John McEnroe, one of the finest shot-makers in the game, reckons Federer could be the greatest ever; his opinion was initially branded as hasty but now shows the left-hander has a gift for prescience. Whether or not Federer wins 14 Slams, he has already proved he owns the prettiest game ever: nobody in history has played both the forehand and backhand with such ferocious felicity.
What probably separates Federer from the rest is the uncanny ability to read the spin on the ball earlier than most, then to methodically conceive, in the fraction of a second, of a dozen angles others could not have imagined existed, and finally to execute his preferred shot with the accuracy of William Tell. His reach and pace are among the most underrated aspects to his game; he also has the ability to shift gears in an instant from defensive to offensive, which is basically how he dismantles Andy Roddick's serve nine times out of 10.
It is said Andre Agassi at his peak concentrated so hard that he could actually read the letters on the brand as the ball spun towards him. (Of course, the brand-conscious Agassi would have done exactly that.) Since making his Grand Slam breakthrough in 2003, Federer has managed to raise his consciousness to similarly unbelievable levels, levels that his contemporaries could never hope to attain.
NEVER before has a world number one dominated his closest competition so overwhelmingly.Federer at this stage has the benefit of a unique perspective: he is presently master of all he surveys. He is not only at the top of his game, he is perhaps one of the finest all-round athletes in the world, a truth confirmed by his Laureus Award trophy, which he won over the likes of Michael Schumacher and Lance Armstrong, men who aren't quite pushovers in their respective disciplines. Federer, always refreshingly honest to the point of marvellous self-assurance, himself regularly confesses to being amazed by the level of his play, and attributes the consistency to mental freshness.
SO is there a way to penetrate his armour? Many fear not, especially when Federer is in form (which, admittedly, he is most of the time). Safin, Nadal and the French teenager, Richard Gasquet, have proved that Federer is not quite invincible, even if he is bloody-minded and indomitable. Safin brought him down with firepower; Nadal wore him out with some remarkable retrieving. Gasquet, by the way, has a game that appears suspiciously similar to Federer's blueprint — he possesses the same precocious talent — and, who knows, in the rapid course of evolution he could soon replace Federer as the greatest player in history, just as Federer himself is presently occupied with bringing down monuments raised to Sampras.
As if that weren't scary enough, Federer could get even better. Certainly, it would present a depressing prospect for the lesser players, some of whom have desperately convinced themselves that there must be a limit to this madness. Federer offers proof that he is always scheming, looking for ways to sharpen his game.

I believe this is a unbiased position and i want to see who has the audacity to call it bad english :whistle:

Well you should really show your sources if you're going to copy and paste articles.

I can't be bothered to pick at it, but the first thing that leapt out at me was

It is a logical contradiction to say that you can proove something as subjective as aesthetics and the "prettiness" of someones tennis. I personally find the man himself (Mac) more pretty to watch when he plays tennis :)

This is the only place I could find it based on a quick Google search.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/tss/tss2829/stor...16003400900.htm

Wow, thanks for that, very long article in all, quite interesting though!

"Well you should really show your sources if you're going to copy and paste articles."

Until you have proofs of that i will call it soure grapes :coffee:

But couldn't you stick to the core of the post and not came with sidelines?
I believe i can see a pattern in that, you have a troll heart, and a biased position about federer and no arguments whatsoever :shrug:

The proof is there :)

And I don't take kindly to your telling me which part of the article I should analyse and which part as I shouldn't, I will do as wish thank you very much.

stuburn girl :wub:

ok, SW19 is in no way a troll (possibly a bit of a drunkard, but not a troll....) and everyone has a biased position on federer - or pretty much on any player. I happen to like federer, and immensly dislike nalby, so i'm bound to be slightly biased whenever I speak about them. Same with, say, Bliv with hingis, or Ark with Roddick or serena with serena. :blink:

That article is not unbiased either - it's from a pro-federer point of view - like Sw19 said, it states that he has the prettiest game, but that's very subjective. And i'm not quite sure what the point is of bringing up the laureus award......awards are also a little bit on the subjective side let's be fair.

bit of a drunkard roflmao

i don't think that's an entirely unfair assessment is it???? roflmao

sw19 is a he roflmao

Well, Dinky Jo was trying to be polite. roflmao

:unsure:

No! roflmao

hey, I am not biased, just 100% accurate B)

Awww, don't spoil the fun, bliv.

I see, raving drunkard was more on the money eh? roflmao SB will be piqued at having to share the role of board alcoholic roflmao

roflmao roflmao

you guys can be the raving drunkards, and bliv can be the raving lunatic???? roflmao

"That article is not unbiased either - it's from a pro-federer point of view - like Sw19 said, it states that he has the prettiest game, but that's very subjective. And i'm not quite sure what the point is of bringing up the laureus award......awards are also a little bit on the subjective side let's be fair."

it's not dificult to agree with you but it's funny that when the facts about federer are brougth to discussion some people came with the subjective aproach and when it's about subjective apreciation about federer came with the objective aproach.
I see why but some people in here are just blind...

roflmao and the board transvestite B)

I can't fault your factual analysis B)

roflmao

:blink:

There are an awful lot of federer fans on here - and those who may not be fans but appreciate his tennis. There's not many that are blind to his skills - there may be some who wish that others would catch up and give him some competition, but there really are not that many who are totally blind to how good fed is.

haven't you seen that avator of mine? B)

thank SW19 - terrific post, agree entirely - blah, blah, blah.....

this is just going to be a repeat of the bbc, federer bashing followed by over-federer loving (like this thread) :wacko:

Lighten up, Jam. Pretty much everyone here (with a couple notable exceptions :whistle: ) can appreciate that Federer has a lot of talent and is a great champion. But different people have different favourite, and we won't all be prone to fawn over Federer. But you'll find some good company in the Federer worship thread. Perhaps I should bump that one back up. (Though it was really about having a laugh at the Fed-bashers of the BBC board, more than anything.)

I think we've managed to ressurect the beeb in this thread roflmao

"Lighten up, Jam. Pretty much everyone here (with a couple notable exceptions ) can appreciate that Federer has a lot of talent and is a great champion. But different people have different favourite, and we won't all be prone to fawn over Federer. But you'll find some good company in the Federer worship thread. Perhaps I should bump that one back up. (Though it was really about having a laugh at the Fed-bashers of the BBC board, more than anything.) "

i am not even a federer's fan. I just like to be attached to reason and i dislike wishfull thinking. peole are blind not because they can't see federer ability or because they do not worship him (i couldn't care less) but because they are wishing for things thay never will be (some player to get nº1 spot while federer be around).

hang on a second - i like fed, and i may have taken the rip a little, but I would not call myself a fed-worshipper. marat on the other hand..... :bow: :wub: And i've never said that Fed is the greatest ever, (again, apart when i'm having a bit of fun) - i think time will tell on that one....

Wise has a point, you can probably counter that whole article with other points - i mean, i could quite easily argue that I think lance armstrong should have won the laureus award over Fed, I'm sure Wise could quite easily counter everything else much better than I could.

Btw, Wise, in another thread you made a comment about your English - i'd like to say that i'd have never have guessed that you weren't a native English speaker from anything you've written on this board :D

Well, Federer WILL eventually lose the No. 1 spot. I don't know when, but it will happen at some point. I think you're wrong for criticising someone just for speculating on what young players MIGHT be No. 1 some day.

i guess in four years.
maybe to soon to speculate, tomorow we will speculate with another player?
I hope we not take the next 4 years in that, it's enough that we have chet and wise posts on the surreal side...

Sorry, but we don't put a ban on speculating about the future here. If you don't like discussing about the future potential of up-and-coming players, then you are free to find some discussions that interest you more.

Hey but it was me that started this discussion, so if you do not like me criticize who speculates you are free to find some discussions that interest you more. ;)

It takes more than one person to make a discussion, and you have been very disrespectful to everyone who has replied to this thread. If you cannot accept the opinions of others then I suggest you refrain from sparking debate in the future.

As debate is what you will have Im afraid. Sorry if we all have our own opinions :rolleyes:

Jo, there's probably on average at least one error in every post I make, but thanks for the compliment. I've lived here for a decade now so my written English isn't so bad. Everyone loves Safin, although in some ways I dislike him. He's one of the few players who could add strength to this era but instead he spends half his life in the clouds. It amazes me that he really could be dominating this sport like Federer is if he put his mind to it, and yet he doesn't appear overly bothered. Glad you're not a worshipper, the people who hold the Swiss up as the GOAT perplex and disgust me in equal measures.

I think Safin has realised there may be other things in life other than tennis (pretty blonde girls????), which is his problem.

I didn't say I didn't like Fed - and you will find me supporting him in every match he plays (dunno what i'd do if he played safin......cross that bridge when I come to it!!!), but i just think it's a bit premature to say he's the best ever. I hope he goes on to do bigger and better things, but time will definitely tell. I mean look at Nadal's slump this year, who's to say that won't happen to Fed next year or the year after???

*goes to look for her crystal ball*

"you have been very disrespectful to everyone who has replied to this thread"

what? are you with the hangover yet? use the axe...

:blink:

Ok which bit do you like the least, my aim isn't that good mind roflmao