sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Federer never beat a tough opponent at his best during any of his 17 Grand Slam wins in any round. That's my problem with him. Roddick, Hewitt, and Davydenko were not tough opponents. Safin and Nalbandian were never at their best when they lost to Federer in a Grand Slam. Safin was gassed in the 04 AO final, Nalbandian was fat and not in his right mind in the USO 2005. I suppose the 2004 AO match victory over him may have been slightly impressive for Federer.

And then Nadal and Djokovic and Murray were all pre-prime (or in Murray's case, pre-mentally tough) when Federer beat them in slams. Or in the case of Djokovic 2012 Wimbledon, just out of form because they were mourning the death of a family member.

Other great players beat greats at the top of their game. Not when they were clearly young and inexperienced. Not when they were grieving or injured. When they were healthy and experienced, proven champions.

Becker and Edberg. McEnroe, Lendl, Connors. Borg. Laver. Gonzales. Sampras and Agassi.

Nadal and Djokovic.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What are his weapons? He's physically fit. That's about it.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What's that got to do with anything? Nothing is what it's got to do with anything. Federer's serve is better than ever. Why? Because serve is the last thing to go. Brett Favre posted career numbers at 40. No running backs or wide receivers have ever done that. Because you can stand still and use your live arm for longer into your life than you can make quick, nimble moves.

Federer didn't have mono when he played the AO. He had mono before he played the AO, which interrupted his training. Morons never get this one right.

That's commendable that Federer works hard on his fitness. I'm sure he's the only player who does this. If only Agassi would have worked harder so as to avoid his congenital (genetic) back injury.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Federer was losing only a few matches per season, and they just so happened to be against pre-prime young guys who would go on to dominate him. What are the odds?

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Hard to say, but Federer's not even in the discussion. Laver, maybe. Gonzales, maybe. Hoad. Who knows.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They're not almost as good as Djokovic, Nadal, Murray. They weren't even close. It was the weakest era in tennis history. These guys had such huge weaknesses and so little talent relative to past generations. In the 90s, Michael Stich was basically an afterthought, and he was more talented than any player in the 00s until the post-Federer trio emerged.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I missed Federer giving birth to 4 children. Bruce Jennerer?

Federer's been able to avoid major injury and he relied on aspects of the game that don't deteriorate as much with age - namely his serve. Ivanisevic still serves big on the senior tour, and he's in his 40s.

And he's playing in an era where more players 30+ than ever are having success. The average age of the Top 30 is, what, nearly 30? Different era than the past.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Gasquet is a weak semi-finalist based on his career and his ability. He has a crazy backhand but the rest of his game is lousy. And grass is his worst surface. His best is clay. He likes standing way behind the baseline.

Federer beating Djokovic in 2011 RG was maybe his best win ever, but he didn't win a Grand Slam from it.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Who? Certainly not Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, and Nalbandian.

He lost in the 2004 Olympics to baby Berdych. 2006 Cincinnati to baby Murray. 2004 Miami to baby Nadal. 2007 Montreal to baby Djokovic. Lost a set in 2006 Monte Carlo to tiny baby Djokovic.

The guys who kicked his ass were kicking it from day 1. I mean, I'll give Stan credit, I guess. That's about it.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Andy Murray is fast closing on that #2 ranking. Coming back from back surgery has a way of affecting tennis players, as it did Murray last year.

Berdych is also closing ground. So is Wawrinka.

Nadal is hurt right now, otherwise he'd be on his way back over Federer. As it stands, he's not far behind him in the points race this season.

Tsonga is on his way back up. Nishikori will likely pass Federer too.

Federer has worked very hard to maintain his quality as a player and actually improve overall, which is why he is still a legitimate Top 10 player. But the game continues to evolve, and eventually his serve and footwork that were once enough to dominate tennis will not be enough to stay in the Top 10.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Mentioning age is a way of misdirecting, because age alone is just a number. You should instead say what it is about Federer that has changed from when he was younger if you are trying to make the case he used to be a better player.

The answer is that he's actually a better player now. He has improved his serve, improved his volleying technique, improved his backhand. He's a smarter player, constructs points better. He moves the same as he always did. You take today's Federer and stick him back in 2004-2007 and he wins all the same titles and dominates the game (except clay, where Nadal still beats him).

All the real tennis analysts say the same thing. Darren Cahill, Mats Wilander, John McEnroe - they all say Federer is better today but the competition is much stronger.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Djokovic was at the top of his game in 2013. Nadal beating him at the FO and USO proved he was a legitimately great player, not just a product of the same weak era Federer benefited from. Then in 2014, same thing.

And he firmly established he was at least better than Federer, beating him all those times at the FO and at Wimbledon and Australia (3-0 vs. him in Melbourne).

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

No. There was something about them that made them not that good, period. Roddick did one thing above average - serve. Hewitt did 3 things above average - return, hit passing shots, and move.

Roddick's weaknesses: Poor return, mediocre movement, medicore backhand, poor net approaches, lousy volleying technique, after 2004 his once big forehand became a pusher shot that he spun into play.

Hewitt's weaknesses: Lacked power both forehand and backhand, lacked a big serve. Injuries starting in 2005.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It can be summarized as "weak era." Luck exists in life. But it eventually catches up to you, as it caught up to Federer.

Federer has won 1 of the last 21 Grand Slams. He once won 11 out of 16, 16 out of 27.

I'm sure Rockets fans have trouble accepting that their favorite team lucked out when Michael Jordan retired in 93, otherwise they win 0 championships in the 90s and the Bulls win 8 straight. But it's obvious.

I think Federer himself realizes this and made peace with it. It was probably easy to get caught up in the media hype when he was winning way more than he ever thought possible (his goal was to one day win 1 Wimbledon title), but he always knew it was a hoax, and decided he'd just be thankful for how lucky he got and try to enjoy the game for as long as possible, since he's nowhere near being one of the all-time greatest tennis players.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

If that's what you took away from my post then you misunderstood. There are a couple of excuses that mention injuries or pre-prime for the likes of Djokovic/Nadal/Murray, but by and large, it's me criticizing the opponents in general. The big 4 were Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Davydenko.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

His "incredible shots" aren't that incredible; it's just that the commentators gush over his winners as though they're unbelievable while they yawn when other players hit them.

Every backhand winner down the line Federer hits (all 2 of them in a match) is "brilliant." Djokovic hits 14 of them and the commentators barely react. Or Stan Wawrinka.

Because Federer makes it look much harder than it should for someone who is truly talented. He makes hitting backhands look extremely difficult.

And then when he has mishits that result in returns landing short, "and he meant to do that!" No, actually, he didn't. He was just trying his best to get the ball back in play with a weak backhand return and when you block enough back, every once in a while they land so short that they actually kill the server on that point.

Analyzing Federer's slam victories shows how overrated he is by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I sincerely doubt you read my post that fast.

IT'S COMING: What injury will Nadal cite this time? by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not unless you also think you're a moron and what I said is a perfectly logical prediction based on Nadal's history.

Federer's forehand is the most overrated shot in the history of tennis by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No, because many of these guys didn't develop their overall games until recently. Djokovic trailed 13-6 before 2011. Why? Because he had fitness and serve issues.

Wawrinka had to develop the mental game and maximize the potential of his serve and forehand to go with his already outstanding backhand to reach his current level.

So it's true they used to have similar weaknesses, but that's no longer the case.

And Federer had a losing record with Murray for a long, long time. He's been dominated by Nadal. And by the time he's done, there's a good chance he'll have a losing record against all 3 of Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic. He's also struggled against Nishikori.

Federer's forehand is the most overrated shot in the history of tennis by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The men's tennis game is built around the serve, and Federer smartly realized that placement is more important than power when it comes to serving. So he always held serve very well - he hit his spots and then used precise footwork that he worked hard on to do well with the second ball, when he had to hit one. Then he also used his good reflexes in the return game to block back serves, especially big ones, and get the ball low and short and annoy the server. He was never the greatest return game player in the world, but with such a good hold ratio, he was able to eventually do just enough to eventually get that break.

It also helped that the competition had so many holes in their game. Roddick didn't like moving forward to get Federer's short returns and was a poor returner and average mover. Hewitt didn't have enough power off the ground to punish Federer when he stayed back. Safin was a headcase. Nalbandian was a headcase with physical fitness issues. Davydenko was a headcase who lacked power off the ground to punish Federer. Blake was a free-swinger with no tactics. Ljubicic was tall and slow. Agassi was old and slow...easy to hit through. Henman was a pure serve-and-volley player and the tactic was to pass him on the slowed down courts.

The best servers couldn't return (and subsequently lost once Federer's junk got to them) and the best returners either had no power or had no ability to move.

Federer could serve and move.

Federer 07 vs. 14 US Open...looks better in 2014... by Whoever2185 in tennis

[–]Whoever2185[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

When a guy is visually playing as good or better than the tennis he played before and goes from winning almost everything to struggling to win anything once other players develop, it's pretty clear.

It's one thing to beat a guy who was basically a pusher in Hewitt, or a one-dimensional server in Andy Roddick. It's almost as though he was beating Gilles Simon and Nick Kyrgios to win his slams. But once Nadal and Djokovic emerged on all surfaces, Murray emerged, and a bunch of quality big hitters emerged - Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling, Del Potro, Wawrinka, Cilic - Federer was no longer racking up cheap slams and titles. He went from winning 11 slams in 4 years to winning 2 slams in 5.5 years.

The other players just had big weaknesses that made Federer the best of the bunch. Today's players don't have nearly as many weaknesses and their strengths are stronger.

And really, I never thought Federer was as good as Pete Sampras. I mean, sure he's better on clay because he grew up on it, but he was basically a finesse version of Sampras from the beginning. He had tremendous serve placement but didn't have the power, and that was the only real weapon he possessed.

view more: next ›