Tennis-Aussie Open

[Red_Locks]

I'm sure there are SOME tennis fans out here..rite?
There really should be and otherwise LOCK THIS THREAD cos I'll just be rambling to myself all the way

[Drew]

I'm very happy to see Martina Hingis and Maria Sharapova still in the Aussie Open. 

[Axl4Prez2004]

May I add the gratuitous          in honor of Miss Sharapova?  Just amazing.   

[Red_Locks]

ROTFL..women's tennis has never really got my attention *part cos I'm female * and it's so slow ?

Men's tennis..now that's what I call..GOOD Take Marat Safin..he could be considered the Axl Rose of tennis with his continuous screaming/swearing.racquet breaking/outrageous behaviour/fines all over the place and temper

*yes..I'm a Safin-fan*

 

[Drew]

Too bad Martina Hingis is now out.

[Drew]

Two more wins and the Australian Open is all yours Maria! 

[Drew]

Today's the day!

GO MARIA!!!!! 

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Boooo, Williams won...

[Drew]

Boooo, Williams won...

Yeah, completely sucked that Maria loss.

[Red_Locks]

she was even crying at one point I heard?  C'mon..unsportsman/woman like behaviour    You win some, you lose some.

Feds won against Gonzo today..now THAT was a boring match

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Federer is always winning, what else is new? 

[estebanf]

If Federer wins Roland Garros this year, the ATP tour will become boring as hell.

[D]

Serena totally OWNED Sharapova.


It looks like Serena is back 100 percent and will be a force from now on.


I have a hard time calling Federer the greatest player ever.

1. He really doesnt have a load of Competition to play against.

2. He still hasn't won the French Open.



I think if u are the greatest, U should at least have won all 4 slams.

[estebanf]

2. He still hasn't won the French Open.

I think if u are the greatest, U should at least have won all 4 slams.

Agree. That's why I think Agassi is the best of all times.

But he at least reached the final in 2006. Sampras best RG performance was semifinals if im not wrong.

[Ignatius]

Serena totally OWNED Sharapova.

I have a hard time calling Federer the greatest player ever.

1. He really doesnt have a load of Competition to play against.

Says who? One thing that pissess me off is why americans tend to judge a sport based on whether they have a player who's hot or not. James Black and Andy Roddick for example, the first was totally destroyed in the Masters Final last year and the second only manage to score 6 games in his SF match this year against Roger. Since no american player is really able to compete with Federer these days, some of you assume there aint no one right there to compete against him.

There is competition, look at Rafael Nadal who beat federer 4 times last year and has beaten him 6 out of 9 matches. We are not only talking about clay court surface, Nadal has beaten Federer in Miami and also Dubai (plus 5 other times). The last two matches they play, Federer notched the win, but there were very close (Wimbledon Final and masters SF).

Nadal is not at the same level as Federer though, he faces many more problems whe he plays against heavy-flat ground strokers such as Gonzalez, Berdych, Murray, Blake... than when he plays Federer. Roger's game is easier for him to adjust, specially the crosscourt forehand to Federer's back hand. If you have a chance to see these two play again..you see what Im saying.

2. He still hasn't won the French Open.

That's the arguments all americans' use? It's like saying, Lance Armstrong is not the best off all times since he didnt win the Tour of Italy or the Tour of Spain....

Federer is so good he wouldn't have had any competition had he played when Andre and Pete were at his peak. Roger Federer is 25 years old and has already won 10 grand slam titles. I dont even understand why some of you even pick Andre or Pete Sampras just because Agassi won the french. Sampras won many more GS titles and spent many more weeks at the number 1 ranking than Agassi, besides, their head to head is on Pete's advantage.

Either way, Federer has plenty of time to win the french though, this year could be the one (if Nadal lets him..)

[estebanf]

Serena totally OWNED Sharapova.

I have a hard time calling Federer the greatest player ever.

1. He really doesnt have a load of Competition to play against.

Says who? One thing that pissess me off is why americans tend to judge a sport based on whether they have a player who's hot or not. James Black and Andy Roddick for example, the first was totally destroyed in the Masters Final last year and the second only manage to score 6 games in his SF match this year against Roger. Since no american player is really able to compete with Federer these days, some of you assume there aint no one right there to compete against him.

There is competition, look at Rafael Nadal who beat federer 4 times last year and has beaten him 6 out of 9 matches. We are not only talking about clay court surface, Nadal has beaten Federer in Miami and also Dubai (plus 5 other times). The last two matches they play, Federer notched the win, but there were very close (Wimbledon Final and masters SF).

Nadal is not at the same level as Federer though, he faces many more problems whe he plays against heavy-flat ground strokers such as Gonzalez, Berdych, Murray, Blake... than when he plays Federer. Roger's game is easier for him to adjust, specially the crosscourt forehand to Federer's back hand. If you have a chance to see these two play again..you see what Im saying.

2. He still hasn't won the French Open.

That's the arguments all americans' use  It's like saying, Lance Armstrong is not the best off all times since he didnt win the Tour of Italy or the Tour of Spain....

Federer is so good he wouldn't have had any competition had he played when Andre and Pete were at his peak. Roger Federer is 25 years old and has already won 10 grand slam titles. I dont even understand why some of you even pick Andre or Pete Sampras just because Agassi won the french. Sampras won many more GS titles and spent many more weeks at the number 1 ranking than Agassi, besides, their head to head is on Pete's advantage.

Either way, Federer has plenty of time to win the french though, this year could be the one (if Nadal lets him..)

I completely agree with the first part of your post, but not with the second.

Tennis is a sport with different surfaces. That's a fact. There are several players that have won all the grandslams except for Roland Garros; and there are a lot of players that only have won Roland Garros (and other clay tournaments) and almost cant compete in hard surfaces or grass.

It is EXTREMELY hard for a tennis player to play at the same level in a hard courts and in clay at the same time. Players like Ljubicic, Roddick, Ancic, Berdych, Sampras, Ivanisevic are very good at hard courts because they have a powerful service. The rest of its game is good, but not perfect. Those players never won RG because you cant win that tournament with your service. More than that: you need LOTS of other skills.

The opposite case are those players who only can play in clay, like Gaudio, Coria, Kuerten, Robredo, Moya or Nadal. These players have lots of more tecnique, have a more versatil way of playing, and I think they could beat players like Roddick, Ancic or Berdych in hard surfaces IF they've got the same kind of service than them.

It's very hard to explain this to me because english is not my mother language. But I think, for example, that Guga Kuerten or Gaston Gaudio are A MILLION TIMES better players than Roddick or Ljubicic, but they will never defeat them in a hard surface JUST BECAUSE of those players' service.

Sampras never won RG because, even when he was an outstanding player, his service is almost inoffensive in clay. Hard court players dont use to shoot ''drop-shots'' or dont use to play big rallies because they are simple not familiar with that or because they simply dont have skills for that.

That's why I say Agassi was the best. Agassi used to have an ''average'' service: I mean, he served good, but that was not his main weapon. A player that can win Wimbledon and Roland Garros MUST be a versatile player, an extremely talented player who is MUCH MORE than ''just a service''. Agassi's game doesnt depends on which surface is he playing because he's very good in ALL aspects.

If you ask me, I would say that the REAL tennis is the one played in clay. You need LOTS of characteristics to be a good clay player. And there are several examples of mediocre players like Rusedski, Ljubicic, Max Myrni, etc that topped the rankings just because they serve fast.

Same for women: Martina Hingis is TEN times better than Sharapova. But Martina has no chance with Maria in a hard surface nowadays.

[D]

Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit


If u are the GREATEST, u should be able to win REGARDLESS of surface so don't throw out that shit.


The Lance Armstrong argument? was ignorant seeing as he would easily win the Tour of Antarctica as long as it was on a bike so that isnt even remotely relevant in this discussion.

Secondly, Name one Tennis Hall of Famer that will come out of this generation other than Federer. There are no other players that will ever be considered GREAT, the one guy who is close makes Federer look human and that is Nadal but Im not sure he will be a Hall of Famer or a guy who quickly burns out.


Federer is nowhere as good as Pete Sampras who actually played great competition.

Does Federer have an Andre Agassi, Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg?

I DONT THINK SO.


If u cant win all 4 slams u in my opinion arent the overall greatest

He may be the best Hard Court player as Sampras is the greatest Grass player ever but when we are talkin about overall greatest Tennis Player, It isnt Roger Federer.

[Ignatius]

First of all, do your research D...

There are three major cicling competitions; Tour of France, Giro de Italia and Vuelta de Espa?a (Spain). The tour of France is the most important, but never understimate the other two just because no american has ever won any of those. Look up these names too; Anquetil, Indurain, Hinault, Merckx...They all won 5 tours of france a piece, but also notched a few giros (italy)and tours of Spain too.

Back to tennis now...Yeah I agree Sampras was great, probably the best player that has ever been (million times better than Agassi - I will get back at you Estebanf? later) but not for long. I've been watching tennis since Boris Becker won Wimbledon the first time in 1985, I've also played hundreds of tournaments throughout Spain for over 8 years, so I know a little bit about this sport, all I can say is I have never seen no one better than Roger Federer.? He's got a great serve, great return, great volley, great groundtokes..in a way, he's the Tiger Woods of Golf. He's never won the french, but give him time..besides, you just say "if you think you are the greatest, you have to win in all surfaces"...Do you know how many claycourt tournaments are played every year? The answer is probably 40...

Roger Federer has never won the French, but he's won clay court tournaments before. He's won in Rome, Hamburg,...I'm talking about Master Series tournaments (you probably gonna use the same stupid Antartica argument here).? You based your entire discussion on one tournament...or 4 (the 4 grandslams) but there are more than 150 tournaments all year long. Don't these tournaments count? Or do you think tennis players dont bother playing these tournaments so they just play 4 opens per year?? The hell with your argument? "If u are the GREATEST, u should be able to win REGARDLESS of surface so don't throw out that shit"...Federer's won in clay, so get over it.

So you think Sampras was better than Federer? I dont really see how you can say that...Unfortuntely we will never be able to see them play against each other when both players are on his prime, but in my opinion, having watched both players very close, Federer is better. He even beat Sampras on grass (Wimbledon 2001) when the swiss was 19 and a nobody. Sure Sampras was not at his best anymore then, but that should give you an idea of how good Federer is when he was able to beat the best player ever on his favorite surface.

As for Becker, Edberg and Lendl, they were pretty much 80's players. Specially Lendl. Becker did play for a least 5-6 years in the 90's won a few Slams then (two australian opens) but he'd lost his edge. He was one of the most talented players I've ever seen, but his mind was not his best asset. Edberg retired in 95 or 96 as well, so neither player really compete in the same era as Sampras.

Maybe the competition was stronger then cause none of the players really destroyed the others. Becker and Edberg probably played 40 matches against each other and their head to head was 22-18. Same with Edberg and Coruier or Becker and Lendl..with Federer you dont get that cause he is just too good...he doesnt even allow other players a chance. Maybe the Nadal's, Roddick's, Hewitt's, Davidenko's, Gonzalez's, Saffins could've won may more tournaments hadnt they had to play in the same era as Federer.

So...to wrap this up...if Federer then wins this french, would you then consider him the best tennis players of all time?

[Ignatius]

Tennis is a sport with different surfaces. That's a fact. There are several players that have won all the grandslams except for Roland Garros; and there are a lot of players that only have won Roland Garros (and other clay tournaments) and almost cant compete in hard surfaces or grass.

It is EXTREMELY hard for a tennis player to play at the same level in a hard courts and in clay at the same time. Players like Ljubicic, Roddick, Ancic, Berdych, Sampras, Ivanisevic are very good at hard courts because they have a powerful service. The rest of its game is good, but not perfect. Those players never won RG because you cant win that tournament with your service. More than that: you need LOTS of other skills.


The opposite case are those players who only can play in clay, like Gaudio, Coria, Kuerten, Robredo, Moya or Nadal. These players have lots of more tecnique, have a more versatil way of playing, and I think they could beat players like Roddick, Ancic or Berdych in hard surfaces IF they've got the same kind of service than them

It's very hard to explain this to me because english is not my mother language. But I think, for example, that Guga Kuerten or Gaston Gaudio are A MILLION TIMES better players than Roddick or Ljubicic, but they will never defeat them in a hard surface JUST BECAUSE of those players' service.

Agree with some things you say, but not all. Court clay specialistas are just that, court clay specialist. The move well, the hit the ball with a huge kick and they are very, very patience. However, Moya has a huge serve and that doesnt make him successful in hard courts. Courier was a hard court specialist and the guy won RG twice...

Berdych, Roddick, Blake...not only have better serves than Nadal, Robredo or Gaudio, but their groundtrokes are slightly more effective. They hit the ball harder. They dominate the points with their powerful forehands and when they make the winner when they have to. One of the problems Nadal has is the low number of winners he gets in any match. If you watch Nadal play, everytime they show the stats, he has less amount of winners than his opponent (whoever that may be) and while this game plan has made him successful in clay, os not enough to secure wins in hard court. Sure Nadal has won hard court tournaments before, but if you look at his results last year, you'll notice he only won one hard court tournament (Dubai). He's trying to improve his serve and his overall game to make be able to dominate the point and make more winners.

Look at Fernando Gonzalez. He was a clay court specialist all his life, now he's adjusted to hard courts well. He's got an amazing forehand and now a great serve as well.

Sampras never won RG because, even when he was an outstanding player, his service is almost inoffensive in clay. Hard court players dont use to shoot ''drop-shots'' or dont use to play big rallies because they are simple not familiar with that or because they simply dont have skills for that.

No, hard court specialists do finish the points quicker, cause their groundtrokes are more effective in those surfaces than on clay. But if you look at the US open, you'll see long rallies too, not as long as on clay, but there are longer rallies there too.

That's why I say Agassi was the best. Agassi used to have an ''average'' service: I mean, he served good, but that was not his main weapon. A player that can win Wimbledon and Roland Garros MUST be a versatile player, an extremely talented player who is MUCH MORE than ''just a service''. Agassi's game doesnt depends on which surface is he playing because he's very good in ALL aspects.

Agassi won Wimbledon once, Agassi won RG once. I dont recall him winning any other clay court tournament other than the french. He had a huge return (the best weapon you can have on grass) but he was not a constant player. He reached the number one ranking, but didnt really hold it for long.

You all say Sampras just relied on his serve, Sampras had an amazing volley, forehand and backhand...that made him the best. If players with great serve are to be so successful then, what happened with Ivo Karlovic, Marc Rosset and Greg Rusedski? those three have the fastests serve tennis has ever seen, but none of them really have gone anywhere in tennis...so please do not say Sampras won so many tournaments because his served well?

If you ask me, I would say that the REAL tennis is the one played in clay. You need LOTS of characteristics to be a good clay player. And there are several examples of mediocre players like Rusedski, Ljubicic, Max Myrni, etc that topped the rankings just because they serve fast.

On clay the balls moves slower than on hard courts...the ball also bounces higher and you have to have the endurance of a fucking marathon man to handle 5 hours of tennis. While is fun to watch, clay court tennis favors the mediocre player, the one who cant hit a winner on hard courts. Look at the past winners of the french, Gaudio, Andres Gomez, Thomas Muster, Carlos Moya...Did any of these players achieve anything else other than clay court tournaments?



By the way, Max Minri and Rusedski have never topped the rankings..I dont think Rusedksy has never played the Masters Cup .

[D]

Agassi isnt the greatest ever, I may have reached a little far with the French Open but I just have a hard time giving the Greatest ever moniker to a guy who clearly is dominating an era where men's tennis is at its lowest point.

U really think Federer is better than Bjorg or Laver or Sampras?

What if Pete Sampras played against the competition that Federer faces today, how many more grand slams would he have?

outside of Nadal there simply arent any great players and Federer doesnt dominate Nadal like Sampras did his contemporaries.


Federer however could go down as the greatest if he keeps his win streak up, but I just don't think at this stage in his career u can call him the Best ever.