Federer is that good

[TennNC]

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.

[BigPapaVol]

McEnroe, with the older and faster Wimbledon without the ridiculous new racquets and strings, could have handled Federer in the big kahuna.

[volfanbill]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

McEnroe, with the older and faster Wimbledon without the ridiculous new racquets and strings, could have handled Federer in the big kahuna.

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?

[defaultusername]

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.

[rockydoc]

Originally Posted by defaultusername

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.

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.

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

McEnroe, with the older and faster Wimbledon without the ridiculous new racquets and strings, could have handled Federer in the big kahuna.

Even in that scenario, McEnroe might win 1 out of every 5 matches against Federer. And I bet he would acknowledge that.

[Vercingetorix]

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.

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by Vercingetorix

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.

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.

[kidbourbon]

Originally Posted by Vercingetorix

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.

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.

[milohimself]

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.

[kidbourbon]

Originally Posted by milohimself

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.

Any alleged waning of Federer's greatness over the last couple years is strictly limited to his struggles against Rafa. Federer has been -- and still is -- better than every player in the world not named Rafael Nadal.

I admit that I thought Federer was done after he lost the Aussie Open final to Nadal. At that point, Rafa officially had Fed's number on every surface and appeared poised to string together his own run of greatness. Alas, the Spaniard's knees had different ideas.

So, although I do think that Nadal has been a better player than Federer for a couple years now (and upon examination of their record, this is barely even an arguable point) , he'll end up being little more than a historical footnote. Longevity is a big part of the game. Federer, at age 28, shows no signs of being broken-down physically. Nadal, on the other hand, is now damaged goods at the ripe age of 23.

I'm a fan of Nadal. I love the way he plays, and I'd love to see more of him at his best. But I'm not optimistic.

[gasguy98]

Originally Posted by kidbourbon

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.

I am a huge tennis fan and have played with some world class players.

Federer is the best ever, no question. He is also the best to watch (opinion). He has revolutionized the game, showed everybody that one doesn't have to pretend to be a baseball player to have a powerful backhand and is the most rounded player ever (can serve/volley if need be but prefers the baseline).

Prime vs prime Fed/Samp on grass would be awesome. I would give Samp the edge on serve (best serve ever) but Fed has a very underrated serve.

Nadal may be a better "athlete" than Fed but I still thing Fed is the better "tennis player".

One can't argue with what Fed has done, it is unparralled.

[kidbourbon]

Originally Posted by gasguy98

Nadal may be a better "athlete" than Fed but I still thing Fed is the better "tennis player".

If you're going by the creativity of their shotmaking or the gracefulness of their style, then Federer is better. I can see why you -- and a lot of other tennis fans -- appreciate the beauty of Federer's game. He is unique prototype for a tennis player, that's for sure.

Nadal is a different type of player than Federer. His game isn't beautiful and graceful like Federer's, but it's rather brilliant in its simplicity. Nadal's style says to his opponent: I can get to more balls than you; I can hit those balls harder than you; I can do all of this for a longer period of time than you; and I will make you earn each and every point you win.

This style -- whether you appreciate it or not -- has gotten the better of Federer's more graceful style. They have met in 7 grand slam finals, with Nadal prevailing in 5. Federer's two victories came at the finals of Wimbledon against a 20 and then 21 year old Nadal who was really just figuring out how to play on grass.

FWIW, here is Agassi on Nadal (from his autobiography):
I go to Montreal [this is 2005] and scratch and claw my way to the final against a Spanish kid everyone is talking about. Rafael Nadal. I can't beat him. I can't fathom him. I've never seen anyone move like that on a tennis court ... He's a brute, a freak, a force of nature, as strong and balletic a player as I've ever seen.

[IBlvNTmWrk]

If you're going to make true comparisons you need to factor in a few other points. Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer and clearly should be (and is/was) in better physical condition when they played each other, which is one of the strengths you claim (and I agree) that Nadal has... he runs down more shots than any player I've seen play before. Another benefit not mentioned is that Nadal plays left handed (even though he is right handed). This gives his ground strokes and serves a different spin than most players, and requires some adapting by his opponents. However, the biggest consideration is the wins/losses based on court surface. Nadal has the better overall record because of the number of times they have played on clay, which clearly favors Nadal's game over Federer's.

Clay courts: Nadal 9–2
Hard courts: 3–3
Grass courts: Federer 2–1

I'm not taking anything away from Nadal, who is a great player, but Federer is without question (IMO) the better tennis player hands down. His records will likely never be matched.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by kidbourbon

Any alleged waning of Federer's greatness over the last couple years is strictly limited to his struggles against Rafa. Federer has been -- and still is -- better than every player in the world not named Rafael Nadal.

I admit that I thought Federer was done after he lost the Aussie Open final to Nadal. At that point, Rafa officially had Fed's number on every surface and appeared poised to string together his own run of greatness. Alas, the Spaniard's knees had different ideas.

So, although I do think that Nadal has been a better player than Federer for a couple years now (and upon examination of their record, this is barely even an arguable point) , he'll end up being little more than a historical footnote. Longevity is a big part of the game. Federer, at age 28, shows no signs of being broken-down physically. Nadal, on the other hand, is now damaged goods at the ripe age of 23.

I'm a fan of Nadal. I love the way he plays, and I'd love to see more of him at his best. But I'm not optimistic.

much effort has been made to take the speed out of places like Wimbledon so that guys roaming the baselines keep it from being a service fest.