Wimbledon
- Thread starter Squiggles
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
If I was Roddick, I'd dent Federer's face onto my runner-up's shield.
I didn't listen aferwards, what did Roger say that was so bad?
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=34341.msg900898#msg900898 date=1246823025]
I didn't listen aferwards, what did Roger say that was so bad?
[/quote]
nothing whatsoever - he is famous for being humble and well liked.
I didn't listen aferwards, what did Roger say that was so bad?
[/quote]
nothing whatsoever - he is famous for being humble and well liked.
Yup. Here's the interview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/8135326.stm
Roger Rederer is just being Roger Rederer. ie. A twat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/8135326.stm
Roger Rederer is just being Roger Rederer. ie. A twat.
[quote author=Roger REDerer link=topic=34341.msg900849#msg900849 date=1246815699]
If I was Roddick, I'd dent Federer's face onto my runner-up's shield.
[/quote]
You're a buffoon.
He didn't take the piss at all... In fact, he called him an incredible bloke and wished him future success in the future.
Federer is the epitome of class.
If I was Roddick, I'd dent Federer's face onto my runner-up's shield.
[/quote]
You're a buffoon.
He didn't take the piss at all... In fact, he called him an incredible bloke and wished him future success in the future.
Federer is the epitome of class.
Heh, even so, the look on Roddick's face showed that he wasn't having any of it... standing there as everyone originally expected him to, the unimportant accompaniment to Federer's moment in history.
Nothing Federer could've said would've changed that. Roddick must surely be at rock bottom. To play like that, to come that close... and to just miss out. And after all these years as well. He'll more than likely never come that close to winning Wimbledon again.
Nothing Federer could've said would've changed that. Roddick must surely be at rock bottom. To play like that, to come that close... and to just miss out. And after all these years as well. He'll more than likely never come that close to winning Wimbledon again.
[quote author=keniget link=topic=34341.msg900952#msg900952 date=1246831558]
Heh, even so, the look on Roddick's face showed that he wasn't having any of it... standing there as everyone originally expected him to, the unimportant accompaniment to Federer's moment in history.
Nothing Federer could've said would've changed that. Roddick must surely be at rock bottom. To play like that, to come that close... and to just miss out. And after all these years as well. He'll more than likely never come that close to winning Wimbledon again.
[/quote]
I dunno, Keni...
He did quip back "yeah, well you'd already won it five times..!", when Federer said that he knoew how he felt.
Down, absolutely. But not bowed, I don't think.
Heh, even so, the look on Roddick's face showed that he wasn't having any of it... standing there as everyone originally expected him to, the unimportant accompaniment to Federer's moment in history.
Nothing Federer could've said would've changed that. Roddick must surely be at rock bottom. To play like that, to come that close... and to just miss out. And after all these years as well. He'll more than likely never come that close to winning Wimbledon again.
[/quote]
I dunno, Keni...
He did quip back "yeah, well you'd already won it five times..!", when Federer said that he knoew how he felt.
Down, absolutely. But not bowed, I don't think.
[quote author=Roger REDerer link=topic=34341.msg900826#msg900826 date=1246814449]
This new tie-break system is fcuking retarded.
This is the '6th' set they're playing.
[/quote]
You're the retarded twat here...
Great match from Roddick, he lost the final in the 2nd set's tie break.
Like FFF said he's a much more complete player now, that wasnt enough though.
Federer best ever now.
This new tie-break system is fcuking retarded.
This is the '6th' set they're playing.
[/quote]
You're the retarded twat here...
Great match from Roddick, he lost the final in the 2nd set's tie break.
Like FFF said he's a much more complete player now, that wasnt enough though.
Federer best ever now.
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=34341.msg900982#msg900982 date=1246849880]
Federer best ever now.
[/quote]
Considering he's playing in the easiest male era since I dunno when, I don't really agree with that.
It's far easier to win things when your ONLY real rival is Nadal - and he was average on non-clay surfaces during his early years.
Federer best ever now.
[/quote]
Considering he's playing in the easiest male era since I dunno when, I don't really agree with that.
It's far easier to win things when your ONLY real rival is Nadal - and he was average on non-clay surfaces during his early years.
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=34341.msg900991#msg900991 date=1246855579]
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=34341.msg900982#msg900982 date=1246849880]
Federer best ever now.
[/quote]
Considering he's playing in the easiest male era since I dunno when, I don't really agree with that.
It's far easier to win things when your ONLY real rival is Nadal - and he was average on non-clay surfaces during his early years.
[/quote]
That has always been my point in all this "greatest ever" debate, it depends who your rivals and peers are in the era you are playing.
regards
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=34341.msg900982#msg900982 date=1246849880]
Federer best ever now.
[/quote]
Considering he's playing in the easiest male era since I dunno when, I don't really agree with that.
It's far easier to win things when your ONLY real rival is Nadal - and he was average on non-clay surfaces during his early years.
[/quote]
That has always been my point in all this "greatest ever" debate, it depends who your rivals and peers are in the era you are playing.
regards
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=34341.msg901062#msg901062 date=1246870622]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=34341.msg900991#msg900991 date=1246855579]
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=34341.msg900982#msg900982 date=1246849880]
Federer best ever now.
[/quote]
Considering he's playing in the easiest male era since I dunno when, I don't really agree with that.
It's far easier to win things when your ONLY real rival is Nadal - and he was average on non-clay surfaces during his early years.
[/quote]
That has always been my point in all this "greatest ever" debate, it depends who your rivals and peers are in the era you are playing.
regards
[/quote]
I will say this though - he's a phenomenal player, and he would have won majors in ANY era but I doubt he'd have won 15 in say the 80s or 90s as the competition throughout the later rounds was so much tougher. I mean, think about Sampras or Aggassi ... Edberg, Stich, Becker, Chang, Courier, Ivansevic, Rafter, the young Hewitt, etc ...
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=34341.msg900991#msg900991 date=1246855579]
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=34341.msg900982#msg900982 date=1246849880]
Federer best ever now.
[/quote]
Considering he's playing in the easiest male era since I dunno when, I don't really agree with that.
It's far easier to win things when your ONLY real rival is Nadal - and he was average on non-clay surfaces during his early years.
[/quote]
That has always been my point in all this "greatest ever" debate, it depends who your rivals and peers are in the era you are playing.
regards
[/quote]
I will say this though - he's a phenomenal player, and he would have won majors in ANY era but I doubt he'd have won 15 in say the 80s or 90s as the competition throughout the later rounds was so much tougher. I mean, think about Sampras or Aggassi ... Edberg, Stich, Becker, Chang, Courier, Ivansevic, Rafter, the young Hewitt, etc ...
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=34341.msg901069#msg901069 date=1246871306]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=34341.msg901062#msg901062 date=1246870622]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=34341.msg900991#msg900991 date=1246855579]
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=34341.msg900982#msg900982 date=1246849880]
Federer best ever now.
[/quote]
Considering he's playing in the easiest male era since I dunno when, I don't really agree with that.
It's far easier to win things when your ONLY real rival is Nadal - and he was average on non-clay surfaces during his early years.
[/quote]
That has always been my point in all this "greatest ever" debate, it depends who your rivals and peers are in the era you are playing.
regards
[/quote]
I will say this though - he's a phenomenal player, and he would have won majors in ANY era but I doubt he'd have won 15 in say the 80s or 90s as the competition throughout the later rounds was so much tougher. I mean, think about Sampras or Aggassi ... Edberg, Stich, Becker, Chang, Courier, Ivansevic, Rafter, the young Hewitt, etc ...
[/quote]
I agree too, a fantastic player and possibly the best player I have seen, and possibly the best player ever, but no one will know for sure
regards
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=34341.msg901062#msg901062 date=1246870622]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=34341.msg900991#msg900991 date=1246855579]
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=34341.msg900982#msg900982 date=1246849880]
Federer best ever now.
[/quote]
Considering he's playing in the easiest male era since I dunno when, I don't really agree with that.
It's far easier to win things when your ONLY real rival is Nadal - and he was average on non-clay surfaces during his early years.
[/quote]
That has always been my point in all this "greatest ever" debate, it depends who your rivals and peers are in the era you are playing.
regards
[/quote]
I will say this though - he's a phenomenal player, and he would have won majors in ANY era but I doubt he'd have won 15 in say the 80s or 90s as the competition throughout the later rounds was so much tougher. I mean, think about Sampras or Aggassi ... Edberg, Stich, Becker, Chang, Courier, Ivansevic, Rafter, the young Hewitt, etc ...
[/quote]
I agree too, a fantastic player and possibly the best player I have seen, and possibly the best player ever, but no one will know for sure
regards
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=34341.msg901137#msg901137 date=1246881947]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=34341.msg901069#msg901069 date=1246871306]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=34341.msg901062#msg901062 date=1246870622]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=34341.msg900991#msg900991 date=1246855579]
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=34341.msg900982#msg900982 date=1246849880]
Federer best ever now.
[/quote]
Considering he's playing in the easiest male era since I dunno when, I don't really agree with that.
It's far easier to win things when your ONLY real rival is Nadal - and he was average on non-clay surfaces during his early years.
[/quote]
That has always been my point in all this "greatest ever" debate, it depends who your rivals and peers are in the era you are playing.
regards
[/quote]
I will say this though - he's a phenomenal player, and he would have won majors in ANY era but I doubt he'd have won 15 in say the 80s or 90s as the competition throughout the later rounds was so much tougher. I mean, think about Sampras or Aggassi ... Edberg, Stich, Becker, Chang, Courier, Ivansevic, Rafter, the young Hewitt, etc ...
[/quote]
I agree too, a fantastic player and possibly the best player I have seen, and possibly the best player ever, but no one will know for sure
regards
[/quote]
Both arguments have merit; I do agree that the rivalries then were far stronger, snd I do think the domination would be less.
But I grew up watching every player on that list, and on his day; Federer would crush every single name on that list.
McEnroe predicted years ago that he would be the best player ever, and he's not far off.
Wish LeChacal werent quite so smug about it tho.
I'm saddened that Sampras' record has been broken (which was why I was rooting for Roddick yesterday), but congrats to a magnificent player.
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=34341.msg901069#msg901069 date=1246871306]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=34341.msg901062#msg901062 date=1246870622]
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=34341.msg900991#msg900991 date=1246855579]
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=34341.msg900982#msg900982 date=1246849880]
Federer best ever now.
[/quote]
Considering he's playing in the easiest male era since I dunno when, I don't really agree with that.
It's far easier to win things when your ONLY real rival is Nadal - and he was average on non-clay surfaces during his early years.
[/quote]
That has always been my point in all this "greatest ever" debate, it depends who your rivals and peers are in the era you are playing.
regards
[/quote]
I will say this though - he's a phenomenal player, and he would have won majors in ANY era but I doubt he'd have won 15 in say the 80s or 90s as the competition throughout the later rounds was so much tougher. I mean, think about Sampras or Aggassi ... Edberg, Stich, Becker, Chang, Courier, Ivansevic, Rafter, the young Hewitt, etc ...
[/quote]
I agree too, a fantastic player and possibly the best player I have seen, and possibly the best player ever, but no one will know for sure
regards
[/quote]
Both arguments have merit; I do agree that the rivalries then were far stronger, snd I do think the domination would be less.
But I grew up watching every player on that list, and on his day; Federer would crush every single name on that list.
McEnroe predicted years ago that he would be the best player ever, and he's not far off.
Wish LeChacal werent quite so smug about it tho.
I'm saddened that Sampras' record has been broken (which was why I was rooting for Roddick yesterday), but congrats to a magnificent player.
Won 15 grand slams, the 4 of them.
He's the greatest ever.
Comparing differents eras is irrelevant. I grew up with Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi and al...None of them were as complete as Federer. He's a great champion and athlete but to be honest Im not his biggest fan. His tears at the Australian Open were a bit too much for me.
Nadal might beat him in the next few years and become the next greatest ever, who knows?
He's the greatest ever.
Comparing differents eras is irrelevant. I grew up with Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi and al...None of them were as complete as Federer. He's a great champion and athlete but to be honest Im not his biggest fan. His tears at the Australian Open were a bit too much for me.
Nadal might beat him in the next few years and become the next greatest ever, who knows?
[quote author=Le Chacal link=topic=34341.msg901246#msg901246 date=1246892905]
Comparing differents eras is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Ok, you win. He's the greatest of this era then as comparing it to players from different eras is irrelevant.
Comparing differents eras is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Ok, you win. He's the greatest of this era then as comparing it to players from different eras is irrelevant.
[quote author=Hardcastle link=topic=34341.msg901335#msg901335 date=1246901337]
Lech you can't just dismiss the era arguement.
How can Nadal not be the greatest ever now but can be in a few years time?
It'll be because of the decline of Federer, I.E the end of an era.
[/quote]
Because success is measured by achievement, surely? Talent is one thing - Marat Safin had immense talent, but wasted it. That's why he'll never be considered among the best. Nadal may yet have great success, thus making him one the greatest. It remains to be seen though, obviously.
He'll never eclipse Federer though. It'll be a long time before anyone does.
Lech you can't just dismiss the era arguement.
How can Nadal not be the greatest ever now but can be in a few years time?
It'll be because of the decline of Federer, I.E the end of an era.
[/quote]
Because success is measured by achievement, surely? Talent is one thing - Marat Safin had immense talent, but wasted it. That's why he'll never be considered among the best. Nadal may yet have great success, thus making him one the greatest. It remains to be seen though, obviously.
He'll never eclipse Federer though. It'll be a long time before anyone does.
[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=34341.msg901393#msg901393 date=1246907973]
[quote author=Hardcastle link=topic=34341.msg901335#msg901335 date=1246901337]
Lech you can't just dismiss the era arguement.
How can Nadal not be the greatest ever now but can be in a few years time?
It'll be because of the decline of Federer, I.E the end of an era.
[/quote]
Because success is measured by achievement, surely? Talent is one thing - Marat Safin had immense talent, but wasted it. That's why he'll never be considered among the best. Nadal may yet have great success, thus making him one the greatest. It remains to be seen though, obviously.
He'll never eclipse Federer though. It'll be a long time before anyone does.
[/quote]
That depends on two things - a) how long Federer plays and b) if the next 'era' is as weak as Federer's was.
[quote author=Hardcastle link=topic=34341.msg901335#msg901335 date=1246901337]
Lech you can't just dismiss the era arguement.
How can Nadal not be the greatest ever now but can be in a few years time?
It'll be because of the decline of Federer, I.E the end of an era.
[/quote]
Because success is measured by achievement, surely? Talent is one thing - Marat Safin had immense talent, but wasted it. That's why he'll never be considered among the best. Nadal may yet have great success, thus making him one the greatest. It remains to be seen though, obviously.
He'll never eclipse Federer though. It'll be a long time before anyone does.
[/quote]
That depends on two things - a) how long Federer plays and b) if the next 'era' is as weak as Federer's was.
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=34341.msg901415#msg901415 date=1246910203]
[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=34341.msg901393#msg901393 date=1246907973]
[quote author=Hardcastle link=topic=34341.msg901335#msg901335 date=1246901337]
Lech you can't just dismiss the era arguement.
How can Nadal not be the greatest ever now but can be in a few years time?
It'll be because of the decline of Federer, I.E the end of an era.
[/quote]
Because success is measured by achievement, surely? Talent is one thing - Marat Safin had immense talent, but wasted it. That's why he'll never be considered among the best. Nadal may yet have great success, thus making him one the greatest. It remains to be seen though, obviously.
He'll never eclipse Federer though. It'll be a long time before anyone does.
[/quote]
That depends on two things - a) how long Federer plays and b) if the next 'era' is as weak as Federer's was.
[/quote]
I'm talking in terms of success. No-one will achieve what Federer has for a very long time. Particularly given the fact that he's still relatively young.
It's worth remembering that Federer saw off Agassi (when he was still very competitive), and then Hewitt after him, not to mention ending Sampras' run at Wimbledon when he looked destined for yet another title. He lifted the game to a new level - one to which nobody else could compete. I saw an interesting interview with Juan Carlos Ferrero (who also held the number 1 spot during Sampras' reign) after his defeat to Murray at Queens, who said that he was playing the best tennis of his career, it's just that the game has moved on so much that he's been left behind. I think a number of players would be viewed in a much better light were it not for Federer's dominance.
Anyway, there's really no point in us continuing with the 'who's the greatest' discussion. It's pretty clear we're not going to agree. The encouraging thing is that the likes of Nadal and now Murray look set to provide Federer with the kind of challenge that may yet transform this era into a truly competitive one.
[quote author=Delinquent link=topic=34341.msg901393#msg901393 date=1246907973]
[quote author=Hardcastle link=topic=34341.msg901335#msg901335 date=1246901337]
Lech you can't just dismiss the era arguement.
How can Nadal not be the greatest ever now but can be in a few years time?
It'll be because of the decline of Federer, I.E the end of an era.
[/quote]
Because success is measured by achievement, surely? Talent is one thing - Marat Safin had immense talent, but wasted it. That's why he'll never be considered among the best. Nadal may yet have great success, thus making him one the greatest. It remains to be seen though, obviously.
He'll never eclipse Federer though. It'll be a long time before anyone does.
[/quote]
That depends on two things - a) how long Federer plays and b) if the next 'era' is as weak as Federer's was.
[/quote]
I'm talking in terms of success. No-one will achieve what Federer has for a very long time. Particularly given the fact that he's still relatively young.
It's worth remembering that Federer saw off Agassi (when he was still very competitive), and then Hewitt after him, not to mention ending Sampras' run at Wimbledon when he looked destined for yet another title. He lifted the game to a new level - one to which nobody else could compete. I saw an interesting interview with Juan Carlos Ferrero (who also held the number 1 spot during Sampras' reign) after his defeat to Murray at Queens, who said that he was playing the best tennis of his career, it's just that the game has moved on so much that he's been left behind. I think a number of players would be viewed in a much better light were it not for Federer's dominance.
Anyway, there's really no point in us continuing with the 'who's the greatest' discussion. It's pretty clear we're not going to agree. The encouraging thing is that the likes of Nadal and now Murray look set to provide Federer with the kind of challenge that may yet transform this era into a truly competitive one.
[quote author=keniget link=topic=34341.msg901585#msg901585 date=1246948392]
Agreed. I think the natural inclination is to dismiss the quality of the opponents when one player is so far ahead. It's not as though Federer has been playing chumps his whole career.[/quote]
What players, say in the last 5 years, were at the same level of an Edberg? or Becker? or Courier? (bar Nadal & Federer).
That's right ... Everyone struggles to name players not because of Nadal and Federer but because the competition just hasn't been as good as it was previously.
Agreed. I think the natural inclination is to dismiss the quality of the opponents when one player is so far ahead. It's not as though Federer has been playing chumps his whole career.[/quote]
What players, say in the last 5 years, were at the same level of an Edberg? or Becker? or Courier? (bar Nadal & Federer).
That's right ... Everyone struggles to name players not because of Nadal and Federer but because the competition just hasn't been as good as it was previously.
I don't think anyone is trying to suggest he's been playing "greats" down the years, just that he has succeeded in making very good players look extremely ordinary.
These sorts of debates are impossible anyways - just as they are in football. Federer is one of the best the game has seen, but the best ever? It's impossible to say and we'll never know.
These sorts of debates are impossible anyways - just as they are in football. Federer is one of the best the game has seen, but the best ever? It's impossible to say and we'll never know.
[quote author=keniget link=topic=34341.msg901620#msg901620 date=1246953665]
Federer is one of the best the game has seen, but the best ever? It's impossible to say and we'll never know.
[/quote]
I agree until I ask the big dude in the sky, then I will know.
Federer is one of the best the game has seen, but the best ever? It's impossible to say and we'll never know.
[/quote]
I agree until I ask the big dude in the sky, then I will know.
[quote author=keniget link=topic=34341.msg901620#msg901620 date=1246953665]
I don't think anyone is trying to suggest he's been playing "greats" down the years, just that he has succeeded in making very good players look extremely ordinary.
These sorts of debates are impossible anyways - just as they are in football. Federer is one of the best the game has seen, but the best ever? It's impossible to say and we'll never know.
[/quote]
diego settled the football debate once and for all - there is not debate now.
I don't think anyone is trying to suggest he's been playing "greats" down the years, just that he has succeeded in making very good players look extremely ordinary.
These sorts of debates are impossible anyways - just as they are in football. Federer is one of the best the game has seen, but the best ever? It's impossible to say and we'll never know.
[/quote]
diego settled the football debate once and for all - there is not debate now.
Similar threads
- Locked
