Once again, the Federal Express proved that Federer is betterer by fedexing Gonzo to second place in 3 sets. I was thrilled by the quality of the game and Roger's domination. I really admire the guy and think he's one of the world's best all time athletes. It seemed like it took herculean effort on Gonzalez part to keep Roger under control, and hats off to the chilean, who did a great job, even serving for the first set at one point. But at the critical moment, Federer always emerged mentally to ensure that he didn't lose the crucial point. What;s his secret? Being a tennis player, I can appreciate the fact that he is likely the best ever, with unmatched completeness of his style. I mean even Sampras had a flaw, his backhand and return of serve, but Federer, he can slice his backhand defensively as well as offensively hit deep bullets down the line. But it seems like his amazing success story is only partly due to his extraordinary skill. Commenting once about how he went from a player who would throw his racket in frustration to #1, he simply said, "when i'm down or behind, I don't panic anymore. I just hang in there, hope for the best and see what happens" Is that an oversimplification of the reasons for his success, or can that truly be THE major factor, that is, his mental game?
Good point on the mental game. I think Federer will go down as probably the best in history. It will be interesting to see what he does from here, he is still so young.
Well.. Federer is clearly dominant, and 10 Grand Slams since mid 2003 is unbelievable. However, there will always be an asterisk beside his name as long as the French eludes him, just like there is in Pistol Pete's case. Had Pete won the French, they would describe him as the best ever, no questions asked. I know a lot of people say they don't care about the French, but those are mostly Americans. I think international players and observers value success on clay more than the Americans when it comes to assessing a player's career. With regard to mental strength, it is a given that these elite athletes are differentiated from the pack in part because of mental strength. However, I believe that mental strength is less a factor in Federer's success as it is for Tiger Woods. Roger just has superlative physical gifts to go along with his mental toughness. Woods won his 7th PGA tournament in a row today. In my opinion, this is a mind-boggling result, and more astounding than Roger's Australian Open win. When was the last time that a player ranked 123rd on the world won an ATP event? For that matter when was the last time a player ranked 23rd won one? In golf this happens all the time, a testament to the difficulty in actually winning an event and an indication of how deep the talent pool in pro golf is. Golf is much more a mental game than tennis, IMO. It's the game which requires the most mental strength. I saw Roger playing at the French two years ago, and you understand what is meant by his 'beautiful game' when you see him. His game is effortless, he can hit a winner from seemingly any position. The chance that Roger will fail to win the French are about the same as the chance that three dark bodies and a rogue planet will crash into the earth within the next 5 minutes. Federer will undoubtedly go down as the greatest to ever play the game. The fact is this - he wants it. This means that barring injury, he will get it. On a side note, I did feel sorry for Andy. There was every indication that he might actually give Roger a run for his money, and instead Roger just crushed him. Sad to see, but Andy handled himself well in the post-game interview.
Rod Laver was the best... Period... I have seen every great player play since seventies... Laver all the way...
Do you mean that he will get it this year or are you allowing for "any year." On the "any year" basis I predict a market crash before November! And, Edge, I suspect that Federer would agree with you. If he keeps getting better though he will eclipse him (barring injury )
Maybe not this year but before his career is over. However, I wouldn't bet against him this I assume you mean it's easy to make such a prediction on an any year basis, but I don't think it's quite that easy (if that's what you meant). Who'd have thought that Pete would never win one? My Dad and you feel the same way. Unfortunately, I don't quite believe that Laver at his best could have beaten Federer at his best over 5 sets, given that both players are using identical equipment. But then, both you and my Dad saw Laver play and I didn't. _______________________________ http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/tennis/01/28/bc.ten.australianopenno.ap/ "Rod Laver says Roger Federer is playing well enough to win all four majors this season. And the Australian great reckons it is doubly difficult for Federer to complete a Grand Slam season than it was for him in 1962 and 1969. Laver, the only player to have twice won all four majors in a season, was at the Australian Open this week on a visit from the United States, his longtime residence. Laver has noted that Federer is only in the middle of his career but is on track to become the sport's best player ever. 'The best way to beat him would be to hit him over the head with a racket,' Laver joked in The Sunday Age newspaper. Laver spoke on the eve of Federer's 10th Grand Slam title, a straight-sets victory over Fernando Gonzalez in the final. 'Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is,' he said. 'And if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won because standards are much higher these days.' "
A couple of days ago, Rod Laver was reported in the Australian media as saying that he now regards Federer as the best ever. He may well be right. From Laver's era one of the other great Aussies who may have even outdone Laver had be not been struck down by illness was Lew Hoad. As to what it takes to be a top tennis player - technique is incredibly important in tennis. Strokes, footwork, court position etc. Without technique no chance at all. Federer's technique is superb. You also must have the physical attributes and fitness. Doing 5 sets of singles in a 40C Melbourne summer is unbelievably demanding. Height is also very important especially for service. Finally, you've got be be able to produce your best under pressure - on the big points.
Hi Kiwi, chew on this guys... Laver won the grand slam in 1962 and then turned pro and was not allowed to play the slam tourneys until 69'... a loss of 7 years of playing Slam tourneys... he then won them all AGAIN when the pros could play them again... another Grand Slam... 2 of them I also saw Laver take a world class Arthru Ashe who was at the top of his game and in his twenties and beat him in two sets in 38 minutes including the warm up... he either hit an ace on the first server or ON THE SECOND SERVE and when Ashe would server he would take the server on the rise and hit a winner... match was over in less than 40 minutes... Later i watched an over the hill Ashe almost beat the top of his game McEnroe at the US Indoor Championships in five sets... Mac had to come back from a disputed match point that Ashe won but was taken back by the line judge... Later Mac played even with Agassi in a few matches... and Agassi has played even with Federer although has mostly lost... so work it out... i saw Laver do stuff with the ball that was beyond belief... never seen it since... Laver saying Fed is best of all time is Aussie modesty... and his own decent humility...
Right on dC', Pancho Gonazlez also said that he would pick Lew Hoad as his choice to be the player as the Earth rep in the Galatic Davis Cup... :eek: