posted Jul 6, 2009

but merely with the fact that most of the people so eager to compare these players have never actually seen Laver play.
----------------
Appreciated - hence the viewfrom a well respected commentator.

Even if one didnt see him the facts figures are there together with the testaments from many great players.

Never have I seen him described as boring or serve only !!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 6, 2009

Over the years the scene has changed. In the Borg, Mc Enroe era there were many top players capable of challenging in the majors, such as Lendl, Becker, Wilander, Edberg, and several others. Since that golden era we have seen just 2 dominant players, each surrounded by ordinary players in their respective eras.
Now Nadal has come along at last to perhaps curtail the dominance of Federer.
You look at the Roddick v Federer match and you see a great match in terms of the battle, but not so great in terms of the standard.
Roddick's simple backhand volley miss to go two sets up would have the likes of Mc Enroe or Edberg for instance wondering whether they should dust off their rackets and get back out there for one more tilt.

Federer has won 15 titles, and deserves praise for breaking the record, but like his friend Sampras, its been right place, right time, as the world of tennis has gone through a lean period of producing quality players in any depth.
The return of serve standard in this match was very low in terms of quality, leading to a complete domination by the server, and in the end the fitter player lasted the distance.
Many players from the golden era, as mentioned would have beaten any of those on display in the 2009 final.
Tennis does seem to be dying off with the youth today being more interested in playing inside games, rather than outside games, many of the tennis courts around are today empty, whilst in my era unless you turned up early you couldnt get a hit. Perhaps this is the reason for the decline in standard.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 6, 2009

well , fitness and power have become major factors these days- that bar has been raised and winning tennis has changed- its not tha t the standard has dropped, its the fact that the game has evovled - if we had a fed or samprass in the golden era as you state- that player would have cleaned up

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 6, 2009

Tennis does seem to be dying off with the youth today being more interested in playing inside games, rather than outside games
----------------
Bit of a local generalisation there - depends hich countries you are talking about.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 6, 2009

I have to ask, can federer be the greatest of all time if another player, Nadal, holds a better head to head over him including 6 out of 8 grand slam finals?

Do the other contenders like bjorg sampras and laver have players who held better head to heads against them consistantly

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 7, 2009

I really dont pay much attention to head-to-head. Afterall, Muzza also has a better head-to-head over Federer and that doesn't say much. Consistency is the name of the game. The important thing is winning trophies.

16/17 GS Finals,...21 Consecutive Semi-Finals,.....15 GS. The records that matter are quite clear.

Federer is the greatest. End of Discussion!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 7, 2009

RE: comment by barrymanulow (U10637172)
Over the years the scene has changed. In the Borg, Mc Enroe era there were many top players capable of challenging in the majors, such as Lendl, Becker, Wilander, Edberg, and several others. Since that golden era we have seen just 2 dominant players, each surrounded by ordinary players in their respective eras.
Now Nadal has come along at last to perhaps curtail the dominance of Federer.
-----------------------------------------------
Could'nt agree more with the above comments however I do not agree with the Sampras/Federer comparison because Samapras had the likes of Becker (early in the former's career and at the end of the latter), Agassi, Courier and other tough, if not on the same level, competitors such as Rafter, Ivnisevic and others. On the other hand how many really quality players has Federer faced during his prime. Until Nadal, Murray and Djukovic came along there was no one to really challenge him. Pat Cash commented that it is difficult to call Federer the greatest ever becouse of so many factors that have to be taken into account such as advance in racquet technology and fitness regimes that are also technology assisted. I feel the right thing to say is that each player that excelled in his generation should called the BEST OF HIS GENERATION AND NOT THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME AS WE CANNOT PUT ALL THE GREAT PLAYERS TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME! I also feel that Nadal was not totally fit coming to the French Open as evident in the manner of his loss to and Federer's win over Soderling. Though I don't know much about him,I cant see Soderling being anything other than a one-off success as was with that Greek player whom federer beat in an Aussie Open final couple years or so ago.
I didn't see laver play but saw Sampras's career and considering the competition he faced during his prime (amazingly, everyone including the so called expert analysts seem to ovelook this somehow) I would put him slightly ahead of Federer until he can overcome Nadal and Murray in their prime but they have came near the end of Federer's career still Nadal has a better head to head!!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 13, 2009

federer has to be the greatest after winning number 15 he has beaten the best players for years and has dominated mens tennis.In terms of comparions to other greats e.g sampras borg etc they can not really be made has conditions and competetion levels have changed.But in terms of hard solid facts there is no one out there that is better or will be better in the upcoming years.Even though i am a federer fan i was definatly glad to see nadal out of this years wimbledon,not sure fed would have beaten a fully fit nadal.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 24, 2009

i hope so, coz if not then we are in for another weak tennis era!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 24, 2009

Q: Are some Fed records for all time?

i hope so, coz if not then we are in for another weak tennis era!!!

add comment | complain about this comment