-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Tennis Thread
- Thread starter Mister Wright
- Start date
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Like any tennis player gives a **** if they win a gold medal! Seriously, they don't get paid for it, and it isn't a grand slam. If you ask Marc Rosset if he would give up his gold medal for a Grand Slam Championship I think he would.broncoman said:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Oh he is definately special, but I think the lack of competition makes him look much better than he actually is. And when I watch tennis, I want to see a match, good match.Anil said:forget the competition, the point is you just need to watch him play to know that he is special...
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Common man, Rafter was one of the best serv and volley players of 90s. His career was marred by injuries and not to forget that he played in the era of two truly all time greats (Pete & Agassi).honestbharani said:
Roger may end up with 15 Grandslams (which I doubt) but I would still consider Pete's 14 better than his because Pete had to fight for every one of of those.
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
the lack of competition is because he is that better than everyone else....that doesn't necessarily make everyone else mediocre....Sanz said:
a good match for me is a high-quality match...federer vs safin, australian 2005, sampras vs agassi, wimbledon finals 1999(i think), now in the first instance both players played tennis at around the same level and at a very high quality and safin edged federer out....in the second case, sampras dominated agassi for most of the match and won comprehensively, that doesn't mean that agassi was playing poorly, it means that sampras was so good that day that in agassi's own words, "he walked on water"...both are good matches in terms of quality....my point is that just because one player dominates the other doesn't decrease the quality of the match or make it a bad match...and vice versa, just because a scrappy error-prone contest went to 5 sets with 3 tie-breaks or whatever doesn't make it a good match...
roddick did not play poorly, he was just totally outplayed....look at unforced errors for both, federer had 12 and roddick had 16, not a huge difference, the difference was in the number of outright winners, 49 to 19....the less number of winners for roddcik shows the backcourt defense and netplay of federer, the 49 winners gives an indication of the range and variety of his strokes, roddick usually gets a lot of cheap points on his first serve against just about anyone, he just had 7 aces to federer's 11...shows the returning ability of federer....
Last edited:
Simon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
its certainly not as important as a grand slam, but im sure the players would love one, Alicia Molik says her bronze medal is the proudest moment of her career, you cannot say it doesnt mean anything to her.Mister Wright said:
By 2008 id suspect Federer would have won everything else, i bet he would love an olympic gold medal...
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
alicia molik very likely won't win a major in her career and she probably realizes that so she is understandably thrilled about her olympic medal but don't look for the top players to share that enthusiasm....it would be a nice addition to their list of achievements but nothing compared to say winning a slam...broncoman said:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
You need to learn to read properly. Where have I said Federer is not class ? But Roddick isn't. If Roddick/Hewitt played in 90s they wouldn't be in top 25, forget winning grandslam and that is the standard of today's Men's Tennis. There were tons of players better than these two.broncoman said:
Last edited:
Simon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
compare Federer's 12 unforced errors in the final to the massive ammounts of errors there are in womens matches, its a no contest, id much prefer to watch Federer with his breath taking tennis wipe the floor with any male player than match Williams and anyone else going error for error, ause basically womens tennis is about who makes the least ammount of errors rather than who plays better tennis...Sanz said:
Simon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Molik would have been a factor at Wimbledon if he was fit, at her best shes a real chance on the faster courts now, she got to number 8 in the world this year and pushed Davenport all the way in the Australian open quarter finals, i think she may scrape a grand slam in somewhere before the end of her career. I see her a lot like Rafter, a solid player early in the career but really lifted in the mid to late twenties, shes worked so hard and her performances in the last 12 months show...Anil said:
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If she can stay fit, she should be a realistic contender.broncoman said:
C_C
International Captain
I definately disagree that Tennis through 90s was of a higher standard than it is today..it was of a higher standard in the early 90s- when players like Becker, Edberg, Agassi,Ivanisevic,Sampras, Muster, Bruguera, Courier and Chang were at their peak....but late 90s was most definately a 2-man show of Agassi and Sampras.
Currently, the quality of tennis isnt far off from the heydeys of the early 90s....claycourt tennis has improved tremendously and while tennis has too much power now, accuracy isnt overly compromised.
Players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc. are class players, period. Especially Safin, who i think is one of the most talented players in the last 20 years- he seems to be a bit of an Ivanisevic case though- a thorough nutter.
if he can get his act together, he can give Federer a run for his money.
Now on to Federer vs Sampras.
I think Federer is a superior player than Pete overall.
Both have/had pretty awesome first serves but Pete's second serve is legendary. That is one aspect where he overshadows Federer.
Their netplay is about the same but one place where Federer really overshadows Pete is his play from Baseline and his backhand. Pete struggled with his backhand drive most of the time - particularly on clay, where a rising ball to his backhand was his biggest downfall ( this IMO was the prime reason he never won French open- not his serve-n-volley). Having played juniors Tennis, i can safely say that playing a single-handed backhand drive to a chest high delivery is the toughest conventional shot in tennis.
This is one place where Federer is a class over Pete- his backhand is a thing of beauty.
Federer also has a much stronger defensive game than Pete- he's won points through his sheer deft touches and scrambling that Pete couldnt dream of winning.
Another thing that Federer has is McEnroe-esque ability to produce stunning shots.
Federer hasnt accomplished more than Pete - and it would be tough for him to win a further 9 grand slams.... but IMO, Federer right now is a better player than Pete ever was- the only surface where Pete could give Federer a run for his money is grass...that too, i think Federer would win narrowly.
Currently, the quality of tennis isnt far off from the heydeys of the early 90s....claycourt tennis has improved tremendously and while tennis has too much power now, accuracy isnt overly compromised.
Players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc. are class players, period. Especially Safin, who i think is one of the most talented players in the last 20 years- he seems to be a bit of an Ivanisevic case though- a thorough nutter.
if he can get his act together, he can give Federer a run for his money.
Now on to Federer vs Sampras.
I think Federer is a superior player than Pete overall.
Both have/had pretty awesome first serves but Pete's second serve is legendary. That is one aspect where he overshadows Federer.
Their netplay is about the same but one place where Federer really overshadows Pete is his play from Baseline and his backhand. Pete struggled with his backhand drive most of the time - particularly on clay, where a rising ball to his backhand was his biggest downfall ( this IMO was the prime reason he never won French open- not his serve-n-volley). Having played juniors Tennis, i can safely say that playing a single-handed backhand drive to a chest high delivery is the toughest conventional shot in tennis.
This is one place where Federer is a class over Pete- his backhand is a thing of beauty.
Federer also has a much stronger defensive game than Pete- he's won points through his sheer deft touches and scrambling that Pete couldnt dream of winning.
Another thing that Federer has is McEnroe-esque ability to produce stunning shots.
Federer hasnt accomplished more than Pete - and it would be tough for him to win a further 9 grand slams.... but IMO, Federer right now is a better player than Pete ever was- the only surface where Pete could give Federer a run for his money is grass...that too, i think Federer would win narrowly.