Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jinju]

I think its time now to consider this: Is Federer the greatest ever player in tennis history?

Now, for me theres a difference between greatest and best. Best is just level of play alone. Federer could have been awarded that honor evel last season as I believe his combination of skill, mental toughness and versatility are unmatched. The guy does not have a surface where you could say he has a weakness. If it wasnt for Nadal, who is probably the best clay court player of the last 10-15 years, Federer would have atleast 2 French Open titles. On hard courts and grass, he cant be beat. Mentally, he is as tough as anyone you could point to in history of tennis. No, I dont think theres a debate about whether Federer is the BEST ever. Put him up against any of the the legends of tennis at all 4 grand slam surfaces and he wins 3/4 or sweeps.

The question though is, is he the greatest ever? 5 wimbledons in a row, 4 US Opens in a row, 10 grandslam finals in a row. 3 years straight with 3 grand slam titles. Only 2 shy of Sampras for most grand slams won, which will take him all of one season to break. And the guy is 26. He has 4 more years where he will be in his prime. Will he get 20 grandslams when all is said and done? 25? Could he reach 30? The only thing missing, which will assure him of his place at the top is that French Open victory. All he needs is one, hopefully in conjunction with the US, Australian and Wimbledon.

[ajgeddes]

I think yes.

[cbclark4]

What about Justine and Martina.

Jimmy Connors has 109 titles to his name.

Roger has but 45.

Pete has 64.

[jinju]

Lets make a guesstimate to what the guy can get to in terms of grandslams.

For the next two years I dont see anyone who could regularly beat him outside of the French. My feeling is that Nadal might take one, and it might be at Wimbledon. But I also see Federer finally breaking through Nadal at the French. A trade off? I would say that over the next 2 seasons its more than likely that he will win 3 out of 4 both years. That will give him 6 more titles and take him up to 18. It will also make him 28 and that will probably give the other guys a bit of a opening. Id expect him to maybe win atleast 2 each of the seasons up to the age of 30. That would give him 4 more titles and push him to 22. 25 then should not be unrealistic before he retires. 30 would be a stretch, but who knows. hed have to be playing till he's 35, which really isnt that old these days.

[jinju]

[hogwonguy1979]

yeah of our era he is simply the best. 20 slams is easy. the question should be, who will have more slams, tiger or federer? they are so similar no wonder they've become friends.

there is nobody who can touch him off clay right now and given his drive, i think he will get a french in the next 2 or 3 years.

there is one little problem in his record, remember from 63-68/69 many of the top players did not play the slams because they were pro and the big 4 didnt allow pros to compete then. Wonder how many rod laver would of had if he didnt lose those years?

to top it off i hear he's one of the nicest guys out there, you never see him gripe about a call and in the press he's the consumate professional

[cbclark4]

I rate him #9 just after Nastasi.

Granted in time he will probably surpass Agasii maybe even McEnroe.

It's going to be hard to catch Connors.

I thought Sampras was the toughest player ever but I think Roger is now.

But best or greatest, there is still time.

Best Slammer would have to be Rod "Double Grand Slams" Laver.

I think Roger can equal that feat, you gotta do the clay.

I'd like to see him do it.

Agassi won all four slams never a grand.

You gotta win all four.

So for Greatest Slammers you gotta give props to Emerson and Laver even before Sampras.

[jinju]

[Kimchi Cowboy]

[MANDRL]

Federer has the most complete game I have ever seen. Whoever brought up a point on how majors are the only thing that matters is 100% right. Federer may only lose the French Open, only if he meets Nadal, but other than that he is not going to be losing at any major for AT LEAST the next 2-3 years. I think he is the best ever, and I love Sampras.

[VanIslander]

Roger's game is sublime.

He plays just good enough to win.

He didn't loose even a set at Wimbledon yet got behind a serve game or two several times, and in each case, simply raised the level of his game a notch or two and got it done. How many notches does he have? We'll find out if anyone ever challenges at a grand slam on grass or hard court while he's in his prime.

He lost the first set a couple of times at the U.S. Open this year and in each case easily won the next three sets. He won the semi-final and final in three straight sets yet in both matches he didn't dominate, simply played a little bit better. He got down 1-4 early in the second set and was "losing" it after "luckily" winning the first set according to the play-by-play announcers on U.S. Open radio. But surprise surprise he just won the next three games to even it 4-4 and went on to win the set in the tiebreaker.

We have not seen the best of Roger Federer. That's the scary part.

No one on tour makes him consistently bring his A game to grass or hard court. He owns those surfaces in the way his friend Tiger owns the golf course.

The Federer vs. Sampras match in Seoul in November won't decide anything, as Federer won't embarass Pete, but instead will play just well enough to win. Roger beat him at Wimbledon in 2001 so a match-up six years later is simply for the fun of it.

[jinju]

Roger is a nice guy. Ofcourse he wont embarass Sampras. He has respecr for his opponents and especially greats like Sampras. He has class. He isnt a Williams sister afterall.

[flakfizer]

Well, many experts say Fed is the best or at least that is game is the most polished. But there's one problem when comparing him to some of the other greats. Other than Nadal on clay, he has no foil. Sampras' hey-day overlapped with Becker and Agassi. Those guys each won several major titles themselves. Having a top competitor to deal with makes a difference. Look at women's tennis. Graf won a ton of titles, but her winning days overlapped with Seles who also won 9 major titles. We all know that Seles could have been more of a foil to Graf if she hadn't been stabbed by a fan. (Don't get me wrong, I like Graf better by a mile, but the tennis world was robbed of what could have been a great rivalry when Seles was stabbed in '93). Without Seles to deal with, Graf won with more ease.
Of course the question is, is Fed's competition not that great or does is just look that way because he is so much better than everyone else? I always find is harder to believe that suddenly, there is some guy who is way better than everyone else at any sport. That kind of thing was more possible in the old days when fewer took sports training seriously. These days, it just seems more likely that Fed's dominance is a combo of his great play, and the lack of a serious foil or two.

[jinju]

[MANDRL]