Roger Federer Wins US Open

[Jcrowley]

What is poorly understood amongst people who haven't played tennis at high levels is how unbelievable a shotmaker Federer is. The angles he can create from all positions on the court are never before seen. And he can do this throughout an entire match, for match after match. It matters not what the analysts, sportswriters or fans have to say listen to the top players they all agree that Federer is the best of all time.

It's not even so much a matter of the fact that he won tonight toying with Roddick, not even pulling out his 'A' game until the fourth set, but what he is able to do week after week against the best.

3 consecutive Wimbledons. 3 consecutive US Opens. 70-5 on the year, so far.

Hats off Roger.

[Ekirh]

1. Well the "new" Andy Roddick

Is just as effective against Federer as the Old Any Roddick... basically not at all.

Roddick is doing nothing wrong at all . . . just Federer is just on an amazing level right now.

I'm no Tennis expert.. nor am I consistent watcher of the sport. But from what I have seen here and there is Federer for a lack of a better word is awesome.

[geek tragedy]

2. Roddick played GREAT, and he was still

no match.

Federer just needs to add one French Open championship and then he's the all-time best, hands down.

[brentspeak]

4. I disagree on that

Federer has established he's the best mens tennis pro of his generation, but it's hard to make a comparison to other all-time greats. Pete Sampras was nearly as dominant as Federer, and had tougher competition overall. Borg was the winningest player during his time, and competed successfully against Vilas, Gerulaitis, Connors, and Ashe in the first half of his career, and the same against McEnroe and Lendl in the second half of his career. And there's still a lot of people who claim Rod Laver is the best of all-time.

[geek tragedy]

5. Sampras won 14 Grand Slams over the course of a career.

Federer may have that by this time in 2008.

I think Federer is a victim of his own dominance to a certain extent--no one else has been able to build a reputation for greatness because no one else, besides, Rafa, can beat him.

In terms of athleticism, I'd be very, very suprised if Rod Laver or Don Budge could handle Federer on any surface. Modern athletes tend to be bigger, faster, stronger, etc.

It's always a fun debate to have--no certain answer.

[Jcrowley]

7. Interesting thing here

is that nearly all of the all-time greats also say Federer is the best of all time. Including McEnroe who could barely stand to say anyone was better than he.

Actually the caliber of play in the top 80 is higher now than ever. Not even close.

As for the claim about Laver he isn't one of them to suggest that. He goes with Federer.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Large raquets have made pro tennis less interesting to watch.

The percentage of points won with aces has gone up dramatically, especially in the men's game.

Put them back with the raquets that Borg and McEnroe played with and maybe I'll tune in.

But, the thought of watching what could be five hours of guys trying to ace each other. No.

[Awsi Dooger]

6. Interesting points throughout the replies

I agree Federer is the best shotmaker I've ever seen, but that doesn't mean he could consistently defeat premier serve and volleyers like Sampras in his prime. The person at the net has the mathematical edge and that will always give players like Sampras and Navratilova a big benefit of the doubt in my mind, in projecting matchups among the alltime greats. There isn't a great net rusher out there right now.

Laver was phenomenal but at 5-9 he would have trouble in matchups against the likes of Sampras and Federer.

Federer's slam finals always seem to evolve the same way: split the first two sets, tight third set then Fed pulls it out in the end and the fourth set is a steamroll. Only when Nadal won the 3rd set in the French did that not hold up this year, but it was still the same basic formula, a 4 set match decided by whoever wins the 3rd set.