Federer

[andyfox]

John McEnroe said he's the greatest ball striker in the history of the game and Andre Agassi said he's the greatest player he's ever played. Pretty high praise from some pretty knowledgable praisers.

Federer has played 74 matches this year and won 71 of 'em. He's the only guy to win both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in back-to-back years since the 1930s. He might yet be coming into his prime. Who's around now that can improve their game and stay with him? Roddick? Maybe. But maybe not.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

Roddick is the only one who maybe has the raw talent, but he needs a lot of work before he can seriously challenge Federer. This guy is just ridiculous.

[sam h]

If he is playing his best tennis, nobody has the slightest chance of beating him right now on the faster surfaces. But even when he's scuffling a bit, like this weekend, the top players still seem overmatched. That's what I found impressive today and yesterday. I really can't see Roddick or Hewitt elevating their games to say with him.

Keeping up this level of play might prove difficult, as injuries, personal problems, etc are always possible. But he does seem like a very calm and collected guy on and off the court, so I wouldn't bet against him. Russ McGinley, who seems to know his tennis well (much better than me), said in an old thread that he thought the chances of Federer breaking Sampras' grand slam record were very good.

And even if he never played another match, I think there are a lot of people - like McEnroe and Agassi perhaps too - who might say that Federer is better right now than anyone has ever been. He is probably better vis-a-vis his peer group than Tiger Woods.

Here is an impressive quote from Agassi comparing Sampras and Federer: "Pete was great; I mean no question," Agassi said. "But there was a place to get to with Pete. You knew what you had to do. If you do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger."

[Russ McGinley]

Federer has no weak spots. Almost everybody in the game has a weak point except him. Roddick has no backhand and no volley. Hewitt has no power. Safin is mental. Agassi has no serve and is old. Nadal is probably the only guy that currently could challenge Federer in the long run howerver he is built for the red clay. Safin can also run with him but unfortunately he is a headcase.

Federer has a great serve, overpowering forehand, above average backhand, great volleys, great overheads, solid return game, and he has speed/quickness/agility to be able to run down almost everything. If you watched his match with Agassi, he'd be out of the point and suddenly he'd just BOMB a forehand into the corner and either win the point or get a sitter that he'd clobber for an easy winner. Agassi played the first three sets on Sunday about as well as he could possibly play and he still lost 2 of 3. Even in two of the three matches he's lost this year, he had match points in both. I just don't see anyone in the game that can beat him right now unless he has a real bad day. Sunday he wasn't his best yet it still felt like Agassi had very little, if any, chance at winning. Barring injury, I can't see how he won't be the greatest player ever.

[ononimo]

[ QUOTE ]
Federer has a great serve, overpowering forehand, above average backhand, great volleys, great overheads, solid return game, and he has speed/quickness/agility to be able to run down almost everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

And on top of ALL of that, Federer makes it look effortless. He rarely, if ever, looks hurried or rushed. His game is so fluid and efficient that it's a truly a beauty to behold

[ QUOTE ]
Barring injury, I can't see how he won't be the greatest player ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sincerely hope he stays healthy because, by all rights, he should overtake Sampras's record of 14 Grand Slam singles titles.

[BreakfastBurrito]

The hope for Safin is that he pulls an Agassi and finally gets it together in his mid-late twenties after years of up and down performances with all the talent in the world. From a pure talent standpoint I think he's right there.

[andyfox]

Safin would indeed be the best bet, on pure talent, to belly up. Hopefully he can get a coach or psychologist to get him to do the job.

The only weakness I saw on Sunday was Federer's willingness to chip those backhands back on Agassi's serve and let Agassi take control of the point. Once he realized that Agassi was on his own game and not making very many mistakes in the longer rallies, Federer went on the offensive and it was game over. Not only did he bomb those forehands, as you point out, but he seemingly can hit them from anywhere and, as McEnroe said several times, it's hard to tell where he's going with them.

Agassi also alluded to this when he said that with Sampras, at least you know what you were in for and if you could play at a high level, you could compete with him. Not so with Federer.

What's also impressive about Federer is that he's performing at his talent level. That is, we can all see what a fine player he is; but he's converted all six Grand Slam finals into championships. That's almost as impressive (or more impressive?) than the talent itself.

[valenzuela]

Ive been wondering..what if Federer had only one serve instead of two?
Would he still be number 1? ( we are basically assuiming that he has 0% on first serve)
My guess:
Number 2.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Ive been wondering..what if Federer had only one serve instead of two?


[/ QUOTE ]


he would be miles away from no1.

[Uston]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ive been wondering..what if Federer had only one serve instead of two?


[/ QUOTE ]


he would be miles away from no1.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your best post ever!

Federer wouldn't in the top 50 without a first serve.