Nothing really important, but I want to point out that Soderling was a true gentleman. He was gracious and very complimentary to Federer.
I was thrilled to see Fed take it, but I hope that Soderling continues to play well and sticks around for awhile.
Sampras once made the semifinals in Paris, but usually he was done late in the first week.
As far as the greatest ever discussion, my point was that grand slam titles are not the only thing to go on, so Federer does not become the greatest just by tying (or passing) Sampras. It’s a point in his favor in the Federer-Sampras debate, but it doesn’t help much in a comparison to Laver or Tilden or older players because of the professional/amateur issue. I think it’s probably fair to say that Federer is the best player of the last 40 years, which is no small thing. But I’m too young by far to have seen Laver so I can’t make that comparison.
I think a reasonably conservative estimate would put Laver’s total in the 20s if he had been able to play majors from 1963 to 1967. Perhaps it’s worth noting also that not everybody played the Australian Open back then, but Laver, being an Australian, did. Winning two Grand Slams with such a long span in between them is amazing and it couldn’t be duplicated today. He did it for the second time at age 31, and these days you almost never see a player win a single slam event in his 30s. Agassi did it a few times and we know what an effort that took. Sampras did it once and it was the cap on his career.
So what you’re saying is we need Federer V. Fred Perry on Celebrity Deathmatch?
When evaluating Laver it’s important to note that his early pre-Open slams mean very little. If the likes of Gonzales and Rosewall were playing in those tournaments it’s highly unlikely he would have been winning slams let alone a Grand Slam in the early 60’s. Even the professional circuit while undoubtedly superior to the amateur game lacked the depth of the Open era because the best amateurs, while not as good as the best pros, were undoubtedly good enough to pull off upsets and raise the level of competition. Laver’s 1969 grand slam was certainly a remarkable achievement but it was in an era when three of the four slams were played on grass and when few top players went to Australia. Like I said I would probably argue that Federer’s achievements in 2006-7 were a bit more impressive.
Incidentally there is a great videoof Laver (in the white hat) playing Roche on way to his 1969 Grand Slam. Obviously the game wasn’t nearly as powerful then but you get to see some lovely volleys and half-volleys.
I was thinking an old fashioned racquet duel, but that might work, too.
You make a good point about the difference in Laver’s slams, Lantern. I hadn’t thought about that. I think the depth of the field now is better than it’s ever been, and that would be clear if there were not two historically dominating players on top right now. There may have been more great players during Sampras’ era, but I think there are more challenging and competitive players today. Djokovic should win more slams, even though his mental game needs work and it may take him a few years. Murray should win some, too, and Del Potro. I’d love to see more of Tsonga as well. I never saw Soderling as a clay court player, but he does have the talent to repeat this year’s run.
It’ll be interesting to see how Nadal’s knee, as opposed to his pride, is doing. And the same goes for seeing how the Federer-Nadal rivalry will change- if it changes.
Well of course, he’s a Swede!
Regardless of the knee pain and suffering*, I think his win over Rafa is important. From the looks of the recap he fought on serve against a super-champion fricking windmill and gutted it to the final. Can you (or anybody) point me to the full video of Round 4?
- I wish there were a thread about fighting through injury/illness/severe pain at tournament. There’s a lot to be said for what a strong tennis player is required to overcome.
Am I alone in thinking Sampras took all the joy out of the sport? I feel like he drove me away and Agassi’s return brought me back.
If he played Nadal anything like he played Federer, he’s very penetrating. Rally-wise and psychologically.
Jeez, that’s funny I had the first whiff of doubt yesterday. At the breakfast table I said “he’s malingering in Mallorca.”
A little bit. He just wasn’t interesting enough of a personality. I mean…he just really liked tennis and was competitive. Kind of boring.
Oh no, that’s misreading what I’m saying. He’s power. Joyless power. I ran into a bunch of this kind of guy in late high school/college. Robots. I’d rather lose a semi to a coked-out private-school douchebag than a robot.
Federer is a beautiful, beautiful player. He is water slipping down a dark cliff of doubt.
What’s with the Federer-love around here?
Maybe it’s just because I’m new-ish to watching professional tennis, but watching him completely demolish every single opponent was boring as fuck.
If his serve was ever challenged and it went to deuce oh wait, he double aced and won the point in half a minute. How fun.
Oh look, now he broke his opponent’s serve. No wait, he stole his opponent’s serve. They were barely even playing in their own points.
Boring as shit.
See also: The finals versus Soderling. Was Soderling even on the court? I know Robin wasn’t playing as well during the finals as he was against say, Nadal, but the general feel of the Soderling/Federer match was exactly the type of match I’m saying makes Federer boring.
It’s because you are new-ish. When did he destroy every single opponent? Did you watch this years’ French, Australian, and last year’s Wimbledon Final?
He has really been challenged over the last two years.
Are you sure you have been watching since 2006 or so?
Yes I saw all those and no he didn’t completely demolish them. How about a year before all those? I saw those and those are what I’m talking about. Before his recent decline.
Well, while his 2004-2007 matches weren’t exactly great contests, they were still awesome displays. You were watching a true master, the very best ever to play the game, if not the greatest.
It’s easy to forget when you’re watching professional sports just how good everyone professional is. I haven’t swung a racket in eight years and your average club player can probably trounce me without dropping a game (or probably even a point). Then you’ve got top amateurs, who could trounce an average club player without dropping a point. Then you’ve got Jan Blecha of the Czech Republic, the very last player (#1913) on this week’s ATP world rankings - who could trounce that top-flight amateur without dropping a game.
Then, when you’ve thought your way to that point, you’re halfway to figuring out just how good Federer is.
College football is a good analogue. When an NFL team is really bad, you often hear people saying, “#1 College Football Team X could totally beat them,” and mean it. It’s ridiculous, though. The very best college football teams of all time still have a bunch of walk-on players. In the NFL, there are no walk-ons. Every single guy out there is good enough to get paid to play.
I’ve always wondered about the pros vs. amateurs thing-Wikipedia, since it doesn’t favor “writing between the lines”, wasn’t much help. I just find it odd that tennis coexisted with another country club sport, golf, which went “open” more than a century earlier, and hardly suffered any hits in prestige (or whatever) when professional golfers won majors. Both sports were (or tended to be) upper class, with all that that entails, sharing a number of other characteristics-so why the long-lasting pro/amateur split?
I’ll say this about the relative depths of fields: from the mid-70’s until Sampras retired, it seemed like the top players could be ranked as follows ("*"'s don’t necessarily denote single players):
Superstars: **** (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, arguably Edberg & Lendl & even Becker)
Stars: ****** (e.g. Courier, Rafter, Wilander)
Contenders: **********
Field: 30* (extreme outside chance)
While in Federer’s era (after Sampras and Andre faded) I get more of this kind of vibe:
Superstars: ** (only one-Roger-before Nadal’s ascent)
Stars: ***
Contenders: *************
Field: 40*
Now, this all comes with all sorts of caveats: my subjective impressions (won’t argue against that), but also Roger winning everything in sight leaves less for everyone else to fight for (the Tiger Era in golf has the same problem). Since Roger won his first title, only 5 other people-including Nadal-have won any. One problem is how far US tennis (Je suis un Américain) has fallen, with only Roddick representing any sort of faint hopes.
I wonder if the demise of the serve-and-volley game (note the relative lack of wear up the center of the courts at Wimbledon this year) is also somehow to blame-if you are forced to play the way your opponent plays, and he’s better at it, and he’ll massacre you anyway if you try something different, well what can you do? Mac vs. Lendl, Pete vs. Andre (and Martina vs. Chris, on the women’s side) provide some evidence for this. Maybe this then makes it harder for more players to “coexist” at the top at one time.
In any event when two (or more) of these guys were at the pinnacles of their games, we got to see some awe-inspiring tennis. Nadal and Federer has given us some of that thankfully, and will continue to do so.
Hah, good to see there are tennis fans in the dope, as I am a big poster in a much sillier forum website called menstennisforums.
I think it is undeniable to blame Nadal’s lose on clay to his bad knee, even if Soderling played the tennis of his life.
Federer seems to keep bringing the goods to all the slams but this was by far the hardest grandslam Federer has won. A few years ago, say 2005 or 2006 he would have beaten most of the opponents in his draw in straight sets, except Haas and maybe Del Potro.
Also, one will always have the question: Could he have done it if it was a fit (or close to fit) Nadal on the other side? The previous 4 French Opens answer that one.
I don’t want to take any of the glory Federer deserves, because he is the best tennis player ever but I think that he will struggle to win Wimbledon if Djokovic, Murray and Roddick are playing well.
As for Nadal, he has to shorten his schedule or he will end his career very early. I hope he can be healthy at Wimbledon, because if he is I would place him as the favorite. Sadly, it seems the injury is quite bad.
RNATB: My problem with Federer isn’t that he’s the greatest currently (or ever), it’s that he was boring to watch. Plain and simple.
I did like watching his matches at first because I did recognize I was watching a true master. It got boring quickly as previously outlined.
One thing about this tournament that I found remarkable…amazingly remarkable…was that Federer always, always put up when it matterd. He had an absolute no-tomorrow must-win point to prevent his opponent from serving for the match, and he won it. A break-back he absolutely needed to prevent his opponent from running away with it, he got it. Needed his serve to bail him out when his forehands were missing the mark, it did. Get his brain back in gear after going down 0-2, he did. Think of every great clutch player you’ve ever known…Tiger Woods, John Elway, Curt Schilling, Larry Bird, Rickey Henderson, Dale Earnhardt Sr. When they had to, they did. That’s exactly what I saw from Federer this entire tournament.
I have no problem crowning him GOAT, especially given the expected results from the rest of his career. Remember, he’s only 27, and there still isn’t anyone who can contest him on grass. And don’t be surprised if he caps off his career with that big win over Nadal on clay, especially since he already has a 3-setter in the books.
Boring? Yeah, I can see that, but that’s just an overall problem with the sport in general (although the death of serve and volley has made it much worse). In golf or car racing, if a favorite runs away with it, usually there’s still a hard-fought battle for second. There are only two guys on the tennis court, and if one is unbeatable at the baseline, well, that’s pretty much the whole story.
Not sure if there’s anything to be done about it. Right now, the best we can hope for is a massive upset hitting at just the right time. Even Agassi had horrific stumbles, so we can always hope.
You must have dozed off during last year’s Wimbledon final. 
That said, I don’t think Nadal will beat him on grass again.
I guess I just can’t relate to this - I don’t even love Men’s tennis but I always stop and watch if Federer is playing, even when he’s trouncing someone. Just like I hate golf but will watch Tiger on Sunday if I happen to stumble across him…
That’s unfortunate. He was dominant but his game is a marvel and I was amazed to watch that happen. It’s true there was usually not a lot of drama in his matches during those years but it’s not like every single one was a rout either.