For me too. Right after his comeback win at the Australian against Nadal, I was thinking that he could get close to Margaret Court’s record of 24. I agree that despite not having the numerical advantage over his younger rivals though, for me the fact that there was invariably some shot he would make during a match that you just could not believe which puts him ahead. It wasn’t an amazing get, or a trick shot, but a winner at an angle you did not think was possible all while looking like there was not a drop of sweat on his brow from the effort.
Also, at one point his bio said the liked playing Tekken, which is one of my favorite video games so there is that
For me, Roger Federer is the Michael Jordan of tennis.
Michael Jordan elevated the game to a new level. Yes, we had Magic Johnson and many other great “showtime” players before Michael, but Michael’s arrival and superstardom showed the basketball could reach an all new level of talent. Players followed him, equalled him, maybe even surpassed him(Lebron? Kobe?), but Jordan is the most famous basketball player of all time.
Roger is the same for tennis. Nadal and Djokovic caught up to him in talent, maybe even surpassed him in some areas. But Roger Federer is the Michael Jordan(or maybe Babe Ruth?) of tennis. The most famous and greatest player.
I guess before Roger it was Rod Laver. Or maybe Bjorn Borg. Or possibly Pete Sampras. But it’s clear now that the only real conversation about best player is between Nadal, Djokvoic, or Federer. It’s no contest.
Well, Mahaloth said “in the conversation” - not that Sampras was definitively the GOAT at the time he retired. This was because the number of slams he won was significantly higher than any of those three, AND eclipsed Emerson’s record - it was the 2 together that put him at the top of a lot of people’s lists. Sure, you could argue that he was less entertaining to watch than his 3 great predecessors (though personally I always found enjoyment and beauty in the simplicity and effectiveness of his serve - plus he hit some running forehand winners to equal the best seen before or since), but in terms of greatness it will always be largely measured on titles won, and slams especially.
Now of course we have 3 players who have made a huge leap past Sampras’s numbers, and they were competing against each other most of the time - imagine how many slams one of them would have had, if the other 2 hadn’t been around at the same time? So the only serious conversation for GOAT is between those 3.
Like Mahaloth, I always hoped Roger would end up with the most slams (or at least equal), then in my mind there could be no doubt. Now that’s not going to happen, I may acknowledge that Rafa or Novak is the GOAT. Doesn’t really bother me - Roger is still my favourite, for the reasons already mentioned.
Awesome seeing my compatriot Felix Auger-Aliassime beat CA in the third set.
Heh, I guess the kid is human after all, after only four days previously had what I’m sure was a taxing US Open run.
Even cooler was the Canadian doubles team (FAA and Vasek Pospisil), and their third set comeback, to eventually win the tie over Spain, which is a pretty awesome accomplishment.
With a 2-0 record (also beating South Korea), they square off against Serbia today.
Great to finally see some genuinely strong Canadian international contenders, with FAA and the unfortunately-untempered Denis Shapovalov, but what the heck ever happened to Milos Roanic beats me - the only (not even recent) thing I’ve been able to hunt down was that he had to bow out of the 2022 Aussie Open due to a heel injury, but nothing since. (?) Maybe my google-fu is sucking.
There are six guys aged 40+ on the ATP rankings. Three of them were Challenger/Futures level players and only played a handful of ATP level tournaments. Of the others, two have retired in the last 12 months - Ivo Karlovic and Tommy Robredo - they never played Sampras anyway.
The last one left from that era is Feliciano Lopez, who played his first Slam in 2001, and was in a Slam draw along with Sampras on 4 occasions, but never played him.
Fernando Verdasco and Nadal started playing in 2003, the year after Sampras retired. Isner was a late bloomer; he started playing on the main tour in 2007.
It’s over for Roger. Surprisingly, he and Nadal lost, but I doubt too many people will remember much about the match other than it being Roger’s big final moment.
To a certain extent it is surprising, but on the other hand, Jack Sock is one of the best doubles players around even if he is technically a singles player. The score shows that it was close match, so that is good and he did not end on a missed volley or hitting it into the net.
What really bothers me is that I hear people talking about why tennis isn’t as popular as it should and can’t understand why. The answer is obvious, when you restrict how people can watch it, then it does not get exposure, which was the case here. I looked all the options I have and without having to sign up for yet another new service, there was no way to watch it live.
I guess it is appropriate, especially considering how hard they laughed together before:
I saw the speech too and it is great that he acknowledged Mirka, as he should have. She was his manager at the beginning of his career and really without her, there probably is no Federer, as least not the one that we got.
He has done on many occaisions of course, he’s been very open that without Mirka he couldn’t have had the career he’s had. But I think they always kept her purposefully more in the background, and his kids. This time is different of course so absolutely right for her to be down there with him.
To be honest, I get the impression that Mirka is very much in charge in that house. She seems like a formidable woman. I imagine she bollocks him if he loads the dishwasher incorrectly or forgets to say “please” in shops.
