Is Roger Federra an outstandind tennis player of all times?

Question

He just won the U S open

Answer 1

Yes, he will. Hopefully he is still free injury in 2008 and get many titles in Slams.

Answer 2

Federer is on crash course to be the best. Generally, there are 3 or 4 great players that are above the whole field at any time. It is not a lack of talent more it is the fact that no one has emerged until recently to challenge Federer explains how great he is. He wins many matches but in a way that no one ever has one. His angles and shots are beyond how past champions have played. Listen to the real pundits talk about his game, people like McEnroe, Courier and Agassi and you will hear them talk about is prowess. These men were the top players in the game. Even though Nadal beat him on clay, he is still the second best clay player in the world. I grew up in tennis. I have seen tennis evolve from the seventies to now, and Federer right now is on course to be the best ever.

Answer 3

Scott, dude, what are you talking about? When did Sampras ever play someone like Nadal or Djokovic or Hewitt or Safin or Davydenko or Murray or Gasquet or Roddick or Blake? More stiff competition in Sampras' day? yeah right! Sampras had Henman, who never won, an old Jim Courier, Pat Rafter, Michael Chang, an old Becker, Gustavo Kuerten, Kafelnikov. All those guys are not as good as Federer's competition. And Federer has held the no.1 title longer than Sampras had. I'm not saying Sampras was bad, he was amazing, its just that Federer is better. And besides, Federer can pull off better shots with more consistency than sampras did.

Answer 4

I would have to say not yet. If he breaks Sampras 14 slams and win all the Grand Slams in one calendar year, I would say yes. Too many people are saying he is the best and he has not broken Sampras record. He is an excellent player though. I guess we will see how great he is when he and Sampras face off in the exihibition match!

Answer 5

Absolutely, unequivocally YES !!! The mere fact, that he was won 12 slams, is outstanding. He has a really good chance of tying and possibly breaking Pete Sampras' record of 14 slams next year. He will easily go down as the greatest to play the game, by this time next year.

Answer 6

I agree with what Scott D said. On one of my previous posts to another question someone picked up on my mentioning all the useless players in the top 10 like Blake, Roddick, etc etc (except for Nadal and Djokovic) and saying that they can't be compared with the competition that Sampras had since Sampras's competition had won multiple grand slams. Well these current players in the top 10 can't win since they are so bad that they lose to anyone and everyone. The only competitions they win are when the top 3 don't participate. Obviously, not all of them are going to lose to the lower ranked players (in the same competition) so one of them generally lands up winning up the competition and stays in the top 10. People like Canas are way better players since he atleast has the balls to stand up to someone like Federer.

Answer 7

He definitely is an outstanding player of all times, i hear ppl say federer has no competition, well! what it shows is how good federer actually is, it by no means shows that players of this era are not good enough, put the likes of hewitt, roddick, safin, nadal in any other era and they would have slams. for aomeone saying the top ten players of today lose in the earlier rounds very often, well that has always been the case in men's game coz competition has always been so tough, all top ranked players lose in the eraly rounds once in a while coz thts when weak players have the best chance of beating them as they ve not yet adjusted to the courts and are not in full flow and to be really honest the top ten players of today have been really consistent, for anyone saying roddick loses in eraly rounds really hasnt been following tennis, roddick has been reaching the semis and finals of tournaments consistently, the only times he has lost early this year has been at clay and once at hard courts, he has reached 3 finals, 4 semi finals and 4 quarter finals, thts pretty consistent. we all know nadal and djokovic ve been really consistent. even ppl who say sampras had to contend with a lot more competition, well except for his earlier 2 or 3 grand slams there were hardly any good players left, during half of sampras' prime agassi was sleeping doing nothing and rest well u cant say players like chang, kafelnikov, goran, rafter were better then top players of today. i ve heard ppl say if roger is this good then why didnt he win at an earlier age, its easy to see if you ve watched tennis over the years that federer in his earlier days was reckless and had a temprament problem, he would try shots which nobody else would, but it actually helped him coz he got so good at making those shots that they work for him now. and that is the reason we hear everyday ppl saying he makes shots which v havent seen b4. he took his time to master the game but when he did he took it to another level. and please ppl stop saying he s lucky, only luck doesnt give u 10 consecutive slam finals, this is so absurd, everyone makes his own luck, this guy has nerves of steel and thts a big part of the game, sampras won so many slams coz he had nerves of steel, he could ve lost so many coz his opponent d b playing better then him but he d win coz his opponent would crumble under pressure, same with fed, he dint play tht well at us open but he kept his nerve, djokovic couldnt, so keeping ur nerve is a big part of how good u r, this guy has no weakness, ppl say his backhand is weak, but its still one of the best in the game and he regularly comes up with backhand winners unlike any one else. ppl can argue there r no serve and volley players anymore, but that is for a reason, the game has become so fast and players have become so good from the baseline that serve and volleyers would have a hard time winning against these, put sampras in this era and he wouldnt b as dominant as he was back in his days, he d still b great but not quite as dominant, federer might not b as dominant either but he d still ve been the no 1 player if all these great players were playing alongside him, ever wondered why hewitt won grand slams and cant win anymore, the only reason is the players ve gotten better so anyone saying federer has no competition coz there r no good players really doesnt watch tennis that much coz its very easy to see that it has nothing to do with players being incompetent, but yes it has got every thing to do with how good federer really is. i ve been watching tennis since a very long time, i loved borg but then sampras came along and i thought ok this guy is something else, i always loved aggasi, one of my favourites of all time, liked him more then sampras but i still knew sampras is the greatest, but when federer came and i have been following him since his very first days coz he would do a lot of things on the court so i always thought he d turn out to b good, i thought the same abt safin coz he was tht talented too, but he got lost somewhere along the way. federer has really changed the game, he is actually the new and improved version of a tennis player and he only shows how the game is going to b played in the future where players d try to master all aspects of the game, skill wise i believe there ll b players better then him in the future coz thts the human nature, we improve but what would make him probably the greatest of all time would b that how he changed the game and how he brought perfection in the game, players in the future would learn from his style of play and d become technically better then him but they d not change the way the game is played which he has done. but again there wudnt ve been a federer if there wasnt a laver, lendl, connors, borg, sampras, aggasi and others. he watched them all play and kind of mixed them up to come up with what v r seeing today. and lets not forget ppl of every era has called him the best. and they ve called him the best for some reason, even aggasi who has played with sampras in his prime and has played fed in his prime has said there s no where to go when u play federer and he is the best he has ever played.

Answer 8

I would have to say no. Roger is good but the amount of good tennis players is down. When Sampras played he had stiffer competition. Roger is one of the best though.

Answer 9

It would be interesting to see him play McEnroe, Borg, or Connors in their prime. He is a dominant player and may be the most dominant of all times.

Answer 10

Not yet - he's among the greats but still have to get a couple more notches to make history....and until then, he'll still be just one of the few but not THE great. Patience man! give him a chance. He's still young & HE"LL MAKE IT