The Aussie Open

David Jimerson said:
Blake is a nice guy. But you knew he was never going to be among the greats.
Click to expand...

I like him and his story, but I think he content where he's at.

-

Roddick just got PULVERIZED by Federer.

Where is my Bonnie Tyler album ?
 
Andy. Wow.

Hang'em up.

It's very clear that no matter what you do, it doesn't work. You've actually gone backwards. That was just so pitiful and sad to watch. I mean, what do you do after this? Where do you go? Who do you hire? How many more hills do you run? Push-ups do you add?

Here is my recommendation. Do not EVER hit to Federer's forehand. It is the greatest forehand ever. Whereas Federer's backhand is probably somewhere in the top ten in history. Kick it up high with loads of topspin (a la Nadal). It's Federer's only achilles heal. When he slices it, just keeping going back to it. And when he goes short, DO NOT approach to the forehead. You will get beat every time. Go back to the backhand, and slice it as low as possible. He'll be forced to hit up, and you'll have a much better chance on the volley.

Having said all that, even if you execute it perfectly, it probably won't work. Federer is too good.

Hudson, are you changing your tune on Federer being the best ever yet?
 
What's his issue ?

He seems compelled to hit the rock hard as possible every single point. When he does mix it up and come to the net; his drop shots stay up for 10 minutes

Fed in the 2nd set was just on a different plane.

-

Roddick needs to add some variety to his game. He reminds me of Courier in the day; after 4 slams, players started not only physically catching up too him, but just figuring out that all he did was just hit it as hard as possible

Roddick seems to want to just hit it as hard as possible EVERY SINGLE SHOT
 
I think his whack attack is a product of his desperation. It's like, "Okay, I tried to vary it up a little last time. I got destroyed. I tried to serve and volley the time before that. I got destroyed. I attacked his backhand the time before that. I got destroyed." It's just a process of elimination. "I haven't tried to hit the ball as hard as I could every shot. Yeah! I'll try that this time!"

It must be so frustrating, knowing that whatever you do you can't win. And to pour salt into the wound, you have to answer 60 minutes worth of questions from reporters about why you'll never be able to beat Federer.

Add to that that Federer is the nicest person in the world, and so you can't get pissed at him and use that as motivation... it's like this guy has no weaknesses, physical, mental, or phsychological.

I'm a little depressed about the lame final. Federer vs. Someone Who's Going To Lose In Straight Sets. I can't believe how Nadal was just worked by Gonzalez. Now THERE'S a guy who hits as hard as he can every shot. And Nadal lost to him in straights?? I hope this isn't the beginning of the French Open Champion Come From Nowhere who's awesome for two years then disappears off the face of the earth Syndrome (Muster, Rios, Mancini, Guga, Ferraro). I don't know what it is about those guys, but their careers always seem to follow the same path. Here's to Nadal bucking the trend. Cause if he's not around to challenge Federer, then Federer should be forced to play left-handed.
 
c.g._eads said:
Hudson, are you changing your tune on Federer being the best ever yet?
Click to expand...

He's still only 50% of the way there, and he's hitting the prime spot for getting bored, slowing down, all the maladies which tend to afflict athletes in individual sports.

Still might make it, but like you were saying about the Cowboys, with the press talking them up as the greatest ever, such is the same with Federer.

I would like to see Federer in a field of players who aren't all second-rate. Would he have these stats in the '70s, '80s, or '90s, when there was more than just one great player? A field filled with Borgs, McEnroes, Connerses, Beckers, Edbergs, Couriers, Samprases, Agassis, in their primes? No way.

Is he in a class with those guys? Sure. Unquestionably. But nobody else currently out there is. Pretty easy to breeze through when the competition is slender.
 
That's the thing though. I think Federer is immune to all of those things, like being bored. He has every single possible ingredient to be the best ever.

I agree that the field is weaker. But you can't fault him for that. And he doesn't struggle with them. He destroys them. Cliff Drysdale, who's played against guys like Rod Laver, says Federer is the best player he's ever seen, and he's not one for hyperbole. He says he'd take Federer 7 out of 10 times against Sampras.

Think about it. The guy goes on regular 35 match win streaks. 35 STRAIGHT WINS. Who else in any other sport has that kind of winning percentage? I think this is one of those few instances (like Jordan) where the product actually matches the hype.
 
I agree with David

Federer is the dominat force on the tour right now; but there is no one else to challenge him. How much of this is due to parity on the tour and how much is due to him being that much better ?

Todays Top 10 is not the Top 10 of 10 years ago when each of these dudes in BOLD won a Grand Slam(s)

1 SAMPRAS, PETE
2 CHANG, MICHAEL
3 KAFELNIKOV, YEVGENY
4 IVANISEVIC, GORAN
5 MUSTER, THOMAS
6 BECKER, BORIS
7 KRAJICEK, RICHARD
8 AGASSI, ANDRE
9 ENQVIST, THOMAS
10 FERREIRA, WAYNE

15 Years ago:

1 Edberg, Stefan
2 Courier, Jim
3 Becker, Boris
4 Stich, Michael
5 Lendl, Ivan
6 Sampras, Pete
7 Forget, Guy
8 Novacek, Karel
9 Korda, Petr
10 Agassi, Andre

20 years ago:

1 Lendl, Ivan
2 Becker, Boris
3 Wilander, Mats
4 Noah, Yannick
5 Edberg, Stefan
6 Leconte, Henri
7 Nyström, Joakim
8 Connors, Jimmy
9 Mecir, Miloslav
10 Gomez, Andres

Today ?

1 Federer, Roger
2 Nadal, Rafael
3 Davydenko, Nikolay
4 Blake, James
5 Ljubicic, Ivan
6 Roddick, Andy
7 Robredo, Tommy
8 Nalbandian, David
9 Ancic, Mario
10 Gonzalez, Fernando

Is Federer in the same class ? Undoubedetly. But no one is here to challenge him outisde of Rafa.

Best ever ? Waaaaaaaaayy to soon for that. Ill say what I always say:

If he never wins another Slam. we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

=

I've watched a lot of greats play over the years and Federer falls into that class; but these other guys do not.
 
c.g._eads said:
That's the thing though. I think Federer is immune to all of those things, like being bored. He has every single possible ingredient to be the best ever.

I agree that the field is weaker. But you can't fault him for that. And he doesn't struggle with them. He destroys them. Cliff Drysdale, who's played against guys like Rod Laver, says Federer is the best player he's ever seen, and he's not one for hyperbole. He says he'd take Federer 7 out of 10 times against Sampras.

Think about it. The guy goes on regular 35 match win streaks. 35 STRAIGHT WINS. Who else in any other sport has that kind of winning percentage? I think this is one of those few instances (like Jordan) where the product actually matches the hype.
Click to expand...

I don't fault him for being in a weak field. But the point is, if he had any serious rivals, as all the greats of the past have, he wouldn't HAVE the stats he has now.

It's like running an Indy Car race series against everyone else in Jettas, and saying "whoa, that guy in the Indy car keeps winning by two laps! He's . . . incredible!"

Like I said, it's not his fault that everyone else -- everyone else -- is second-tier. But it also, on the whole, must be taken into account. There's a reason Roger Maris had an asterisk on his HR record.
 
John_Hudson said:
1 Federer, Roger
2 Nadal, Rafael
3 Davydenko, Nikolay
4 Blake, James
5 Ljubicic, Ivan
6 Roddick, Andy
7 Robredo, Tommy
8 Nalbandian, David
9 Ancic, Mario
10 Gonzalez, Fernando
Click to expand...

John, there's no way I'd put Nadal and Roddick in bold. Nadal might get there, but Roddick never will. Along the same lines, the only reason anyone notices Roddick is because . . . well, it's because there's no one else to notice.
 
Totally

No fault of his own; he is in a class by himself

But there is no rivalry. There is no one too challenge him. Does this make him better than all of the greats before him ? Better than Mac, Connors, Sampras, Borg ?

There isn't a single player in the Top 10 today that shows signs of being potentially great . Roddick ? Blake ? Nalby ?

-
 
David Jimerson said:
John, there's no way I'd put Nadal and Roddick in bold. Nadal might get there, but Roddick never will. Along the same lines, the only reason anyone notices Roddick is because . . . well, it's because there's no one else to notice.
Click to expand...

The bolds only represent Grand Slam winners
 
I didn't know you were such a tennis fan Hudson

I didn't know you were such a tennis fan Hudson

Glad to hear we share another interest (besides film). I'm 19 and when I lived in Puerto Rico I competed in all the Junior Tournaments I could. Now I'm on the club team at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Fun stuff
 
David Jimerson said:
I don't fault him for being in a weak field. But the point is, if he had any serious rivals, as all the greats of the past have, he wouldn't HAVE the stats he has now.

It's like running an Indy Car race series against everyone else in Jettas, and saying "whoa, that guy in the Indy car keeps winning by two laps! He's . . . incredible!"

Like I said, it's not his fault that everyone else -- everyone else -- is second-tier. But it also, on the whole, must be taken into account. There's a reason Roger Maris had an asterisk on his HR record.
Click to expand...

Yeah but did you ever consider that he makes everyone around him look bad? That that's the reason he's assumed to have no competition? When you're so good, everyone around you looks that much worse.

And John, the reason there are so few grand slam winners today is because Federer is winning all of them! There are only so many slams to go around.

And I guess no one likes to dismiss their favorites from the past. Everybody (or at least most people) need that perspective and distance before they start admitting someone is better than all their favorites. I remember after the Bulls won their first championship reading an article that they were the worst team to ever win a title. Then all they did was win five more. That discussion went out the window.

John, you're a stats guy. Federer has won 8 grand slams in three years. No man has ever done that. Ever. Not Sampras, who I believe his best was 6. Not Agassi. Not anyone. In 100 years, there have been so many weaker fields than this one. And still, no one has done what Federer's done.

Compare him to every great player, stroke by stroke, and I dare you to tell me anyone's better.

I wish they'd do one of those Rocky 6 computer generated matches. Then we could settle this once and for all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top