The big Federer debate????

Question

I think Federer is an awesome tennis player but I have had always had my reservations as to just how "good" he is.

In my opinion, this latest generation of tennis players are no where near as good as the last, with the exception of maybe Federer, Nadal, Gasquet and Djokovic.

Back in Sampras day, we had other superb greats like Rafter, Agassi, Philipoussis, Clement, etc who could actually challeneg for titles.

These days, we do not have anywhere near the depth of quality. I blame this on the increase in interest in other sports worldwide, especially football, cricket and rugby or "local-national" sports. This is why America and Australio - two tennis greats - have produced such dire tennis players over the last decade.

My argument is that Federer is as "good" as he is because he is up against a very poor generation of players. Back in Sampras day, he would have been up there in the top 3, but i dont think he'd dominate as much as he has.

Does anyone agree? Am i right?

Answer 1

I predict Federer will go down as the greatest tennis player of all time in the history of tennis (despite winning only 1 French Open title in 2009). He will obviously have at least 18-20 majors. Nadal is in his prime, and he won't get much better. Come on, can't anyone besides me see Federer was toying with Nadal for the first 4 sets (they probably asked him to for entertainment..how boring would be a 6-2, 6-4 Federer win)? Watch a replay of the last set, and you'll see Federer's amazing plays, consecutive aces, 40-0 scores...Federer is THE best.

Answer 2

I agree with some things you say:
- the 4 tennis players you name are definitely good. I might want to add Bagdhatis
- The U.S. and Australia haven't produced the amount of tennis talent that History expects from them or that sheer numbers and resources(the U.S.) demands. I would include Britain here too as a former historical tennis great.

I disagree with your obviously unprovable assumption that Federer and Nadal and the others are not as good as previous generations of tennis greats. This is sheer subjectivity on your part.

I think the players from the U.S and Australia are good enough(Hewitt, Roddick,etc etc) but countries like Spain,Serbia,France and Czech Republic,Switzerland etc etc (Europeans for the most part)have just gotten better.

The Americans of the United States have always preferred baseball and their peculiar brand of football to tennis. That's nothing new. And Australians have always been mad for cricket,rugby,swimming etc etc. Competition with these sports is not a reason for a tennis "decline" in the U.S. and Australia.

I think that there are just more good European players because in many Europeans countries until the 1960's even 1970's tennis used to be an elitist sport and now we are seeing the results of its having been a popular(as opposed to elitist) sport for the last 20 years. A new generation of kids who played on municipal courts has grown up.

Tennis doesn't "speak" only English anymore . Get used to that. And one day it will also 'speak" Swahili and Chinese and Arabic and Urdu.

(And do not forget that it was a very young Federer who beat Sampras when Pete was a Goliath and Roger was only a David!)

Answer 3

The men's final at Wimbledon between Federer and Nadal has restored my faith in Tennis!

I used to queue over night to get centre or court 1 tickets on the 2nd Wednesday, and saw some fantastic games, then the big servers took over and tennis became a boring game to watch. Sampras was powerful, but boring to watch, but I loved watching Agassi!

Today I was amazed at the variety of shots, and the changes in pace from hard serves to gentle little drop shots. It was a fantastic game to watch from the beginning of the first set. One of the best games I've seen in a long time. I think that Federer and Nadal are great players, and Federer has beaten Sampras !

Answer 4

Every generation seems to produce one hugely talented player who towers over the rest Before Federer we had Sampras, before him the great Borg, and before him Laver. Despite the fact that there have been other great players (I always loved Agassi) these four seems to have had that something extra which has lifted them above the rest, including the likes of Connors and McEnroe.

I think the difference today is the the gulf between Federer and Nadal over the others is much more noticeable.

Answer 5

This is a strong era, better than the 90s. Federer is a better all-round player than Sampras, who just played serve-and-volley. Sampras was also awful on clay courts (lack of variation in his game), Federer isn't. What I'm saying is, more and more players are able to emulate their success from one surface to another with ease, because the players of today have a more complete game. You can't use America/Australia as a yardstick - I could say the game has become more globalised, so there's a greater range of players.

I think Federer would have struggled most from the mid 80s to early 90s, which I think was the strongest era, with players like Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Curren, Courier, Chang, Mecir and Cash. There was incredible depth in the game then.

Answer 6

This is an ongoing argument, many say federer is the greatest of all time, I mean theres no doubt he has more skill and tecknique with his shots but they are aspects players like bjorg, sampras and mcenroe have better, I think personally Sampras is the greatest ever, Agassi was a great but as long a sampras was around struggled to win.

Answer 7

Philipoussis and Arnaud Clement never win any Grand Slam so they are not in the same category like Rafter and Agassi. And Federer did beat Sampras.

Answer 8

i see your point, and to be honest i thought there was a slight ''downpoint'' in tennis after that 'era' of players started to retire (2002/2003 ish). then these newer generation of players have come (federer/nadal/roddick e.t.c), and have brought tennis back!! (especially with murray in britain).

but i dont know really, sure there was a much more depth of players before, but now these 'few players' play such great tennis, watching them is just amazing, and you almost just want the final to be against these ''greats'' cuz it shud be a a great match!! (like today at wimbledon).

so happy that federer got 5 in a row!!

Answer 9

I disagree- It's not Federer's fault that he is miles ahead of 95% of the players on the circuit. He would have been dominant in the 70's and 80's but would have had more competive matches like he had today on a regular basis. I still think he would still win at a staggering rate.

Answer 10

I see your point. But would Sampras have won as many Wimbledon titles as he did if he had been playing in the same era as Borg, McEnroe and Connors?

Each era produces it's own set of great players. Let's not take anything away from Federer's wonderful achievement today.