[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by purk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Problem is that Federer will likely to dominate tennis game for at most 5 more years, while Tiger wood has several decades to do so.

5 more years....

No doubt about it IF we see these years with the actual players listing in mind. The problem is that in men tennis domination can be acheived by a 20 years guy. The next big one is, as we speak, probably completing his high school somewhere on this planet...

Amicalement

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by purk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Problem is that Federer will likely to dominate tennis game for at most 5 more years, while Tiger wood has several decades to do so.

though federer may indeed only dominate for another 5 years, he will most likely hit 20 grand slam titles and assuming he does, will certainly be considered the greatest of all time...i think it's cool that we get to witness federer and tiger doing their things...i'm not particularly a fan of either guy, but i wholly admire their talents...great stuff.

 

[TopShelf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Destroy is a big word....and dont forget that Sampras did all he could but he missed that one too.... And regarding Sampras's record, being only 25 it's looking extremely good for him. I'll go with a prediction: If he cant win the 6 remaining titles in the next 24 months he probably wont make it. Amicalement

I think Federer will win atleast one French title, and a good shot at many more.

its his weakest surface, yet this is what he has done
2004, 3rd round, 2005, Semi's, 2006, Finals

That is pure amazing, for your worst surface, and Sampras had ONE semi-final, and four quarter finals, in all his career. And Sampras never had a climax like Federer, of improving year in and year out, at the French.

Sampras had 10 titles, after 10 years of being pro
Federer has 9 titles, after 8 years of being pro

In my eyes, Federer has a 40% greater shot at 14 titles, then Sampras did, based on the ability to win the Austrailan Open and the French every year
Sampras only won two tites, on those surfaces his career

Id predict 20 titles by the time Federer hangs them up

 

[TopShelf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif 5 more years.... No doubt about it IF we see these years with the actual players listing in mind. The problem is that in men tennis domination can be acheived by a 20 years guy. The next big one is, as we speak, probably completing his high school somewhere on this planet... Amicalement

Or the next best thing, could be Andy Roddick, or Rafael Nadal or anyone, but because Federer is so good, they get ignored.

Just like Ernie Els in golf (a few years back) He had something like 6 possible Major tournement victories, IF Tiger Woods never came around to play. Of course its easier said then done, to predict what could of been, but the next best player, may be one of the best we ever see, yet Federer will not allow that to happen, since he is the best ever?

 

[purk]

I would love for him to be at the top for more than 5 years, but let's face it.....Federer is at or close to his peak right now. IMO, the key to Federer game is his movement...and when he hits 30...he will be slowing down. The true test for him will be another 3 to 5 years to come. I wonder how well can he plays at 28 or 30 years old.

 

[Xakepa]

I just saw the game.

How come noone gave Roddick credit for playing so well! He really does, look at forhands, his first serve is maybe 60-70% and he makes no unforced...I hate him as a player (powerhorse), but really felt sorry for him tonight...and the press-conference, he handeled it great

Dick and Merry really bugged me. The guy is kicking his ass, he's probably the best Fed's opponent on hardcourt, trying his best - and they constantly make fun of him...no class at all

 

[virometal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xakepa /img/forum/go_quote.gif but really felt sorry for him tonight..

I used to feel sorry for pro athletes. But then I realized, they're not turning down the paycheck or a chance to date Mandy Moore.

I watched a little. Federer is just another level. I don't like Andy up at the net; reminds when Lendl was trying to win Wimbledon and by playing a game he wasn't meant for. Roddick was a target for Federer up there.

IMO, Roddick is about as good as he's going to get.

 

[joneeboi]

I like Andy Roddick even though he isn't the best out there. Don't get me wrong, I love to watch Federer play and his numbers are Gretzky-like. The thing is that it's easier to cheer for the better player so I like to stick with the underdog. Andy is out there and he's struggling and he's improving but he'll never reach Federer unless Federer slows down and Roddick works even harder (if that's possible!). I think one reason I like Roddick is not so much his skill but what he represents in tennis. He's the guy that has some great strengths (a fast and wicked powerful serve) but his weaknesses outweigh them (mental game). Admittedly, he's not the best, but he's trying and he's getting more skilled. The only thing is that his rate of improval is different from Federer's. You can see when he drops a game or an easy shot that he gets down on himself really hard. I feel I'm similar to Roddick in that sense and that's why I like him.

 

[TopShelf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by purk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would love for him to be at the top for more than 5 years, but let's face it.....Federer is at or close to his peak right now. IMO, the key to Federer game is his movement...and when he hits 30...he will be slowing down. The true test for him will be another 3 to 5 years to come. I wonder how well can he plays at 28 or 30 years old.

I think his peak is a long way away. 27 on average, is your highest level of ability, in most sports, for males. And 28 or 29 is even up there, if your a well oiled machine, like Federer is.

Federer's peak, will be when he can no longer "improve" his skills, which is nowhere near

He has eight years atleast left in him, and what he does after the age of 31 or 32 is up to his body. Will he be the next Agassi and have a chance to win a Grand Slam at 35? Or will he be Kim Clisters, and retire in a year? time will tell

 

[purk]

Quote:

I think his peak is a long way away. 27 on average, is your highest level of ability, in most sports, for males. And 28 or 29 is even up there, if your a well oiled machine, like Federer is. Federer's peak, will be when he can no longer "improve" his skills, which is nowhere near He has eight years atleast left in him, and what he does after the age of 31 or 32 is up to his body. Will he be the next Agassi and have a chance to win a Grand Slam at 35? Or will he be Kim Clisters, and retire in a year? time will tell

The reason I said he is at his peak b/c I can't imagine he an play better than last night and I've been watching tennis seriously for the last 10 years. Also I was going based on Pete Samplas career so I figure he might slow down when he is 30 years old. I am wondering if Fed can win the French Open crow. If he can, he probably has nothing else to prove in exception to breaking Pete Samplas GS record. Anyone want to discuss whether Fed is playing in the weak era?

 

[m_memmory]

I'm not sure that Fed is playing in a weak tennis era. There are plenty of great tennis players around and young lads coming onto the scene who have potential all the time.

The difference is that Fed is just in a different class altogether.

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by purk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone want to discuss whether Fed is playing in the weak era?

I used to be invited to participated in a TV program produced by my tennis federation... my contribution? Tennis history....

What do you want to know?

OK I'm joking ( but I was realy the guest for that history segment

).

I'm afraid you have a point there. Some say that men's tennis is going through a slow decline for the past decade. I tend to share that opinion.
Many factors are at play here like the very long time it takes between the first $ invested in a youngster and the final (if ever) return on this investment.
That long time to produce a money maker player is not new but the alternative in lucratives sports activities are so much better these days.

Amicalement

 

[TopShelf]

Weak era? No
Not much drama, eliteness from a USA standpoint? Yes

Andy Roddick is a very good player, but he isn't a Agassi or Sampras. James Blake, is not an elite player, again, a very good player, but neither have a shot at doing what Aggassi or Sampras did
So from there, we were spoiled, assuming tennis needs to be how it was, with American talent. And if it isn't, its must be a decline?

I do think it could be ALOT better, if players like Hewitt and Safin, were at their highest peak, for a longer time. We are in a time (minus Federer) where players seemed to peak, and then injuries, or just less quality of play hit them.

Imagine Hewitt, Safin, Federer, playing at their highest level, at one certain point? It never happened. But could of.

Though, 8 or so years back, it did happen, with Agassi, Sampras, Courior etc, were peaking very close together

 

[purk]

Quote:

Imagine Hewitt, Safin, Federer, playing at their highest level, at one certain point? It never happened. But could of. Though, 8 or so years back, it did happen, with Agassi, Sampras, Courior etc, were peaking very close together

I wish Safin didn't get injured. IMO, he is the only player that can probably match Federer on shots making if his mind is working right that day. Hewit is impressive but not even up to Nadal's standard really.

 

[juzmister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by purk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wish Safin didn't get injured. IMO, he is the only player that can probably match Federer on shots making if his mind is working right that day. Hewit is impressive but not even up to Nadal's standard really.

Hewitt hasn't been playing well since his injury, and his family. Hewitt is not supposed to be a very nice man, but his tennis was incredible when he was back at number 1.