Topic: I gaurantee Roger Federer will win the Grand Slam next year!

[GRAF_SAMPRAS1]

Roger has competition and most of them are not mentally weak. Lets face it you just dont like him, that is obvious just from reading your posts, and dont like that he is going to break Sampras's records and would rather somebody else be winning as he gets closer to taking those records away.

======

no dear.

I COULDN"T CARE LESS if roger wins 100 majors.

what I don't like is the HYPE based on a dominance over a CLEARLY weak period in tennis.

little by little -- unless you have MISSED IT -- the pundits that jumped onto his bandwagon early are realizing and remarking that --- as connors put it:

"ROGER IS SURROUNDED BY PLAYERS WHO JUST LET HIM RUN AWAY WITH IT.....HE COULDN'T BE IN A BETTER POSITION....IF I WAS ROGER, I WOULD BE VERY , VERY GRATEFUL".

OR

as McEnroe said on BBC radio THIS year in wimbledon -- when pressed by difference callers to QUITE sidestepping the issue:

"WE HAVE TO ADMIT that there really isn't ALL that great a competiiton nowadays, especially at the top".

"Pete just ahd that much bigger of a game than roger. and at their peaks, Pete would beat roger -- pete just wouldn't permit roger to get comfortable at all."

"I maintain that the game that I played -- a mixed game , an attacking game -- which pete player much bigger and better than me -- would beat the best baseliner -- and roger is a baseliner".


little reported -- of course -- but I heard it myself, live. i was laughing so hard because McEnroe tried for a whole half hour to say it-= untlil different callers cornered him and told him basically :

"we've watched all these players since borg or laver and we live around here -- just stop beating around the bush and say what you REALLY think" and gave McEnroe -- separately

3 crucial question:

"IS roger's competition REALLY that good?"

"What would YOU do if you played today , with the raquets, young again, against ROger?"

"AT their peaks -- who would win, Roger or Pete?"


anyone can check with BBC if they keep these in Archives.

it was a radio -= live call in session just after a semis match of roger, i believe.

in the end -- mcenroe - one of the leading voices about how "good roger is and the best ever"


eventually had to ADMIT the TRUTH that HE and many of them CLEARLY are sitting on ....

it only takes a PRECISE questioning to put them on the hotspot. to be as firthright as

say -- WILANDER? or CONNORS?


and stop avoiding to "rock the boat" shall we say?

the "boat" being "roger is the best ever, and has such GREAT competition".

and boromir just put a quote there -- i didn't even realize Wilander added that recently:

at their best "if you are talking about the level pete played when he played well -- there is no way roger would beat him".


there is a little noticed remark or , rather, REACTION -- of roger that is UNCHARACTERISTICALLY lacking in CONFIDENCE


when he was asked pointedly once -- this year:

"Roger with all your accomplishments now and everyone talking about how good you are -- who do you think is really better? you or pete?"

Roger:

took some moments to answer, nd haltingly -- very uncharacteristic of him -- responded :

"aaa..uhm. well.....i don't know, you have to ask others, aaaa......mmm ...welll.... maybe him... i don't know, i don't know".

NO ROGER DEAR -- YOU DO KNOW -- you were taken aback by how DIRECT THE QUESTION was laid TO YOU just when EVERYONE thinks YOU are and you began to BELIEVE the hype!

but deep in your consciousness you KNOW you ARE lucky to have met pete OR many of his rivals in their DECLINE


along with so many6 mediocrities and burnouts surrounding you !




do i "hate roger?:"

nope -- i simply abhor the HYPE!


NOT!!

[craighickman]

2007 will be tougher year for Rog than this year was for various reasons:

1. Roddick was nowhere near his best tennis for 1st half of the year but he is a different player right now. He pretty much outplayed Roger (who played very well too) at TMC but choked when he had matchpoints..  He will be pushing Roger hard next year.

2. Safin getting back to form (slowly) after a very miserable year. Here is another player who can challenge Roger if playing his best stuff.

3. Gasquet, Baghs, Murray, Djokovic, Berdych all will be 1 year older and more mature and physically stronger next year. Some of them (Gasquet, Murray and Berdych) already beaten Roger and are very hungry for success.

4. Nadal still unbeaten on clay since?? what seems like forever. Someone will have to take him out at RG for Roger to win it.



So, thats my take on it, I still think Roger will finish as number 1 but something tells me he won't  win all 4 majors (maybe 2) and won't have 8000 + ranking points at the end of it.

Even a 2 slam year is a great year for any player.  Federer has been so solid that we expect so much.  If he can take home 2 slams next year that would be sweet!  If he can take more than that it would be bonus.  I agree that Nadal will need eliminated (or injured) for Federer to wint he FO.  But if either was the case people would SMASH Federer for winning the FO without beating the best clay courter at the time.  

Safin is always so unpredictable.  So much so that I really to not like him all that much.  His game is nasty but it sucks to wonder which Safin will show up each match.

I do not think we will see Roddick beating Federer in a best of 5 set match, meaning the slams.  After this last match he has to be crushed.  I am sure he will keep fighting, but this last match probably hurt more than it helped.  (I am completely guessing on this one).

I agree he will have his hands full with the players you listed in item 3.  Federer has gotten better too, so it will all be interesting...   I am looking forward to 2007!

Scott, we're all completely guessing. But I agree with Vlad's points. And as for Roddick: I think it helped far more than it hurt, given his physical (broke bag of racquets) and verbal ("I shoulda beaten Roger in Shanghai") response to it. I also seem to remember Hewitt defeating Federer after Federer blew a considerable lead and Roger was so crushed he never lost to Hewitt again. While I'm not suggesting Andy will dominate Roger next year, or any year, in that way, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see him defeat Federer in an important match. Even at a slam, say, perhaps, Wimbledon where Andy is VERY popular and after the 2004 final, the crowd applauded for him as much as, if not more than, they did Federer. Roddick will also want to prove his early loss last year was an aberration. I'm guessing, of course. But I think most objective fans (oxymoron?) might see the possibility therein.

[GRAF_SAMPRAS1]

THERE is in fact a lesson to be gleaned from "hurtful" defeats -- and obviously we are tlaking about those where it seems clear - from the standpoint of the losing player as well as the audience witnessing that a particular defeat or in this case "set of defeats" ==

could actually be a point from which a player "changes" something in his career.

of course that will and has not happened all the time -- but there is no reason why it should not happen with a player like roddick, for example.

it is, imo, pure BUNK to rely on :"roger is so good -- that he hurts a player SO much that the player will NEVER recover".



a long ago example of a "very hurtful" defeat that made great change:

Pete Sampras ascribes his subsequent "roll" in the maturing of his career to his "bitter defeat" to Stefan Edberg in 1992 USO finals.

it followed a series of defeats to other players AFTER pete had also put himself in position to win , for a full 2 years since 1990.

sampras recognized then that "i was just satisfied with being somewhere in the top ten...i didn't really take it that hard losing ...i was happy enough to just coast along...but when I found myself again in position to win another major -- and lost that to Stefan -- i realized i hated nothing more than losing....and that changed my career. i vowed that I won't settle than for being the best".

can the same thing happen to others? to Roddick? who knows?

but the POINT is -- "being roger" or "roger is so good' to prevent such things - times of "change" - for other players is not exactly the be-all and end-all of tennis.

THERE is the other factor besides "roger".


it is called -- THE OTHER PLAYER.

Edberg enjoyed a run of 2 USO titles (91-92) and the "other player" was sampras who failed to deliver against then -world number one edberg.

it became a moment that summarized pete's previous 2 years - a FAILURE, an ALSO-RAN.

it doesnt matter what the difference is between then and now - or that pete did not have a 1-12 record against edberg. and roddick has.

but that a POINT comes when a player can be affected in a way that makes a difference -- either to fall FURTHER and in fact never recover--or to rebuild from it, as pete did.

there is no reason, imo , that the DECIDER of this is "only roger". so long as
"the other" has shown to be capable of "putting himself in position" --

whether it was pete then -- or stefan in his turn, or agassi, or even ROGER in HIS turn when HE was a punching bag for others like Hewitt....

OR

Roddick.

[John Mcenroe]

I think Fed is not going to win next year.....

Or I just hope hes not...

[sykotique]

There's no doubt in my mind Roddick can beat Federer...after all, the head-to-head is 12-1, not 12-0.

BUT...Roger being defeatable is not really a question. Everyone knows he can be beaten. But for him to be beaten, certain things have to be going in your favour, especially if he's near his best:

1. If it's not one of your best surfaces, Federer WILL beat you. Simple. I can't recall Federer losing to anyone on a surface that didn't suit their game, for e.g. Nadal on clay and slow hardcourts. He's such a versatile all-court player than if you're not one of the best on that surface, he'll blow you off the court. I think it is reasonable to say that Federer will never lose to Roddick on clay and never lose to Nadal on grass. You might tell me not to say things like "never" but let's be serious...the only guy who can beat Federer on clay right now is one of the best claycourters and the last guy to beat him on grass was serve-and-volleyer Mario Ancic. He also almost lost to Roddick on the indoor surface in Shanghai, which best suits Andy's extremely big serve. So if Federer does lose to someone, it will have to be against someone who knows the court better than he does.

2. The most effective part of your game must be firing, for e.g. Roddick's serve in Shanghai, Nadal's powerful topspin to Federer's backhand and his ability to run down everything. If your most powerful weapon ain't working...fuhgeddaboudit.

3. Federer, like Tiger Woods in his red shirt with a lead, seems to up the ante on Sundays. There's just something about a final that starts churning the bagels and breadsticks in his eyes. So my advice? Be religious and pray the draw allows you to meet him at the very least before the semis or quarters, where he's more vulnerable. Federer hates losing, but he especially hates losing when it matters most and everyone knows how bitter it was for him when Rafa prevented him from not only holding all 4 Grand Slam titles at the same time, but also the potential calendar slam that would have been achieved had he not lost. He knows that had he won that, the comparisons with Pete would have ended once and for all.

4. If you make errors, don't get frustrated. Errors are a part of the game. Your footwork won't be perfect all the time and your hand-eye can go off, but remember - when Roger shanks a backhand, he's not thinking, "s**t, I just missed an easy winner." He's actually thinking, "Hmmm. That's something to practice on after I win this match." And he proceeds to do so. In short, your mental game must be on.

5. Don't showboat. Federer may seem like a gracious guy on the court, but there's nothing gracious about his game. It's opportunistic and punishing. If he sees you trying to hotdog on him, he'll make it a mission to end the match in the next 25 minutes. With a bagel.

[temper27]

Roger has competition and most of them are not mentally weak. Lets face it you just dont like him, that is obvious just from reading your posts, and dont like that he is going to break Sampras's records and would rather somebody else be winning as he gets closer to taking those records away.

======

no dear.

I COULDN"T CARE LESS if roger wins 100 majors.

what I don't like is the HYPE based on a dominance over a CLEARLY weak period in tennis.

little by little -- unless you have MISSED IT -- the pundits that jumped onto his bandwagon early are realizing and remarking that --- as connors put it:

"ROGER IS SURROUNDED BY PLAYERS WHO JUST LET HIM RUN AWAY WITH IT.....HE COULDN'T BE IN A BETTER POSITION....IF I WAS ROGER, I WOULD BE VERY , VERY GRATEFUL".


blah blah blah blah for about 100 line



do i "hate roger?:"

nope -- i simply abhor the HYPE!


NOT!!

If Roger breaks Pete's biggest records most people will regard him as the best ever, it does not matter if you think his competition is weaker or not sorry to break to you.   Since Roger looks well on his way to breaking Pete's biggest records he is thus well on his way to being the best ever probably, although dont count the chickens before they hatch, it is sport and anything can happen, even in the world of "such weak" competition you harp on.   Ignoring that reality that the comparision between the two will come down to numbers, and almost strictly number, and that Roger has a good shot in that category, and simply dismissing all his wins by virtue of you thinking his competition is weaker is living in your own little world.

As for the quoted Connors coaches Roddick, so what do you think he is going to say about Federer.   He isnt going to gush over the #1 guy when he is coaching one of his rivals, duh!     Connors claims Federer's competition rolls over for him, but he also picked Federer to lose in the quarters or semis of almost every slam while he was a commentator so his credability is down the toilet, and he sounds little more then a jaded old man, which he always pretty much sounded like.  Wilander is a nutcase who is quoted saying stupid things all the time, and has been a drug addict many a times since leaving the tour.    

I could quote John Barrett, Nick Bolliteri, Rod Laver, among others saying they believe Roger is on his way to being the best player ever, they speak nothing to the things you are referring to.    

Roger faced a bunch of headcases and Pete did not?   ROTFL!  Krajicek, Stitch, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, were some of the biggest flakes I have ever seen who made todays top tenners look like killers by comparision.     Chang was just a weaker version of Hewitt.   Muster was a weaker version of Nadal.   Agassi was the up and down enigma during Sampras's reign of 93-98 that Safin is now, the only difference is he probably wont have the resurgence from ages 29-33 to end with a career like Agassi's but during Sampras's prime Agassi was not much different then Safin today.   Becker and Edberg were on their way down when Pete first came to the top also so no difference there.    Courier had 1 good year, Pete's first year on top in 1993, then went downhill starting in 94 also.

Yeah Roger probably feels he is so lucky to not play an Agassi who in 93 dropped out of the top 20 and lost in the first round of the U.S Open, or the Agassi in 96 who lost in 2 slam semis in 3 straight sets to Chang and lost in the early rounds of the other 2 slams to two journeymen outside the top 50, or lucky that he did not play Agassi in 1997 where he was playing challengers ranked outside the top 100 at years end, or Agassi in 98 where he did not even make the quarters of a slam event.    He also probably feels lucky he did not play Muster, a weaker Nadal, or Chang at best another Hewitt the same Hewitt he toys around with.    He must feel fortunate he does play a Roddick wannabee like Ivanisevic except mentally much weaker and with a weaker ground game then Roddick has.   He probably feels super fortunate he did not have to confront such flakes like Stich, Krajicek, or Kafelnikov as well.    So so lucky is Roger.  

[temper27]

Also I cant help but be amused how someone who calls himself GRAF_SAMPRAS fan would be one looking to downplay Federer's greatness due to cheap assed excuses of his "too weak" competition.   Mrs. Steffi Graf had the lamest competition imaginable, Navratilova and Evert both over 30 yet still ranked #2 and #3 or #2 and #4 in the World at all times during Steffi's 87-89 dominance.   30 year old Navratilova actually laying a beatdown on primed Graf in both the 87 Wimbledon and U.S Open finals and narrowly losing the French Open final on her own worst surface by far.   Actually despite playing 13 of her 18 matches vs Mrs. Steffi Graf after she had turned 30 years old Navratilova managed to end her career with a 9-9 head to head with Graf.   In fact despite 3 of their 5 meetings at the U.S Open coming after Navratilova had turned 30, and a 4th a mere 2 months before she turned 30 Navratilova racked up a dominant 4-1 head to head with Mrs. Steffi Graf at the U.S Open.    Navratilova from ages 34-47, her final four years on tour played Mrs. Steffi Graf 4 times and Graf went an embarassing 2-2 vs the legend in her mid 30s.     Despite 7 of her 9 meetings with Graf in Grand Slams being after she had turned 30 Navratilova managed a 5-4 winning head to head with Graf in Grand Slams.   Later on young teenage sensation Monica Seles comes along and puts Steffi Graf in her place, winning 7 of the 8 slams she plays from 1991 to 1993 before being stabbed in the back, giving Graf clear access to pile up the titles vs such sharks as Sanchez Vicario and Martinez, the #2 and #3 players most of Seles's time away, the moonballing queens.   Monica goes 3-1 vs Graf in Grand Slam finals from 1990 to 1993 as well, making Graf a distant #2 while still in her prime.   After the stabbing which cleared the path for Graf to win so many slams vs opponents like Sanchez Vicario and Martinez, Monica comes back about 30 pounds heavier then she used to bet, having been out of competition for 28 months, with tendinitis in her knee and still takes Mrs. Steffi Graf to an incredably tough 3 set U.S Open final where she bagels Graf 6-0 in the 2nd set and mainly loses only due to fatigue.  In fact a controversial line call which multiple replays shows an ace clearly in on set point in the 1st set was the only thing saving Graf from the humiliation of losing 7-6, 6-0 to a rival still severely out of shape and 28 months out of competitive tennis.  At the previous event Seles won the tier 1 event 6-1, 6-0 after 28 months away and in her shoddy physical shape, further exposing the incredably lame assed field Graf benefited from her entire career pretty much.  

You see more then one can play at your little game sir.

[craighickman]

I've said it before and I mean it again: Federer's dominance bores me. His "competition" frustrates me because most of his challengers ARE weak-minded. I don't compare eras. I'm not a Sampras fan. Lendl was my favorite player, and he was a weak-minded choker for the better part of his early career. My point: players CAN overcome their demons. I'm hoping that those with the talent and potential to win majors do just that in 2007.

History will write the right record on Roger Federer. I'll allow it to do so.

But for the present: Federer IS lucky to be in the position he's in. And Connors' statement about Roger and the field came before he was invited into Roddick's camp, not after. From where I sit, getting your slam predictions wrong doesn't mean that everything out of your mouth lacks credibility. And Connors isn't the only one who has expressed such an observation about the current group of top players. In fact, Roger Federer himself has said much of the same thing. You might have to piece together his interviews to read it, you might not (hasn't Roger said more than once that his chief nemesis is one-dimensional???), but it's all there for the seeing if you care to see it.

[temper27]

Actually the last 3 years it has been pointed out by tennis fans I know who have heard Connors commentary that he has been predicted by Connors to lose in the quarters or semis of both Wimbledon and the U.S Open the last 3 years.   Alot of those were to Hewitt in fact, some to even lower ranked players.    Right off the bat you have more then suffiicent evidence he has extreme bias against Federer to with such regularity predict him to lose before finals, secondly it contradicts his ridiculous statements of Roger having no competition as his competition is tough enough for him to predict him to go out before the finals each time.    Thirdly it is quite possable Connors had his eye on Nadal or Roddick as his pupil well before he began to coach Roddick.

So if players besides Roger dont win slams in 2007, because you believe they have the talent and ability that they should be beating Roger, which may be your own very biased opinion, it proves they must be mentaly weak and thus his competition must be weak.   What hogwash.

[craighickman]

Actually the last 3 years it has been pointed out by tennis fans I know who have heard Connors commentary that he has been predicted by Connors to lose in the quarters or semis of both Wimbledon and the U.S Open the last 3 years.   Alot of those were to Hewitt in fact, some to even lower ranked players.    Right off the bat you have more then suffiicent evidence he has extreme bias against Federer to with such regularity predict him to lose before finals, secondly it contradicts his ridiculous statements of Roger having no competition as his competition is tough enough for him to predict him to go out before the finals each time.    Thirdly it is quite possable Connors had his eye on Nadal or Roddick as his pupil well before he began to coach Roddick.

So if players besides Roger dont win slams in 2007, because you believe they have the talent and ability that they should be beating Roger, which may be your own very biased opinion, it proves they must be mentaly weak and thus his competition must be weak.   What hogwash.

Temper, don't have a tantrum, honey.

All opinions are biased. That's what makes them opinions. Your opinion is no more valid than mine, and vice versa.

But I challenge you to read and/or listen to Federer's own words about his competition. Then there will be no reason to argue about what Connors, or anyone else for that matter has said, and what his motivation might or might not be.

Sure, you'll want a link, but I don't have it because I heard it in a television interview (he may have repeated it in a post-match interview, but again, no link from me so take it or leave it.) Anyway, as for just one example (to go along with his "one-dimensional" archrival) when Federer was asked how he dominated Wimbledon in 2005 and won so easily he replied: "Because the field is so weak."

That's pretty clear, at least from where I sit.

[kittens25]

Connors to talk about Federer's weaker competition is particularly a joke.  Look at who Connors had his greatest success in winning slams against:

1974-he beat a 39 year old Ken Rosewall in both the Wimbledon and U .S Open finals, and Phil Dent in the Australian Open final.

1975-he did not get so fortunate to play his 3 slam finals against a 39 year old or a 1-time slam finalist and this time lost all 3.    His losses in the Australian Open, Wimbledn, and U.S Open finals were as follows, one to 1-time slam winner Manuel Orantes, one to Arthur Ashe, and one to John Newcombe.    

1976-1981-With Borg's emergence, Vilas coming in as a threat, and McEnroe later emerging Connors managed a mere 2 Grand Slam titles during this period of 6 years.

1982-1983-Connors had a late career resurgence and won his final 3 slam titles.    Aided by Borg's sudden retirement as he had not beaten Borg in a Grand Slam event(or barely anywhere) since 1978, and also aided by instead of McEnroe in 2 of them were U.S Open finals he played Ivan Lendl who early in his career was one of the biggest slam final chokers EVER.   In the U.S Open final of 83 Lendl served for the 3rd set and lost 9 straight games.    I will give him kudos for beating McEnroe in the 82 Wimbledon final, but McEnroe in his book said he found his level and motivation waned severely in 1982 once Borg left, and it was so hard for him to play that year.

So Connors wins 3 of his slams right away in a year he plays a 39 year old man in 2 slam finals, and a 1-time slam finalist one-trick pony(serve)in the other.    Then Connors loses all 3 of his slam finals the following year where the quality of his opposition is mixed-great champion Newcombe, great player but not all-timer(tennis wise)Ashe, 1-time slam winner(this one only)and 2-time slam finalist Orantes.    For the record let me know when Federer loses a slam final in straight sets to a 2-time career slam finalist and 1-time career slam winner like Orantes.

Connors barely wins anything between 76-81 when other greats emerge on the scene, winning only 2 slams, then wins his final 3 slams when one of his big rivals suffers burnout(Borg)and leaves the tour, a rival who had been totally dominating him for 4 years atleast, and when he plays a then huge-slam final choker Lendl in 2 of those 3 finals.

Connors one to balk at Federer's competition level.  LOL!   Federer has already surpassed Connor's greatness so I understand why Connor's is jealous.   I would hate to see another player already surpass my greatness at only age 25 as well.

[Darcy]

Honestly, I do get that people are bored or just dislike Roger (or Nadal for that matter), but watching this season transpire, I think it's taught me a few things.

- It's such a waste of energy to spend time bashing or tearing down a player in this great sport, especially because of envy and I know because I've done it.  Why would I want to encourage that in myself? Does that feel good? Well, for me, no.
I'd rather enjoy the thrills watching the sport gives me.

- Nothing should be taken for granted in this sport.  It's pretty brutal on the body overall, and just this fact alone should make us all admire those at the top of it.

- We aren't in control of anything here, just a long for the ride, and it's up to us to DECIDE whether to enjoy it.

Here's hoping for some exciting matches for all in 2007.

[Tennis4you]

Honestly, I do get that people are bored or just dislike Roger (or Nadal for that matter), but watching this season transpire, I think it's taught me a few things.

- It's such a waste of energy to spend time bashing or tearing down a player in this great sport, especially because of envy and I know because I've done it.  Why would I want to encourage that in myself? Does that feel good? Well, for me, no.
I'd rather enjoy the thrills watching the sport gives me.

- Nothing should be taken for granted in this sport.  It's pretty brutal on the body overall, and just this fact alone should make us all admire those at the top of it.

- We aren't in control of anything here, just a long for the ride, and it's up to us to DECIDE whether to enjoy it.

Here's hoping for some exciting matches for all in 2007.

Amen to that!!!  And way to hit 200 posts!!!

[craighickman]

Right on, Darcy.

What I find most interesting, however, is how personally certain people take it when Federer is discussed in any other way except with worship. To find Federer's dominance boring or to say his top competitors are weak-minded doesn't take a single thing away from his remarkable accomplishments. But for those who do the GOAT arguments (I don't) it can certainly be a crucial factor in the discussion.

[rabbitpoops]

Connors and Wilander are not worthy of licking the gum of Roger's shoe.  They are in no position to question his greatness.  Wilander was like the most boring player ever to win 7 slams, he should be lucky he won that money and shut his trap, either that or go back to his pot.

[craighickman]

Um, okay.

What an entrance, new poster.

[awk]

What is this nonsensical talk about "Weak Era". The Eras are getting stronger and stronger as time goes by. With Modern technology such as Video Analysis, Racquets, Body Mechanics Analysts and very fit players, Are you telling me that the Era is weaker ??? Everything is relative, as Jon Wertheim (CNNSI) mentioned - It is Federer who makes it feel that the competition is weak because of his dominance.

As far as Federer making the Grand Slam is concerned, I would hope he learns from his experience at the YEC against Nadal and chooses to attack more than defend. When I hear about the G.O.A.T argument, it makes me laugh. How can any one anoint Sampras who to me was very much one-dimensional as the Greatest Ever. Is there no such thing as a complete player. I can say Borg, Laver and maybe Mcenroe could be considered but Sampras c'mon. I am NOT ready to anoint Federer just as yet but if he wins the French and continues to dominate for another couple of years, he should definitely be at the TOP of the list !!
 

[rabbitpoops]

What was Sampras's so good competition, such an erratic Agassi, old slowing down Becker and Edberg, Rios, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Bjorkman, Chang, what a bunch of jokes as great competition for a player like Sampras.   Sampras had as easy competition as Roger or more.

[Tennis4you]

What is this nonsensical talk about "Weak Era". The Eras are getting stronger and stronger as time goes by. With Modern technology such as Video Analysis, Racquets, Body Mechanics Analysts and very fit players, Are you telling me that the Era is weaker ??? Everything is relative, as Jon Wertheim (CNNSI) mentioned - It is Federer who makes it feel that the competition is weak because of his dominance.

As far as Federer making the Grand Slam is concerned, I would hope he learns from his experience at the YEC against Nadal and chooses to attack more than defend. When I hear about the G.O.A.T argument, it makes me laugh. How can any one anoint Sampras who to me was very much one-dimensional as the Greatest Ever. Is there no such thing as a complete player. I can say Borg, Laver and maybe Mcenroe could be considered but Sampras c'mon. I am NOT ready to anoint Federer just as yet but if he wins the French and continues to dominate for another couple of years, he should definitely be at the TOP of the list !!
 

Agreed.  The players that fold fold a little to early against federer are not folding like that against other players.  Anyone who has played tennis at a serious level should know what a player like that can do to you.  I think Federer's competition is pretty strong.  Sure it would be nice to have 30 Federer's and 30 Nadals running around right now but that is never how it is.  I am willing to bet that if you look back over time right now the men's field is deeper than it has ever been.  That is speculation though...

[awk]

But to me it only appears as if the opponent is folding against Federer. If you look at some of the characteristics of Fed's 3 or 4 set matches. You will see very close Set 1 or 2 but then an easy Set 3 and 4. The reason is that when Roddick, Blake play their best tennis - Federer doesnot give in. He breaks them down he makes them believe that playing that way will work against him. They got so close in this set so may be a little more in the next one will get them through. This works totally against them and hence we see a 6-1 or 6-0 set. Think of a good baseball pitcher who consistently creates a certain pattern earlier in the game only to change it in the later innings.

This is one of the reason this strategy doesnot work too well against grinders like Nadal and Nalbandian. Nalbandian keeps on trying different tactics and Nadal just doesn't change is strategy i.e. To keep hitting the ball to Fed's Backhand and stand "100 feet" behind the baseline.