Why can't anybody challenge Roger Federer?

Question

Roger Federer's main challenge today looks like it's Andy Roddick. So, can we really say that he's the greatest player ever?

Think he could've beaten Sampras in his prime on Grass?

Think he could've beaten Borg in his prime on Clay?

Think he could've beaten McEnroe, on any surface, when he was at his best?

Also, what happened to Lleyton Hewitt. The guy is a remarkable athlete, and should be able to challenge Federer. Why has his game declined over the past 5 years?

Answer 1

I think that Nadal is still Federer's main challenge, just because he's holding all the cards on clay and Roddick just can't seem to get over the hump against Roger on any surface. Sampras would've beaten Roger in his prime on grass, in my opinion, with qualifications. Roger has yet to have to face a truly excellent serve and volleyer, but he used to have trouble with TIm Henman before Tim got older and slower. Sampras' serve would give Roger fits.

He would've destroyed Borg on clay, just because of how the game has changed. Borg couldn't get away with the steady, consistent game he used to win Roland Garros so often. Roger would take it to him. But he can't seem to beat Nadal in HIS prime on the clay, so who knows?

I think McEnroe would also give Roger fits, for the same reasons as Sampras. Roger hasn't had to deal with a truly great serve-and-vollyer. On grass or hard, their matches would be absolute duels. I'd give the edge to McEnroe at a place like the US Open where he could let his personality through. I get the feeling that Roger doesn't have a lot of patience for people who acted like Johnnie Mac did. For instance, he used to be very, very annoyed at Lleyton Hewitt's outbursts.

Speaking of Lleyton, I guess everyone who plays like him is going to go through constant ups and downs. Perhaps too much of his game is reliant on how well his opponent is playing. Perhaps it's based too much on footspeed, the thing the declines first and worst. Either way, it's too early to count him out, but he's not going to be a factor at either of the 1st 2 slams of the year probably ever again.

Answer 2

The problem is that the talent level of the current players is very limited. There were a bunch of talented players in the 90s when Sampras was playing. Agassi, Chang, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Rafter, Keurten, Stich, Ivanisevic, Muster, Lendl, the list goes on.

Most of these players at there prime are much better than the top 5 players today except for Federer of course. I would love to see Becker, Edberg, Rafter, and Sampras at their prime playing Federer. No one can stay in the baseline with Roger, but a pure talented S&V player "might" be able to give Roger some trouble. Only a time machine can tell that story unfortunately ;)

Answer 3

I saw a poster at the U.S. Open in a tennis fan's hand. It read 'Federer=Tennis God'. I know it's a slight exaggeration but it still has some water.
What use is Roddick's 225 km/hr service if it can be read. That's what Federer does, he gets in the perfect position for the serve, so he is immune to most serves.
Well, I do think that Federer is the most complete player the world has ever seen. His game has all the aspects, a technical perfect serve, a deadly forehand, a whipping backhand(look at the spin he gets on it) and a SMOOTH volley.
Sampras was predominantly a serve-and-volley player and some of Federer's passes leave you with a mouth wide open and eyes containing almost HORROR!
I feel, we may never see a greater player. Perhaps we'll have to wait for a few generations to get another legend like this.
About all the currently active players, why they're losing? Cause Federer doesn't allow you to play even your normal game let alone the game required to beat a person of his class.
FEDERER RULES!

Answer 4

To the guy with each and all of the dots: Are you severe? i've got seen Federer lose while he became enjoying properly, mutually with to Nadal. each and all of the six instances that he lost to Murray, his concepts went "WALKABOUT"?! Murray's concepts DID definitely flow "walkabout" while he doublefaulted the tournament away in Cincy - had he gained the tie-wreck he might have gained the third too (oh wait, that should have been via fact Federer's concepts went "walkabout" LOOOL!!!) you're able to be an entire retard. to reply to the question - i think of Djokovic and Murray may be the biggest threats. They the two beat Federer two times this year and the two are enjoying properly. Novak blasted Nadal off the courtroom and then performed at 0.5 that time interior the only spectacular of Cincy (if he performs on the former point he will beat Federer in the event that they meet interior the semi of USO). And Murray might have gained interior a similar adventure had he no longer double-faulted and have been given contained in direction of the tie-wreck.

Answer 5

hmm, I think Sampras's net game could have done some serious damage to federer.
Lleyton Hewitt... I think he got busy with other things, a wife, a kid... and that backhand of his was solid, but it was never a weapon... But still Lleyton Hewitt has fire...

Answer 6

Federer is ruling all surfaces but clay. The next Grand Slam is the French Open. If he wins, the topic is close.

Answer 7

ROGER IS CHALLENGED ALL THE TIME, IT'S JUST NO ONE CAN BEAT HIM NOW. HE IS A GREAT PLAYER AND IS ON HIS GAME.