[Lobowolf]

14-14 in the 5th set, and Roddick hasn't had his service broken yet?!

[P_Marlowe]

it is currently running.

[Lobowolf]

Guess I jinxed him.

[barmar]

I don't usually watch, but I caught your message just in time to watch the last game.

[Phil]

Yes that was something. Surprised Sampras and co were so hesitant to call him the best of all time.

Can't wait for Flushing Meadows. Andy really played out of his head.

[TimG]

I was struck by Roddick's classy, post-game, on-the-court interview.

[luke warm]

one of the best i've ever seen, and i've seen a lot of great matches... i think it's natural for each generation to think that the best of that generation is the best ever, but they might be right in roger's case

[gwnn]

Amazing stuff. Roddick was playing out of this world but it was just not enough.

Also maybe they should cut the fields in half to reduce the damage in the field

[Lobowolf]

Phil, on Jul 5 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

Yes that was something. Surprised Sampras and co were so hesitant to call him the best of all time.

Can't wait for Flushing Meadows. Andy really played out of his head.

I don't think he would have had a problem saying it if Laver weren't standing right there. I think that Sampras probably felt that it was Laver's place to make that declaration.

[vuroth]

Lobowolf, on Jul 5 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 5 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

Yes that was something. Surprised Sampras and co were so hesitant to call him the best of all time.

Can't wait for Flushing Meadows. Andy really played out of his head.

I don't think he would have had a problem saying it if Laver weren't standing right there. I think that Sampras probably felt that it was Laver's place to make that declaration.

Agree. Federer is the best I've seen (since Borg, anyways). I've heard people argue Laver should be clearly ahead, but I simply don't know.

I thought the final was slightly inferior to last year's, but it was still excellent.

I really thought Roddick was going to win.

V

[andrei]

Phil, on Jul 5 2009, 01:03 PM, said:

Yes that was something. Surprised Sampras and co were so hesitant to call him the best of all time.

Can't wait for Flushing Meadows. Andy really played out of his head.

Not really surprised. It is not sure he is the best player of his generation (Nadal anyone, what's their head to head record in GS finals?).

In my view (sure, lots of people will disagree) he was really lucky to have lived in an era full of not necessarily unskilled players, but mentally weak players. Remember how Roddick threw away the second set tiebreak, it was pathetic (especially the 6-5 unforced error).

Nadal is not as talented as Federer is, but is mentally stronger, and Roger wilted and cried a few times.

[vuroth]

andrei, on Jul 6 2009, 08:58 AM, said:

In my view (sure, lots of people will disagree) he was really lucky to have lived in an era full of not necessarily unskilled players, but mentally weak players. Remember how Roddick threw away the second set tiebreak, it was pathetic (especially the 6-5 unforced error).

Nadal is not as talented as Federer is, but is mentally stronger, and Roger wilted and cried a few times.

# All Matches: Nadal 13-7
# Grand Slam Finals: Nadal 5–2

Note that 4 of those GS finals were on clay.

Results on each court surface

* Clay courts: Nadal 9–2
* Hard courts: 3–3
* Grass courts: Federer 2–1

*************************************

FWIW, I think that Nadal is the second best tennis player since the Borg era (at least). I think Federer's level of competition is much higher than, say, Sampras'.

Nadal is absolutely unbelievable on clay. My understanding is that his game and athleticism are ideal for clay. I certainly don't hold Federer's record on clay vs Nadal against him.

Also, I think that Federer is at least 12 months past his peak now. He's not quite the player he once was, but he hasn't quite fallen back to the pack, either.

We're lucky as fans that Nadal and Federer's careers are going to partially overlap.

V

[andrei]

Actually Nadal beat Federer on Rolan Garros final only 3 times, he beat him once at Wimbledon and once at Australian Open, so on all 3 surfaces, as for Federer he only beat Nadal in finals on grass.

The level of competition is higher now than in Sampras era? That era you had the claycourt specialists - Bruguera, Kuerten (who, let's not forget, beat Federer at French 6-4,6-4,6-4 on 2004, a year when Roger won all other 3 majors) and the grass specialists - Ivanisevic, Becker, Krajicek and you can add a Rafter or Agassi.

How about now? 3 (THREE) years running same players reached the final at Roland Garros and Wimbledon!!! So you either have those 2 as the best players ever or the competition is very poor.

[Phil]

vuroth, on Jul 6 2009, 07:58 AM, said:

I really thought Roddick was going to win.

V

I wanted the other A-Rod to win, but Federer had no cracks in his game during the final set (unlike the previous ones). A lot of Federer's games were love, but Andy's were in jeopardy. He fell behind in a few and one near the end went to deuce.

Unless Andy got lucky at some point, Federer was going to win.

[jdonn]

It's so ridiculous when people claim now that the level of competition is not as high as in past generations. I have heard the same criticism about Tiger Woods. I go so far as to say it's patently absurd.

- All these sports have spread to more places in the world, expanding the pool of players.
- The world population itself is growing and thus more people are doing 'everything', thus like for the last point there will be more great (and bad, and every other level) of people doing everything.
- The science behind training methods, diets, etc has only improved over time.

If Federer (or Nadal, or Tiger) in his prime played anyone else from any other era they would SLAUGHTER them (even if you let them use the same equipment), it wouldn't even be close. Samprass may be an exception since he was relatively recent, but I doubt there is even a single other. This 'mentally weak' talk is people favoring their own eras due to personal bias, nothing more.

[andrei]

jdonn, on Jul 6 2009, 10:12 AM, said:

It's so ridiculous when people claim now that the level of competition is not as high as in past generations. I have heard the same criticism about Tiger Woods. I go so far as to say it's patently absurd.

- All these sports have spread to more places in the world, expanding the pool of players.
- The world population itself is growing and thus more people are doing 'everything', thus like for the last point there will be more great (and bad, and every other level) of people doing everything.
- The science behind training methods, diets, etc has only improved over time.

If Federer (or Nadal, or Tiger) in his prime played anyone else from any other era they would SLAUGHTER them (even if you let them use the same equipment), it wouldn't even be close. Samprass may be an exception since he was relatively recent, but I doubt there is even a single other. This 'mentally weak' talk is people favoring their own eras due to personal bias, nothing more.

You totally misunderstood my "level of competition" argument.

I am sure Federer would SLAUGHTER Borg or Laver or whatever, but this will never happen because they will never play against each other. So then how do they measure who is the GOAT: by the number of GS tournaments won. Was it easier for Federer to win GS that it was for Sampras? I'd say yes, because of the LEVEL OF COMPETITION (meaning the other tenismens) they had to face.

I just presented my arguments why I think it was more dificult to win GS tournaments 15 years ago as opposed to today, because then there were many players specialized on a single surface. Nowadays the claycourts are playing much faster then 15 years ago and the grass courts much slower. The grass from Wimbledon is not the fastest surface anymore, if you believe John McEnroe the surface from US Open is.

Lets look at todays "top" players. Davydenko was number 4 in the world in 2007 without reaching any final of any tennis tournament that year until late October in Moscow. Andy Roddick has only 4 wins against Top 10 players in slams for his whole carrer, 2 of them coming after his opponent retired.

I don't know if you played individual sports or not, but if you do not recognize the importance of mental factor I'd guess not.

[vuroth]

jdonn, on Jul 6 2009, 10:12 AM, said:

This 'mentally weak' talk is people favoring their own eras due to personal bias, nothing more.

Of course. How can it be anything BUT subjective?

(As an aside, I would included Agassi under the umbrella of "mentally weak" players.)

I think that's one of the appeal of sports talk - the subjective nature. The upside to it being impossible to be right is that it's also impossible to be wrong.

[vuroth]

Phil, on Jul 6 2009, 10:06 AM, said:

vuroth, on Jul 6 2009, 07:58 AM, said:

I really thought Roddick was going to win.

V

I wanted the other A-Rod to win, but Federer had no cracks in his game during the final set (unlike the previous ones). A lot of Federer's games were love, but Andy's were in jeopardy. He fell behind in a few and one near the end went to deuce.

Unless Andy got lucky at some point, Federer was going to win.

I was in and out doing yardwork, so I didn't see as much of the 5th set as I would have liked. Every time I popped my head in, Roddick's serve looked overpowering - Federer was lucky to get 2 touches 1 point out of 4.

It sounds like you were in a better position to judge than I was.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

It makes no sense to compare Federer with other players from the past,
because Federer uses the accumulated knowledge of the past.
He trains a certain way, and he uses a certain material, because in the
past certain materials / certain ways proved to be superior than others.

In chess, one tries to compare the current GM with the GMs of the past
via calculating historic ELO.
One usually forgets that most variations were discovered by GM from the
past, lost of recommendation made around 1920 are still valid.

Federer did something really remarkabble, but there will be successors.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

andrei, on Jul 6 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

Lets look at todays "top" players. Davydenko was number 4 in the world in 2007 without reaching any final of any tennis tournament that year until late October in Moscow.

Maybe he couldn't because Nadal and Federer are so great.

Quote

Andy Roddick has only 4 wins against Top 10 players in slams for his whole carrer, 2 of them coming after his opponent retired.

Maybe he doesn't have more because Nadal and Federer are so great.

It's a great big circular argument. Federer and Nadal are so great that they win almost everything, therefore other top players don't win very often, therefore their competition is bad, therefore they are not that great after all.

I consider a different argument based on logic. There are, say, 6.5 billion people on earth, and more of them play tennis than ever before. When Sampras was winning Wimbledon, there were, say, 5.0 billion people on earth, with a smaller percentage having availability to tennis. So who is more likely to be better. The best of 6.5 billion people with widespread availability and advanced training available, or the best of 5.0 billion people with less widespread availability, and less advanced training available? And if you need a tiebreaker, perhaps note that the first of those players is going to end up with a LOT (20?) more grand slam titles than the second of those players. How can anyone even dispute this?