Roger Federer

[SirManchester]

No.

[sdotsom]

Jordan was on a whole different planet, Federer is like the Tim Duncan of tennis, except more dominant because there is no one on his level.

Sound about right?

The Tim Duncan comparison is an interesting one. I agreed with it when I first read your post, but I've changed my mind since then. Tim Duncan is so bread and butter. He's great at the fundamentals, and he'll give you the 20/10 a night, but he is boring as ****! to watch!

Federer aces those fundamentals, but also produces some absolutely stunning shots. He may not be a showman, like Andy F**KIN Roddick with his yelling, or Nadal with his capris, but he is not boring.

I wouldn't call him Jordan though. Mainly because I'm born in the Chi, and I am huge fanboy..:cool:

[StrikerCW]

johno is right again.

[StrikerCW]

btw, Roger=Tiger

Although, golf isn't really a sport where you can radically change things.

Tiger just does what he does so much better than everyone else and on a consistent level.

[holytoledo]

Federer is already transcending the game. He's playing defense and offense in a way nobody else is doing at the time, and for those who've paid attention to him since he broke into the sport, he's gotten better and better every year. Give him a few more years and it'll be more evident that he is just that kind of special player who can take the sport to another level.

Agreed.

[Howard Zinn]

btw, Roger=Tiger



Tiger>>Federer, IMO.

[StrikerCW]

Tiger>>Federer, IMO.
I think so as well, but it's as close as you can get to a comparison because of the sports.

There isn't much you can change in golf. You can't really drive harder. You can drive further, but Tiger sure doesn't, hell he started to learn to drive less in the past year. He is just that much more consistent at doing things, just as Federer.

Although, indeed, better at what he does than Federer.

[sdotsom]

Tiger himself has said that Federer is the more impressive of the 2.

[bestbecks]

Federer is the best tennis player of all time no question. Look at what he has accomplished and what he still will eventually accomplish. He will break Sampres' record of 14 majors, he already on 10 FFS. He's won Wimbledon 4 straight times, the man is a remarkable athlete in every aspect. I really want to see him vs. Nadal in the French Open final again just so he can actually have a challenge. I'm a Hewitt fan but unfortunately his career is well on the down after he lost the Aussie Open final to Safin a few years back.

And how can people even say that Tiger is better than Federer? What more is demanded from him other than the French Open? Once he wins that he'll undoubtedly be the best male athlete of this century so far.

[StrikerCW]

If Tiger keeps similiar pace he will be the greatest ever golfer and hold the same records as Roger. I do not understand how you can not parellel the two.

[bestbecks]

If Tiger keeps similiar pace he will be the greatest ever golfer and hold the same records as Roger. I do not understand how you can not parellel the two.
I never said you couldn't parallel to two, I said how can people say Tiger is better. Answer is...you cannot.

[StrikerCW]

I can. :)

[Vermont Red]

I'd like to see all these guys go out there and play with the Borg-era rackets and see who really is the best. It may still be Federer, but it'd be a better test.

[bestbecks]

That's true but there was never any advantage for Federer because everyone uses the same quality of racket, just like everyone did in Borg's era.

[sdotsom]

Sampras himself has said that he could give today's stars a run for their money, based on the way he plays and the way guys like Nadal goes. I'd love to see Sampras in his prime play Federer. Sampras is working his way back to tennis, he's playing some 30+ years old tournament circuit.

[Dark Savante]

I have no idea about the basketball analogy as I don't really know the history of the game to say what Jordan this was so superior to say Magic Johnson or whatever.

I used Pele as an example to compare to Federer because it's perfectly apt. It is not any one thing that made Pele the best ever, it is the fact he could do many, many things to an almost supreme level. This is where Federer is the perfect tennis equivalent. Federer can do everything on a court to a supreme level, this is why the old greats and critics cannot find any weaknesses in his game as to label him 'complete'

If there is one thing that makes Federer so special to me though, it's his technique and accuracy. He does not rely on power, but on pinpoint play and a deadly manipulation of the ball. The saying goes with Pele that he was a minimalist, the further away from goal he was, the more simple he would play, the closer to goal he got, the more deadly and flambouyant he became. This is exactly the same as Federer. He can play a docile rally and just when you think nothing will happen, BAM! He wins the point on a deadly accurate passing shot that draws chalk or bounces on the rubber boundary.

What makes Federer even more lethal compared to all of the contemporary all-time greats is that he's the first player since Bjorg who doesn't have a weak side to play toward. As an opposing player this must make things impossible for you. You can't put him on the back foot into a precarious position, because he doesn't have a precarious position to be in...in most games the players are working an opening to expose the known weakness of their opponent and the opposing player is doing the same thing. That's why the average rally is interesting - the crowd usually knows the weakness of both players and are waiting to see which of the two can use the most guile to get at the other guy/gal. Now, Federer comes along and destroys this way of thinking to the point where his opponents tend to give in halfway through the second set. The destruction of Roddick, to the point of tears! Shows a man capable of psychologiically destroying the guy on the other side of the court. And then the best thing; you know he'll get better and better as a match continues. By the 3rd set Federer is usually in cruise control and it is a rare man that break him out of his calm then. In fact, I think only Nadal on clay can do that, and it's not because the opponents are crap, it's that he's that good!

I think that Federer is the first player since Bjorg where you could take away one or two of his favoured moves and he'd still be the best. If you taook away Sampras' serve, Aggasi's return or Lendl's lateral mobility, they'd be stuffed. This is again makes me liken him to Pele, in that it's not just one discernable skill which makes him the greatest, it's the fact he could do so many things to a level bordering on perfection.

I can't add anything about Jordon to this for the reason's I've stated, I don't really get the comparisons to Tiger either. Golf isn't a sport which has as massive an array of moves as Football, Tennis or B-ball, so outside of longeivity and dominance, how is Tiger suited to a convo about Federer?

VR's wooden racket point is a good one. I just think Federer is the only modern great utterly unreliant on the power the new rackets generate to win games, I also think that wooden rackets would affect his game the least out of all the best male tennis players since the days of Becker and Lendl.

[StrikerCW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHgMQ0OXY1I

funny caparison.


They are comparable because they both dominate their sports. Regardless of whos better.

[Dark Savante]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHgMQ0OXY1I

funny caparison.


They are comparable because they both dominate their sports. Regardless of whos better.

You'll have to expand on that. It is a flawed concept if based solely on success.

[StrikerCW]

I don't particiluarly like to get into semantics and arguements over things of that sort ("can't compare because different sports") but basically they both are the best at their sport in that they have no weaknesses.

You yourself (or maybe someone else) said Federer did not radically change the game in anyway besides being a machine and has no faults and demolishes the competition. Tiger as well has not 'added' so much to the sport (there are slight possibilities to add something to golf such as his use of driving irons, although not new, is not something that the top pros normally do) but has dominated, when he is on, every aspect of the game.

Tiger is still young by Golf standards, and I would venture to say in about the same point in his career as Roger is (although I'm not sure the average age of tennis retirement, I know Baldy was quite an oldtimer).

There are my reasons in general.

[Vermont Red]

That's true but there was never any advantage for Federer because everyone uses the same quality of racket, just like everyone did in Borg's era.

I'm not saying that Federer has an advantage because of his racket, I'm saying that as racket technology has improved, there has been less emphasis, particularly in the men's game, on shot-making and more emphasis on power.

Federer appears to have no weakness and probably would have been a great in any era. It's just hard to judge players nowadays as the power can obscure weaknesses.

As for the Jordan comparison, I see the following similarities: Federer is not necessarily the best at everything, but is not below good/great at anything. Federer's biggest asset may be his mental strength in that he never appears to be unnerved by anything on the court.

The differences are obvious: Jordan played a team sport and one of his biggest strengths was his ability to make his teammates better. Stories of Jordan's competitiveness with his teammates in practice are commonplace. In addition, Jordan received the benefit, albeit possibly earned, of preferential treatment from referees. I have not seen enough of Federer to know if he get 50/50 calls in his favor.