mountain bed Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Unbelievable! 2 weeks of Wimbledon & no thread...well,better late than never Roger Federer...what can be said about this guy? 48 straight matches won on grass..no losses since '024 straight Wimbledon Championships..up there w/ Rod Laver..only Borg & Sampras have more (& he's only 24!)Lost ONE SET the whole tournament(today) I can't root for the obvious favorite,but damn this guy is playing some of the best tennis I've ever seen.Borg was a hero of mine in my teenage years,and Sampras was an all-timer,but Federer deserves to be thought of with the greats...would/could he win against those players? If not for Federer,Raphael Nadal would easily be the best around...20 yrs. old & the guy gets to EVERYTHING on the court...(& of course,my daughter wants to marry him )Hopefully the Federer/Nadal rivalry will be talked about with the same reverence as Borg/Connors,Borg/McEnroe,Laver/Rosewall,etc... Discuss Quote Link to post Share on other sites
parisisstale Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 The rivalry won't match those of the past because no one cares about tennis anymore, at least not in America. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Federer is unbelievably good. I'd say he's one of the best of all time, and he could probably beat many of the greats. Sad that Andy Roddick is more well known in America. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoHoney Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Raphael Nadal would easily be the best around...20 yrs. old & the guy gets to EVERYTHING on the court...(& of course,my daughter wants to marry him ) Your daughter has good taste. He's yummy. If only he were older Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Nadal reminds me of Trogdor the Burninator with that one thick arm of his. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Laminated Kat Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Nadal is a bad ass MF, and certainly will be one to watch, but I love Roger. He's simply amazing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
legalsandwichmaneuver Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Federer is amazing to watch. He's brilliant and graceful on the court.Nadal bothers me with all the fist pumping. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moltisanti Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Nothing will ever top Borg winning five straight Wimbledons and at the same time winning four straight French Opens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
c53x12 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 The rivalry won't match those of the past because no one cares about tennis anymore, at least not in America.This is true, and I've been wondering why. What's different now? No prominent American players? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Tatlock Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 This is true, and I've been wondering why. What's different now? No prominent American players?Was it still popular when Sampras was playing? My interest waned before that when power became dominant over artistry. Federer has some fantastic strokes I will admit, but just watching McEnroe (post early brat years) or Nastasie doing subtle things with the head of the racket as the shots were played was sublime. And the heads of the rackets were so much smaller! And people like Connors and Nastiasie seemed to have much more fun on court. That's a general change in most sports I suppose. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
watch me fall Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 When Pete Sampras retired from tennis, so did I for the most part. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted July 11, 2006 Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 My interest waned before that when power became dominant over artistry. Federer has some fantastic strokes I will admit, but just watching McEnroe (post early brat years) or Nastasie doing subtle things with the head of the racket as the shots were played was sublime. And the heads of the rackets were so much smaller!Thank you for mentioning this Andrew! The huge Sweet spot the racquets now have makes it a totally different game.When Prince came out w/ those in the '70's we referred to them as "pussy" or"cheater' racquets,and I never woulda thought they'd catch on but...what do i know? "Nasty" sure was fun to watch! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Tatlock Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 "Nasty" sure was fun to watch! One of my favourite sporting memories is watching Nastase play Connors at Bournemouth in a Wimbledon warm up grass court tournement. This must have been in the late 70s. I must have been ill and home from school or something. They were having a lark most of the time, being good friends, and then it started to bucket down with rain. They kept on playing just for the hell of it, with everything getting funnier and funnier as time went by. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,49...-103977,00.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Wow (great final match) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stooka Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Nothing will ever top Borg winning five straight Wimbledons and at the same time winning four straight French Opens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aeglos Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Federer is the best ever (you'll on be able to question it seriously for another year, if you even can now). He is a pure joy to watch - i've never seen anyone with his shot making ability. His ability to turn positions of desperate defence into winning points beggars belief. For absolute unassailability he needs to win the French. I hope he does (and i think he will). If you stopped watching tennis after Sampras you are missing out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chendizzle Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 The problem with tennis in America seems to be lack of youth oriented programs and not generating enough interest among kids (well yeah, duh). I think it's still thought of as an elite, country club game. I had never picked up a tennis racquet in my life I was a freshman in high school, a few buddies of mine who also didn't play baseball decided on a whim basically to join the tennis team, because tennis at our high school was a low pressure, fun kind of sport. Practices were mostly easy going, everyone got along, that type of thing. Anyway, long story short my group of friends and I fell in love with the game, we all got better, and won the Central Massachusetts championship type deal, a great experience. Personal anecdotes aside, all it took was getting 6 kids to pick up a racquet to create fans of the game for life. Tennis is an amazing and fun game, but if I had never quit playing baseball as a kid, I probably would have never bothered with it. I think in America it's obviously overshadowed in towns and schools by football, basketball and baseball. On the subject of Federer, undoubtedly one of the greats of all time, barring injury, when he's done he'll be the best ever. Even if you don't watch or follow tennis, you should watch one of his matches. The guy can truly do anything on the court, it's unbelievable. I get chills watching the shots he makes. You could basically see the moment in the fifth set of the Wimbledon championship against Nadal when he was like "Screw this, I'm winning this match and nothing is going to stop me" and proceeded to hit the lines on any shot he wanted and dismantled Nadal. In my opinion he'll eventually break through and win the French as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tongue-tied lightning Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I thought Pat Cash would be the greatest of'em all Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoFan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 The 80's were the golden age of tennis (and Pro B-Ball too) McEnroe, Connor, Boris Becker, Martina, Chris E, Stefi Graf, Ivan Lendel and more. This was back when tennis was just good. Tennis didn't have to create an image. It's players were just great. It wasn't important that Stefi Graf was hot - (she was) - but that was not the focus. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
W(TF) Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 The only way I can commit myself to watching a 3-4 hour tennis final on TV is if there's some high emotions or a great rivalry. I haven't followed tennis a whole lot lately, but my impressions: Federer is a dominator, but somewhat boring at the same time. (but of course his matches with Nadal on clay have been phenomenal) He's sort of like Michael Schumacher - he's the best but he's almost a bit of a robot. Nadal, on the other hand, is all fire and passion -- a much more exciting player to watch, at least on my television. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chendizzle Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 The only way I can commit myself to watching a 3-4 hour tennis final on TV is if there's some high emotions or a great rivalry. I haven't followed tennis a whole lot lately, but my impressions: Federer is a dominator, but somewhat boring at the same time. (but of course his matches with Nadal on clay have been phenomenal) He's sort of like Michael Schumacher - he's the best but he's almost a bit of a robot. Nadal, on the other hand, is all fire and passion -- a much more exciting player to watch, at least on my television. As a pretty regular follower of ATP matches, I disagree. The things Federer does on the court are breathtaking. For example, a lefty can opener serve pulling a guy wide might look cooler coming from Nadal, but for me a Federer service game where he hits every line consistently at 125mph is even more impressive. Sure, Nadal pumps his fists more, but that doesn't mean his game is any more exciting. Federer gets fired up as well, I wouldn't confuse his cool demeanor with robotic, it's almost effortless. I would say they both hit the same amount of flashy shots, probably Federer even moreso. Flashy shots are fun to watch, but evenutally everyone has to play percentage tennis to win. I think Federer's highlight reel of ridiculous shots would be much more entertaining than Nadal. They are both great players though and hopefully their rivalry will produce more great matches and bode well for tennis's future. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 I love watching tennis. That's about all I have to add. Men's and women's. I can't turn away when it's on TV. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
W(TF) Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 As a pretty regular follower of ATP matches, I disagree. The things Federer does on the court are breathtaking. For example, a lefty can opener serve pulling a guy wide might look cooler coming from Nadal, but for me a Federer service game where he hits every line consistently at 125mph is even more impressive. Sure, Nadal pumps his fists more, but that doesn't mean his game is any more exciting. Federer gets fired up as well, I wouldn't confuse his cool demeanor with robotic, it's almost effortless. I would say they both hit the same amount of flashy shots, probably Federer even moreso. Flashy shots are fun to watch, but evenutally everyone has to play percentage tennis to win. I think Federer's highlight reel of ridiculous shots would be much more entertaining than Nadal. They are both great players though and hopefully their rivalry will produce more great matches and bode well for tennis's future. I'm sure your analysis is bang on....as I said I haven't watched that many matches in the last couple of years. Nadal just seems more charismatic, that's all I really meant. I know Federer is a stronger player, by a pretty good margin. I guess I should watch more, maybe he really is the best ever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.