BBC Home

Explore the BBC


7th July 2015
Accessibility help
Text only

BBC Homepage

Make this my homepage


Contact Us


Like this page?
Send it to a friend!

 

or register to join or start a new discussion.

You are here > Five Live message boards > Deleted > Feds dominance on grass

Discussion:

Feds dominance on grass

Messages  1 - 14 of 14

 
 
 

Message 1 - posted by bantu72 (U1664225) , Jul 4, 2005

During his 36 game winning streak, he has lost a grand total of 7 sets.

What are the odds of him losing 3 in a game?
Complain about a message       

Message 2 - posted by U1661079 (U1661079) , Jul 4, 2005

At his best, no one can touch him.
When he lost to Nadal in Roland Garros, he played his 'G' game!
Against Safin in the Aussie open, he played his 'C' game and Safin had to play above himself to win that by the closest of margins.
At this best he is unstoppable!

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 3 - posted by yellowball (U1633408) , Jul 4, 2005

i think he will dominate all the surface -- i'm such a big fan of him!!! :):)

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 4 - posted by ericwhiteside (U1674810) , Jul 4, 2005

I'd have to agree but is this good for tennis and especially Wimbledon?

I got cheesed off with Sampras consistently winning in the nineties and the same could be happening again with Federer. There just doesn't seem anyone at the moment capable of topppling him on the surface.

One horse races are boring.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 5 - posted by Aviacion (U1664893) , Jul 4, 2005

It's a shame that Federer's era didn't overlap more with that of Sampras -there could have been some fantastic classic matches between the two. Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 -but Samp was about to turn 30 and was near the end of his career.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 6 - posted by jayhach (U1578747) , Jul 4, 2005

If you find the kind of tennis played by Roger Federer at this year's tournament - even if the same person does win all the time- 'bad for tennis and Wimbledon' I suggest that either you are watching the wrong game or that you are watching it for different reasons than most of us.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 7 - posted by malcatwork (U1650884) , Jul 4, 2005

I'd agree with Eric's comments about Sampras, and I too have got incredibly bored when it's the same person winning year after year (whether it be a Sampras, Navratilova, Edberg, Graff or Williams) but I was awestruck at Federer's supreme talents all round the court. I honestly believe he is the greatest player of all time (certainly on yesterday's showing).

Having said that, I guess it's up to the others to work out why he is so successful and come up to his standard - surely that can only be good for the sport. Can you imagine what a Federer v Federer final would have been like?!

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 8 - posted by jonhan (U1662748) , Jul 4, 2005

It may have to do with Sampras being so boring, so smug.

Borg did the same back in the late 70s, yet this is generally considered the best years in tennis.

Federer has class, too. I hope he beats all records!

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 9 - posted by papategor (U1684668) , Jul 4, 2005

Only Federer can beat Federer!!!

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 10 - posted by U1661079 (U1661079) , Jul 4, 2005

It's not boring to watch a new legacy being built up though surely!
Seeing a new winner every year is great now and again, but you need great champions as well.
I enjoyed watching Sampras as I grew up, because he made the game look so simple at times. That's what Federer does now, although he is more entertaining because of his incredible repetoire and variation of shots from all parts of the court.
Appreciate a genius at work!

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 11 - posted by tennisfan1975 (U1693949) , Jul 8, 2005

Yes, I agree that it is not boring to watch Federer at all. It is good for tennis as he is defining new standards (very high) for No. 1. If Sampras is in the same era as now, Sampras would'nt have been discussed much, as Federer would do that same thing which he is doing to Hewitt now. May be, Sampras will push Federer a bit more (4 sets?).

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 12 - posted by U1661079 (U1661079) , Jul 8, 2005

Yeah, but Federer would have to break the superb Sampras serve, and although on grass Pete kept things very simple sometimes at wimbledon, that's all he needed to do.
I would actually back Pete to win in 4 sets, but really I wouldn't try to compare the two until Federer packs up playing!

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 13 - posted by Hooded-Claw (U1650643) , Jul 8, 2005

Nah! Federer in two. Pete would be so humiliated by the onslaught that he would feign injury and retire at the end of the second. ;)

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 14 - posted by U1661079 (U1661079) , Jul 8, 2005

The other thing you have to look at is that the grass courts have been slowed down in the last few years. So whose grass courts would you play on, the early 90's grass courts, suiting Pete and Serve-volleyers more, or today's slower grass courts, suiting baseline tennis a lot more!
I'm sure Pete would win on the old grass courts, but i'm not sure about the new grass courts!

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       
 
Getting Involved help: How to reply to messagesThis link opens in a new popup window
Complain help: Alert us about a messageThis link opens in a new popup window
Online Safety help: Are you being safe online?This link opens in a new popup window

Messages  1 - 14 of 14

 



About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy