Federer, Nadal, Safin, Sampras

[Tiger7Moth]

Federer is a beautiful player to watch. Fast, graceful and with the ability to make any shot - forehand, backhand, serve, net play, overhead ...

Amazing record last year and winner of 3 Grand Slams events.

As this year began some speculated if he would win the Grand Slam this year and some wondered if he could be the best player ever.

I read last week that Federer was asked if he could be considered the greatest player ever - to which, according to what I read, he replied he was too young (which seemed to me to imply that his answer was along the lines of, "well, yes, I could be the greatest ever, but, a bit too early to put that on my placque in the hall of fame.

So, here we are with the French Open, the second Grand Slam event of the year after the Australian Open, coming to an end and Federer is zero for 2. Lost to Safin in the Australian, (could be the best player in the world or the worst depending upon his mood and game on a particular day) and yesterday, lost convincingly to Nadal in the French (and Nadal, just turning 19 years old, has won 6 tournaments already this year and has clearly been number 1 on clay.

Which brings us to Pete Sampras and his 13 Grand Slams (Federer (age 23 I believe) has a total of 3 (maybe 4), Safin, age 25, I believe, has 2 (for comparison - John McEnroe had won 7 by the age of 26 but never won another one). So, it seems to me that Sampras is safe as the best ever (although, I favor Rod Laver) as far as potential Grand Slam totals for Federer and Safin. Who knows, maybe Nadal will be the one to win 14 Grand Slams.

As far as fun to watch, I never could make it through an entire Sampras match - such a boring presence for tennis fans; Safin, incredible ability and total unpredictablility - can be great to watch or disappointing; Nadal, I have seen him on TV in several tournaments - seems to be the real deal - talented, personality and exciting to watch - but, I wonder if his arm and shoulder can stand up to his severe top spin, year after year.

When asked who he thought was the greatest player, Arthur Ashe chose not to base the answer simply on Grand Slams, chose Jimmy Connors (won 105 tournaments - 20 more than anyone else) - and who was more exciting to watch?

[paulfr]

Pete has 14 GS and Fed 4.

Greatest, best record, best GS record, most wins (Connors, 105), most GS singles titles (Pete, 14), most GSs (Margaret Court), most dominant in a period (Seles), most yrs at #1 (Sampras, 6), most feared, most admired (Lew Hoad), most talent (Nastase), best record in a year, ..... etc.

Really unfair to pick a Greatest ever.

But it does seem Fed has a serious long term rival in Nadal.

Now can Puerta upset the entire tennis world and take down Nadal ?

Tune in a few hours from now.

[Tiger7Moth]

Pete has 14 GS and Fed 4.

Greatest, best record, best GS record, most wins (Connors, 105), most GS singles titles (Pete, 14), most GSs (Margaret Court), most dominant in a period (Seles), most yrs at #1 (Sampras, 6), most feared, most admired (Lew Hoad), most talent (Nastase), best record in a year, ..... etc.

Really unfair to pick a Greatest ever.

But it does seem Fed has a serious long term rival in Nadal.

Now can Puerta upset the entire tennis world and take down Nadal ?

Tune in a few hours from now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, Nadal won!

I guess I was most surprised that Federer, a beautiful player for sure, seemed to be buying into the hype that he might be the greatest ever.

I remember the year after Borg had won his 11th Grand Slam, including that years French and Wimbledon. And the talk was whether Borg would win the Grand Slam and claim his place as the greatest ever. But, McEnroe beat him in the US Open and then the following year McEnroe beat him at Wimbledon and also won the US Open again and then Borg at age 26, I think, called it quits.

So, it seemed to me that as wonderful a record Federer recently had, it was quite a stretch to consider him as a candidate for the best ever. Especially since Safin seemed at least his equal on any given day (although Safin was much less consistent) and Nadal had won against Federer once already.

It seems just yesterday that the Williams sisters were expected to dominate women's tennis but, except for Serena's win at the Austrailian (w/o the Belgian ladies playing) the Williams sisters seem quite ordinary.

So, perhaps Federer is seeing his best days now and will not be anything close to the best ever. Time will tell.

Regarding your points about the best ever. I agree many different ways one could look at it. I prefer to look at it as each player at his peak, on his best day - who would win. Of course, we will never know as the peaks and careers and best days happen at different times.

[ozzydom]

You cannot compare modern day players with champs of yesteryear, racquet , ball ,playing surface technology are so advanced today.

How good would the Hoads,Borgs,Nastase,s be on rebound ace with a titanium framer in his mitt.