federer too good for the sport?????????????

[tasmanian tiger]

maybe the atp should offer roger the following deal to enhance the competiveness in the sport: retire from grand slam play (except the french) and receive $20 million from the atp, immediate induction into the tennis hall of fame, and have centre court at wimbledon renamed "roger federer court" i think he is great to watch play, but how much better than everyone else is he? gonzo killed everybody, gets to the final against zeus in tennis shoes, and gets routined. 9 slams out of the last 13, and he seems in the middle of his prime at best, for all the other players (not from majorca) who think they can win a slam.

[fran]

maybe the atp should offer roger the following deal to enhance the competiveness in the sport: retire from grand slam play (except the french) and receive $20 million from the atp, immediate induction into the tennis hall of fame, and have centre court at wimbledon renamed "roger federer court" i think he is great to watch play, but how much better than everyone else is he? gonzo killed everybody, gets to the final against zeus in tennis shoes, and gets routined. 9 slams out of the last 13, and he seems in the middle of his prime at best, for all the other players (not from majorca) who think they can win a slam.

I think we are lucky enough to see the one that will become the best player of all times. So I would suggest to enjoy him

To be honest, when he was starting his career I found him quite weak on his backhand and his attitude didn´t seem the best. I am really surprised the way he managed to develop all his tennis skills in a very short period of time and become what he is now.

He will surpass the record of GS winners of Pete Sampras, one of my favourite players of all times, situation that I don´t like at all. But perhaps we are never going to be able to see such a champion as Roger for a very long period of time.

[tasmanian tiger]

totally agree with your opinion fran. just trying to add some humor to the site. i respected sampras' game and his class. i'm sure u would not argue against federer's game being more complete though. every great player had their weakness whether it was lendl's netplay or sampras' return, or edberg's forehand groundtroke, or jimmy's serve, etc, etc. what's federer's weakness???? i truly believe there are just as many talented and polished players in the top 20 now as there were when sampras ruled the sport, but sampras didn't dominate the way federer is dominating right now. having said that, i'm not willing to say federer is definately going to get "the record". you never know when the next great young player will step up, or whatever other unforseen events may take place. and sampras had 10 before he was 26 too. i can honestly say that whether federer breaks pete's record or not though, u couldn't have a player with more class holding the mantle.

[ovg]

Even though you're joking, there is a bit of truth to what you say. For me Federer is too good - in other words, if he's in a tournament it's a given that he will win and I wonder what the motivation (besides money of course) can be for all the other players. Even though he is an amazing player to watch, I find his matches boring due to forgone conclusion factor. Gonzo perfect example: decimated 3 top players on his way to the final and then is himself decimated. I do like watching Roger in doubles, as outcome can go either way. Even with Sampras I never felt as though it was for sure that he would win. Roger exists on a totally different level on the court. Maybe the lesson for all players is what you mention about how when he first came on tour he did have several weaknesses, which he's taken care of. Best thing about him is that he is a multi dimensional player and has more than just a plan A. That's been the difference for Gonzo now that he has Larry coaching him; he has a plan B now too. Problem is Roger also has plan C, D, etc.

[daryl]

With Federer it's simple, you can't throw away a chance to win a set (especially if it's the first). He's full of confidence, you have to take that away little by little, and losing the first set like Fernando did... that's clearly not the way.
It has to end sometime, and it could be in one single match/tournament...

[tasmanian tiger]

baghdatis took the first set from him last year, and look how that helped him

[daryl]

He had a break in the 2nd and let it go.... that's the problem, you have to win when you have the chance...

[tasmanian tiger]

he just has the confidence to dick around for the first half of a set and turn it on when he needs it, just like sampras did. why does he have so much confidence? because he knows no one can touch him anywhere but roland garos. not that i don't think he could lose to a talented player who plays his best and doesn't buckle under the pressure (safin proved that and it still holds true i believe), but it will take a near perfect match from a very talented player to beat him in 75% of the slams. and if nadal slips up in the french or is injured or something like that................ he would have the advantage over any of the other clay court monsters on experience alone.

[lovelytennis]

federer is my favorite... and prince of tennis world

[warrenca]

He's the best at the moment and I love and enjoy the big games with Roger, that's tennis at its best. It's probably not very useful to compare him with other greats like Pete Sampras or even earlier Bjorn Borg. Tennis has developed significantly in the last few decades and in my opinion tennis is now faster and more technical than ever before. Let's see if Roger stays at the top or if there will be a new star coming out of nowhere soon.

[andremoon41]

I think Federer would retian his position as a great star of tennis.