I personally think the records he set, is impossible to break by anyone even in future.
2007-01-28 07:22:47 · 33 answers · asked by Legend 3 in Sports ➔ Tennis
oops! its Federer!
2007-01-28 07:25:30 · update #1
No and I will tell you why.
The mens singles has no depth and is hurting. Roger Federer has no real competiton on a regular basis. He beat a 10 seeded Gonzalez who is 0-10 against him in straight sets.
1 - Roger Federer
Who are these guys?
2 - Rafael Nadal
3 - Nikolay Davydenko
4 - Ivan Ljubicic
5 - James Blake
6 - Tommy Robredo
7 - Andy Roddick ( Good at times but Federer owns him )
8 - David Nalbandian
9 - Fernando Gonzalez
10- Mario Ancic
The guy is 4 grand slams shy of Pete Sampras' record 14 Grand Slam titles and he's only 25. That should tell you how weak the men's field is.
2007-01-28 07:41:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 2⤋
No. Not even close! Yes he's won a bunch of titles against much weaker opponents that had no business in the finals which should tell you how weak the men's singles has become.
I agree!!
Who are these guys?
2 - Rafael Nadal
3 - Nikolay Davydenko
4 - Ivan Ljubicic
5 - James Blake
6 - Tommy Robredo
7 - Andy Roddick ( Good at times but Fededer owns him )
8 - David Nalbandian
9 - Fernando Gonzalez
10- Mario Ancic
In order to be the greatest one must face great challenges and he has not by far.
2007-01-29 02:51:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 0⤋
I have been watching tennis for years and I have to admit this is by far the weakest of the weak I've every seen the men's singles.
Federer has feasted on beyond inferior players and now it has mounted up into a huge amount of grand slam wins.
You really can't reward him with the title great under these circumstances. Just lucky. Paper champion is a good name for him.
2007-01-29 03:48:59 · answer #3 · answered by Æon Flux 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, technically if you go by grand slam titles, tournement wins, and other stats, he is not there yet and has still to earn that right. There are two major points about Federer. #1, he really is maybe the best ever and he is reducing very, very talented men's field to rubble, or there is belief #2. #2 is this, Federer is a great champion who's results are boosted not only by his obvious talent, but also by the fact that there has been a steady decline in the overall talent on the men's tour. Agassi was a bit old to really compete with Federer, Sampras saw the freight train coming and opted to retire, Hewitt no longer has the drive, or a big enough serve to compete for majors, I believe that a healthy Yevgeny Kafelnikov would match up well against Federer... but we will never know.... Roddick is all serve and no plan B.
I have watched tennis for the last 35 years and I can not remember a time when there were so few players who could go into a grand slam event feeling like they had a good shot at the championship. Say what you want, but Federer is facing no Aggasi's, no Sampras's, no Lendl's, no McEnroe's, no Edberg's, no Becker's, no Wilander's. Federer is doing his job, he wins... but I can't say that he faces anyone that talented in doing so. Nadal was in his head, and on clay can match Federer... in truth what is going on right now is bad for the men's game.
And a big shout out to Bo V... Oh My God, you know nothing of tennis... this, here today, is the most talentless collection of male players in the open era.
2007-01-28 12:43:29 · answer #4 · answered by No More 7 · 0⤊ 6⤋
NO!!
Federer has played so many low seeded opponents in the finals it's not even funny.
It's easy to look great when you are the #1 seed playing #10 seeds in the final match. He has made a living doing this.
He will never be the greatest in my book. Because there's nothing great about beating up on the weaker guy.
2007-01-29 03:00:19 · answer #5 · answered by Stealing Home 2 · 7⤊ 0⤋
No. He has made a living on dining off the weak. All people here about is how he dominated yet again. But if they were to take a closer look at who he's been up against they would know he hasn't really been tested at all.
He's the true definition of paper champion.
2007-01-29 03:35:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
NOT EVEN CLOSE!! He would get more competition from playing the best woman's single winner. At least then he would get challenged for a change.
The mens singles is the weakest in the history of tennis.
2007-01-29 03:20:23 · answer #7 · answered by Shazam 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Bo V? What are you smoking? Pete had way better competition.
This guy beats on a bunch of nobodys that manage to upset their way through tournaments.
He just a has very lucky timing.
This is by far the worst mens single tennis ever.
2007-01-29 02:43:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 0⤋
He's the king of beating nobodies in straight sets. I could never associate the world "greatest" with someone like that.
He must feel a little empty at times knowing that.
2007-01-29 03:26:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
No because he only has 10 grand slam titles compared to pete sampras's 14. However, Federer is very young and will easily surpass that mark. Also He has been number 1 in the world for 156 weeks. That is second all time. He needs to surpass 264 to beat Pete Sampras' record. Although Federer is not yet the best male tennis player yet, he will easily achieve that goal in the coming years, assuming he is not plagued by injuries.
2007-01-28 08:46:13 · answer #10 · answered by tdawg264 2 · 0⤊ 5⤋