Federer is the most dominant player of his era in history. So the question is naturally is he really that awesome or is the competion simply not where it once was? I mean the greats had great players to make them great. But Federer doesn't have a rival other than Nadal on clay.
2007-03-04 13:13:15 · 14 answers · asked by dtshaff 3 in Sports ➔ Tennis
I think it is a combination of both. I believe that federer will be the greatest player to ever play the game when he is done. Like you said, the competition is mediocre compared to the days of becker, sampras, agassi, rafter, etc. but i think he would fare pretty well against them. He would not win every single match, but he would win more than any other player. It is amazing to watch him play because he never has a bad match. He always seems to play at the top of his game and makes outstanding shots.
2007-03-04 13:30:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's a combination of both, I think. There's no question that the depth in men's tennis is as good as it has ever been. However, there is also no question that a lot of these guys are not living up to their potential. There is a lot of choking going on out there. Remember that Andy Roddick had 3 match points against Federer in Shanghai and he choked them all away. It's almost like the guys are afraid of beating Federer. They can break his serve, they can take sets off of him, but they can't close the deal. Part of that is because Federer takes it up a notch and becomes invincible, but there's no question that there is choking going on. Just watch Roddick's botched overhead attempt on match point. Federer is certainly not invincible. He can be invincible, but he can also be very vulnerable and make a lot of mistakes. Andy Murray is the only guy in a long time that was actually able to close the deal on Federer when Fed was playing badly.
If you want to compare today's field to the field in the 90's, I will say this: the depth in tennis is greater now than it was then. In other words, the #500 ranked player in the world today is better than the #500 ranked player in 1995. However, the very top players today are not as solid week in and week out as they were back in the 90's. There is a lot more flakiness going on today. It's probably because Federer is winning everything, so these guys just don't have enough confidence. Look at David Nalbandian. Such a talented player, but he only has 5 or so titles and he's a mental wreck. Mentally these guys are weaklings compared to the greats of the past. Technically they might be better, but mentally they are mush. If Federer and Connors played in the same era, Fed could have beaten Connors 20 times in a row, but Connors would go out there every single time and give 100% effort. He'd make Federer earn it, he wouldn't give any free points away.
I really, really wish that Federer could have played back in the 90's. Imagine Sampras, Federer, and Agassi going at it. Sampras in his prime versus Federer. Agassi with a good back and quick legs taking on Fed from the baseline. I'm almost drooling at the thought of it.
2007-03-05 02:09:54 · answer #2 · answered by superman11978 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, in a sense you're right. Other tennis players like Roddick, Blake, Nadal, etc. have lost their form. They used to be a great competition. For eg: look at roddick. he has been losing matches like hell. So federer does have mediocre competition. On the other hand, Federer just broke his coach's record. His coach, Jimmy Connors, an awesome, all-time favorite has been overpowered by his own student! He has been winning like no one else has ever won. It's because of his winning strategy and patience which has led to his success.
2007-03-05 11:47:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some people say that the competition is mediocre and there are no challengers, and that last part is true. But if you take Federer out of the equation there is plenty of competition. He is just so much better than all the other that they are mediocre in comparison. The older greates would like to say that they had it tougher in their day, but have you ever heard a previous generation say anything different?
2007-03-04 23:24:46 · answer #4 · answered by M.McNulty 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Federer is just that good. A lot of the guys chasing have good skills and could have had 3 or 4 majors in other eras but they have the unfortunate task of having to face Federer.
2007-03-05 09:27:56 · answer #5 · answered by trombass08 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a lot of great tennis players today.. but Federer's just too good.. hmm.. it's like everyone is on a donkey and Federer is on a horse.. he's on a league of his own.. when he loses a match, the opponent is on top of his game.. has done something exceptional and has endured a long tennis match (remember the safin-federer aussie semis.. ).. not to mention, he has talent and skill to play the game.. he's just too great..
2007-03-05 08:53:05 · answer #6 · answered by crushmybones 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think both. I wish Federer was born 10 years earlier. Put him in the mix of Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Courier, Keurten, Chang, Ivanisevic, etc... That would have been some awesome match ups ;)
2007-03-05 13:11:17 · answer #7 · answered by C L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he's too good..if you watch his matches, he does things with such ease. his anticipation is amazing, he knows where his opponents are hitting at the right time. Also, his defense is as great as his offense, those squash like shots he hits are pretty good.
even big servers don't faze him, he returns Andy Roddick's serve like it's nothing.
2007-03-04 23:50:02 · answer #8 · answered by mremistere 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hi is very talented, but it's becoming not very interesting to watch tournaments because we all know who's gonna be a winner
2007-03-04 23:06:22 · answer #9 · answered by Eleonora A 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
his not the most dominat in this century yet but the reason his so goos is becuase his just good
2007-03-04 21:16:39 · answer #10 · answered by Caribou 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋