Federer is that good

#1
TennNC

TennNC

a lover, not a fighter
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
5,669
Likes
0
#1
I know there aren't many tennis fans on here, but if you appreciate sports, you have to appreciate what Roger Federer does on the court.

Right now in the US Open, Roddick is down a set (lost in a tiebreak) and on serve in the second. Roddick has been playing really well. Serving well, hitting solid ground strokes. And Federer is still winning. He just makes so few mistakes and is in every point. But something I just paid close attention to tonight is how smooth his footwork is. He makes everything look so easy b/c he's always in the right position.

I hope I wake up and see that Roddick won, b/c he's 1-13 all-time vs. Federer. But more than likely I'll see that Federer won...again.
 
#2
#2
federer is freaking amazing. roddick put up one of his best performances of his career and lost in three straight sets. amazing. No one broke serve until the end. federer is something special to watch, it's a shame not enough people realize it.
 
#4
#4
For those interested Federer defeats Roddick 7-6 7-6 6-2. I just wish Nadal was still in it so we could have a good final. But Djovacic(sp) may provide some good competition
 
#5
#5
Federer is too good. We need someone from the US to dominate him.

And it's not going to happen :no:
 
#6
#6
The only guy who even sniffs Federer's jock is Nadal, and that's primarily on one surface. And that is more about how good Nadal is on clay than Federer being bad on clay.

The thing about Federer that's hard to comprehend is how complete his game is. Serving, groundstrokes, net play - he excels at all of them. He had more aces than Roddick did last night, and Roddick has one of the 2-3 best serves in the game.

Maybe the next US phenom should wait until Federer retires.
 
#7
#7
not only does federer have the complete game, he does it effortlessly. He had roddick all over the court last night and it seemed like he was playing around. He barely broke a sweat and Roddick lost a good 3 pounds from sweat alone. I wish he had a rival a la sampras-agassi, mcenroe-borg or lendl-becker so people would get more excited about it.
 
#8
#8
One of my favorite modern novelists is a guy named David Foster Wallace who just happened to play serious tennis in his youth. He wrote a long article in the NY Times last year about Federer; anyone interested in tennis and/or good writing might find it interesting. Wallace does a good job of drawing on his own tennis background to discuss something fairly ineffable, i.e. the genius of a great tennis player.


(Possible ads from the NY Times link before you get to the article. They suck. Also, read the footnotes. Wallace sometimes puts his best stuff in there.)
 
#9
#9
I love to watch tennis especially the Grand Slams, and I would love to see Roddick beat Federer, I think his game has improved since he hired Conners as his coach, he seems to be more focused. Federer,wow, what can you say about this guy he truly dominates his sport. I was watching some of that game last night and like volfanbill said he makes it look so effortless, he doesn't seem to run around on the court as much as his opponents. The speed of Roddicks serves are pretty amazing though.
 
#10
#10
Vercingetorix said:
One of my favorite modern novelists is a guy named David Foster Wallace who just happened to play serious tennis in his youth. He wrote a long article in the NY Times last year about Federer; anyone interested in tennis and/or good writing might find it interesting. Wallace does a good job of drawing on his own tennis background to discuss something fairly ineffable, i.e. the genius of a great tennis player.


(Possible ads from the NY Times link before you get to the article. They suck. Also, read the footnotes. Wallace sometimes puts his best stuff in there.)
Click to expand...

Thx V. Will definitely read.
 
#11
#11
volfanbill said:
I wish he had a rival a la sampras-agassi, mcenroe-borg or lendl-becker so people would get more excited about it.
Click to expand...

Would love to see a match between Federer at his peak and any of the following at theirs: Sampras, Agassi, Laver, Borg. I think he would clearly be better than the other greats, like Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander... Just my opinion.
 
#12
#12
Anyone think Sampras or Agassi (back in their heyday) could handle Federer?
 
#13
#13
SWIL said:
Anyone think Sampras or Agassi (back in their heyday) could handle Federer?
Click to expand...

Borg in his prime (he was basically finished at age 25) could have given Roger a tough time. Also, Sampras with his serve and volley at Wimbleton was almost imposible to break serve on.

However, I think pound for pound the best tennis player in the wourld is Henin.
 
#14
#14
Federer is better than both Sampras and Aggasi were, IMO. It's almost impossible to compare him to somebody like Borg or McEnroe; the modern rackets changed the game so much that it's impossible to know what they would do now or how Federer would have done then.
 
#16
#16
Just another day at the office. How many times did it seem like Djokovic was going to take an early lead, only to see Federer snatch it from him. Federer wasn't on his game like I've seen at other times, but he sure proved he's still better than the next best competitor.
 
#17
#17
McEnroe, with the older and faster Wimbledon without the ridiculous new racquets and strings, could have handled Federer in the big kahuna.
 
#18
#18
BigPapaVol said:
McEnroe, with the older and faster Wimbledon without the ridiculous new racquets and strings, could have handled Federer in the big kahuna.
Click to expand...

i freely admit I don't know as much about the history of tennis as i should, especially since i played it, but what is this "older and faster Wimbledon" of which you speak?
 
#19
#19
Federer makes it look so easy. He is truly a master of his sport, even to such a degree I would say he trumps Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, etc.
 
#20
#20
defaultusername said:
Federer makes it look so easy. He is truly a master of his sport, even to such a degree I would say he trumps Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, etc.
Click to expand...

There are a select few in each sport that transcend time and nationalities. There are (in my opinion): Roger Federer, Pele, Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Secretariat, Babe Ruth, Gayle Sayers and Jesse Owens.
 
#21
#21
BigPapaVol said:
McEnroe, with the older and faster Wimbledon without the ridiculous new racquets and strings, could have handled Federer in the big kahuna.
Click to expand...

Even in that scenario, McEnroe might win 1 out of every 5 matches against Federer. And I bet he would acknowledge that.
 
#22
#22
The problem is that the new rackets and strings have totally transformed the game, rendering such comparisons really difficult to make. I would submit that tennis in 2007 is more different from tennis in 1984 than baseball in 2007 is from baseball in 1927. Modern rackets afford such a (relatively) huge sweet spot and allow such enormous power that modern players' games are entirely built around shots that were literally impossible for guys like McEnroe and Borg to make with their old-style equipment.
 
#23
#23
Vercingetorix said:
The problem is that the new rackets and strings have totally transformed the game, rendering such comparisons really difficult to make. I would submit that tennis in 2007 is more different from tennis in 1984 than baseball in 2007 is from baseball in 1927. Modern rackets afford such a (relatively) huge sweet spot and allow such enormous power that modern players' games are entirely built around shots that were literally impossible for guys like McEnroe and Borg to make with their old-style equipment.
Click to expand...

True, but where you can still make a comparison is how good an individual is relative to everyone else at the time - they all have the same equipment (racquets and strings) now. Like Babe Ruth, Federer is miles ahead of everyone else in his era, moreso than any other player I can think of.
 
#24
#24
Vercingetorix said:
Federer is better than both Sampras and Aggasi were, IMO. It's almost impossible to compare him to somebody like Borg or McEnroe; the modern rackets changed the game so much that it's impossible to know what they would do now or how Federer would have done then.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am resurrecting a three-year old thead. Why?

1. To re-emphasize the brilliance of the DFW Federer piece, and to respectfully invite anyone who enjoyed the Federer piece to read this one as well ( The String Theory by David Foster Wallace - David Foster Wallace on Tennis - Esquire), also penned by the late DFW.

And

2. Because Federer at his best is better than both Sampras* and Agassi at their best.

BUT

3. Rafael Nadal -- at his very best (which we saw throughout 2008) -- is the single greatest tennis player I have ever seen. Unfortunately, we may not see a whole lot more of this version of Nadal. His style pretty much precludes longevity.

I guess the more interesting question is how I even stumbled upon this three-year old thread. By accident.

*exception: I believe Sampras may have the edge on grass courts in a prime vs. prime battle with Federer. Also, fwiw, Sampras may be the best pure athlete that has ever played the game.
 
#25
#25
I'm just amazed that over the last couple years, the waning of Federer's career has come up time and again, yet he just keeps winning.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top