Phau, Youzhny, Djokovic, Robredo, Roddick

Phau´s potential is pretty limited, Youzhny & Robredo have no real weapons, Djokovic plays mentall games, Roddick´s game is brainless - players who are easy to ´figure out´ (that´s what Federer likes to do)

Nadal, Safin, Murray all can push Federer hard - and beat him. What a shame he didn´t play them

I don´t believe Gonzalez will really trouble Federer. Nando needs time to ´load´ his massive shots, he´s not ´natural´ shotmaker - like i.e Safin. Federer will set the pace and Gonzalez drops

Fed has a soft draw? You have a soft head.

Admit it. Fed is simply superb.

roflmao

ah, give him a break Gav.... technically you could say that Fed gets a soft draw each and every time - because its very rare any player can match him.... ;)

Fed did not have a soft draw at all. He was simply head and shoulders above his opponents in terms of level. Roddick and Djoko were considered tricky opponents, but Roger was simply too good for them. Safin can beat Federer, but nto in the form he showed this tournie cos he lost to Roddick! Nadal would not have beaten him either IMO and Murray despite beign an interestign proprostion for the job cos of his variety and havign beaten Fed before would have lost too. No way coudl eh live with what Fed delivered this tournie. So he won fair and square and he'd have won whoever was in his draw if you ask me.

That's true. Relatively speaking this draw wasn't too soft (although I was irritated that Gasquet lost before the QF). However, generally speaking all of Federer's draws are soft, including Wimbledon '06, because he's a great player and the rest of the misfits around right now... aren't.

Well done to Fed for winning the AO, and especially for not dropping a set, but you've just got to look at the attitude of his fellow players. Being happy to come second to him is an absolute disgrace. Gonzo put up a pretty convincing facade that he believed he could win today, until 5-4, 40-15. As soon as he lost that game I wanted to throw the TV (and my television too :P ) out the window but I forced myself to watch until the tie-break, after which I went back to bed and sweet dreams about Sampras.

It boils down to opinion; Fed's a great player who dominates the era, but why? Do his opponents go into the game having already mentally conceded defeat, or are they just outplayed? My opinion is that the former causes the latter, and while I attribute some of the credit for this to Federer, I also look down on some of his opponents with the disdain that they deserve. I like Gonzo and rate him as a player, but when he gets home I want him to smash his head against a brick wall. He should want to do this for the way he choked away the first set; but don't get me wrong, Federer would have probably won in 4 regardless.

Wise ohh Wise... :ok: :ok: I really believe this is the best (serious) post you have wrote here so far ( a part might be the TV reference :yikes: *this means what man roflmao roflmao )...

Thanks a lot Wise: I agree with a of your views :cheers: ...

In particular the conclusion: I really guess that, as often, FED took his edge on Gonzo physically: Even if Gonzo was able to win the first set it was already running out of gaz during the last part of the first set (might this explains as well the fact he did not convert at least one among his set balls)...From that perspective, this final was providing a clear message to all the guys who are interested beating FED: Be there 100% with your Tennis & 100% physically...

Too right and unfortunate, I was waiting for someone to steam roll him, but when I saw Nadal and Nabandian drop like hot potatoes I knew it was the end.

Too true Wise and Mediter. All of Federer's draws now seem sitter's as most of the opponents are experts at producing choke jobs rather than a good fight.
Now that the tournament has concluded, only Andy Murray seems the most improved player and has the potential to challenge Federer on a hard court.

Federer is not the kind of player who gets steamrolled. No way, no how. Please everyone, NOT this weak era crap again. So maybe Federer's opponents do shrink before his reputation. Just ask yourself the question: How did he aquire such a reputation. What a great champion you must be if you can defeat someone just by giving him a scary look. roflmao

The fact is Federer has got into the head of many players barring Nadal. Look at the match against Roddick. Andy played confidently till the quarters and then suddenly in the semis right from the first point, his head was dropping to his shoulders.
Fo Federer fans, it'll be awesome that he's winning all the time but for a tennis fan, this is all getting too monotonous.

I see what you're saying. But just look at the array of beautiful winners we got to see from him today. Could any tennis fan find his game monotonous? I for one find him incredibly impressive to watch.

I second that. Fed plays a beautiful game of tennis, todays match was a pleasure to watch on behalf of both men, they hit some great shots and it wasnt boring in the slightest.

A slugfest may get like that, but you dont tend to get that with Feds game. I'm happy to watch him go on and break record after record.

What are the chances of seeing such a domination in the future? I thought they were things of the past. And it is not the domination of a one-dimensional, 2 strokes tennis. It is the domination of talent and artistry, two beautiful adjectives that are rarely successful on this world. It is like having a good and healthy food or an intelligent and honest politician in power. Let's just enjoy it while it lasts.

I could take your soft draw argument a bit more seriously if I didn't know full well that you'll have predicted a straight sets defeat for Federer every time he stepped on court against these "soft" opponents.

You know, I can understand Sampras fans being a bit hacked off that Federer appears to be nicely on course to beat many of Sampras' records - but I was just thinking earlier how lucky we really are to have had two great players chasing the all-time slam records so close to one another that they actually played one another. Realistically if Federer had not come along then Sampras' records might have been safe for a generation or more.

Records are made to be broken, and if jealous fear of what Roger might achieve stops a few obsessives from enjoying his talent then I have to feel sorry for them.

He beat 3 top 10 players :shrug: Absolutely destroyed Roddick, no-one could have even won a set off him in that form, I'm glad Rafa avoided a hiding from him roflmao I want him to preserve that H2H lead :D

Fully agree with Tenez :ok:

at the contrary how can you post this Chet this is beyond me:

So if I follow your "logic" it was monotonous when Borg was dominating Tennis the way he did? Did you dislike then when John was at the top? And Lendl ...To finally end up with Pete who should have been quite "boring :yikes: " (always in your "logic") for a real Tennis fan???

You are not a Tennis fan man and this is for sure and your "logic" is just :bs: :

You are in front of you a guy who is able to produce all the shots that characterized our sport, who is able to do that with easy, with grace class and moreover who is just mentally evry strong, i.e. he is him and not Gonzo that on 40-15 for Gonzo and Gonzo on serve at 5-4 was able to fight back..Review these two points: It is FED that takes the risk and move to the net...

If you are not able to appreciate that, well then it is quite simple:

You might be a great fan of Pete (I start to doubt given than today a serious fan of Pete would have appreciate the great volley game of FED) but you are not a fan of Tennis. :rolleyes:

BTW this is the opinion of Gonzo'trainer after the match:

Roger," Stefanki said. "Is like Tiger Woods. He's forcing everyone to become a better player."

and Chet is telling :bs: to convince us that Tennis would be better without him :doh:

TV.

Wouldn't you have enjoyed the match better if Federer had won 8-6 in the fifth?
All I am saying that this domination is great for Federer but it may indirectly be hampering the interest in the sport. If the other players can make a match of everytime they play against this guy, it'll be even more pleasurable to watch.
Now its like a boxing match between a super heavyweight and a featherweight.

Chet has a point. I love to see Federer play, but I'd love to see more competition for him. I was loving seeing Gonzalez have set points against him in the first set. I thought we might get someone who is stepping up to the plate. I still want to see beautiful tennis and I want to see Fed playing it. But having Fed win match after match is taking away some of the excitement for me.

I totally agree!

Thats why i prefere the WTA, because you don't really know who will win all the time!

In my opinion Fed is indirectly making men's tennis a bit boring! ;)

Please don't attack me! :wacko:

I agree :D

I loved seeing Serena taking Maria apart in the women's final, but at the end of the day I found her match with Petrova in the 3rd round far more exciting to watch...I'll probably watch both multiple times anyway :lol:

roflmao each to their own hun, dont panic ;)

personally, I dont find Fed winning boring... and todays match, despite being a straight sets win was never totally in the bag I think... and thats where the enjoyment came.

Gonzo came up with some great shots, and watching Fed being able to come to an answer to those is just sublime to watch. It wasnt a whitewash, so it doesnt matter that it was over in three sets. The enjoyment came in some amazing rallies.

Whats to say that watching two guys slug it out in five sets is any better than watching two guys play some fantastic tennis but settle in three? The thrill was still there with the trading of breaks. I appreciate that it becomes more of a 'will he' wont he' thrill with a five set win, but like I say, I am just as happy to watch it happen in three or four. Its the quality of the tennis, not the sets that matter most to me.

All personal opinion of course. :)

perfect babe

I agree entirely

:hug:

I read a very funnt post on a different msg board.

For the last few slams, why does Federer fall to the ground after he wins the match. Its no longer overwhelming as everyone including himself knows who is going to win. He should just walk to the net and shake hands, not fall to the gound.

I'd say more like between a light heavyweight and a flyweight chet ;)2

It's not the lack of competition that annoys me about current tennis, it's the attitude of these players. Gonzalez should have won the first set today, and while I accept that Federer wasn't playing his best at that point and would have probably gone on to win in 4, you never know. Instead of seizing the chance, he choked, and this kind of mental deficiency is so prevalent at the moment it's unbelievable.

Federer's acquired himself a pedastal through his own great play, but for me it's not the fact that he's unbeatable that's boring; it's the notion that he's unbeatable. The sooner some of the mentally inept garbage is cleared out the top 10 the better. Quite what the youngsters will go on to achieve is one thing, but I'd rather watch Djokovic get outplayed by Federer after saying he was going to win than Robredo lose in 3 tight sets and be happy with it.

Sampras had exactly the same effect on his opponents, don't kid yourself otherwise. The only difference is that his more limited receiving game prevented him issuing the kind of drubbings that Federer inflicts.

Of course every great champion has an intimidating effect on their opponents; but there's intimidation and there's mental weakness. I followed Sampras throughout his career and the fellow members of the top 10 never showed the same fear of him as they do now of Federer. We can argue the toss over whether this is because Federer's less 'attackable' than Sampras and has less off days, but personally I put it down to a 3-10 bracket particularly devoid of mental strength.

You were only 13 when Sampras was in his prime. Take your rose spectacles off.

Do you mean strong like Kafel-can't care less, Ivanisevic-I'll double fault when it matters, Agassi- the worried warrior and Rafter-the-the tour-is-too-harsh-for-me? Unless you have in mind Todd Martin or Pioline? I am sure Nadal alone is stronger mentally than those 6 united.

The main strong ones mentally were Mc, Becker, Lendl(later stage) and Wilander but they were too old in the mid 95 to really bother Sampras.

My age and focal potential don't affect my ability to call it as I see it.

Fedexpress, Kafel-couldn't care less won 2 Slams while 'not caring less'. He had his moments, but unlike the majority of this top 10, when he got it together he had no problems with mental strength and belief whatsoever.

Goran was a bit of a choker, but his Slam achievements outstrip anything his compatriot Ljubicic will most likely ever do.

To say Agassi was mentally deficient or scared of anyone is pretty preposterous, and Rafter may have had the odd whinge, but a choker? Nope, a typical Aussie!

I could hold the same argument as yours. The fact that Kafel could be a double slam winner says it all about this older era. He has a 1to1 H2H with very young Davydenko. Go and visit Laurie's web site and check how crap he played that Masters match against Sampras. Kafel always collapsed in the QF and SF of slams. Except of course on clay after a 32 yo austrian retired...and he won it against a grass specialist.

I loved Goran so it hurts to mock him but frankly he shoudl have won 4 Wimbledons with just a bit more nerves.

Agassi lost his first 3 GS finals while the favourite against Sampras, Gomez and Courier and finally won his first one mostly because the favourite then collapsed (Goran again). He went on to lose quite a few other finals so I would certainly not consider him as strong mentally. Very talented though I agree.

J'en doute que nous allions partager quelque opinion du tennis... :P

I was never a fan of Kaf, I'd say he was a less talented Safin. He suffered numerous defeats at the business end of GS, but at least he got far enough to do that. He may have capitalised on draws opening up to get his Slams (wasn't Martin his most high profile victim when he won the AO?), but I feel a Davdenko or a Ljubicic wouldn't be capable of that even if Federer did miss one.

Do you remember much about the Agassi-Goran '92 final? From what I remember there was no choking in that match, and they were both relatively up-and-coming. The other one I guess is the 5 setter against Sampras, but Goran played out of his skin to win the two sets he did, and was thoroughly outplayed in the final set, losing it 6-2. Not sure which other year he should have won?

Well you've just labelled Lendl mentally strong and he lost his first 2 million Slam finals, what's it to be? Agassi wasn't mentally the strongest, but he was still pretty damn strong, and to liken him to some of the current top 10 is pretty comical to be honest.

Tenez.
The point is even though the players of the 90s like Kafel, Goran and Andre were not world beaters, they always gave Pete a run for his money and most of the matches were definitely not straight sets like we saw in this tournament. And its not that Pete always used to beat these players always. Andre has a very good records against Pete in masters series events unlike the case for Federer.

Too complicated to quote/reply now....but

...at least your French is getting better and better....;)

Speaking of which, is there a French equivalent of the proverb 'When you can't stand the heat....?' ;)

That I agree. Sampras had plenty of close matches and even won a slam or 2 after having MP against him. So in that respect he was more human than Fed.

I thought todays final had some very impressive points but the drama was lacking (except that I had some money at stake for Fed to win in 3). My only hesitation before the match was whether to put my money on Fed to win in 3 or in 4....and we know now how close this call was - but besides that not much suspense.

But on a pure tennis level, you should really be able to appreciate what those guys are doing out there. Look at Gonzo how he obliterated the former number 2 in the previous round...and the current number 2 ..and the former number 1....Give him a split secon extra and he'll whack winners from both sides and from anywhere in the court.....yet today he was "contained" by a Maestro of the game. A Maestro like there probably never was.

No. In France we can! ;)

craquer sous la pression...ne pas pouvoir faire face.....

Agassis amazing comeback from the wilderness took enournmous mental grit, as did his amazing RG win in 1999. I find it quite amusing that somebody would use that as an arguament

Yes but it is a different mental strength that when you are in the final of a GS.

And again the French is not a good example either. Either he was the better player and finally pulled his game together when he realised he had nothing left to lose or the opponent collapsed. I think it is a bit of both.

He turned out to be a strong player but he still lost 7 slams final so it is not "comical". I am sure Agassi doesn't laugh about it either.

Either way though to recover from a 2 love deficit is in a Grand Slam final is amazing. :bow: To be honest if I agree on one thing it's that none of the current lot would recover from 2 love deficits in Grand Slams as often as Andre did.

Also Andre lost so many finals to Pete, that I expect that while he's not laughing about the losses, he's also not too bitter as he knows he lost to the better player on the day...whether he was favourite for the match to start with or not.