2007-02-24 15:48:57 · 10 answers · asked by topspin4ever 2 in Sports ➔ Tennis
Of all the pro tennis players out there, he's been the most successful in developing his game. His backhand is by far, the best in the sport.
He has the BEST overall and consistent game on the tour. He doesn't rely on one quality to get him through.
Plus he's capable of winning on any surface, despite the fact that he's yet to win the French Open, the only Grand Slam to elude him.
Somebody had to step up to the plate, and he has.
2007-02-24 17:04:44 · answer #1 · answered by Chreap 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your timeline is wrong. It was 5-6 years ago when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon and then took a couple of years to get his head together. 3-4 years ago, Sampras picked Federer as his successor just before Federer's major breakthrough - but who could preict or expect this level of domination? Even then, it took Roger a little time to adjust to his new level - his only official loss to Roddick was in Canada and happened to be the first match in which a win would have guaranteed Federer the #1 ranking.
2007-02-25 04:10:46 · answer #2 · answered by giggledude 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
3 -4 years ago he hasn't win a grand slam tournament.
But now, he dominates the men's tournament. How about this statistics
(WIN/LOSS)
2007 = 7/0
2006 = 90/5
2005 = 80/4
2004 = 70/4
2007-02-24 16:08:01 · answer #3 · answered by Ronnie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
according to interviews and articles I have read, Federer always had the potential to become one of the best players in the game, the only thing holding him back was his temperament. he used to be a rather emotional player who would thrash racquets and throw tantrums (much like Marat Safin) and that would affect his game. he'd be distracted and less focussed on the task of winning. after he realised this problem and addressed it, then could he properly develop his game to become the dominating player he is now. and look at him now, he hardly shows any emotion on court. almost as cool as the ice-man Bjorg.
2007-02-24 20:28:20 · answer #4 · answered by rfedrocks 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Coz he hadnt won a grand slam then and he was always a talented player. But he just didnt have what it took to win a major but once he captured Wimbledon in 2003 his game just went to another level. Now he has no weaknesses.
2007-02-24 16:45:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anirudh T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Success doesn't comes easy. Definitely through a series of ups and downs. Most importantly, he has the will power and sheer determination to succeed.
2007-02-24 18:37:24 · answer #6 · answered by LucKY 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he was waiting until everybody saw him as a player and then when no one did he said, thats it its time for me to dominate. He is off the charts!
2007-02-24 17:41:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
um he wasn't exactly a nobody. didn't he beat sampras at wimbledon when he was like 19? he always played well.
2007-02-24 17:16:59 · answer #8 · answered by copy^cat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he was head case a few years ago, but everyone who saw him said he would be great once he realized how good he was. now i think he gets it.
2007-02-25 03:56:06 · answer #9 · answered by David G 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
due to his good practice,coninuous efforts,politeness and his simplicity.
2007-02-25 23:42:45 · answer #10 · answered by ramsundar 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋