Comments on: Does Federer Really Have to Hurry Up?

By: links for 2007-09-12 « India Syndicate

links for 2007-09-12 « India Syndicate — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:15:48 +0000

[...] Comments on Federer (tags: Federer) [...]

By: Joe Dempsey

Joe Dempsey — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:25:03 +0000

Huan, if you ever start a blog about tennis, I'll bookmark it.

By: Hsu

Hsu — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:50:40 +0000

Of course Federer doesn't need to hurry. He's got four more Wimbledons before he turns 30, and who's going to beat him at Wimbledon? He's more automatic than Sampras (born in DC, by the way) was at the AELTC, which is saying a lot. Sampras won his final Wimbledon at 28, and his final Slam (the '02 Open) at 31. As for young Djokovic, he has mucho game, but any time I hear someone anoint Up and Comer X as the next threat to Federer's dominance (including Nadal; it's too bad he was gimpy at the Open because a Nadal-Federer final would have gone a long way in answering just how assured Federer is of breaking Sampras' record), I can't help but think of Yevgeny Kafelnikov. In 1994, after a young Kafelnikov lost to Sampras 9-7 in the fifth at the Aussie Open, Sampras claimed that Kafelnikov was not only the best Russian he'd ever played, but also had the "best groundies I've ever faced." This was coming from a guy who beat down Agassi, Courier, Lendl, and other bashers. Kafelnikov ended up winning two Slams (an Aussie and a French) before retiring and becoming a pro poker player. He was a solid player with guns off both sides, a plus serve, and a dependable return, but none of the sublimeness of a Sampras or Federer. Kafelnikov, by the way, finished his career 2-11 against Sampras. Few, if any, of Federer's challengers are even at the level of Kafelnikov in his prime, and that's where their ceilings are, if not below it. Andy Roddick: still only halfway to Kafelnikov's Slam total. James Blake: will be lucky to reach Kafelnikov status. Andy Murray: ditto. Marat Safin, the only guy with the game to beat Federer on any surface but never got his head straight: three Slams and on his way off the tour. Djokovic: too early to even call him the next Kafelnikov. This isn't meant to disparage anyone. They're all great players and Kafelnikov had a great career. Any of them can catch Fed on a bad day at a non-Slam and notch a W. But none of them are one of the GOAT, and that's what it takes to dethrone the king. For the foreseeable future, the tour will remain Federer's private game reserve.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:26:39 +0000

Roger doesn't need to hurry up, he doesn't even need to dominate or be the world number 1 or even do a calendar Grand Slam to surpass Samprass, mathematically he can win a slam here and there for the next 5 or so years, or even have 1 French title and he'd walk away from the game with more slams than Pete.
Is Novak the real deal? Not sure yet I can remember so many tennis writers queuing to inaugurate Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick as successors to Pete’s throne (and that was when they had a slam each) yet the hype fizzled, the brains crumbled and reality settled in. As for Nadal his very physical game is in serious trouble of self-destructing from wear and tear in the next couple of years.
Roger's game is so layered he can lose speed and even a couple of his shots and still come out on top, he doesn't have to revolutionise his game the way Andre had to!

By: smith

smith — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:37:36 +0000

Thank God Wemple isn't the Post's sports editor.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:41:10 +0000

waaah! Why don't people like Tennis as much as football!? Boohoo I want to be the popular one!

By: Rob Richie

Rob Richie — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:35:50 +0000

The tennis gods are rather tough on aging. Agassi kept winning into his late 20's and early 30's, but few do. Sampras had won 10 of his 14 Slams by Federer's current age, and three of the remaining ones were just at Wimbledone -- the one exception was his remarkable last run at the US Open 6 years after his last win there. The gap between the top players is remarkably small, and just a small decline in performance can change results. I'm not expecting Federer to struggle in 2007, but it's going to happen at some point, and may be a lot sooner than some expect.