Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Interests > Tilted Sports


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-07-2008, 01:54 PM   #1 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
Does Federer have to beat Rafa in his prime at Roland Garros to be the best ever?

i think Roger has done most things now - he has won as much money and glory out of the game as he could ever need or use.

He has shown proven himself as the greatest player of his generation

He is capable of playing shots again and again which only exist in the imagination of 99.9% of professional players who have ever been in the sport.

I think, health permitting, the all time grandslam record is there for the taking for him if he wants to play on and take it.

But to be the best ever, it is my opinion that he needs to beat Nadal in France.

It isnt straightforward: Agassi won all 4, and no serious fan would say Agassi was at the same level as Roger - and we know Andre would have been dismissed by Nadal on the clay... but all sports are defined by the great occasions, and Roger has only won three of the four. Agassi won all 4.

I think Federer plays the game at a level no other player has reached before, but taking into account the changes in equipment, the devlopment of the game: he needs the French to take the next step to place in himself in a different league to anyone else who has ever played the game- and he needs it against Rafa (who is himself a master and one of the all time greats already) - imo anyway.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 06-07-2008, 04:43 PM   #2 (permalink)
The Reverend Side Boob
 
Bear Cub's Avatar
 
Location: Nofe Curolina
I don't think so.

He's already in that Tiger Woods realm. If Federer loses, it's not a question of how well the other person played, it's "what did he do wrong?"

He's going to win at RG sooner or later, and it really doesn't matter who its against. Nobody will remember the win as the one that put him over that point, just a matter of crossing the t's and dotting the i's in a book that's already been written.
__________________
Living in the United Socialist States of America.
Bear Cub is offline  
Old 06-07-2008, 05:25 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Hektore's Avatar
 
Location: Greater Harrisburg Area
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Cub
If Federer loses, it's not a question of how well the other person played, it's "what did he do wrong?"
Except against Nadal in France. Which is, I think, Strange Famous' point. I don't know if he needs to do it to be the best ever, put any other 'best ever' contender against Nadal at RG and ask if they could do it? I have no idea.

It would seem that the question is: "Do you have to be the best ever on every surface, to be the best ever?" In a technical sense, I suppose no. But to achieve truly legendary status, not just amongst tennis fans but to the world as a whole, I think he does. And the way things are now, I think he'll have to do it more than once to really get beyond 'fluke' status.
__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.
Hektore is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 06:39 AM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
I don't think he needs to beat Nadal specifically - Nadal may well be the best clay court player of all time and it's just a bit of bad luck (for both of them really) that they've both shown up at the same time as neither has a lot of luck against the other on the different surfaces.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 07:37 AM   #5 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
I'm sorry SF, but very few if any at all, tennis players, stack up to the talent in the 70's and early 80's.

Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Nastase, Ashe, Lendl. Anyone of those in their prime taking on todays players, including Federer would crush them. The field and talent pool were far deeper back then, so it made the accomplishments of winning even more spectacular. Today, the talent isn't there.

It's like any sport, the deeper the talent pool, the easier you can ask.... hmmm is he the best ever? Today in tennis...... that question cannot be asked in any way shape or form in todays tennis world, because the talent is non existent.

Does Federer see a Lendl in the quarters, then a Mcenroe in the semis and face a Borg in the finals? NOPE. Not even close.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 04:28 PM   #6 (permalink)
Registered User
 
radioguy's Avatar
 
Location: Texas
yes he does...you can't be the best ever if you can't win on every surface.
radioguy is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 06:29 PM   #7 (permalink)
Currently sour but formerly Dlishs
 
dlish's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Australia/UAE
apparently not. it was a slaughterhouse!

lendl won on every surface but wimbeldon. i still think he came close to being the best ever at acertan period. the start of the end for him was losing to pat cash in 87 wimbeldon.

this is demorilizing for federer and i dont think he'll beat nadal in france on clay.

pan you forgot edberg and becker era towards mid to late lendl career
__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy
dlish is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 10:25 PM   #8 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlish
apparently not. it was a slaughterhouse!

lendl won on every surface but wimbeldon. i still think he came close to being the best ever at acertan period. the start of the end for him was losing to pat cash in 87 wimbeldon.

this is demorilizing for federer and i dont think he'll beat nadal in france on clay.

pan you forgot edberg and becker era towards mid to late lendl career

Good point with Stefan and Boris. I think they were just as the peak was reached. I lost interest about midway through the 90's Sampras and Agassi were good and a few others but there weren't any true "great matchups". It wasn't like waking up on Wimbolden Sunday or US Open Sunday to watch Connors/McEnroe/Borg/ and so on. They had fun, played hard and I was glued to every point. To every McEnroe outburst, to Connors being the original brat, to the sheer elegance that was Borg. That was tennis. Lendl's methodical wear you opponent down play.

None of that exists today. It's not fun to watch anymore. It's just "tennis" now. Shame really, such a great sport that peaked and never recovered.

But then again, it culd just be there aren't any USA players to root for.

Even the women's with Evonne Goolagong, Navritlova, Evert, Tracy Austin, that was fun. They went farther with Seles, but once she was stabbed women's tennis declined.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 05:41 AM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467

But then again, it culd just be there aren't any USA players to root for.
I think that is the case for American viewers - just because one or two players are dominant does not mean that the players of yesterday were any better. I think even Connors (although it might have been McEnroe, I forget) admitted he'd get squashed by the likes of Nadal or Federer - the game is evolved, it is different.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 06-09-2008, 10:20 AM   #10 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
Lendl and Connor I wouldnt even place in the same league as Federer. You could make an argument maybe for Borg.

Tennis is so hard to judge across periods because of the differences in equipment though.

If you hit the ball on the forehand like Rafa Nadal does it would break your arm.

===========

Edit

Seriously, do you think McEnroe could take even a set of Federer at Wimbledon, in his prime, any time in thel ast 3 years?

Could Lendl have taken the French Open in a final against Nadal?
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Last edited by Strange Famous; 06-14-2008 at 02:24 PM..
Strange Famous is offline  
 

Tags
beat, federer, garros, prime, rafa, roland

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:31 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360