How long do we have to wait for another Federer?

XFactor1979 · Jan 30, 2009

a men's player that wins 14 titles

men's tennis has always been a lot more even than women's tennis, i mean you'd think a player like marat safin wouldve won more than 2 grand slam titles, it takes someone quite extraordinary to win as many titles as federer did in his time.

it was thought sampras's record was going to stand for some time, at least 3 decades. federer came in to men's tennis when it was a fairly even competition when lleyton hewitt was a player that was slightly better than a declining field, juan carlos ferrero was the other player doing well winning titles with the french open going to clay court specialists kuerten, gaudio and whatever nameless one slam wonder you could name of.

rafal nadal is at the peak of his game at the moment, but hes seen to be nothing more than a claycourt specialist and a biff merchant, his style of game is pretty physically demanding, its unlikely he'll win more than 10 titles of which most of them come on clay. especially if he plays on a slick court on the US or Aus Open.

andy murray has been hyped up a lot but he hasnt got off the mark, and novak djokovic doesnt have the game to win more than 2 grandslam titles

Kaan · Jan 30, 2009

He hasnt retired yet so we don't need a new one

infact, he's only 27 he could play til he's 35 with his style(not much running)

crazyman27 · Jan 30, 2009

I think there are plenty of young players with the skill to dominate mens tennis in the future, it's just whether they have the ability in the head like Fed does.

aaronm46 · Jan 30, 2009

XFactor1979 said:
a men's player that wins 14 titles

men's tennis has always been a lot more even than women's tennis, i mean you'd think a player like marat safin wouldve won more than 2 grand slam titles, it takes someone quite extraordinary to win as many titles as federer did in his time.

it was thought sampras's record was going to stand for some time, at least 3 decades. federer came in to men's tennis when it was a fairly even competition when lleyton hewitt was a player that was slightly better than a declining field, juan carlos ferrero was the other player doing well winning titles with the french open going to clay court specialists kuerten, gaudio and whatever nameless one slam wonder you could name of.

rafal nadal is at the peak of his game at the moment, but hes seen to be nothing more than a claycourt specialist and a biff merchant, his style of game is pretty physically demanding, its unlikely he'll win more than 10 titles of which most of them come on clay. especially if he plays on a slick court on the US or Aus Open.

andy murray has been hyped up a lot but he hasnt got off the mark, and novak djokovic doesnt have the game to win more than 2 grandslam titles

big call there, i certinly dont think he will come anywhere near Federer's record but i can see him winning more then 2 slams

Jono B · Jan 30, 2009

XFactor1979 said:
a men's player that wins 14 titles

men's tennis has always been a lot more even than women's tennis, i mean you'd think a player like marat safin wouldve won more than 2 grand slam titles, it takes someone quite extraordinary to win as many titles as federer did in his time.

it was thought sampras's record was going to stand for some time, at least 3 decades. federer came in to men's tennis when it was a fairly even competition when lleyton hewitt was a player that was slightly better than a declining field, juan carlos ferrero was the other player doing well winning titles with the french open going to clay court specialists kuerten, gaudio and whatever nameless one slam wonder you could name of.

rafal nadal is at the peak of his game at the moment, but hes seen to be nothing more than a claycourt specialist and a biff merchant, his style of game is pretty physically demanding, its unlikely he'll win more than 10 titles of which most of them come on clay. especially if he plays on a slick court on the US or Aus Open.

andy murray has been hyped up a lot but he hasnt got off the mark, and novak djokovic doesnt have the game to win more than 2 grandslam titles

Bit harsh on Nadal he did take Wimbledon from Roger and is improving on hard court. Seriously Federer V Nadal is going to be one fantastic rivalry for years to come.

It is unlikely we will see another Federer but I don't think we will see another Nadal on clay either.

crowsarethebest · Jan 30, 2009

XFactor1979 said:
a men's player that wins 14 titles

men's tennis has always been a lot more even than women's tennis, i mean you'd think a player like marat safin wouldve won more than 2 grand slam titles, it takes someone quite extraordinary to win as many titles as federer did in his time.

it was thought sampras's record was going to stand for some time, at least 3 decades. federer came in to men's tennis when it was a fairly even competition when lleyton hewitt was a player that was slightly better than a declining field, juan carlos ferrero was the other player doing well winning titles with the french open going to clay court specialists kuerten, gaudio and whatever nameless one slam wonder you could name of.

rafal nadal is at the peak of his game at the moment, but hes seen to be nothing more than a claycourt specialist and a biff merchant, his style of game is pretty physically demanding, its unlikely he'll win more than 10 titles of which most of them come on clay. especially if he plays on a slick court on the US or Aus Open.

andy murray has been hyped up a lot but he hasnt got off the mark, and novak djokovic doesnt have the game to win more than 2 grandslam titles

A long long time. Seriously, Nadal isn't just a Clay court specialist. Sure he's better than everyone else by a fair way on clay but he's also nearly the best on every surface now. He beat Federer on Feds best surface, he's showing his doubters what he can do on Hardcourt now. He's only 22 years old. That's *******. He's already won 5 grand slams, when Fed declines I think he'll win many, many more. The only thing stopping Nadal from winning as much as Federer would be his knees. It's very special to have 2 freaks in one era.

Rabbit of Caerbannog · Jan 31, 2009

Nadal will be finished in 5 years. No chance of beating Federer's record (which will be well and truly above 15 by the time he finishes his career).

mdc · Jan 31, 2009

Bachar Houli said:
infact, he's only 27 he could play til he's 35 with his style(not much running)

I lol'd.

As for the OP, Nadal could get there if his body/speed holds up, but I don't see it.

Everyone of the other "challengers" play too similar to dominate against each other.

mr.11 · Jan 31, 2009

Rafa Nadal vs. Roger Federer

Power King · Jan 31, 2009

XFactor1979 said:
a men's player that wins 14 titles

men's tennis has always been a lot more even than women's tennis, i mean you'd think a player like marat safin wouldve won more than 2 grand slam titles, it takes someone quite extraordinary to win as many titles as federer did in his time.

it was thought sampras's record was going to stand for some time, at least 3 decades. federer came in to men's tennis when it was a fairly even competition when lleyton hewitt was a player that was slightly better than a declining field, juan carlos ferrero was the other player doing well winning titles with the french open going to clay court specialists kuerten, gaudio and whatever nameless one slam wonder you could name of.

rafal nadal is at the peak of his game at the moment, but hes seen to be nothing more than a claycourt specialist and a biff merchant, his style of game is pretty physically demanding, its unlikely he'll win more than 10 titles of which most of them come on clay. especially if he plays on a slick court on the US or Aus Open.

andy murray has been hyped up a lot but he hasnt got off the mark, and novak djokovic doesnt have the game to win more than 2 grandslam titles

Some fair points in there.

However, surely Nadal has proven he's not just a clay courter. It may be his best surface, but he's better than pretty much the rest of the world on all other surfaces as well.

Also disagree with the point on djokovic's game. I think that of his generation (players born around 1986-1987, not counting nadal as he is already proven), he has the game that can take him the furthest, based on what i've seen so far.

Power King · Jan 31, 2009

crowsarethebest said:
A long long time. Seriously, Nadal isn't just a Clay court specialist. Sure he's better than everyone else by a fair way on clay but he's also nearly the best on every surface now. He beat Federer on Feds best surface, he's showing his doubters what he can do on Hardcourt now. He's only 22 years old. That's *******.

^lol you certainly are one for quotes.

This, along with im struggling to process what i have just seen', or something like that, in regards to a ridiculous nadal point during tonight's semi, have given me the LULZ.

gaelictiogar · Jan 31, 2009

There will be people who equal or come to close to equalling Federer's stats but there will be few if any who create the same aesthetic impression. In the Open era only McEnroe rivals him for sheer instinctive uncluttered class allied to achievement. A Federer is a once in a generation phenomenon in any sport.

SunKing · Jan 31, 2009

crowsarethebest said:
It's very special to have 2 freaks in one era.

Not that special..
Borg/McEnroe
Sampras/Agassi

Anyway usually these kinds of players come along every couple of decades..Laver in the '60s McEnroe in the '80s & now Federer. Remember also that Federer has benefited from a dire lack of serious competition except Nadal. McEnroe had to contend with a murderers row of all time greats and yet still holds the record for the most dominant year in the open era (1984) Federer is a '00s version of McEnroe but with a little less talent,far less competition & a much better temperament.

And those who think Federer will be still winning slams past 28 or so are kidding themselves. He may well play until he's 35 but he'll just be making up the numbers by then.

matty p · Jan 31, 2009

black_hart said:
Anyway usually these kinds of players come along every couple of decades..Laver in the '60s McEnroe in the '80s & now Federer. Remember also that Federer has benefited from a dire lack of serious competition except Nadal. McEnroe had to contend with a murderers row of all time greats and yet still holds the record for the most dominant year in the open era (1984) Federer is a '00s version of McEnroe but with a little less talent,far less competition & a much better temperament.

Whilst I think that the competition in Federer's early years of dominance was quite weak, since the start of 2007 men's tennis has entered another era of very strong competition. Of course it is nowhere near rivalling the competition of the 80's yet, however I think this will prove to be one of the strongest periods of men's tennis in the years to come.

Firstly you have Federer, who is indisputedly one of the all-time greats, and his greatest rival and possibly the greatest clay courter of all time in Nadal, who has now developed into an all court player and will most likely also finish as an all-time great.

The next group down consisting of Djokovic and now Murray, I think will continue to prove themselves to be world class players over the next ten years, as Djokovic has already begun to do with his 1 Grand Slam title, 1 final and 4 semis.

Then you have athletic freaks like Tsonga and Monfils, whose athleticism on the court is unrivalled by most players in the history of tennis.

Additionally, players such as Nalbandian, Gonzalez and perhaps Verdasco if he continues to improve, who at their best are nearly unstoppable but have been plagued by inconsistency.

A group of even younger players, headed by Del Potro, Gulbis and Cilic may also prove themselves to be top players in the next few years.

I think this period of tennis has already begun to establish itself as one of the strongest, and will become stronger over the next few years.

LukeParkerno1 · Jan 31, 2009

The way Nadal is playing..not long. He'll probably win 20. He is 21 he'll win at least another 6 French Open's that is 12 slams straight away and he'll win a few more Wimbeldon's as well.

Macca19 · Jan 31, 2009

black_hart said:
And those who think Federer will be still winning slams past 28 or so are kidding themselves.

So you think this is Federers last year to add to his slam tally?

red+black · Jan 31, 2009

I think once Guccione has a few more years under his belt it will be his time to really shine and he'd be even money to go past Federer's slam tally.

Corrosion · Jan 31, 2009

bombersno1 said:
the way nadal is playing..not long. He'll probably win 20. He is 21 he'll win at least another 6 french open's that is 12 slams straight away and he'll win a few more wimbeldon's as well.

lol.

LukeParkerno1 · Jan 31, 2009

What is wrong with it, he is the best clay courter of all time. At 21 he should win the majority of French Opens. That is lets say 6 French Opens. Minus Federer he is the best grass courter and even with Federer it is a 50/50 bet either way and although Djokovic should be favoured to win the hard court ones Nadal is not a muppet on those surfaces. It is not out of the question that Nadal who has won 6 (maybe 7 tommorrow) slams can win 15-20 slams.

flight23 · Jan 31, 2009

red+black said:
I think once Guccione has a few more years under his belt it will be his time to really shine and he'd be even money to go past Federer's slam tally.

Log In or Create New Account

How long do we have to wait for another Federer?

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Club Legend

Premiership Player

Club Legend

Norm Smith Medallist

Premiership Player

Cancelled

Club Legend

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Club Legend

Post-Human

Moderator

Cancelled

Norm Smith Medallist

Post-Human

Norm Smith Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Post-Human

Brownlow Medallist

Cancelled

Post-Human

How long do we have to wait for another Federer?