tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 31 Dec 2008 11:44:52
From: Iceberg
Subject: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than Sampras/McEnroe
End of List.






 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 09:06:32
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Dec 31, 3:44=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> End of List.

1. He's playing now and Sampras/McEnroe aren't.


 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 08:17:19
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Dec 31, 3:44=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> End of List.

++ 13 slams for Feddy... so... he's not that bad?

P


  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 02:11:21
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than Sampras/McEnroe
"Patrick Kehoe" <pkehoe@telus.net > wrote in message
news:c242ebf8-9a3c-43f9-9e6f-38494f8b1c86@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 31, 3:44 am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> End of List.

++ 13 slams for Feddy... so... he's not that bad?

Clown era.



 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 07:26:41
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Dec 31, 12:44=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> End of List.

McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.


  
Date: 02 Jan 2009 21:29:05
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than


Whisper wrote:
> ahonkan wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 2:15 am, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> >>
> >> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>>> End of List.
> >>> McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
> >>> ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
> >>> him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
> >> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
> >> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
> >>
> >> wg
> >
> > Yes, that would be *logical*. Which takes Whisper out of all
> > discussions. He is incapable of a logical discussion. He makes
> > the rules, he assigns the weightage given to parameters, he
> > selects the candidates, he judges them and anoints the winner.
>
>
> 7543 selects the candidates as far as achievement goat goes - which is
> the biggest/main category & only one that isn't subjective. No point
> pretending tune-up performance means anything. If it did Connors would
> be goat with his 109 titles. He said he threw all his tennis trophies in
> the bin except Wimbledon/USO.
>
>
>
> > In his scheme of things, needing 52 slams to cobble together 14
> > titles in 16 years, losing in R1-2 of FO 8 times in 13 tries,
> > never
> > making a single FO final, never winning more than 2 slams in an
> > year etc are essential to being a GOAT.
>
>
> Funny he's the only guy in history who could 'cobble' together 14 slams.
> Plus he did it on pure ability/talent, given his medical condition
> which made it impossible to go 100% physically. He also cobbled
> together 6 straight yr-end No.1s & most ever weeks at No.1. Why don't
> you have a crack at minimizing that too?
>
>
> > If Pete says Fed is GOAT,
> > Whisper will ridicule Pete or say he is just being polite.
>
>
>
> No way does Sampras think Fed could beat him at his best. All these
> greats are polite to each other because they all know it's the record
> that counts.
>
>
>
> > As to decide who is the most talented, there can be no discussion.
> > If Whisper says it's Mac & Mecir, it must be so. If Mac himself
> > calls Fed the most talented, that's plain stoopid. What does he
> > know? Or for that matter, everybody else.
> > There isn't a single tennis player worth his salt who hasn't
> > called
> > Fed the most talented ever and most have already anointed him
> > the GOAT, but let Whisper enjoy his peculiarly ordered universe.
>
>
>
> Ok, let's hear your attempt to break it down for me - how exactly does
> Federer have more talent than McEnroe? 'Mac says so' doesn't prove
> anything at all. You'll need to put your thinking cap on & demonstrate
> how this greatest ever talent is manifested in his play. If it's too
> hard ignore it.

Do you think 'the Lisper say no' means 1/10000 of
'JMac says so'?

JMac was touting Federer at W '00, when the latter was
a nobody. *No one had anything to gain by that.*
JMac said, "this kid Federer... has all the shots. He could
win a bunch of Majors." (coupled with footage)

The Lisper's ever more contorted 'reasoning' is fun to
read. Go, Lisper!

btw, when are you playng Doohan again? I'm not callin'
you a Liar, or anything like that, of course... :)



  
Date: 02 Jan 2009 11:46:15
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 2, 1:34=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Rodjk #613 wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 2:03 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Fan wrote:
> >>>> You missed the point again, whisper. You do it so often it almost
> >>>> seems that you do it on purpose.
> >>>> The conversation was talent, not definitive goat. Do try to pay
> >>>> attention.
> >>> Have no use for the "goat" and "7999" or whatever garbage. Not even a
> >>> Federer fan. Nadal is more to my liking for his fighting spirit and
> >>> guts. However, it is sheer lunacy to question Federer's superior
> >>> talent. He was heralded as the all time most talented tennis player
> >>> before he won his first slam. He has 13 slams and still going strong.
> >>> For years, he was so dominant that it was good to see him lose some.
> >> He is not more talented at serving than Sampras & many other players,
> >> obviously has poor reflexes & instincts at the net compared to
> >> McEnroe/Edberg, is inferior to Rafa from baseline etc
>
> >> The evidence suggests your opinion requires a huge leap of faith not
> >> backed up by the evidence.
>
> > The evidence suggests that you are a troll with a shallow
> > understanding of tennis history.
>
> > Rodjk #613
>
> I wish rst was a place where my tennis knowledge could be considered
> shallow by comparison,

It is a place where your knowledge is shallow.

>as then I could enjoy learning new insights into
> the game - indeed I thought this may have been the case when I 1st waded
> into this ng. =A0Only took a few days to realize most were complete moron=
s
> who knew fuck all.

uh huh...

Rodjk #613


  
Date: 02 Jan 2009 11:45:21
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 2, 1:32=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Rodjk #613 wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 1:08 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> >>> On Jan 1, 9:06 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ++ In ten or fifteen years Federer probably won't be seen as the
> >>> Talent GOAT, but, for now he is by sheer volume of expert consensus..=
.
> >>> as I have said many times before the Talent GOAT is the most fleeting
> >>> of the monikers/taglines bestowed on a player
> >> That's true in a ceibs sense - ie when players who don't really deserv=
e
> >> 'best ever' tag in an historical sense, but benefit from ceibs syndrom=
e.
> >> =A0 But guys like McEnroe are still regarded as a talent goat many yea=
rs
> >> after retirmement because it was obvious in their play - so many 'wow'
> >> shots. =A0Fed has some of this too, but not enough to stick.
>
> >>> THOUGH one of the most
> >>> important... a nice irony there... you can spend days on the net
> >>> finding insider after insider naming Fed as Talent GOAT... it's a
> >>> fleeting title of course... the race to get to 14 and beyond is the
> >>> more estimable in terms of historical legacy and the clearest
> >>> measure... and yet - and herein the contradistinction stands - Fed ha=
s
> >>> already established himself as historical, and a great, a legend of
> >>> the sport, if he never wins anything else... he's certainly likely to=
,
> >>> though one never knows... what's great about watching Federer is the
> >>> same as it was watching Laver and Borg and Connors and McEnroe and
> >>> Lendl and Pete and now Federer and perhaps Nadal is that the game's
> >>> collectivity seems wrapped up in them and their games and their
> >>> affecting play within their particular generation...
> >>> P
> >> Clearly that's not true - eg when Mac dominated he was the only s/v'er
> >> around in the top echelon,
>
> > Roscoe Tanner, Vijay Amritraj , Arthur Ashe, Vitas Gerulaitis, Brian
> > Gottfried, Steve Denton, Colin Dibley, Noah, Victor Amaya, Mark
> > Edmondson, Brian Teacher...
>
> > And more. These were all around in the late 70's and early 80's.
> > For anyone knowledgeable about tennis (like you claim to be) these
> > should all be common names.
>
> > Again, I think you are a fraud. Not just a troll, but an ignorant one.
>
> These guys were not top contenders when Mac ascended to No.1. =A0It's lik=
e
> the Fedfuckers who use Stepanek as evidence s/v is no longer viable.

Top ten players, slam winners...
Not top players, right?

>
>
>
> >> same with Sampras - thus they cannot
> >> represent the game's 'collectivity' at the time. =A0If anything they w=
ere
> >> a contradiction/paradox.
>
> > Sampras did not play against Edberg, Becker, Annacone, Goran,
> > Krajicek...?
>
> Please - if you have nothing to say don't get involved.

Top ten players, slam winners...
Not top players, right?

Go on, little troll. You have been exposed (again) as a poser.

Rodjk #613


  
Date: 02 Jan 2009 08:40:25
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 2, 2:03=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Fan wrote:
> >> You missed the point again, whisper. You do it so often it almost
> >> seems that you do it on purpose.
>
> >> The conversation was talent, not definitive goat. Do try to pay
> >> attention.
>
> > Have no use for the "goat" and "7999" or whatever garbage. Not even a
> > Federer fan. Nadal is more to my liking for his fighting spirit and
> > guts. However, it is sheer lunacy to question Federer's superior
> > talent. He was heralded as the all time most talented tennis player
> > before he won his first slam. He has 13 slams and still going strong.
> > For years, he was so dominant that it was good to see him lose some.
>
> He is not more talented at serving than Sampras & many other players,
> obviously has poor reflexes & instincts at the net compared to
> McEnroe/Edberg, is inferior to Rafa from baseline etc
>
> The evidence suggests your opinion requires a huge leap of faith not
> backed up by the evidence.

The evidence suggests that you are a troll with a shallow
understanding of tennis history.

Rodjk #613


   
Date: 03 Jan 2009 06:34:28
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2:03 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Fan wrote:
>>>> You missed the point again, whisper. You do it so often it almost
>>>> seems that you do it on purpose.
>>>> The conversation was talent, not definitive goat. Do try to pay
>>>> attention.
>>> Have no use for the "goat" and "7999" or whatever garbage. Not even a
>>> Federer fan. Nadal is more to my liking for his fighting spirit and
>>> guts. However, it is sheer lunacy to question Federer's superior
>>> talent. He was heralded as the all time most talented tennis player
>>> before he won his first slam. He has 13 slams and still going strong.
>>> For years, he was so dominant that it was good to see him lose some.
>> He is not more talented at serving than Sampras & many other players,
>> obviously has poor reflexes & instincts at the net compared to
>> McEnroe/Edberg, is inferior to Rafa from baseline etc
>>
>> The evidence suggests your opinion requires a huge leap of faith not
>> backed up by the evidence.
>
> The evidence suggests that you are a troll with a shallow
> understanding of tennis history.
>
> Rodjk #613


I wish rst was a place where my tennis knowledge could be considered
shallow by comparison, as then I could enjoy learning new insights into
the game - indeed I thought this may have been the case when I 1st waded
into this ng. Only took a few days to realize most were complete morons
who knew fuck all.



  
Date: 02 Jan 2009 08:37:34
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 2, 1:08=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 9:06 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ++ In ten or fifteen years Federer probably won't be seen as the
> > Talent GOAT, but, for now he is by sheer volume of expert consensus...
> > as I have said many times before the Talent GOAT is the most fleeting
> > of the monikers/taglines bestowed on a player
>
> That's true in a ceibs sense - ie when players who don't really deserve
> 'best ever' tag in an historical sense, but benefit from ceibs syndrome.
> =A0 But guys like McEnroe are still regarded as a talent goat many years
> after retirmement because it was obvious in their play - so many 'wow'
> shots. =A0Fed has some of this too, but not enough to stick.
>
> > THOUGH one of the most
> > important... a nice irony there... you can spend days on the net
> > finding insider after insider naming Fed as Talent GOAT... it's a
> > fleeting title of course... the race to get to 14 and beyond is the
> > more estimable in terms of historical legacy and the clearest
> > measure... and yet - and herein the contradistinction stands - Fed has
> > already established himself as historical, and a great, a legend of
> > the sport, if he never wins anything else... he's certainly likely to,
> > though one never knows... what's great about watching Federer is the
> > same as it was watching Laver and Borg and Connors and McEnroe and
> > Lendl and Pete and now Federer and perhaps Nadal is that the game's
> > collectivity seems wrapped up in them and their games and their
> > affecting play within their particular generation...
>
> > P
>
> Clearly that's not true - eg when Mac dominated he was the only s/v'er
> around in the top echelon,

Roscoe Tanner, Vijay Amritraj , Arthur Ashe, Vitas Gerulaitis, Brian
Gottfried, Steve Denton, Colin Dibley, Noah, Victor Amaya, Mark
Edmondson, Brian Teacher...

And more. These were all around in the late 70's and early 80's.
For anyone knowledgeable about tennis (like you claim to be) these
should all be common names.

Again, I think you are a fraud. Not just a troll, but an ignorant one.

>same with Sampras - thus they cannot
> represent the game's 'collectivity' at the time. =A0If anything they were
> a contradiction/paradox.

Sampras did not play against Edberg, Becker, Annacone, Goran,
Krajicek...?

Rodjk #613

>
> Even Federer is distinguished from his era norm by using a single-handed =
bh.



   
Date: 03 Jan 2009 06:32:17
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Jan 2, 1:08 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>> On Jan 1, 9:06 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ++ In ten or fifteen years Federer probably won't be seen as the
>>> Talent GOAT, but, for now he is by sheer volume of expert consensus...
>>> as I have said many times before the Talent GOAT is the most fleeting
>>> of the monikers/taglines bestowed on a player
>> That's true in a ceibs sense - ie when players who don't really deserve
>> 'best ever' tag in an historical sense, but benefit from ceibs syndrome.
>> But guys like McEnroe are still regarded as a talent goat many years
>> after retirmement because it was obvious in their play - so many 'wow'
>> shots. Fed has some of this too, but not enough to stick.
>>
>>> THOUGH one of the most
>>> important... a nice irony there... you can spend days on the net
>>> finding insider after insider naming Fed as Talent GOAT... it's a
>>> fleeting title of course... the race to get to 14 and beyond is the
>>> more estimable in terms of historical legacy and the clearest
>>> measure... and yet - and herein the contradistinction stands - Fed has
>>> already established himself as historical, and a great, a legend of
>>> the sport, if he never wins anything else... he's certainly likely to,
>>> though one never knows... what's great about watching Federer is the
>>> same as it was watching Laver and Borg and Connors and McEnroe and
>>> Lendl and Pete and now Federer and perhaps Nadal is that the game's
>>> collectivity seems wrapped up in them and their games and their
>>> affecting play within their particular generation...
>>> P
>> Clearly that's not true - eg when Mac dominated he was the only s/v'er
>> around in the top echelon,
>
> Roscoe Tanner, Vijay Amritraj , Arthur Ashe, Vitas Gerulaitis, Brian
> Gottfried, Steve Denton, Colin Dibley, Noah, Victor Amaya, Mark
> Edmondson, Brian Teacher...
>
> And more. These were all around in the late 70's and early 80's.
> For anyone knowledgeable about tennis (like you claim to be) these
> should all be common names.
>
> Again, I think you are a fraud. Not just a troll, but an ignorant one.


These guys were not top contenders when Mac ascended to No.1. It's like
the Fedfuckers who use Stepanek as evidence s/v is no longer viable.


>
>> same with Sampras - thus they cannot
>> represent the game's 'collectivity' at the time. If anything they were
>> a contradiction/paradox.
>
> Sampras did not play against Edberg, Becker, Annacone, Goran,
> Krajicek...?


Please - if you have nothing to say don't get involved.



  
Date: 02 Jan 2009 01:43:06
From: ahonkan
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 1, 2:15=A0am, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31, 12:44=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> > > End of List.
>
> > McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
> > ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
> > him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
>
> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
>
> wg

Yes, that would be *logical*. Which takes Whisper out of all
discussions. He is incapable of a logical discussion. He makes
the rules, he assigns the weightage given to parameters, he
selects the candidates, he judges them and anoints the winner.
In his scheme of things, needing 52 slams to cobble together 14
titles in 16 years, losing in R1-2 of FO 8 times in 13 tries,
never
making a single FO final, never winning more than 2 slams in an
year etc are essential to being a GOAT. If Pete says Fed is GOAT,
Whisper will ridicule Pete or say he is just being polite.
As to decide who is the most talented, there can be no discussion.
If Whisper says it's Mac & Mecir, it must be so. If Mac himself
calls Fed the most talented, that's plain stoopid. What does he
know? Or for that matter, everybody else.
There isn't a single tennis player worth his salt who hasn't
called
Fed the most talented ever and most have already anointed him
the GOAT, but let Whisper enjoy his peculiarly ordered universe.


   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 21:19:06
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
ahonkan wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2:15 am, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In article
>> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>> End of List.
>>> McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
>>> ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
>>> him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
>> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
>> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
>>
>> wg
>
> Yes, that would be *logical*. Which takes Whisper out of all
> discussions. He is incapable of a logical discussion. He makes
> the rules, he assigns the weightage given to parameters, he
> selects the candidates, he judges them and anoints the winner.


7543 selects the candidates as far as achievement goat goes - which is
the biggest/main category & only one that isn't subjective. No point
pretending tune-up performance means anything. If it did Connors would
be goat with his 109 titles. He said he threw all his tennis trophies in
the bin except Wimbledon/USO.



> In his scheme of things, needing 52 slams to cobble together 14
> titles in 16 years, losing in R1-2 of FO 8 times in 13 tries,
> never
> making a single FO final, never winning more than 2 slams in an
> year etc are essential to being a GOAT.


Funny he's the only guy in history who could 'cobble' together 14 slams.
Plus he did it on pure ability/talent, given his medical condition
which made it impossible to go 100% physically. He also cobbled
together 6 straight yr-end No.1s & most ever weeks at No.1. Why don't
you have a crack at minimizing that too?


> If Pete says Fed is GOAT,
> Whisper will ridicule Pete or say he is just being polite.



No way does Sampras think Fed could beat him at his best. All these
greats are polite to each other because they all know it's the record
that counts.



> As to decide who is the most talented, there can be no discussion.
> If Whisper says it's Mac & Mecir, it must be so. If Mac himself
> calls Fed the most talented, that's plain stoopid. What does he
> know? Or for that matter, everybody else.
> There isn't a single tennis player worth his salt who hasn't
> called
> Fed the most talented ever and most have already anointed him
> the GOAT, but let Whisper enjoy his peculiarly ordered universe.



Ok, let's hear your attempt to break it down for me - how exactly does
Federer have more talent than McEnroe? 'Mac says so' doesn't prove
anything at all. You'll need to put your thinking cap on & demonstrate
how this greatest ever talent is manifested in his play. If it's too
hard ignore it.


  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 23:56:50
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
> You missed the point again, whisper. You do it so often it almost
> seems that you do it on purpose.
>
> The conversation was talent, not definitive goat. Do try to pay
> attention.

Have no use for the "goat" and "7999" or whatever garbage. Not even a
Federer fan. Nadal is more to my liking for his fighting spirit and
guts. However, it is sheer lunacy to question Federer's superior
talent. He was heralded as the all time most talented tennis player
before he won his first slam. He has 13 slams and still going strong.
For years, he was so dominant that it was good to see him lose some.


   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 19:03:02
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Fan wrote:
>> You missed the point again, whisper. You do it so often it almost
>> seems that you do it on purpose.
>>
>> The conversation was talent, not definitive goat. Do try to pay
>> attention.
>
> Have no use for the "goat" and "7999" or whatever garbage. Not even a
> Federer fan. Nadal is more to my liking for his fighting spirit and
> guts. However, it is sheer lunacy to question Federer's superior
> talent. He was heralded as the all time most talented tennis player
> before he won his first slam. He has 13 slams and still going strong.
> For years, he was so dominant that it was good to see him lose some.



He is not more talented at serving than Sampras & many other players,
obviously has poor reflexes & instincts at the net compared to
McEnroe/Edberg, is inferior to Rafa from baseline etc

The evidence suggests your opinion requires a huge leap of faith not
backed up by the evidence.



    
Date: 04 Jan 2009 02:41:13
From: john
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:495dca3a$0$22082$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Fan wrote:
>>> You missed the point again, whisper. You do it so often it almost
>>> seems that you do it on purpose.
>>>
>>> The conversation was talent, not definitive goat. Do try to pay
>>> attention.
>>
>> Have no use for the "goat" and "7999" or whatever garbage. Not even a
>> Federer fan. Nadal is more to my liking for his fighting spirit and
>> guts. However, it is sheer lunacy to question Federer's superior
>> talent. He was heralded as the all time most talented tennis player
>> before he won his first slam. He has 13 slams and still going strong.
>> For years, he was so dominant that it was good to see him lose some.
>
>
>
> He is not more talented at serving than Sampras & many other players,
> obviously has poor reflexes & instincts at the net compared to
> McEnroe/Edberg, is inferior to Rafa from baseline etc
>

Base on the logic of your argument above we can easily disqualify McEnroe as
'Talent Goat' and same with Sampras. McErone's ground stroke is one of the
weakest amongst the modern greats, Edberg had a very weak forehand but his
backhand is more solid and had more variety than McEnroe. McEnroe is also
an inferior server compare to Sampras and a lot of others. Base on those
evidence
he can not be consider as 'Talent Goat'.

Sampras' ground stroke was inconsistant highlighted by his repeated failure
in losing
to journey men in the first two round of FO.




     
Date: 03 Jan 2009 23:09:28
From: TT
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
john wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:495dca3a$0$22082$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Fan wrote:
>>>> You missed the point again, whisper. You do it so often it almost
>>>> seems that you do it on purpose.
>>>>
>>>> The conversation was talent, not definitive goat. Do try to pay
>>>> attention.
>>> Have no use for the "goat" and "7999" or whatever garbage. Not even a
>>> Federer fan. Nadal is more to my liking for his fighting spirit and
>>> guts. However, it is sheer lunacy to question Federer's superior
>>> talent. He was heralded as the all time most talented tennis player
>>> before he won his first slam. He has 13 slams and still going strong.
>>> For years, he was so dominant that it was good to see him lose some.
>>
>>
>> He is not more talented at serving than Sampras & many other players,
>> obviously has poor reflexes & instincts at the net compared to
>> McEnroe/Edberg, is inferior to Rafa from baseline etc
>>
>
> Base on the logic of your argument above we can easily disqualify McEnroe as
> 'Talent Goat' and same with Sampras. McErone's ground stroke is one of the
> weakest amongst the modern greats, Edberg had a very weak forehand but his
> backhand is more solid and had more variety than McEnroe. McEnroe is also
> an inferior server compare to Sampras and a lot of others. Base on those
> evidence
> he can not be consider as 'Talent Goat'.
>
> Sampras' ground stroke was inconsistant highlighted by his repeated failure
> in losing
> to journey men in the first two round of FO.
>
>

Federer has lost 3 times in first round, so far. As did Sampras in his
whole career.



--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


     
Date: 04 Jan 2009 05:13:52
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
john wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:495dca3a$0$22082$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Fan wrote:
>>>> You missed the point again, whisper. You do it so often it almost
>>>> seems that you do it on purpose.
>>>>
>>>> The conversation was talent, not definitive goat. Do try to pay
>>>> attention.
>>> Have no use for the "goat" and "7999" or whatever garbage. Not even a
>>> Federer fan. Nadal is more to my liking for his fighting spirit and
>>> guts. However, it is sheer lunacy to question Federer's superior
>>> talent. He was heralded as the all time most talented tennis player
>>> before he won his first slam. He has 13 slams and still going strong.
>>> For years, he was so dominant that it was good to see him lose some.
>>
>>
>> He is not more talented at serving than Sampras & many other players,
>> obviously has poor reflexes & instincts at the net compared to
>> McEnroe/Edberg, is inferior to Rafa from baseline etc
>>
>
> Base on the logic of your argument above we can easily disqualify McEnroe as
> 'Talent Goat' and same with Sampras. McErone's ground stroke is one of the
> weakest amongst the modern greats,


You're confusing power with effectiveness. Mac blitzed great baseliners
like Borg, Wilander, Jimbo & Lendl.


> Edberg had a very weak forehand but his
> backhand is more solid and had more variety than McEnroe. McEnroe is also
> an inferior server compare to Sampras and a lot of others. Base on those
> evidence
> he can not be consider as 'Talent Goat'.


How about his volleys, net instincts & reflexes? Arguably goat level.


>
> Sampras' ground stroke was inconsistant highlighted by his repeated failure
> in losing
> to journey men in the first two round of FO.
>
>


I never saw those journeymen pound baseline winners like Sampras.


      
Date: 04 Jan 2009 00:50:27
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:13:52 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:495dca3a$0$22082$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> Fan wrote:
>>>>> You missed the point again, whisper. You do it so often it almost
>>>>> seems that you do it on purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> The conversation was talent, not definitive goat. Do try to pay
>>>>> attention.
>>>> Have no use for the "goat" and "7999" or whatever garbage. Not even a
>>>> Federer fan. Nadal is more to my liking for his fighting spirit and
>>>> guts. However, it is sheer lunacy to question Federer's superior
>>>> talent. He was heralded as the all time most talented tennis player
>>>> before he won his first slam. He has 13 slams and still going strong.
>>>> For years, he was so dominant that it was good to see him lose some.
>>>
>>>
>>> He is not more talented at serving than Sampras & many other players,
>>> obviously has poor reflexes & instincts at the net compared to
>>> McEnroe/Edberg, is inferior to Rafa from baseline etc
>>>
>>
>> Base on the logic of your argument above we can easily disqualify McEnroe as
>> 'Talent Goat' and same with Sampras. McErone's ground stroke is one of the
>> weakest amongst the modern greats,
>
>
>You're confusing power with effectiveness. Mac blitzed great baseliners
>like Borg, Wilander, Jimbo & Lendl.

er ..... it was in fact Borg who "blitzed" Mac.


  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 23:04:11
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 1, 9:06=A0pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:29=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > > Quick short list of Federer Ravers as Talent GOAT:
>
> > > 1. Federer has talent to be the greatest player ever by Nick
> > > Bollettieri
> > > Tuesday, 14 September 2004
>
> > > "Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player I have ever seen. H=
e
> > > has the capacity to become the greatest in history."
>
> > > 2. Goran Ivanisevic retired from tennis after Wimbledon 2004.
> > > =92=92I played with all the generations, McEnroe, Connors, Pete, Andr=
e and
> > > these young guys, but I still think that Federer is the biggest talen=
t
> > > from all the players I ever played in my career. I don=92t know if he=
is
> > > going to win as many Grand Slams as Pete, but definitely he=92s the m=
ost
> > > talented I ever played. Some things he does better than Pete. On cour=
t
> > > he=92s like a magician. Pete was destroying. When you play Pete you
> > > couldn=92t touch his serve. But Federer, when he plays you think tenn=
is
> > > is a very easy sport, but it=92s not.=92=92
>
> > > 3. Michael Stich, Wimbledon champion 1991 "He's the most talented
> > > player I've ever seen, the best all-courts player. Better than Borg,
> > > McEnroe and the rest. Pete Sampras is the most successful ever in
> > > terms of Grand Slam wins, but I think Roger's got a better backhand
> > > and is stronger, smoother and better on clay than Pete - a more
> > > complete player. And he plays the more beautiful tennis."
>
> > > 4. Andy Roddick describes as 'probably the most talented person to
> > > ever carry a racket around'.
>
> > > 5. Rod Laver: "I'd be honoured to be even compared with Roger, the
> > > supreme talent you'd say."
>
> > > 6. August 1, 2004 John Barrett: At any rate, I consider him the most
> > > talented player I have ever seen."
>
> > > FAINT PRAISE SECTION:
>
> > > 7. "He's an artist on this surface. He can stay back. He can come in.
> > > No weaknesses. Federer could win Wimbledon six, seven, eight times. H=
e
> > > can play on any kind of surface, he is so complete. And if he
> > > continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and
> > > still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I thin=
k
> > > the motivation is the key thing and he has the motivation to continue
> > > to play for another three or five years." =A0Bjorn Borg.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life.=
I've
> > > seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
> > > against some of the great players=97the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
> > > Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
> > > to me, says it all. =A0John McEnroe.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He's probably the greatest player that ever lived. John McE=
nroe,
> > > BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He can beat half the guys with his eyes closed!
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o John McEnroe, BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast=
.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on R=
oger
> > > Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like
> > > him. =A0John McEnroe.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Federer is the best player in history, no other player has =
ever
> > > had such quality. Rafael Nadal, 2006.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Yes, I really hit with him when he was 15, during a tournam=
ent
> > > in Basel, and I knew then he would be good, but not this good. If he
> > > stays healthy, it will actually be a miracle if he doesn't win more
> > > Grand Slams than Pete [Sampras]. The way he picks his shots is
> > > unbelievable. He is fast, he has a great volley, a great serve, great
> > > backhand, great everything. If I was his coach, what can I tell him?
> > > He is a magician with a racket. Even when he is playing badly, which
> > > is rarely, he can still do things with his racket nobody else can do.
> > > =A0 =A0 Goran Ivanisevic asked if Federer is destined to become the
> > > greatest player of all time.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It=
's
> > > hardly fair that one person can do all this=97his backhands, his
> > > forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves
> > > around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground.
> > > That's the sign of a great champion. Rod Laver, 2007 AO semi.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * The best way to beat him would be to hit him over the head =
with
> > > a racquet. Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way
> > > he is and, if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams tha=
t
> > > I won because standards are much higher these days. Rod Laver, 2007
> > > AO.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to =
go.
> > > There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts.
> > > Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them
> > > (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a plac=
e
> > > to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you
> > > try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function
> > > of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change
> > > to that decision.
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He hits that short chip, moves you forward, moves you back.=
He
> > > uses your pace against you. If you take pace off, so that he can't us=
e
> > > your pace, he can step around and hurt you with the forehand. Just th=
e
> > > amount of options he has to get around any particular stage of the
> > > match where maybe something's out of sync is=97seems to be endless. H=
is
> > > success out there is just a mere reflection of all the things that he
> > > can do. Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * There's probably not a department in his game that couldn't=
be
> > > considered the best in that department. You watch him play Hewitt and
> > > everybody marvels at Hewitt's speed, as well as myself. And you start
> > > to realize, `Is it possible Federer even moves better?' Then you watc=
h
> > > him play Andy [Roddick], and you go, `Andy has a big forehand. Is it
> > > possible Federer's forehand is the best in the game?' You watch him a=
t
> > > the net, you watch him serve-volley somebody that doesn't return so
> > > well and you put him up there with the best in every department. You
> > > see him play from the ground against those that play from the ground
> > > for a living, and argue he does it better than anybody. Andre Agassi.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He's probably the most talented person to ever carry a racq=
uet
> > > around=97the shots that he can come up with, the way he's kind of bec=
ome
> > > a totally complete player. But I think off the court, it's huge. Ther=
e
> > > have been a lot of good champions, but he's just classy. He is never
> > > high and mighty in the locker room or anything like that. Andy
> > > Roddick.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * [In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist=
, a
> > > grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger
> > > Federer. Jimmy Connors.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * What can you say? Has anyone ever played with more talent? =
I
> > > don't think so. Marat Safin, 2008.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Really a complete player, a towering talent; I mean superio=
r in
> > > all aspects. Boris Becker.
>
> > > =A0 =A0* I'd like to be in his shoes for one day to know what it feel=
s
> > > like to play that way. =A0 Mats Wilander.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * Roger Federer is the only guy I watch for his strok=
es. He is
> > > just beautiful. He can hit every single shot you could ever think of.
> > > John (McEnroe) and Ilie (Nastase) were very talented but you always
> > > knew there were some shots they couldn't hit. Not with Federer. I
> > > would go and watch him practice, he's so good.
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Ivan Lendl.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Roger is a complete player. What he has, and it's not luck,=
is
> > > the ability to change his game slightly as to what his opponent's
> > > doing to him. I've seen them all and talent wise, he's the best. Jack
> > > Kramer.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. A=
nd
> > > Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone
> > > play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great hal=
f-
> > > volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court
> > > as he can. =A0Jack Kramer
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * I've never enjoyed watching someone playing tennis as much =
as
> > > Federer. I'm just in awe. Pete Sampras was wonderful but he relied so
> > > much on his serve, whereas Roger has it all, he's just so graceful,
> > > elegant and fluid=97a symphony in tennis whites. Roger can produce
> > > tennis shots that should be declared illegal.
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 Tracy Austin.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Thee most talented player of the Open Era. =A0Tim Henman.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * I'm not sure if he has any weakness in his repertoir. Jonas
> > > Bjorkman, Wimbledon 2006.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He is capable of hitting shots which other players don't ev=
en
> > > think about trying. He has so many skills. =A0Ivan Lendl, 2006.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 * Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of diff=
erent
> > > things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he stil=
l
> > > comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's
> > > even from the same planet. Novak Djokovic, after Davis Cup match.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Roger hasn't even started to use a lot of his game. Tony Ro=
che,
> > > former coach of Roger Federer.
>
> > er, you're using experts more than once. =A0You've also cleverly ignore=
d
> > the negative comments they've made.
>
> > You don't have to take my word for it - the test will be 10 yrs after h=
e
> > retires, & he definitely will not be considered the talent goat. =A0You
> > can take that to the bank.
>
> He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've
> seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
> against some of the great players=97the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
> Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
> to me, says it all. =A0John McEnroe.
>
> So, lets start with this tennis expert.
> Tell us why McEnroe wrong?
>
> Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Talent GOAT is not an absolute, objective position... it is a
subjective status build on the mass consensus of insiders, players,
coaches, journalists and broadcasters as to the person who's
identified as having embodied the most complete set of tennis skills
up to a certain point in the history of the game... right now that
consensus repeatedly names/identifies Federer as Talent GOAT... but
you don't get to be the Talent GOAT forever, as it exists within the
developmental nature of the game over time... unless tennis as a sport
ends of course or history itself... lol

P


   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 17:47:20
From: TT
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:06 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 9:29 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>> Quick short list of Federer Ravers as Talent GOAT:
>>>> 1. Federer has talent to be the greatest player ever by Nick
>>>> Bollettieri
>>>> Tuesday, 14 September 2004
>>>> "Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player I have ever seen. He
>>>> has the capacity to become the greatest in history."
>>>> 2. Goran Ivanisevic retired from tennis after Wimbledon 2004.
>>>> ’’I played with all the generations, McEnroe, Connors, Pete, Andre and
>>>> these young guys, but I still think that Federer is the biggest talent
>>>> from all the players I ever played in my career. I don’t know if he is
>>>> going to win as many Grand Slams as Pete, but definitely he’s the most
>>>> talented I ever played. Some things he does better than Pete. On court
>>>> he’s like a magician. Pete was destroying. When you play Pete you
>>>> couldn’t touch his serve. But Federer, when he plays you think tennis
>>>> is a very easy sport, but it’s not.’’
>>>> 3. Michael Stich, Wimbledon champion 1991 "He's the most talented
>>>> player I've ever seen, the best all-courts player. Better than Borg,
>>>> McEnroe and the rest. Pete Sampras is the most successful ever in
>>>> terms of Grand Slam wins, but I think Roger's got a better backhand
>>>> and is stronger, smoother and better on clay than Pete - a more
>>>> complete player. And he plays the more beautiful tennis."
>>>> 4. Andy Roddick describes as 'probably the most talented person to
>>>> ever carry a racket around'.
>>>> 5. Rod Laver: "I'd be honoured to be even compared with Roger, the
>>>> supreme talent you'd say."
>>>> 6. August 1, 2004 John Barrett: At any rate, I consider him the most
>>>> talented player I have ever seen."
>>>> FAINT PRAISE SECTION:
>>>> 7. "He's an artist on this surface. He can stay back. He can come in.
>>>> No weaknesses. Federer could win Wimbledon six, seven, eight times. He
>>>> can play on any kind of surface, he is so complete. And if he
>>>> continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and
>>>> still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I think
>>>> the motivation is the key thing and he has the motivation to continue
>>>> to play for another three or five years." Bjorn Borg.
>>>> * He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've
>>>> seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
>>>> against some of the great players—the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
>>>> Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
>>>> to me, says it all. John McEnroe.
>>>> * He's probably the greatest player that ever lived. John McEnroe,
>>>> BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.
>>>> * He can beat half the guys with his eyes closed!
>>>> o John McEnroe, BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.
>>>> * If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on Roger
>>>> Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like
>>>> him. John McEnroe.
>>>> * Federer is the best player in history, no other player has ever
>>>> had such quality. Rafael Nadal, 2006.
>>>> * Yes, I really hit with him when he was 15, during a tournament
>>>> in Basel, and I knew then he would be good, but not this good. If he
>>>> stays healthy, it will actually be a miracle if he doesn't win more
>>>> Grand Slams than Pete [Sampras]. The way he picks his shots is
>>>> unbelievable. He is fast, he has a great volley, a great serve, great
>>>> backhand, great everything. If I was his coach, what can I tell him?
>>>> He is a magician with a racket. Even when he is playing badly, which
>>>> is rarely, he can still do things with his racket nobody else can do.
>>>> Goran Ivanisevic asked if Federer is destined to become the
>>>> greatest player of all time.
>>>> * Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It's
>>>> hardly fair that one person can do all this—his backhands, his
>>>> forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves
>>>> around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground.
>>>> That's the sign of a great champion. Rod Laver, 2007 AO semi.
>>>> * The best way to beat him would be to hit him over the head with
>>>> a racquet. Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way
>>>> he is and, if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that
>>>> I won because standards are much higher these days. Rod Laver, 2007
>>>> AO.
>>>> * He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go.
>>>> There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts.
>>>> Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them
>>>> (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a place
>>>> to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you
>>>> try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function
>>>> of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change
>>>> to that decision.
>>>> Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>>>> * He hits that short chip, moves you forward, moves you back. He
>>>> uses your pace against you. If you take pace off, so that he can't use
>>>> your pace, he can step around and hurt you with the forehand. Just the
>>>> amount of options he has to get around any particular stage of the
>>>> match where maybe something's out of sync is—seems to be endless. His
>>>> success out there is just a mere reflection of all the things that he
>>>> can do. Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>>>> * There's probably not a department in his game that couldn't be
>>>> considered the best in that department. You watch him play Hewitt and
>>>> everybody marvels at Hewitt's speed, as well as myself. And you start
>>>> to realize, `Is it possible Federer even moves better?' Then you watch
>>>> him play Andy [Roddick], and you go, `Andy has a big forehand. Is it
>>>> possible Federer's forehand is the best in the game?' You watch him at
>>>> the net, you watch him serve-volley somebody that doesn't return so
>>>> well and you put him up there with the best in every department. You
>>>> see him play from the ground against those that play from the ground
>>>> for a living, and argue he does it better than anybody. Andre Agassi.
>>>> * He's probably the most talented person to ever carry a racquet
>>>> around—the shots that he can come up with, the way he's kind of become
>>>> a totally complete player. But I think off the court, it's huge. There
>>>> have been a lot of good champions, but he's just classy. He is never
>>>> high and mighty in the locker room or anything like that. Andy
>>>> Roddick.
>>>> * [In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, a
>>>> grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger
>>>> Federer. Jimmy Connors.
>>>> * What can you say? Has anyone ever played with more talent? I
>>>> don't think so. Marat Safin, 2008.
>>>> * Really a complete player, a towering talent; I mean superior in
>>>> all aspects. Boris Becker.
>>>> * I'd like to be in his shoes for one day to know what it feels
>>>> like to play that way. Mats Wilander.
>>>> * Roger Federer is the only guy I watch for his strokes. He is
>>>> just beautiful. He can hit every single shot you could ever think of.
>>>> John (McEnroe) and Ilie (Nastase) were very talented but you always
>>>> knew there were some shots they couldn't hit. Not with Federer. I
>>>> would go and watch him practice, he's so good.
>>>> Ivan Lendl.
>>>> * Roger is a complete player. What he has, and it's not luck, is
>>>> the ability to change his game slightly as to what his opponent's
>>>> doing to him. I've seen them all and talent wise, he's the best. Jack
>>>> Kramer.
>>>> * I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And
>>>> Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone
>>>> play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-
>>>> volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court
>>>> as he can. Jack Kramer
>>>> * I've never enjoyed watching someone playing tennis as much as
>>>> Federer. I'm just in awe. Pete Sampras was wonderful but he relied so
>>>> much on his serve, whereas Roger has it all, he's just so graceful,
>>>> elegant and fluid—a symphony in tennis whites. Roger can produce
>>>> tennis shots that should be declared illegal.
>>>> Tracy Austin.
>>>> * Thee most talented player of the Open Era. Tim Henman.
>>>> * I'm not sure if he has any weakness in his repertoir. Jonas
>>>> Bjorkman, Wimbledon 2006.
>>>> * He is capable of hitting shots which other players don't even
>>>> think about trying. He has so many skills. Ivan Lendl, 2006.
>>>> * Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of different
>>>> things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he still
>>>> comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's
>>>> even from the same planet. Novak Djokovic, after Davis Cup match.
>>>> * Roger hasn't even started to use a lot of his game. Tony Roche,
>>>> former coach of Roger Federer.
>>> er, you're using experts more than once. You've also cleverly ignored
>>> the negative comments they've made.
>>> You don't have to take my word for it - the test will be 10 yrs after he
>>> retires, & he definitely will not be considered the talent goat. You
>>> can take that to the bank.
>> He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've
>> seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
>> against some of the great players—the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
>> Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
>> to me, says it all. John McEnroe.
>>
>> So, lets start with this tennis expert.
>> Tell us why McEnroe wrong?
>>
>> Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ Talent GOAT is not an absolute, objective position... it is a
> subjective status build on the mass consensus of insiders, players,
> coaches, journalists and broadcasters as to the person who's
> identified as having embodied the most complete set of tennis skills
> up to a certain point in the history of the game... right now that
> consensus repeatedly names/identifies Federer as Talent GOAT... but
> you don't get to be the Talent GOAT forever, as it exists within the
> developmental nature of the game over time... unless tennis as a sport
> ends of course or history itself... lol
>
> P

So you're saying that if Federer would remain as talent goat it would
mean end of the world? ;)


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 18:09:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>> er, you're using experts more than once. You've also cleverly ignored
>>> the negative comments they've made.
>>> You don't have to take my word for it - the test will be 10 yrs after he
>>> retires, & he definitely will not be considered the talent goat. You
>>> can take that to the bank.
>> He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've
>> seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
>> against some of the great players—the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
>> Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
>> to me, says it all. John McEnroe.
>>
>> So, lets start with this tennis expert.
>> Tell us why McEnroe wrong?
>>
>> Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ Talent GOAT is not an absolute, objective position... it is a
> subjective status build on the mass consensus of insiders, players,
> coaches, journalists and broadcasters as to the person who's
> identified as having embodied the most complete set of tennis skills
> up to a certain point in the history of the game... right now that
> consensus repeatedly names/identifies Federer as Talent GOAT... but
> you don't get to be the Talent GOAT forever, as it exists within the
> developmental nature of the game over time... unless tennis as a sport
> ends of course or history itself... lol
>
> P



I think you're talking about ceibs here?


  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 22:58:33
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 1, 9:06=A0pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:29=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > > Quick short list of Federer Ravers as Talent GOAT:
>
> > > 1. Federer has talent to be the greatest player ever by Nick
> > > Bollettieri
> > > Tuesday, 14 September 2004
>
> > > "Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player I have ever seen. H=
e
> > > has the capacity to become the greatest in history."
>
> > > 2. Goran Ivanisevic retired from tennis after Wimbledon 2004.
> > > =92=92I played with all the generations, McEnroe, Connors, Pete, Andr=
e and
> > > these young guys, but I still think that Federer is the biggest talen=
t
> > > from all the players I ever played in my career. I don=92t know if he=
is
> > > going to win as many Grand Slams as Pete, but definitely he=92s the m=
ost
> > > talented I ever played. Some things he does better than Pete. On cour=
t
> > > he=92s like a magician. Pete was destroying. When you play Pete you
> > > couldn=92t touch his serve. But Federer, when he plays you think tenn=
is
> > > is a very easy sport, but it=92s not.=92=92
>
> > > 3. Michael Stich, Wimbledon champion 1991 "He's the most talented
> > > player I've ever seen, the best all-courts player. Better than Borg,
> > > McEnroe and the rest. Pete Sampras is the most successful ever in
> > > terms of Grand Slam wins, but I think Roger's got a better backhand
> > > and is stronger, smoother and better on clay than Pete - a more
> > > complete player. And he plays the more beautiful tennis."
>
> > > 4. Andy Roddick describes as 'probably the most talented person to
> > > ever carry a racket around'.
>
> > > 5. Rod Laver: "I'd be honoured to be even compared with Roger, the
> > > supreme talent you'd say."
>
> > > 6. August 1, 2004 John Barrett: At any rate, I consider him the most
> > > talented player I have ever seen."
>
> > > FAINT PRAISE SECTION:
>
> > > 7. "He's an artist on this surface. He can stay back. He can come in.
> > > No weaknesses. Federer could win Wimbledon six, seven, eight times. H=
e
> > > can play on any kind of surface, he is so complete. And if he
> > > continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and
> > > still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I thin=
k
> > > the motivation is the key thing and he has the motivation to continue
> > > to play for another three or five years." =A0Bjorn Borg.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life.=
I've
> > > seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
> > > against some of the great players=97the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
> > > Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
> > > to me, says it all. =A0John McEnroe.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He's probably the greatest player that ever lived. John McE=
nroe,
> > > BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He can beat half the guys with his eyes closed!
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o John McEnroe, BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast=
.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on R=
oger
> > > Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like
> > > him. =A0John McEnroe.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Federer is the best player in history, no other player has =
ever
> > > had such quality. Rafael Nadal, 2006.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Yes, I really hit with him when he was 15, during a tournam=
ent
> > > in Basel, and I knew then he would be good, but not this good. If he
> > > stays healthy, it will actually be a miracle if he doesn't win more
> > > Grand Slams than Pete [Sampras]. The way he picks his shots is
> > > unbelievable. He is fast, he has a great volley, a great serve, great
> > > backhand, great everything. If I was his coach, what can I tell him?
> > > He is a magician with a racket. Even when he is playing badly, which
> > > is rarely, he can still do things with his racket nobody else can do.
> > > =A0 =A0 Goran Ivanisevic asked if Federer is destined to become the
> > > greatest player of all time.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It=
's
> > > hardly fair that one person can do all this=97his backhands, his
> > > forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves
> > > around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground.
> > > That's the sign of a great champion. Rod Laver, 2007 AO semi.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * The best way to beat him would be to hit him over the head =
with
> > > a racquet. Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way
> > > he is and, if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams tha=
t
> > > I won because standards are much higher these days. Rod Laver, 2007
> > > AO.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to =
go.
> > > There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts.
> > > Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them
> > > (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a plac=
e
> > > to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you
> > > try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function
> > > of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change
> > > to that decision.
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He hits that short chip, moves you forward, moves you back.=
He
> > > uses your pace against you. If you take pace off, so that he can't us=
e
> > > your pace, he can step around and hurt you with the forehand. Just th=
e
> > > amount of options he has to get around any particular stage of the
> > > match where maybe something's out of sync is=97seems to be endless. H=
is
> > > success out there is just a mere reflection of all the things that he
> > > can do. Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * There's probably not a department in his game that couldn't=
be
> > > considered the best in that department. You watch him play Hewitt and
> > > everybody marvels at Hewitt's speed, as well as myself. And you start
> > > to realize, `Is it possible Federer even moves better?' Then you watc=
h
> > > him play Andy [Roddick], and you go, `Andy has a big forehand. Is it
> > > possible Federer's forehand is the best in the game?' You watch him a=
t
> > > the net, you watch him serve-volley somebody that doesn't return so
> > > well and you put him up there with the best in every department. You
> > > see him play from the ground against those that play from the ground
> > > for a living, and argue he does it better than anybody. Andre Agassi.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He's probably the most talented person to ever carry a racq=
uet
> > > around=97the shots that he can come up with, the way he's kind of bec=
ome
> > > a totally complete player. But I think off the court, it's huge. Ther=
e
> > > have been a lot of good champions, but he's just classy. He is never
> > > high and mighty in the locker room or anything like that. Andy
> > > Roddick.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * [In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist=
, a
> > > grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger
> > > Federer. Jimmy Connors.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * What can you say? Has anyone ever played with more talent? =
I
> > > don't think so. Marat Safin, 2008.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Really a complete player, a towering talent; I mean superio=
r in
> > > all aspects. Boris Becker.
>
> > > =A0 =A0* I'd like to be in his shoes for one day to know what it feel=
s
> > > like to play that way. =A0 Mats Wilander.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * Roger Federer is the only guy I watch for his strok=
es. He is
> > > just beautiful. He can hit every single shot you could ever think of.
> > > John (McEnroe) and Ilie (Nastase) were very talented but you always
> > > knew there were some shots they couldn't hit. Not with Federer. I
> > > would go and watch him practice, he's so good.
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Ivan Lendl.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Roger is a complete player. What he has, and it's not luck,=
is
> > > the ability to change his game slightly as to what his opponent's
> > > doing to him. I've seen them all and talent wise, he's the best. Jack
> > > Kramer.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. A=
nd
> > > Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone
> > > play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great hal=
f-
> > > volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court
> > > as he can. =A0Jack Kramer
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * I've never enjoyed watching someone playing tennis as much =
as
> > > Federer. I'm just in awe. Pete Sampras was wonderful but he relied so
> > > much on his serve, whereas Roger has it all, he's just so graceful,
> > > elegant and fluid=97a symphony in tennis whites. Roger can produce
> > > tennis shots that should be declared illegal.
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 Tracy Austin.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Thee most talented player of the Open Era. =A0Tim Henman.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * I'm not sure if he has any weakness in his repertoir. Jonas
> > > Bjorkman, Wimbledon 2006.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * He is capable of hitting shots which other players don't ev=
en
> > > think about trying. He has so many skills. =A0Ivan Lendl, 2006.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 =A0 * Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of diff=
erent
> > > things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he stil=
l
> > > comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's
> > > even from the same planet. Novak Djokovic, after Davis Cup match.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 * Roger hasn't even started to use a lot of his game. Tony Ro=
che,
> > > former coach of Roger Federer.
>
> > er, you're using experts more than once. =A0You've also cleverly ignore=
d
> > the negative comments they've made.
>
> > You don't have to take my word for it - the test will be 10 yrs after h=
e
> > retires, & he definitely will not be considered the talent goat. =A0You
> > can take that to the bank.
>
> He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've
> seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
> against some of the great players=97the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
> Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
> to me, says it all. =A0John McEnroe.
>
> So, lets start with this tennis expert.
> Tell us why McEnroe wrong?
>
> Rodjk #613- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ In ten or fifteen years Federer probably won't be seen as the
Talent GOAT, but, for now he is by sheer volume of expert consensus...
as I have said many times before the Talent GOAT is the most fleeting
of the monikers/taglines bestowed on a player THOUGH one of the most
important... a nice irony there... you can spend days on the net
finding insider after insider naming Fed as Talent GOAT... it's a
fleeting title of course... the race to get to 14 and beyond is the
more estimable in terms of historical legacy and the clearest
measure... and yet - and herein the contradistinction stands - Fed has
already established himself as historical, and a great, a legend of
the sport, if he never wins anything else... he's certainly likely to,
though one never knows... what's great about watching Federer is the
same as it was watching Laver and Borg and Connors and McEnroe and
Lendl and Pete and now Federer and perhaps Nadal is that the game's
collectivity seems wrapped up in them and their games and their
affecting play within their particular generation...

P


   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 18:08:31
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:06 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ++ In ten or fifteen years Federer probably won't be seen as the
> Talent GOAT, but, for now he is by sheer volume of expert consensus...
> as I have said many times before the Talent GOAT is the most fleeting
> of the monikers/taglines bestowed on a player


That's true in a ceibs sense - ie when players who don't really deserve
'best ever' tag in an historical sense, but benefit from ceibs syndrome.
But guys like McEnroe are still regarded as a talent goat many years
after retirmement because it was obvious in their play - so many 'wow'
shots. Fed has some of this too, but not enough to stick.


> THOUGH one of the most
> important... a nice irony there... you can spend days on the net
> finding insider after insider naming Fed as Talent GOAT... it's a
> fleeting title of course... the race to get to 14 and beyond is the
> more estimable in terms of historical legacy and the clearest
> measure... and yet - and herein the contradistinction stands - Fed has
> already established himself as historical, and a great, a legend of
> the sport, if he never wins anything else... he's certainly likely to,
> though one never knows... what's great about watching Federer is the
> same as it was watching Laver and Borg and Connors and McEnroe and
> Lendl and Pete and now Federer and perhaps Nadal is that the game's
> collectivity seems wrapped up in them and their games and their
> affecting play within their particular generation...
>
> P



Clearly that's not true - eg when Mac dominated he was the only s/v'er
around in the top echelon, same with Sampras - thus they cannot
represent the game's 'collectivity' at the time. If anything they were
a contradiction/paradox.

Even Federer is distinguished from his era norm by using a single-handed bh.



  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 21:06:31
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 1, 9:29=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > Quick short list of Federer Ravers as Talent GOAT:
>
> > 1. Federer has talent to be the greatest player ever by Nick
> > Bollettieri
> > Tuesday, 14 September 2004
>
> > "Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player I have ever seen. He
> > has the capacity to become the greatest in history."
>
> > 2. Goran Ivanisevic retired from tennis after Wimbledon 2004.
> > =92=92I played with all the generations, McEnroe, Connors, Pete, Andre =
and
> > these young guys, but I still think that Federer is the biggest talent
> > from all the players I ever played in my career. I don=92t know if he i=
s
> > going to win as many Grand Slams as Pete, but definitely he=92s the mos=
t
> > talented I ever played. Some things he does better than Pete. On court
> > he=92s like a magician. Pete was destroying. When you play Pete you
> > couldn=92t touch his serve. But Federer, when he plays you think tennis
> > is a very easy sport, but it=92s not.=92=92
>
> > 3. Michael Stich, Wimbledon champion 1991 "He's the most talented
> > player I've ever seen, the best all-courts player. Better than Borg,
> > McEnroe and the rest. Pete Sampras is the most successful ever in
> > terms of Grand Slam wins, but I think Roger's got a better backhand
> > and is stronger, smoother and better on clay than Pete - a more
> > complete player. And he plays the more beautiful tennis."
>
> > 4. Andy Roddick describes as 'probably the most talented person to
> > ever carry a racket around'.
>
> > 5. Rod Laver: "I'd be honoured to be even compared with Roger, the
> > supreme talent you'd say."
>
> > 6. August 1, 2004 John Barrett: At any rate, I consider him the most
> > talented player I have ever seen."
>
> > FAINT PRAISE SECTION:
>
> > 7. "He's an artist on this surface. He can stay back. He can come in.
> > No weaknesses. Federer could win Wimbledon six, seven, eight times. He
> > can play on any kind of surface, he is so complete. And if he
> > continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and
> > still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I think
> > the motivation is the key thing and he has the motivation to continue
> > to play for another three or five years." =A0Bjorn Borg.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I=
've
> > seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
> > against some of the great players=97the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
> > Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
> > to me, says it all. =A0John McEnroe.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * He's probably the greatest player that ever lived. John McEnr=
oe,
> > BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * He can beat half the guys with his eyes closed!
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o John McEnroe, BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on Rog=
er
> > Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like
> > him. =A0John McEnroe.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * Federer is the best player in history, no other player has ev=
er
> > had such quality. Rafael Nadal, 2006.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * Yes, I really hit with him when he was 15, during a tournamen=
t
> > in Basel, and I knew then he would be good, but not this good. If he
> > stays healthy, it will actually be a miracle if he doesn't win more
> > Grand Slams than Pete [Sampras]. The way he picks his shots is
> > unbelievable. He is fast, he has a great volley, a great serve, great
> > backhand, great everything. If I was his coach, what can I tell him?
> > He is a magician with a racket. Even when he is playing badly, which
> > is rarely, he can still do things with his racket nobody else can do.
> > =A0 =A0 Goran Ivanisevic asked if Federer is destined to become the
> > greatest player of all time.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It's
> > hardly fair that one person can do all this=97his backhands, his
> > forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves
> > around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground.
> > That's the sign of a great champion. Rod Laver, 2007 AO semi.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * The best way to beat him would be to hit him over the head wi=
th
> > a racquet. Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way
> > he is and, if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that
> > I won because standards are much higher these days. Rod Laver, 2007
> > AO.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go=
.
> > There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts.
> > Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them
> > (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a place
> > to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you
> > try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function
> > of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change
> > to that decision.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * He hits that short chip, moves you forward, moves you back. H=
e
> > uses your pace against you. If you take pace off, so that he can't use
> > your pace, he can step around and hurt you with the forehand. Just the
> > amount of options he has to get around any particular stage of the
> > match where maybe something's out of sync is=97seems to be endless. His
> > success out there is just a mere reflection of all the things that he
> > can do. Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * There's probably not a department in his game that couldn't b=
e
> > considered the best in that department. You watch him play Hewitt and
> > everybody marvels at Hewitt's speed, as well as myself. And you start
> > to realize, `Is it possible Federer even moves better?' Then you watch
> > him play Andy [Roddick], and you go, `Andy has a big forehand. Is it
> > possible Federer's forehand is the best in the game?' You watch him at
> > the net, you watch him serve-volley somebody that doesn't return so
> > well and you put him up there with the best in every department. You
> > see him play from the ground against those that play from the ground
> > for a living, and argue he does it better than anybody. Andre Agassi.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * He's probably the most talented person to ever carry a racque=
t
> > around=97the shots that he can come up with, the way he's kind of becom=
e
> > a totally complete player. But I think off the court, it's huge. There
> > have been a lot of good champions, but he's just classy. He is never
> > high and mighty in the locker room or anything like that. Andy
> > Roddick.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * [In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, =
a
> > grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger
> > Federer. Jimmy Connors.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * What can you say? Has anyone ever played with more talent? I
> > don't think so. Marat Safin, 2008.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * Really a complete player, a towering talent; I mean superior =
in
> > all aspects. Boris Becker.
>
> > =A0 =A0* I'd like to be in his shoes for one day to know what it feels
> > like to play that way. =A0 Mats Wilander.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * Roger Federer is the only guy I watch for his strokes=
. He is
> > just beautiful. He can hit every single shot you could ever think of.
> > John (McEnroe) and Ilie (Nastase) were very talented but you always
> > knew there were some shots they couldn't hit. Not with Federer. I
> > would go and watch him practice, he's so good.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Ivan Lendl.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * Roger is a complete player. What he has, and it's not luck, i=
s
> > the ability to change his game slightly as to what his opponent's
> > doing to him. I've seen them all and talent wise, he's the best. Jack
> > Kramer.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And
> > Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone
> > play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-
> > volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court
> > as he can. =A0Jack Kramer
>
> > =A0 =A0 * I've never enjoyed watching someone playing tennis as much as
> > Federer. I'm just in awe. Pete Sampras was wonderful but he relied so
> > much on his serve, whereas Roger has it all, he's just so graceful,
> > elegant and fluid=97a symphony in tennis whites. Roger can produce
> > tennis shots that should be declared illegal.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 Tracy Austin.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * Thee most talented player of the Open Era. =A0Tim Henman.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * I'm not sure if he has any weakness in his repertoir. Jonas
> > Bjorkman, Wimbledon 2006.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * He is capable of hitting shots which other players don't even
> > think about trying. He has so many skills. =A0Ivan Lendl, 2006.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 * Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of differ=
ent
> > things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he still
> > comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's
> > even from the same planet. Novak Djokovic, after Davis Cup match.
>
> > =A0 =A0 * Roger hasn't even started to use a lot of his game. Tony Roch=
e,
> > former coach of Roger Federer.
>
> er, you're using experts more than once. =A0You've also cleverly ignored
> the negative comments they've made.
>
> You don't have to take my word for it - the test will be 10 yrs after he
> retires, & he definitely will not be considered the talent goat. =A0You
> can take that to the bank.

He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've
seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
against some of the great players=97the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
to me, says it all. John McEnroe.

So, lets start with this tennis expert.
Tell us why McEnroe wrong?

Rodjk #613


   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 17:57:16
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:29 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> You don't have to take my word for it - the test will be 10 yrs after he
>> retires, & he definitely will not be considered the talent goat. You
>> can take that to the bank.
>
> He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've
> seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
> against some of the great players—the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
> Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
> to me, says it all. John McEnroe.
>
> So, lets start with this tennis expert.
> Tell us why McEnroe wrong?
>
> Rodjk #613



I don't know how across the game you are but you should know Mac is
tennis' biggest pr agent - it's his job & moral duty to promote tennis &
grow it, not criticize & lose fans.

Having said that I know Fed is gifted - that's not in doubt. My
position is he is not *the best ever* in any facet of the game in a
historical sense. He clearly is not the best server, returner,
baseliner, volleyer, most power, mentally toughest etc. He is a very
good all-rounder & would beat all but the very best playing their best.

I see him as far more talented version of Lendl - ie very consistent,
beating all the lesser players as he should, but dropping short v say;

- peak Agassi in a big HC final (USO, AO);
- peak Sampras in Wim/USO/YEC type finals;
- peak Rafa, Guga, Borg in FO finals.

He won't lose all these finals of course - eg probably beat Agassi once
or twice out of 5 if both at best, beat Sampras once out of 5, beat
Rafa/Borg 1 out of 10 on clay maybe?

Of course all of this is subjective - Federer hasn't proven to me he is
most talented ever, or could beat Sampras/Agassi/Rafa at peak, & I know
tennis very well. I don't let the fact he is dominating Blake types
cloud the big picture. His record v Rafa is also a big clue, & no way
is Rafa 2nd goat.

Also this in no way means his achievement goat status - should he
achieve it over the next few yrs - be compromised. You can only beat
the players in your own era, & if he dominated them more than other
champs were able to their own eras, then he's the achievement goat.




  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 19:00:35
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Quick short list of Federer Ravers as Talent GOAT:

1. Federer has talent to be the greatest player ever by Nick
Bollettieri
Tuesday, 14 September 2004

"Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player I have ever seen. He
has the capacity to become the greatest in history."


2. Goran Ivanisevic retired from tennis after Wimbledon 2004.
=92=92I played with all the generations, McEnroe, Connors, Pete, Andre and
these young guys, but I still think that Federer is the biggest talent
from all the players I ever played in my career. I don=92t know if he is
going to win as many Grand Slams as Pete, but definitely he=92s the most
talented I ever played. Some things he does better than Pete. On court
he=92s like a magician. Pete was destroying. When you play Pete you
couldn=92t touch his serve. But Federer, when he plays you think tennis
is a very easy sport, but it=92s not.=92=92

3. Michael Stich, Wimbledon champion 1991 "He's the most talented
player I've ever seen, the best all-courts player. Better than Borg,
McEnroe and the rest. Pete Sampras is the most successful ever in
terms of Grand Slam wins, but I think Roger's got a better backhand
and is stronger, smoother and better on clay than Pete - a more
complete player. And he plays the more beautiful tennis."

4. Andy Roddick describes as 'probably the most talented person to
ever carry a racket around'.

5. Rod Laver: "I'd be honoured to be even compared with Roger, the
supreme talent you'd say."

6. August 1, 2004 John Barrett: At any rate, I consider him the most
talented player I have ever seen."

FAINT PRAISE SECTION:

7. "He's an artist on this surface. He can stay back. He can come in.
No weaknesses. Federer could win Wimbledon six, seven, eight times. He
can play on any kind of surface, he is so complete. And if he
continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and
still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I think
the motivation is the key thing and he has the motivation to continue
to play for another three or five years." Bjorn Borg.

* He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've
seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
against some of the great players=97the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
to me, says it all. John McEnroe.

* He's probably the greatest player that ever lived. John McEnroe,
BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.

* He can beat half the guys with his eyes closed!
o John McEnroe, BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.

* If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on Roger
Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like
him. John McEnroe.

* Federer is the best player in history, no other player has ever
had such quality. Rafael Nadal, 2006.

* Yes, I really hit with him when he was 15, during a tournament
in Basel, and I knew then he would be good, but not this good. If he
stays healthy, it will actually be a miracle if he doesn't win more
Grand Slams than Pete [Sampras]. The way he picks his shots is
unbelievable. He is fast, he has a great volley, a great serve, great
backhand, great everything. If I was his coach, what can I tell him?
He is a magician with a racket. Even when he is playing badly, which
is rarely, he can still do things with his racket nobody else can do.
Goran Ivanisevic asked if Federer is destined to become the
greatest player of all time.

* Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It's
hardly fair that one person can do all this=97his backhands, his
forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves
around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground.
That's the sign of a great champion. Rod Laver, 2007 AO semi.

* The best way to beat him would be to hit him over the head with
a racquet. Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way
he is and, if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that
I won because standards are much higher these days. Rod Laver, 2007
AO.

* He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go.
There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts.
Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them
(other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a place
to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you
try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function
of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change
to that decision.
Andre Agassi, USO 2005.

* He hits that short chip, moves you forward, moves you back. He
uses your pace against you. If you take pace off, so that he can't use
your pace, he can step around and hurt you with the forehand. Just the
amount of options he has to get around any particular stage of the
match where maybe something's out of sync is=97seems to be endless. His
success out there is just a mere reflection of all the things that he
can do. Andre Agassi, USO 2005.

* There's probably not a department in his game that couldn't be
considered the best in that department. You watch him play Hewitt and
everybody marvels at Hewitt's speed, as well as myself. And you start
to realize, `Is it possible Federer even moves better?' Then you watch
him play Andy [Roddick], and you go, `Andy has a big forehand. Is it
possible Federer's forehand is the best in the game?' You watch him at
the net, you watch him serve-volley somebody that doesn't return so
well and you put him up there with the best in every department. You
see him play from the ground against those that play from the ground
for a living, and argue he does it better than anybody. Andre Agassi.

* He's probably the most talented person to ever carry a racquet
around=97the shots that he can come up with, the way he's kind of become
a totally complete player. But I think off the court, it's huge. There
have been a lot of good champions, but he's just classy. He is never
high and mighty in the locker room or anything like that. Andy
Roddick.

* [In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, a
grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger
Federer. Jimmy Connors.

* What can you say? Has anyone ever played with more talent? I
don't think so. Marat Safin, 2008.

* Really a complete player, a towering talent; I mean superior in
all aspects. Boris Becker.

* I'd like to be in his shoes for one day to know what it feels
like to play that way. Mats Wilander.

* Roger Federer is the only guy I watch for his strokes. He is
just beautiful. He can hit every single shot you could ever think of.
John (McEnroe) and Ilie (Nastase) were very talented but you always
knew there were some shots they couldn't hit. Not with Federer. I
would go and watch him practice, he's so good.
Ivan Lendl.

* Roger is a complete player. What he has, and it's not luck, is
the ability to change his game slightly as to what his opponent's
doing to him. I've seen them all and talent wise, he's the best. Jack
Kramer.

* I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And
Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone
play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-
volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court
as he can. Jack Kramer

* I've never enjoyed watching someone playing tennis as much as
Federer. I'm just in awe. Pete Sampras was wonderful but he relied so
much on his serve, whereas Roger has it all, he's just so graceful,
elegant and fluid=97a symphony in tennis whites. Roger can produce
tennis shots that should be declared illegal.
Tracy Austin.

* Thee most talented player of the Open Era. Tim Henman.

* I'm not sure if he has any weakness in his repertoir. Jonas
Bjorkman, Wimbledon 2006.


* He is capable of hitting shots which other players don't even
think about trying. He has so many skills. Ivan Lendl, 2006.


* Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of different
things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he still
comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's
even from the same planet. Novak Djokovic, after Davis Cup match.

* Roger hasn't even started to use a lot of his game. Tony Roche,
former coach of Roger Federer.





   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 17:22:59
From: TT
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> Quick short list of Federer Ravers as Talent GOAT:
>
> 1. Federer has talent to be the greatest player ever by Nick
> Bollettieri
> Tuesday, 14 September 2004
>
> "Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player I have ever seen. He
> has the capacity to become the greatest in history."
>
>
> 2. Goran Ivanisevic retired from tennis after Wimbledon 2004.
> ’’I played with all the generations, McEnroe, Connors, Pete, Andre and
> these young guys, but I still think that Federer is the biggest talent
> from all the players I ever played in my career. I don’t know if he is
> going to win as many Grand Slams as Pete, but definitely he’s the most
> talented I ever played. Some things he does better than Pete. On court
> he’s like a magician. Pete was destroying. When you play Pete you
> couldn’t touch his serve. But Federer, when he plays you think tennis
> is a very easy sport, but it’s not.’’
>
> 3. Michael Stich, Wimbledon champion 1991 "He's the most talented
> player I've ever seen, the best all-courts player. Better than Borg,
> McEnroe and the rest. Pete Sampras is the most successful ever in
> terms of Grand Slam wins, but I think Roger's got a better backhand
> and is stronger, smoother and better on clay than Pete - a more
> complete player. And he plays the more beautiful tennis."
>
> 4. Andy Roddick describes as 'probably the most talented person to
> ever carry a racket around'.
>
> 5. Rod Laver: "I'd be honoured to be even compared with Roger, the
> supreme talent you'd say."
>
> 6. August 1, 2004 John Barrett: At any rate, I consider him the most
> talented player I have ever seen."
>
> FAINT PRAISE SECTION:
>
> 7. "He's an artist on this surface. He can stay back. He can come in.
> No weaknesses. Federer could win Wimbledon six, seven, eight times. He
> can play on any kind of surface, he is so complete. And if he
> continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and
> still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I think
> the motivation is the key thing and he has the motivation to continue
> to play for another three or five years." Bjorn Borg.
>
> * He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've
> seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
> against some of the great players—the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
> Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
> to me, says it all. John McEnroe.
>
> * He's probably the greatest player that ever lived. John McEnroe,
> BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.
>
> * He can beat half the guys with his eyes closed!
> o John McEnroe, BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.
>
> * If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on Roger
> Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like
> him. John McEnroe.
>
> * Federer is the best player in history, no other player has ever
> had such quality. Rafael Nadal, 2006.
>
> * Yes, I really hit with him when he was 15, during a tournament
> in Basel, and I knew then he would be good, but not this good. If he
> stays healthy, it will actually be a miracle if he doesn't win more
> Grand Slams than Pete [Sampras]. The way he picks his shots is
> unbelievable. He is fast, he has a great volley, a great serve, great
> backhand, great everything. If I was his coach, what can I tell him?
> He is a magician with a racket. Even when he is playing badly, which
> is rarely, he can still do things with his racket nobody else can do.
> Goran Ivanisevic asked if Federer is destined to become the
> greatest player of all time.
>
> * Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It's
> hardly fair that one person can do all this—his backhands, his
> forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves
> around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground.
> That's the sign of a great champion. Rod Laver, 2007 AO semi.
>
> * The best way to beat him would be to hit him over the head with
> a racquet. Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way
> he is and, if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that
> I won because standards are much higher these days. Rod Laver, 2007
> AO.
>
> * He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go.
> There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts.
> Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them
> (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a place
> to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you
> try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function
> of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change
> to that decision.
> Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>
> * He hits that short chip, moves you forward, moves you back. He
> uses your pace against you. If you take pace off, so that he can't use
> your pace, he can step around and hurt you with the forehand. Just the
> amount of options he has to get around any particular stage of the
> match where maybe something's out of sync is—seems to be endless. His
> success out there is just a mere reflection of all the things that he
> can do. Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>
> * There's probably not a department in his game that couldn't be
> considered the best in that department. You watch him play Hewitt and
> everybody marvels at Hewitt's speed, as well as myself. And you start
> to realize, `Is it possible Federer even moves better?' Then you watch
> him play Andy [Roddick], and you go, `Andy has a big forehand. Is it
> possible Federer's forehand is the best in the game?' You watch him at
> the net, you watch him serve-volley somebody that doesn't return so
> well and you put him up there with the best in every department. You
> see him play from the ground against those that play from the ground
> for a living, and argue he does it better than anybody. Andre Agassi.
>
> * He's probably the most talented person to ever carry a racquet
> around—the shots that he can come up with, the way he's kind of become
> a totally complete player. But I think off the court, it's huge. There
> have been a lot of good champions, but he's just classy. He is never
> high and mighty in the locker room or anything like that. Andy
> Roddick.
>
> * [In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, a
> grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger
> Federer. Jimmy Connors.
>
> * What can you say? Has anyone ever played with more talent? I
> don't think so. Marat Safin, 2008.
>
> * Really a complete player, a towering talent; I mean superior in
> all aspects. Boris Becker.
>
> * I'd like to be in his shoes for one day to know what it feels
> like to play that way. Mats Wilander.
>
> * Roger Federer is the only guy I watch for his strokes. He is
> just beautiful. He can hit every single shot you could ever think of.
> John (McEnroe) and Ilie (Nastase) were very talented but you always
> knew there were some shots they couldn't hit. Not with Federer. I
> would go and watch him practice, he's so good.
> Ivan Lendl.
>
> * Roger is a complete player. What he has, and it's not luck, is
> the ability to change his game slightly as to what his opponent's
> doing to him. I've seen them all and talent wise, he's the best. Jack
> Kramer.
>
> * I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And
> Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone
> play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-
> volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court
> as he can. Jack Kramer
>
> * I've never enjoyed watching someone playing tennis as much as
> Federer. I'm just in awe. Pete Sampras was wonderful but he relied so
> much on his serve, whereas Roger has it all, he's just so graceful,
> elegant and fluid—a symphony in tennis whites. Roger can produce
> tennis shots that should be declared illegal.
> Tracy Austin.
>
> * Thee most talented player of the Open Era. Tim Henman.
>
> * I'm not sure if he has any weakness in his repertoir. Jonas
> Bjorkman, Wimbledon 2006.
>
>
> * He is capable of hitting shots which other players don't even
> think about trying. He has so many skills. Ivan Lendl, 2006.
>
>
> * Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of different
> things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he still
> comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's
> even from the same planet. Novak Djokovic, after Davis Cup match.
>
> * Roger hasn't even started to use a lot of his game. Tony Roche,
> former coach of Roger Federer.
>
>
>

Federer sure shanks a lot doesn't he.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 14:29:24
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> Quick short list of Federer Ravers as Talent GOAT:
>
> 1. Federer has talent to be the greatest player ever by Nick
> Bollettieri
> Tuesday, 14 September 2004
>
> "Roger Federer is the most talented tennis player I have ever seen. He
> has the capacity to become the greatest in history."
>
>
> 2. Goran Ivanisevic retired from tennis after Wimbledon 2004.
> ’’I played with all the generations, McEnroe, Connors, Pete, Andre and
> these young guys, but I still think that Federer is the biggest talent
> from all the players I ever played in my career. I don’t know if he is
> going to win as many Grand Slams as Pete, but definitely he’s the most
> talented I ever played. Some things he does better than Pete. On court
> he’s like a magician. Pete was destroying. When you play Pete you
> couldn’t touch his serve. But Federer, when he plays you think tennis
> is a very easy sport, but it’s not.’’
>
> 3. Michael Stich, Wimbledon champion 1991 "He's the most talented
> player I've ever seen, the best all-courts player. Better than Borg,
> McEnroe and the rest. Pete Sampras is the most successful ever in
> terms of Grand Slam wins, but I think Roger's got a better backhand
> and is stronger, smoother and better on clay than Pete - a more
> complete player. And he plays the more beautiful tennis."
>
> 4. Andy Roddick describes as 'probably the most talented person to
> ever carry a racket around'.
>
> 5. Rod Laver: "I'd be honoured to be even compared with Roger, the
> supreme talent you'd say."
>
> 6. August 1, 2004 John Barrett: At any rate, I consider him the most
> talented player I have ever seen."
>
> FAINT PRAISE SECTION:
>
> 7. "He's an artist on this surface. He can stay back. He can come in.
> No weaknesses. Federer could win Wimbledon six, seven, eight times. He
> can play on any kind of surface, he is so complete. And if he
> continues the way he has been doing and stays away from injuries and
> still has the motivation, he will be the greatest player ever. I think
> the motivation is the key thing and he has the motivation to continue
> to play for another three or five years." Bjorn Borg.
>
> * He's the most gifted player that I've ever seen in my life. I've
> seen a lot of people play. I've seen the (Rod) Lavers, I played
> against some of the great players—the Samprases, Beckers, Connors',
> Borgs, you name it. This guy could be the greatest of all time. That,
> to me, says it all. John McEnroe.
>
> * He's probably the greatest player that ever lived. John McEnroe,
> BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.
>
> * He can beat half the guys with his eyes closed!
> o John McEnroe, BBC Wimbledon 2006 live broadcast.
>
> * If you want to be a tennis player, then mould yourself on Roger
> Federer. I won three Wimbledon titles and I wish I could play like
> him. John McEnroe.
>
> * Federer is the best player in history, no other player has ever
> had such quality. Rafael Nadal, 2006.
>
> * Yes, I really hit with him when he was 15, during a tournament
> in Basel, and I knew then he would be good, but not this good. If he
> stays healthy, it will actually be a miracle if he doesn't win more
> Grand Slams than Pete [Sampras]. The way he picks his shots is
> unbelievable. He is fast, he has a great volley, a great serve, great
> backhand, great everything. If I was his coach, what can I tell him?
> He is a magician with a racket. Even when he is playing badly, which
> is rarely, he can still do things with his racket nobody else can do.
> Goran Ivanisevic asked if Federer is destined to become the
> greatest player of all time.
>
> * Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It's
> hardly fair that one person can do all this—his backhands, his
> forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves
> around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground.
> That's the sign of a great champion. Rod Laver, 2007 AO semi.
>
> * The best way to beat him would be to hit him over the head with
> a racquet. Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way
> he is and, if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that
> I won because standards are much higher these days. Rod Laver, 2007
> AO.
>
> * He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go.
> There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts.
> Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them
> (other players), so many years, there's a safety zone, there's a place
> to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you
> try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function
> of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change
> to that decision.
> Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>
> * He hits that short chip, moves you forward, moves you back. He
> uses your pace against you. If you take pace off, so that he can't use
> your pace, he can step around and hurt you with the forehand. Just the
> amount of options he has to get around any particular stage of the
> match where maybe something's out of sync is—seems to be endless. His
> success out there is just a mere reflection of all the things that he
> can do. Andre Agassi, USO 2005.
>
> * There's probably not a department in his game that couldn't be
> considered the best in that department. You watch him play Hewitt and
> everybody marvels at Hewitt's speed, as well as myself. And you start
> to realize, `Is it possible Federer even moves better?' Then you watch
> him play Andy [Roddick], and you go, `Andy has a big forehand. Is it
> possible Federer's forehand is the best in the game?' You watch him at
> the net, you watch him serve-volley somebody that doesn't return so
> well and you put him up there with the best in every department. You
> see him play from the ground against those that play from the ground
> for a living, and argue he does it better than anybody. Andre Agassi.
>
> * He's probably the most talented person to ever carry a racquet
> around—the shots that he can come up with, the way he's kind of become
> a totally complete player. But I think off the court, it's huge. There
> have been a lot of good champions, but he's just classy. He is never
> high and mighty in the locker room or anything like that. Andy
> Roddick.
>
> * [In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, a
> grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger
> Federer. Jimmy Connors.
>
> * What can you say? Has anyone ever played with more talent? I
> don't think so. Marat Safin, 2008.
>
> * Really a complete player, a towering talent; I mean superior in
> all aspects. Boris Becker.
>
> * I'd like to be in his shoes for one day to know what it feels
> like to play that way. Mats Wilander.
>
> * Roger Federer is the only guy I watch for his strokes. He is
> just beautiful. He can hit every single shot you could ever think of.
> John (McEnroe) and Ilie (Nastase) were very talented but you always
> knew there were some shots they couldn't hit. Not with Federer. I
> would go and watch him practice, he's so good.
> Ivan Lendl.
>
> * Roger is a complete player. What he has, and it's not luck, is
> the ability to change his game slightly as to what his opponent's
> doing to him. I've seen them all and talent wise, he's the best. Jack
> Kramer.
>
> * I thought Ellsworth Vines and Don Budge were pretty good. And
> Gonzalez and Hoad could play a bit, too, but I have never seen anyone
> play the game better than Federer. He serves well and has a great half-
> volley. I've never known anyone who can do as many things on a court
> as he can. Jack Kramer
>
> * I've never enjoyed watching someone playing tennis as much as
> Federer. I'm just in awe. Pete Sampras was wonderful but he relied so
> much on his serve, whereas Roger has it all, he's just so graceful,
> elegant and fluid—a symphony in tennis whites. Roger can produce
> tennis shots that should be declared illegal.
> Tracy Austin.
>
> * Thee most talented player of the Open Era. Tim Henman.
>
> * I'm not sure if he has any weakness in his repertoir. Jonas
> Bjorkman, Wimbledon 2006.
>
>
> * He is capable of hitting shots which other players don't even
> think about trying. He has so many skills. Ivan Lendl, 2006.
>
>
> * Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of different
> things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he still
> comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's
> even from the same planet. Novak Djokovic, after Davis Cup match.
>
> * Roger hasn't even started to use a lot of his game. Tony Roche,
> former coach of Roger Federer.
>
>
>



er, you're using experts more than once. You've also cleverly ignored
the negative comments they've made.

You don't have to take my word for it - the test will be 10 yrs after he
retires, & he definitely will not be considered the talent goat. You
can take that to the bank.



  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 17:48:42
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 1, 4:37=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 10:35 am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Truth hurts. =A0Mac/Mecir make Fed look like Lendl by comparison.
> >>> A wonderful quote, since Lendl has a positive win-loss record against
> >>> both, and more slams than both put together.
> >> According to many experts, Federer is the most talented player we have
> >> ever seen and he will probably beat Sampras' slam record. The guy has
> >> it all except for the French and Olympic Gold.
>
> >> Some useful facts with no mention of Mecir:
>
> >> The four Grand Slam tournaments are the most important tennis events
> >> of the year in terms of world ranking points, tradition, prize-money
> >> awarded, and public attention. They are:
>
> >> Australian Open
> >> French Open
> >> Wimbledon
> >> US Open
>
> >> Agassi is the only man to have achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning
> >> on at least three different surfaces. He is also the only player with
> >> an Olympic Title, called a Career Golden Slam, although Tennis was
> >> absent from the Olympics for 64 years, from 1924-1988.
>
> >> Most Grand Slam singles titles (open era)
> >> Titles =A0 Players
> >> 14 Pete Sampras
> >> 13 Roger Federer
> >> 11 Bjorn Borg
> >> 8 Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl
> >> 7 John McEnroe, Mats Wilander
> >> 6 Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg
> >> 5 Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Rafael Nadal
> >> 4 Ken Rosewall, Guillermo Vilas, Jim Courier
> >> 3 Arthur Ashe, Gustavo Kuerten, Jan Kodes
> >> 2 Stan Smith, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Patrick Rafter, Ilie
> >> Nastase, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Johan Kriek, Sergi Bruguera
> >> 1 Novak Djokovic, Goran Ivanisevic, Andy Roddick, Richard Krajicek,
> >> Michael Stich, Pat Cash, Manuel Orantes, Gaston Gaudio, Juan Carlos
> >> Ferrero, Albert Costa, Carlos Moya, Thomas Muster, Andres Gomez,
> >> Michael Chang, Yannick Noah, Adriano Panatta, Andres Gimeno, Thomas
> >> Johansson, Petr Korda, Brian Teacher, Roscoe Tanner, Mark Edmondson,
> >> Vitas Gerulaitis
>
> > ++ Yep... over the last 5 years the number of players (men and
> > women!), coaches, journalists that have identified Federer as the
> > Talent GOAT is just amazing, at least for those of us that have
> > followed tennis for a while (myself 1970)... it's just unprecidented
> > and comes from seemingly every quarter... McEnroe himself, to name a
> > prominant name... =A0McEnroe an earlier incarnation of the Talent GOAT
> > to many... Federer won't be Talent GOAT forever, as it is a fleeting
> > title... but... its been so marked and sustained that it's been a
> > defining aspect to his status, legacy ALREADY and at only 27...
>
> > P
>
> You could be more subtle in your trolling. =A0I haven't read one statemen=
t
> from any expert who considers Federer the definitive goat. =A0It may
> happen in a few yrs, depending if he wins more slams & once we have time
> to fully analyse his contibution - but at this point in time he is
> neither achievement, ability or talent goat.

You missed the point again, whisper. You do it so often it almost
seems that you do it on purpose.

The conversation was talent, not definitive goat. Do try to pay
attention.

Rodjk #613


  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 13:38:00
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 1, 10:35=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> > > Truth hurts. =A0Mac/Mecir make Fed look like Lendl by comparison.
>
> > A wonderful quote, since Lendl has a positive win-loss record against
> > both, and more slams than both put together.
>
> According to many experts, Federer is the most talented player we have
> ever seen and he will probably beat Sampras' slam record. The guy has
> it all except for the French and Olympic Gold.
>
> Some useful facts with no mention of Mecir:
>
> The four Grand Slam tournaments are the most important tennis events
> of the year in terms of world ranking points, tradition, prize-money
> awarded, and public attention. They are:
>
> Australian Open
> French Open
> Wimbledon
> US Open
>
> Agassi is the only man to have achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning
> on at least three different surfaces. He is also the only player with
> an Olympic Title, called a Career Golden Slam, although Tennis was
> absent from the Olympics for 64 years, from 1924-1988.
>
> Most Grand Slam singles titles (open era)
> Titles =A0 Players
> 14 Pete Sampras
> 13 Roger Federer
> 11 Bjorn Borg
> 8 Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl
> 7 John McEnroe, Mats Wilander
> 6 Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg
> 5 Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Rafael Nadal
> 4 Ken Rosewall, Guillermo Vilas, Jim Courier
> 3 Arthur Ashe, Gustavo Kuerten, Jan Kodes
> 2 Stan Smith, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Patrick Rafter, Ilie
> Nastase, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Johan Kriek, Sergi Bruguera
> 1 Novak Djokovic, Goran Ivanisevic, Andy Roddick, Richard Krajicek,
> Michael Stich, Pat Cash, Manuel Orantes, Gaston Gaudio, Juan Carlos
> Ferrero, Albert Costa, Carlos Moya, Thomas Muster, Andres Gomez,
> Michael Chang, Yannick Noah, Adriano Panatta, Andres Gimeno, Thomas
> Johansson, Petr Korda, Brian Teacher, Roscoe Tanner, Mark Edmondson,
> Vitas Gerulaitis

++ Yep... over the last 5 years the number of players (men and
women!), coaches, journalists that have identified Federer as the
Talent GOAT is just amazing, at least for those of us that have
followed tennis for a while (myself 1970)... it's just unprecidented
and comes from seemingly every quarter... McEnroe himself, to name a
prominant name... McEnroe an earlier incarnation of the Talent GOAT
to many... Federer won't be Talent GOAT forever, as it is a fleeting
title... but... its been so marked and sustained that it's been a
defining aspect to his status, legacy ALREADY and at only 27...

P


   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 09:37:26
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Jan 1, 10:35 am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Truth hurts. Mac/Mecir make Fed look like Lendl by comparison.
>>> A wonderful quote, since Lendl has a positive win-loss record against
>>> both, and more slams than both put together.
>> According to many experts, Federer is the most talented player we have
>> ever seen and he will probably beat Sampras' slam record. The guy has
>> it all except for the French and Olympic Gold.
>>
>> Some useful facts with no mention of Mecir:
>>
>> The four Grand Slam tournaments are the most important tennis events
>> of the year in terms of world ranking points, tradition, prize-money
>> awarded, and public attention. They are:
>>
>> Australian Open
>> French Open
>> Wimbledon
>> US Open
>>
>> Agassi is the only man to have achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning
>> on at least three different surfaces. He is also the only player with
>> an Olympic Title, called a Career Golden Slam, although Tennis was
>> absent from the Olympics for 64 years, from 1924-1988.
>>
>> Most Grand Slam singles titles (open era)
>> Titles Players
>> 14 Pete Sampras
>> 13 Roger Federer
>> 11 Bjorn Borg
>> 8 Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl
>> 7 John McEnroe, Mats Wilander
>> 6 Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg
>> 5 Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Rafael Nadal
>> 4 Ken Rosewall, Guillermo Vilas, Jim Courier
>> 3 Arthur Ashe, Gustavo Kuerten, Jan Kodes
>> 2 Stan Smith, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Patrick Rafter, Ilie
>> Nastase, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Johan Kriek, Sergi Bruguera
>> 1 Novak Djokovic, Goran Ivanisevic, Andy Roddick, Richard Krajicek,
>> Michael Stich, Pat Cash, Manuel Orantes, Gaston Gaudio, Juan Carlos
>> Ferrero, Albert Costa, Carlos Moya, Thomas Muster, Andres Gomez,
>> Michael Chang, Yannick Noah, Adriano Panatta, Andres Gimeno, Thomas
>> Johansson, Petr Korda, Brian Teacher, Roscoe Tanner, Mark Edmondson,
>> Vitas Gerulaitis
>
> ++ Yep... over the last 5 years the number of players (men and
> women!), coaches, journalists that have identified Federer as the
> Talent GOAT is just amazing, at least for those of us that have
> followed tennis for a while (myself 1970)... it's just unprecidented
> and comes from seemingly every quarter... McEnroe himself, to name a
> prominant name... McEnroe an earlier incarnation of the Talent GOAT
> to many... Federer won't be Talent GOAT forever, as it is a fleeting
> title... but... its been so marked and sustained that it's been a
> defining aspect to his status, legacy ALREADY and at only 27...
>
> P


You could be more subtle in your trolling. I haven't read one statement
from any expert who considers Federer the definitive goat. It may
happen in a few yrs, depending if he wins more slams & once we have time
to fully analyse his contibution - but at this point in time he is
neither achievement, ability or talent goat.



    
Date: 02 Jan 2009 01:24:54
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:37:26 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 10:35 am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Truth hurts. Mac/Mecir make Fed look like Lendl by comparison.
>>>> A wonderful quote, since Lendl has a positive win-loss record against
>>>> both, and more slams than both put together.
>>> According to many experts, Federer is the most talented player we have
>>> ever seen and he will probably beat Sampras' slam record. The guy has
>>> it all except for the French and Olympic Gold.
>>>
>>> Some useful facts with no mention of Mecir:
>>>
>>> The four Grand Slam tournaments are the most important tennis events
>>> of the year in terms of world ranking points, tradition, prize-money
>>> awarded, and public attention. They are:
>>>
>>> Australian Open
>>> French Open
>>> Wimbledon
>>> US Open
>>>
>>> Agassi is the only man to have achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning
>>> on at least three different surfaces. He is also the only player with
>>> an Olympic Title, called a Career Golden Slam, although Tennis was
>>> absent from the Olympics for 64 years, from 1924-1988.
>>>
>>> Most Grand Slam singles titles (open era)
>>> Titles Players
>>> 14 Pete Sampras
>>> 13 Roger Federer
>>> 11 Bjorn Borg
>>> 8 Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl
>>> 7 John McEnroe, Mats Wilander
>>> 6 Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg
>>> 5 Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Rafael Nadal
>>> 4 Ken Rosewall, Guillermo Vilas, Jim Courier
>>> 3 Arthur Ashe, Gustavo Kuerten, Jan Kodes
>>> 2 Stan Smith, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Patrick Rafter, Ilie
>>> Nastase, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Johan Kriek, Sergi Bruguera
>>> 1 Novak Djokovic, Goran Ivanisevic, Andy Roddick, Richard Krajicek,
>>> Michael Stich, Pat Cash, Manuel Orantes, Gaston Gaudio, Juan Carlos
>>> Ferrero, Albert Costa, Carlos Moya, Thomas Muster, Andres Gomez,
>>> Michael Chang, Yannick Noah, Adriano Panatta, Andres Gimeno, Thomas
>>> Johansson, Petr Korda, Brian Teacher, Roscoe Tanner, Mark Edmondson,
>>> Vitas Gerulaitis
>>
>> ++ Yep... over the last 5 years the number of players (men and
>> women!), coaches, journalists that have identified Federer as the
>> Talent GOAT is just amazing, at least for those of us that have
>> followed tennis for a while (myself 1970)... it's just unprecidented
>> and comes from seemingly every quarter... McEnroe himself, to name a
>> prominant name... McEnroe an earlier incarnation of the Talent GOAT
>> to many... Federer won't be Talent GOAT forever, as it is a fleeting
>> title... but... its been so marked and sustained that it's been a
>> defining aspect to his status, legacy ALREADY and at only 27...
>>
>> P
>
>
>You could be more subtle in your trolling. I haven't read one statement
>from any expert who considers Federer the definitive goat. It may
>happen in a few yrs, depending if he wins more slams & once we have time
>to fully analyse his contibution - but at this point in time he is
>neither achievement, ability or talent goat.


neither is sampras.


  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 10:35:26
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
> > Truth hurts. =A0Mac/Mecir make Fed look like Lendl by comparison.
>
> A wonderful quote, since Lendl has a positive win-loss record against
> both, and more slams than both put together.

According to many experts, Federer is the most talented player we have
ever seen and he will probably beat Sampras' slam record. The guy has
it all except for the French and Olympic Gold.

Some useful facts with no mention of Mecir:

The four Grand Slam tournaments are the most important tennis events
of the year in terms of world ranking points, tradition, prize-money
awarded, and public attention. They are:

Australian Open
French Open
Wimbledon
US Open

Agassi is the only man to have achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning
on at least three different surfaces. He is also the only player with
an Olympic Title, called a Career Golden Slam, although Tennis was
absent from the Olympics for 64 years, from 1924-1988.

Most Grand Slam singles titles (open era)
Titles Players
14 Pete Sampras
13 Roger Federer
11 Bjorn Borg
8 Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl
7 John McEnroe, Mats Wilander
6 Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg
5 Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Rafael Nadal
4 Ken Rosewall, Guillermo Vilas, Jim Courier
3 Arthur Ashe, Gustavo Kuerten, Jan Kodes
2 Stan Smith, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin, Patrick Rafter, Ilie
Nastase, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Johan Kriek, Sergi Bruguera
1 Novak Djokovic, Goran Ivanisevic, Andy Roddick, Richard Krajicek,
Michael Stich, Pat Cash, Manuel Orantes, Gaston Gaudio, Juan Carlos
Ferrero, Albert Costa, Carlos Moya, Thomas Muster, Andres Gomez,
Michael Chang, Yannick Noah, Adriano Panatta, Andres Gimeno, Thomas
Johansson, Petr Korda, Brian Teacher, Roscoe Tanner, Mark Edmondson,
Vitas Gerulaitis


  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 07:40:05
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 1, 7:20=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:10:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Fan wrote:
> >>> On Dec 31 2008, 10:15 pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>>> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>>>>> End of List.
> >>>>> McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
> >>>>> ever. It means different things to different people. Some would mak=
e
> >>>>> him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game=
.
> >>>> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they'=
ve
> >>>> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves=
.
>
> >>> It would be too early to compare Federer with Sampras until Federer
> >>> retires or overtakes Sampras' 14-slam record.
> >>> McEnroe is another case. Federer is way ahead of McEnroe and still
> >>> going.
>
> >> Not in talent dept.
>
> > ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>
> > show me the "trophy's" or anything else that are an "objective"
> > measure of that and I'll even do your ugly wife again.
>
> Truth hurts. =A0Mac/Mecir make Fed look like Lendl by comparison.

A wonderful quote, since Lendl has a positive win-loss record against
both, and more slams than both put together.

Rodjk #613


   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 06:39:56
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Jan 1, 7:20 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:10:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Fan wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 31 2008, 10:15 pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>>>> End of List.
>>>>>>> McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
>>>>>>> ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
>>>>>>> him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
>>>>>> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
>>>>>> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
>>>>> It would be too early to compare Federer with Sampras until Federer
>>>>> retires or overtakes Sampras' 14-slam record.
>>>>> McEnroe is another case. Federer is way ahead of McEnroe and still
>>>>> going.
>>>> Not in talent dept.
>>> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>>> show me the "trophy's" or anything else that are an "objective"
>>> measure of that and I'll even do your ugly wife again.
>> Truth hurts. Mac/Mecir make Fed look like Lendl by comparison.
>
> A wonderful quote, since Lendl has a positive win-loss record against
> both, and more slams than both put together.
>
> Rodjk #613


Talking about talent.



  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 05:46:13
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Jan 1, 10:12=A0am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 31 2008, 10:15=A0pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 31, 12:44=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> > > > End of List.
>
> > > McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
> > > ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
> > > him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
>
> > Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
> > both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
>
> It would be too early to compare Federer with Sampras until Federer
> retires or overtakes Sampras' 14-slam record.
> McEnroe is another case. Federer is way ahead of McEnroe and still
> going.

Federer is the most talented who ever played the game. Arguing with
those who question Federer=92s talent is almost as stupid as questioning
Federer=92s talent. Nadal is my favorite for his fighting spirit and for
his accomplishments on clay but Federer stands out in the talent
department.


   
Date: 02 Jan 2009 00:53:00
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Fan wrote:
> On Jan 1, 10:12 am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 31 2008, 10:15 pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>>>> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>> End of List.
>>>> McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
>>>> ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
>>>> him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
>>> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
>>> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
>> It would be too early to compare Federer with Sampras until Federer
>> retires or overtakes Sampras' 14-slam record.
>> McEnroe is another case. Federer is way ahead of McEnroe and still
>> going.
>
> Federer is the most talented who ever played the game.


Get fucked. How can he be more talented than Mac? You must be on drugs.



>? Arguing with
> those who question Federer’s talent is almost as stupid as questioning
> Federer’s talent.



I don't question his talent, but only a newbie cockhead would say he's
most talented ever. There is absolutely no evidence to support your
position.


    
Date: 02 Jan 2009 01:25:30
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:53:00 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Fan wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 10:12 am, Fan <Turnagain...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 31 2008, 10:15 pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>> End of List.
>>>>> McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
>>>>> ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
>>>>> him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
>>>> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
>>>> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
>>> It would be too early to compare Federer with Sampras until Federer
>>> retires or overtakes Sampras' 14-slam record.
>>> McEnroe is another case. Federer is way ahead of McEnroe and still
>>> going.
>>
>> Federer is the most talented who ever played the game.
>
>
>Get fucked. How can he be more talented than Mac? You must be on drugs.
>
>
>
>>? Arguing with
>> those who question Federer’s talent is almost as stupid as questioning
>> Federer’s talent.
>
>
>
>I don't question his talent, but only a newbie cockhead would say he's
>most talented ever. There is absolutely no evidence to support your
>position.


evedence abounds


  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 01:12:45
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Dec 31 2008, 10:15=A0pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31, 12:44=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> > > End of List.
>
> > McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
> > ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
> > him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
>
> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
>

It would be too early to compare Federer with Sampras until Federer
retires or overtakes Sampras' 14-slam record.
McEnroe is another case. Federer is way ahead of McEnroe and still
going.


   
Date: 01 Jan 2009 21:10:39
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Fan wrote:
> On Dec 31 2008, 10:15 pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>> In article
>> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>> End of List.
>>> McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
>>> ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
>>> him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
>> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
>> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
>>
>
> It would be too early to compare Federer with Sampras until Federer
> retires or overtakes Sampras' 14-slam record.
> McEnroe is another case. Federer is way ahead of McEnroe and still
> going.


Not in talent dept.



    
Date: 01 Jan 2009 13:01:47
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:10:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Fan wrote:
>> On Dec 31 2008, 10:15 pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>> End of List.
>>>> McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
>>>> ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
>>>> him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
>>> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
>>> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
>>>
>>
>> It would be too early to compare Federer with Sampras until Federer
>> retires or overtakes Sampras' 14-slam record.
>> McEnroe is another case. Federer is way ahead of McEnroe and still
>> going.
>
>
>Not in talent dept.


ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

show me the "trophy's" or anything else that are an "objective"
measure of that and I'll even do your ugly wife again.


     
Date: 02 Jan 2009 00:20:20
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:10:39 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Fan wrote:
>>> On Dec 31 2008, 10:15 pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>
>>>> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>>>>> End of List.
>>>>> McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
>>>>> ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
>>>>> him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
>>>> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
>>>> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
>>>>
>>> It would be too early to compare Federer with Sampras until Federer
>>> retires or overtakes Sampras' 14-slam record.
>>> McEnroe is another case. Federer is way ahead of McEnroe and still
>>> going.
>>
>> Not in talent dept.
>
>
> ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>
> show me the "trophy's" or anything else that are an "objective"
> measure of that and I'll even do your ugly wife again.



Truth hurts. Mac/Mecir make Fed look like Lendl by comparison.


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 14:34:36
From: guyana
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
On Dec 31, 4:15=A0pm, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Turnagain...@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31, 12:44=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> > > End of List.
>
> > McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
> > ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
> > him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.
>
> Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
> both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.
>
> wg

no contest then , since Fed may have 18 by then or more?


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 15:15:23
From:
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than
In article
<f929a5e9-45e9-4b40-9480-bdb85ddc6a11@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com >,
TurnagainArm@hotmail.com (Fan) wrote:

>
> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> > End of List.
>
> McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
> ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
> him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.

Maybe the logical thing would be to have this discussion after they've
both retired, when their respective records can speak for themselves.

wg


  
Date: 01 Jan 2009 07:13:06
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than Sampras/McEnroe
Fan wrote:
> On Dec 31, 12:44 pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> End of List.
>
> McEnroe and others said that Federer was the most talented player
> ever. It means different things to different people. Some would make
> him a "goat" (no such thing) while others enjoy his mastery of game.


He's also said Fed is gutless & Sampras was betetr - depends who you
want to listen to & when they said it.


   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 22:10:31
From:
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than Sampras/McEnroe
In article <495bd255$0$22098$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au >,
beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:

>
> He's also said Fed is gutless & Sampras was betetr - depends who
> you want to listen to & when they said it.

I thought that was Wilander, saying Federer had no balls in the FO 2005
final.

wg


    
Date: 01 Jan 2009 09:34:35
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than Sampras/McEnroe

<wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk > wrote in message
news:eeKdnSWF__yq38HUnZ2dnUVZ8jGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> In article <495bd255$0$22098$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
>
>>
>> He's also said Fed is gutless & Sampras was betetr - depends who
>> you want to listen to & when they said it.
>
> I thought that was Wilander, saying Federer had no balls in the FO 2005
> final.

Third time in just a few days.
Edberg, Curren, now Federer.




     
Date: 01 Jan 2009 18:12:22
From:
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than Sampras/McEnroe
In article <gjhv72$okt$1@ss408.t-com.hr >, skriptis@post.t-com.hr
(*skriptis) wrote:

> <wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eeKdnSWF__yq38HUnZ2dnUVZ8jGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > In article
> > <495bd255$0$22098$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> > beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> He's also said Fed is gutless & Sampras was betetr - depends who
> >> you want to listen to & when they said it.
> >
> > I thought that was Wilander, saying Federer had no balls in the
> > FO 2005
> > final.
>
> Third time in just a few days.
> Edberg, Curren, now Federer.

Hey, it's the off-season!

wg


 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 16:16:45
From: TT
Subject: Re: Comprehensive list of reasons why Federer is better than Sampras/McEnroe
Iceberg wrote:
> End of List.
>
>

I see clown era didn't fit in your top ten.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"