This thread is.
RASPBERRY RIPPLE
BT Rep: +19
This thread is
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
effendi
Not really, there isn't and has never been a debate about that. Maradonna would be fantastic in today's game.It is widely regarded as such by morons. Federer doesn't have an absence of contention because he's thoroughly outclassed everyone. It's simply because the game in today's world simply won't allow for personal styles to dominate the court. It's turned everyone into a staple of the average tennis playstyle. Slice serves, net heavy play and repetitive volleys have been substituted for clinical accuracy, ungodly endurance and an annoyingly mundane positioning game - it's no surprise that the most exciting rallies are the ones where the player forgets to return to center position. It's becoming a streamlined algorithm of play.What the hell are you talking about. This current era of tennis is widely accepted as being of the highest standard, personnel wise, ever.
I don't know if you've noticed, but Federer is still playing. He won something recently, iirc. He's 30 and while that's not really all that old, it is when you've got younger antagonists like Djokovic and Nadal to contend with. Federer has had one of those two competing for his number one slot for at least eight years (Nadal is 26). I don't know if you missed the 2008 Wimbledon final but if you think that's playing a ball control game with no pressure, then I contend that perhaps you had inadvertently flicked onto the re-run of the ladies final that year. If there is something that Nadal applies on every surface to every opponent, it's pressure. It's what he does and what he has always done better than anyone else I've ever seen.
While the skills of the people you mention, definitely not including Courier (what?), Lendl, Connors, Becker, Wilander (teh fook) and most certainly not Edberg, are indeed of a particularly high standard, a level of fitness to match Federer's to go with their undoubted finesse wasn't present in any of these professional sportsmen.
He'd have killed them all and bagel'd the tiny Laver.
Of course, if any of those players were around today, with the better racquets and more vigorous training regimes, maybe they would have come close to his level of play when he was at his peak in 2007. However, there is uncertainty there as perhaps none of those individuals would have been able to hone their physical condition to approach the level needed just to last three sets at today's pace.
The fact that you discount Courier from being considered a great player is one of my pet peeves. As much as I'd like to write you an essay about why he deserves his name on that list, or his successful prediction of the technical meta game, or why he secretly was successful at what few other tennis players could lay claim to when it came to adversity, I'll just ease up and say "Meh, opinions". He does hold a special place in my heart, like. Of all the players I used to try and emulate when I took tennis very seriously, it as Courier who I always found a favorite in.
Either way Idol's apples and oranges analogy is correct in one regard. Arguing about Maradona's potential dominance today's football scene is just as pointless.
I want to hear why you think Courier is great because he simply wasn't. An essay on this would be an amazing thing to behold.
He was basically the fourth most talented player in the US at the time. I'm even putting him after Chang because, let's face it, if he was six inches taller, he'd have murdered Courier. There's no point even comparing Courier to Agassi and Sampras - especially on grass, which is what I'm talking about.
It's fascinating to see you say that attributes which contribute a great deal to a player's effectiveness, such as endurance, tactical nous and accuracy, are to the detriment of the regard in which you hold a player. It's these very things which mean that they are better tennis players.
Federer's endurance (the guy hardly sweats), his unerring accuracy (surely no-one in the history of tennis has pinged more backhands on the run and hit the line) and his positioning (you rarely see him scrabble) all point toward him being the greatest grass court player ever.
Nobody could do all the things he can do. His metronomic consistency means that he is a better tennis player than the more mercurial talents you champion.
It's basically just Borg who I think could compete with these guys.
I mean, if we're talking decent stuff to watch, then amongst contemporary players, I'd prefer a match up between, say, Tipsarevic and Warwinka. They play some lovely touch stuff.
But we're not, we're talking about the greatest (read; best) ever grass court player. And that is Federer.
I'm not sure it's just morons who believe that the current crop is the best ever. I've never actually heard anyone else describe Jim Courier as great, though.
Perhaps it's all those morons who are wrong.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
____________________
Federer is the best ever. Statistical and aesthetic fact. Shut the fuck up.
an alchemist?
Jack Dempsey would knock Federer the fuck out.
Everything is brought to you by Fjohürs Lykkewe.
mostly harmless
McEnroe was pretty good. Also Jimmy Connors, and I always used to cheer for Henri LeConte, even though he was French, and a "Conte" ...
Persona non grata
Clearly you follow tennis and I approve of this post.
Also Nadal is merely Jimmy Connors lite.
Maybe if he abused the umpires more.
Anyway Arthur Ashe was the best and I defy anyone who isn't a racist to say otherwise.
Respect my lack of authority.
Poster
It doesn't matter. It's distracting me from the horrible cold ball of dread in the pit of my stomach that DarthofHumility's revelation has lurched into place. I'm not entirely sure I have this right but either Switzerland have annexed part of Japan, in which case the world is way more fucked up than I thought, or it's unsuccessfully trying to coax The Humble One to the motherland. If it doesn't succeed this could put Europe decades behind the rest of the world in terms of scientific endeavour. It doesn't bear thinking about.This thread is
effendi
Wut. This thread is about how Federer's hair is still pretty cool even after 5 sets of sheer hell while wearing a sweatband.It doesn't matter. It's distracting me from the horrible cold ball of dread in the pit of my stomach that DarthofHumility's revelation has lurched into place. I'm not entirely sure I have this right but either Switzerland have annexed part of Japan, in which case the world is way more fucked up than I thought, or it's unsuccessfully trying to coax The Humble One to the motherland. If it doesn't succeed this could put Europe decades behind the rest of the world in terms of scientific endeavour. It doesn't bear thinking about.This thread is
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Poster
What is a Federer? Do you mean Fedora? And why would a hat have hair and a sweatband?
effendi
I'll post some pics.
Chavois seems to think he's dreamy, I think he's got a bit of a squishy face but has decent hair.
Roger-Federer-007.jpg<during game --- hair afterwards>Roger-Federer-with-trophy.jpg
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Posting Permissions
.
Reply With Quote
), Lendl, Connors, Becker, Wilander (teh fook) and most certainly not Edberg, are indeed of a particularly high standard, a level of fitness to match Federer's to go with their undoubted finesse wasn't present in any of these professional sportsmen. 
Bookmarks