, because of training/coaching/technology levels, hence why it is pointless to compare eras.

 

[Jono]

Top 10 players these days play at a much higher level than those 20 (even 10) years ago, because of training/coaching/technology levels, hence why it is pointless to compare eras.

That's the same with every sport though! In cricket, Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara etc. would have received far more coaching, training and professional help compared to Hammond, Hobbs and even Bradman from 60-70 years ago, that doesn't necessarily make them superior players does it? Even just 20-30 years ago with Viv Richards and Greg Chappell. And your examples of Ljubicic and Ancic don't even correlate to a Tendulkar or Ponting. They're more like a Damien Martyn or Shiv Chanderpaul. That's how ridiculous your comparison is.

Particularly when Bradman has a far superior record to them. The same goes for Edberg vs. Ancic (which is a joke of a comparison in the first place), Edberg's record is so far superior, that just because Ancic would have received a superior coaching level because of the era he played in, doesn't make him a better player.

Edberg's 6 grand slam titles and 42 career singles titles speak for themselves I believe. And I haven't even talked about Boom Boom Becker.

 

[Total Power]

That's the same with every sport though! In cricket, Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara etc. would have received far more coaching, training and professional help compared to Hammond, Hobbs and even Bradman from 60-70 years ago, that doesn't necessarily make them superior players does it? Even just 20-30 years ago with Viv Richards and Greg Chappell. And your examples of Ljubicic and Ancic don't even correlate to a Tendulkar or Ponting. They're more like a Damien Martyn or Shiv Chanderpaul. That's how ridiculous your comparison is.

Particularly when Bradman has a far superior record to them. The same goes for Edberg vs. Ancic (which is a joke of a comparison in the first place), Edberg's record is so far superior, that just because Ancic would have received a superior coaching level because of the era he played in, doesn't make him a better player.

Edberg's 6 grand slam titles and 42 career singles titles speak for themselves I believe. And I haven't even talked about Boom Boom Becker.

Exactly.They didnt even get a chance to analyse their strokes on a computer program and find out where they are going wrong like these guys do these days.Imagine with all the technique and racquet stuff (seperate racquet technology for different surfaces, wow) Edberg becker and co were pure talents, ljbo, robredo, blake and co are just hard workers.

 

[gaelictiogar]

The argument here is as follows: Becker etc were serial losers against their contempories whereas federer is a serial winner against his which proves Becker and co are as good as him.........bizarre.

Federer would have beaten Becker 9 times out of 10. Same for Edberg. Indeed nadal would have whipped them as well and he is a journeyman compared to the likes of laver, Mcenroe and the Meister..

 

[Total Power]

The argument here is as follows: Becker etc were serial losers against their contempories whereas federer is a serial winner against his which proves Becker and co are as good as him.........bizarre.

Federer would have beaten Becker 9 times out of 10. Same for Edberg. Indeed nadal would have whipped them as well and he is a journeyman compared to the likes of laver, Mcenroe and the Meister..

we are talking about the depth here mate, no doubt federer and nadal are standouts but the rest are hopeless, except Nole

 

[Geddy Lee]

The same goes for Edberg vs. Ancic (which is a joke of a comparison in the first place)

You are the first one in this entire thread to make that silly comparison.

There are many theories of relativity to be able to compare one player from an era to a player from another era, but usually the best method is the number of titles they won:

Edberg's record is so far superior, that just because Ancic would have received a superior coaching level because of the era he played in, doesn't make him a better player

.

I agree and never said anything differently. I said earlier that 00's Ljubicic would beat 80's Edberg on an indoor court, of course that's obvious, no one spotted my tongue firmly planted inside my cheek.

 

[Total Power]

Damn right federer, you are

 

[Thrawn]

Damn right federer, you are

Oh well.

At least he's better than your demi-god.

 

[Total Power]

Oh well.

At least he's better than your demi-god.

8>4

 

[Thrawn]

8>4

Head to head is insignificant vs actual grand slam titles. When Nadal wins as many, or more, than Fed, come back to me.

 

[Total Power]

Head to head is insignificant vs actual grand slam titles. When Nadal wins as many, or more, than Fed, come back to me.

how many did fedudrer win when he was 20?

 

[gaelictiogar]

how many did fedudrer win when he was 20?

If the undisputed No.1 - he is about 5 masters wins ahead of Nadal on points - is a "dud" what does that make the No.2?

Gosh I mean even in losing on clay the "dud" 10 times slam winner and 4 year No.1 hits more winners than the best clay courter since Borg. Come on !!!!

TP can I say you are putting people off Nadal by constantly rubbishing a player all tennis fans including Nadal himself accept is the best in the world. It is simply absurd to rubbish a man of Federer's talent whilst bigging up a talented hustler and grinder who wins on clay by surviving in points ( a pitiful 13 winners) but who doesn't have the touch or finesse needed to dominate on other surfaces. By doing so you make people like me and i'm not alone resent the lesser talented but still inspiring nadal.

Stop criticising the best player in the world.

 

[gaelictiogar]

how many did fedudrer win when he was 20?

How many slams has federer won away from his fave surface? 6.

How many has Nadal won away from his clay comfort zone? 0.

One surface wonder no better than ferrero.

 

[krisholio14]

Federer is not the greatest of all time. He's up there, but not THE best. What he is is a player who has raised the overall skill level of modern day tennis. He is the first alround player of the modern era to rise above all the baseline sluggers and force his opponents to bring more weapons to the table.

It's all part of the evolution of the game, and Federer is leading it at this point.

 

[The_Eagles]

when he wins the french I reckon everyone will say he's definately the best. (assuming he gets 13-14 slams as well)