tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 07 Jan 2009 11:35:22
From: Iceberg
Subject: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!






 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 04:36:42
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On 8 jan, 10:46, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> kaennorsing wrote:
> > On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>> 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 tenn=
is
> >>> is a very easy sport, but it=92s not.=92=92
> >> Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
> >> that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
> >> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>
> > Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
> > and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
> > his success.
>
> > They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
> > been blessed with none.
>
> > In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
> > talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
> > they see or experience it.
>
> Well I have been blessed with talent myself - often get people clapping
> & marvelling at my ability.

It's called a lucid dream.


  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 13:14:54
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:36:42 -0800 (PST), kaennorsing
<ljubitsis@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On 8 jan, 10:46, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> kaennorsing wrote:
>> > On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>> 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.’’
>> >> Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
>> >> that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
>> >> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>>
>> > Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
>> > and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
>> > his success.
>>
>> > They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
>> > been blessed with none.
>>
>> > In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
>> > talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
>> > they see or experience it.
>>
>> Well I have been blessed with talent myself - often get people clapping
>> & marvelling at my ability.
>
>It's called a lucid dream.


Is that another name for a "wet" dream ? Whisper has those all the
time when he falls asleep watching Sampras bh's.


   
Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:17:35
From: TT
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:36:42 -0800 (PST), kaennorsing
> <ljubitsis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8 jan, 10:46, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> kaennorsing wrote:
>>>> On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> 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.’’
>>>>> Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
>>>>> that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
>>>>> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>>>> Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
>>>> and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
>>>> his success.
>>>> They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
>>>> been blessed with none.
>>>> In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
>>>> talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
>>>> they see or experience it.
>>> Well I have been blessed with talent myself - often get people clapping
>>> & marvelling at my ability.
>> It's called a lucid dream.
>
>
> Is that another name for a "wet" dream ? Whisper has those all the
> time when he falls asleep watching Sampras bh's.

I fall asleep watching Federer backhand slices. And sleep like a baby.

--
"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: 09 Jan 2009 05:42:09
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
TT wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:36:42 -0800 (PST), kaennorsing
>> <ljubitsis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 jan, 10:46, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>>>> Well I have been blessed with talent myself - often get people clapping
>>>> & marvelling at my ability.
>>> It's called a lucid dream.
>>
>>
>> Is that another name for a "wet" dream ? Whisper has those all the
>> time when he falls asleep watching Sampras bh's.
>
> I fall asleep watching Federer backhand slices. And sleep like a baby.
>


I fall asleep to the sound of Federer's shanks banging the back fence in
a rhythmic fashion.


    
Date: 08 Jan 2009 15:18:12
From: TT
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
TT wrote:
> Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:36:42 -0800 (PST), kaennorsing
>> <ljubitsis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 jan, 10:46, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> kaennorsing wrote:
>>>>> On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.’’
>>>>>> Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to
>>>>>> play at
>>>>>> that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
>>>>>> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>>>>> Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
>>>>> and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
>>>>> his success.
>>>>> They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
>>>>> been blessed with none.
>>>>> In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
>>>>> talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
>>>>> they see or experience it.
>>>> Well I have been blessed with talent myself - often get people clapping
>>>> & marvelling at my ability.
>>> It's called a lucid dream.
>>
>>
>> Is that another name for a "wet" dream ? Whisper has those all the
>> time when he falls asleep watching Sampras bh's.
>
> I fall asleep watching Federer backhand slices. And sleep like a baby.
>

...waking every 2 hours and crying.

--
"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: 08 Jan 2009 02:47:58
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer


Whisper wrote:
> TT wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Federer doesn't look that good ...
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >
> > And Nadal is better.
> >
>
>
>
> Agreed.
Get a room, ladies..


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 17:58:53
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 3:38=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 3:32=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 12:23=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > 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 i=
f he
> > > > > is
> > > > > going to win as many Grand Slams as Pete, but definitely he=92s t=
he
> > > > > 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 y=
ou
> > > > > couldn=92t touch his serve. But Federer, when he plays you think =
tennis
> > > > > is a very easy sport, but it=92s not.=92=92
>
> > > > Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play=
at
> > > > that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
> > > > Federer doesn't look that good ...
>
> > > Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get i=
t
> > > and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
> > > his success.
>
> > > They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
> > > been blessed with none.
>
> > > In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
> > > talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
> > > they see or experience it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > ++ Also this Pete or Fed BULLSHIT around here is just that BULLSHIT...
> > they are both greats, all time greats... no need for some around here
> > to continually pee in their shorts everytime someone has a point of
> > criticism for one or the other... but some are just BRICK headed
> > partisans... anyone who generally belittles Pete is just ignorant of
> > the power and effectiveness of his big time championship tennis and
> > anyone who belittles Feds all court talent genius is blind... I like
> > Pete and Fed... incredible players and great guys... and friends, a
> > wonderful bonus!
>
> > P
>
> Pete Sampras was never a great guy. He was great champion, I give you
> that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ He might not have been a showman or charismatic but he was a good
guy...

P



 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 15:38:07
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 3:32=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 12:23=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > 2. Goran Ivanisevic retired from tennis after Wimbledon 2004.
> > > > =92=92I played with all the generations, McEnroe, Connors, Pete, An=
dre
> > > > 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 te=
nnis
> > > > is a very easy sport, but it=92s not.=92=92
>
> > > Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play a=
t
> > > that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
> > > Federer doesn't look that good ...
>
> > Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
> > and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
> > his success.
>
> > They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
> > been blessed with none.
>
> > In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
> > talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
> > they see or experience it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ Also this Pete or Fed BULLSHIT around here is just that BULLSHIT...
> they are both greats, all time greats... no need for some around here
> to continually pee in their shorts everytime someone has a point of
> criticism for one or the other... but some are just BRICK headed
> partisans... anyone who generally belittles Pete is just ignorant of
> the power and effectiveness of his big time championship tennis and
> anyone who belittles Feds all court talent genius is blind... I like
> Pete and Fed... incredible players and great guys... and friends, a
> wonderful bonus!
>
> P

Pete Sampras was never a great guy. He was great champion, I give you
that.



  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 00:33:05
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:38:07 -0800 (PST), Raja <zepfloyes@gmail.com >
wrote:

>On Jan 7, 3:32 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 12:23 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > 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.’’
>>
>> > > Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
>> > > that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
>> > > Federer doesn't look that good ...
>>
>> > Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
>> > and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
>> > his success.
>>
>> > They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
>> > been blessed with none.
>>
>> > In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
>> > talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
>> > they see or experience it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> ++ Also this Pete or Fed BULLSHIT around here is just that BULLSHIT...
>> they are both greats, all time greats... no need for some around here
>> to continually pee in their shorts everytime someone has a point of
>> criticism for one or the other... but some are just BRICK headed
>> partisans... anyone who generally belittles Pete is just ignorant of
>> the power and effectiveness of his big time championship tennis and
>> anyone who belittles Feds all court talent genius is blind... I like
>> Pete and Fed... incredible players and great guys... and friends, a
>> wonderful bonus!
>>
>> P
>
>Pete Sampras was never a great guy. He was great champion, I give you
>that.


I am not sure he was even a great champion anymore either. Softcock
era, won so many slams by "accident", couldn't be arsed (bad
attitude),etc.

On today's scale of:

1.Federer
2.Nadal
3.Murray
4.Djokovic

I'd put him between Murray and Djokovic but on the low side of the
middle.


 
Date: 08 Jan 2009 00:26:08
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:35:22 GMT, "Iceberg"
<big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:

>That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!

Do you have a point with posting that? That is about as mainstream
opinion as it can be. I don't think nobody has ever said he is a great
volleyer, and only Whisper and his friends say his volleys suck.



 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 13:32:40
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 12:23=A0pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 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
> > > 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 tenn=
is
> > > is a very easy sport, but it=92s not.=92=92
>
> > Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
> > that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
> > Federer doesn't look that good ...
>
> Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
> and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
> his success.
>
> They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
> been blessed with none.
>
> In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
> talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
> they see or experience it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Also this Pete or Fed BULLSHIT around here is just that BULLSHIT...
they are both greats, all time greats... no need for some around here
to continually pee in their shorts everytime someone has a point of
criticism for one or the other... but some are just BRICK headed
partisans... anyone who generally belittles Pete is just ignorant of
the power and effectiveness of his big time championship tennis and
anyone who belittles Feds all court talent genius is blind... I like
Pete and Fed... incredible players and great guys... and friends, a
wonderful bonus!

P


  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 13:52:29
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Jan 7, 12:23 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 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.’’
>>> Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
>>> that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
>>> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>> Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
>> and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
>> his success.
>>
>> They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
>> been blessed with none.
>>
>> In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
>> talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
>> they see or experience it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ Also this Pete or Fed BULLSHIT around here is just that BULLSHIT...
> they are both greats, all time greats... no need for some around here
> to continually pee in their shorts everytime someone has a point of
> criticism for one or the other... but some are just BRICK headed
> partisans... anyone who generally belittles Pete is just ignorant of
> the power and effectiveness of his big time championship tennis and
> anyone who belittles Feds all court talent genius is blind... I like
> Pete and Fed... incredible players and great guys... and friends, a
> wonderful bonus!
>
> P

Fantastic! Three reasonable posts in a row.

--
Cheers,

vc


  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 20:47:04
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Jan 7, 12:23 pm, kaennorsing <ljubit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
>> talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
>> they see or experience it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ Also this Pete or Fed BULLSHIT around here is just that BULLSHIT...
> they are both greats, all time greats... no need for some around here
> to continually pee in their shorts everytime someone has a point of
> criticism for one or the other... but some are just BRICK headed
> partisans... anyone who generally belittles Pete is just ignorant of
> the power and effectiveness of his big time championship tennis and
> anyone who belittles Feds all court talent genius is blind... I like
> Pete and Fed... incredible players and great guys... and friends, a
> wonderful bonus!
>
> P



Yes, but Pete is better.



 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 13:26:01
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 9:57=A0am, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 8:59=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 7, 10:40=A0am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 7, 6:37=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Jan 7, 9:32=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> >> > > > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> >> > > >news:49649f98$0$28537$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au=
...
>
> >> > > > > Iceberg wrote:
> >> > > > >> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yes=
terday!
>
> >> > > > > Once you screen out the ceibs factor that's the sort of thing =
history will
> >> > > > > judge him on when he retires - not the 'talent goat' some clow=
n was
> >> > > > > crapping on about the other day.
>
> >> > > > I'm pleased somebody in the public eye is finally pointing this =
out. Fed's
> >> > > > fh is very nice, I like his serve and his backhand looks good, b=
ut his
> >> > > > volley...it's nothing like that of McEnroe, Sampras, Woodbridge =
or Henman. I
> >> > > > had an argument with a coach a couple of years ago cos he tried =
to tell me
> >> > > > Sampras only had a slightly better 2nd serve than Fed and nothin=
g else, I
> >> > > > said Sampras' volleys were way better, but it was like talking t=
o the
> >> > > > Fedfans here.
>
> >> > > No player that I've ever seen has the complete package. Not Mac or
> >> > > Sampras
> >> > > because they weren't dominant baseline players and not Fed because
> >> > > (here I agree with
> >> > > Whisper) he lacks the overwhelming power to wipe the floor with gu=
ys
> >> > > like Nadal on fast courts.
>
> >> > > I'm still waiting for the Tiger Woods of tennis. Maybe it will hap=
pen
> >> > > in our lifetimes?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > ++ Tiger Woods has his weaknesses as well... his driver sprays aroun=
d
> >> > quite a lot and he admits to that as well...
>
> >> That's true, but imo Tiger's highest level is totally untouchable.
> >> Sure, he can spray the driver, but what about
> >> when he doesn't and he's putting well, then he can slaughter the
> >> field.
>
> >> Fed's close to that, but then there's always the Nadal dilemma. He's
> >> never thoroughly dominated Nadal in a huge
> >> match, like a Slam final. The closest you could say was the 2006
> >> Wimbledon, and even then once Nadal got his teeth into the match it
> >> was a dogfight until the 4th set. Then as Nadal improved and got more
> >> experience, Fed struggled more and more until last year Nadal very
> >> nearly beat him in straight sets in last year's Wimby final.
>
> >> For me, Fed is the greatest *all-surface* talent I've seen (I never
> >> saw Laver play) and he does have a big game. But I don't think it's as
> >> dominating a game as Sampras used to play at Wimbledon and I still
> >> think he's lacking that thoroughly dominating performance over Nadal.
> >> Maybe it will come this year at Wimbledon against Rafa in the final?
> >> Some Fed fans say he doesn't need that 1999-Wimbledon-final-like
> >> performance but I think he absolutely does to erase all the "yeah, but
> >> what about Nadal" comments from doubters after he's retired.- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > ++ I agree with you about Fed-Nadal... Tiger frankly has not met his
> > Tom Watson (or Gary Player) yet... Phil Mickelson and Ernie Els are
> > great players in terms of wins but they aren't hard men, who love a
> > dog fights, who have the internal doggedness to make Tiger blink...
> > they are much more talents and less fighter on the course... Miller
> > said, "The thing about me was I liked to be 5 ahead going down 18 and
> > Watson didn't care if he was 5 ahead or tied, he loved to butt horns,
> > right to the end if need be, to the bitter end."
>
> > Tiger has yet to face a mega-talented tough guy in his prime as Jack
> > had in Player and Watson... to me that's the question I have... much
> > like Federer needs another big win over Nadal in a slam, Tiger needs a
> > true rival, a multi-slam winning tough guy who lives to take him
> > down... Singh would be close to that guy if he were 30 and not 45... a
> > 29 year-old Singh with a slam or 2 more majors than Vijay's 3...
> > that's the level of player Tiger has not YET come up against...
>
> OMG are you suggesting... golf clown era? :D- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ No... just no Tiger worthy multi-slam stud to rival Tiger, to push
him to the limit... not yet anyway...

P


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 12:23:35
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > 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
>
> Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
> that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
> Federer doesn't look that good ...

Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
his success.

They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
been blessed with none.

In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
they see or experience it.


  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 20:46:07
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
kaennorsing wrote:
> On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> 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.’’
>> Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
>> that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
>> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>
> Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
> and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
> his success.
>
> They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
> been blessed with none.
>
> In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
> talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
> they see or experience it.




Well I have been blessed with talent myself - often get people clapping
& marvelling at my ability. I agree Fed is talented, but no way is he
the most talented. Anyone who thinks that really doesn't understand talent.



   
Date: 08 Jan 2009 12:09:52
From: TT
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Whisper wrote:
> kaennorsing wrote:
>> On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> 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.’’
>>> Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
>>> that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
>>> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>>
>> Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
>> and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
>> his success.
>>
>> They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
>> been blessed with none.
>>
>> In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
>> talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
>> they see or experience it.
>
>
>
>
> Well I have been blessed with talent myself - often get people clapping
> & marvelling at my ability. I agree Fed is talented, but no way is he
> the most talented. Anyone who thinks that really doesn't understand
> talent.
>

For a second I though you're going to say that no way Federer is as
talented as you...

A bit of a letdown.

--
"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: 08 Jan 2009 21:19:57
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> kaennorsing wrote:
>>> On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> 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.’’
>>>> Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
>>>> that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
>>>> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>>>
>>> Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
>>> and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
>>> his success.
>>>
>>> They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
>>> been blessed with none.
>>>
>>> In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
>>> talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
>>> they see or experience it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well I have been blessed with talent myself - often get people
>> clapping & marvelling at my ability. I agree Fed is talented, but no
>> way is he the most talented. Anyone who thinks that really doesn't
>> understand talent.
>>
>
> For a second I though you're going to say that no way Federer is as
> talented as you...
>
> A bit of a letdown.
>


I give Fed the edge due to his flick bh - but he's had more practice.



     
Date: 09 Jan 2009 00:10:56
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:19:57 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>TT wrote:
>> Whisper wrote:
>>> kaennorsing wrote:
>>>> On 7 jan, 20:38, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> 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.’’
>>>>> Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
>>>>> that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
>>>>> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>>>>
>>>> Hits the nail on the head and explains why his detractors never get it
>>>> and have to continually come up with all kinds of crappy excuses for
>>>> his success.
>>>>
>>>> They just don't know what talent is... most likely because they have
>>>> been blessed with none.
>>>>
>>>> In contrast to most top players who have been blessed with lots of
>>>> talent themselves and will therefore recognise greater talent when
>>>> they see or experience it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well I have been blessed with talent myself - often get people
>>> clapping & marvelling at my ability. I agree Fed is talented, but no
>>> way is he the most talented. Anyone who thinks that really doesn't
>>> understand talent.
>>>
>>
>> For a second I though you're going to say that no way Federer is as
>> talented as you...
>>
>> A bit of a letdown.
>>
>
>
>I give Fed the edge due to his flick bh - but he's had more practice.

I don't know about that. I don't think he plays 7 hours a day. And he
is only 27.




      
Date: 09 Jan 2009 15:42:02
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:19:57 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>> For a second I though you're going to say that no way Federer is as
>>> talented as you...
>>>
>>> A bit of a letdown.
>>>
>>
>> I give Fed the edge due to his flick bh - but he's had more practice.
>
> I don't know about that. I don't think he plays 7 hours a day. And he
> is only 27.
>
>



At present I'm playing maybe 10 hrs a week - Fed probably averages 30 to 40.



 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 11:38:53
From:
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
> 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

Watching other top players, you realise how difficult it is to play at
that level. Watching Federer, it doesn't look that difficult, and
Federer doesn't look that good ...





  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 20:44:12
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:


> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>



Agreed.


   
Date: 08 Jan 2009 12:10:42
From: TT
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Whisper wrote:
> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>>
>
>
>
> Agreed.

And Nadal is better.

--
"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: 08 Jan 2009 21:20:14
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> And Nadal is better.
>



Agreed.


   
Date: 08 Jan 2009 10:06:08
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:44:12 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> Federer doesn't look that good ...
>>
>
>
>
>Agreed.


Right. He looks even better than the best.


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 11:13:55
From: Gordon Cameron
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 4:27=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
> > That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>
> Once you screen out the ceibs factor that's the sort of thing history
> will judge him on when he retires - not the 'talent goat' some clown was
> crapping on about the other day.

No, history will judge him on how many matches and titles he wins.
Using great shots as a measure of greatness is problematic -- pretty
soon Mecir looks like top 10 material. If you have the great shots,
the results should follow.


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 09:59:18
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Talent GOAT talk... LOL


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.




Blah, blah, blah... goes on seemingly forever with these guys who
don't know anything compared to the sages and gurus here at RST...
*chuckle*...

P


  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 06:29:26
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> Talent GOAT talk... LOL
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> Blah, blah, blah... goes on seemingly forever with these guys who
> don't know anything compared to the sages and gurus here at RST...
> *chuckle*...
>
> P



Seen it all before. What's astonishing is the number of Federer
naysayers while he's still at the top - never happened before with other
greats & is a sure sign his stock will drop sharply once he retires -
*if* he doesn't win more slams.


   
Date: 08 Jan 2009 00:27:36
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer

>
>
>Seen it all before. What's astonishing is the number of Federer
>naysayers while he's still at the top - never happened before with other
>greats & is a sure sign his stock will drop sharply once he retires -
>*if* he doesn't win more slams.


Fed has got lots of slams in him yet. He's in great position to win
the next 5 Wimbledon's.

Five Wimbledons twice. That would be so beautiful since Sampras
could not even do it once.


    
Date: 08 Jan 2009 20:48:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
>>
>> Seen it all before. What's astonishing is the number of Federer
>> naysayers while he's still at the top - never happened before with other
>> greats & is a sure sign his stock will drop sharply once he retires -
>> *if* he doesn't win more slams.
>
>
> Fed has got lots of slams in him yet. He's in great position to win
> the next 5 Wimbledon's.
>
> Five Wimbledons twice. That would be so beautiful since Sampras
> could not even do it once.


Agreed.

If you don't mind I'll hold off until he actually wins more slams.



 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 09:46:55
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 8:59=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 10:40=A0am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 6:37=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 7, 9:32=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> > > > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:49649f98$0$28537$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> > > > > Iceberg wrote:
> > > > >> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yester=
day!
>
> > > > > Once you screen out the ceibs factor that's the sort of thing his=
tory will
> > > > > judge him on when he retires - not the 'talent goat' some clown w=
as
> > > > > crapping on about the other day.
>
> > > > I'm pleased somebody in the public eye is finally pointing this out=
. Fed's
> > > > fh is very nice, I like his serve and his backhand looks good, but =
his
> > > > volley...it's nothing like that of McEnroe, Sampras, Woodbridge or =
Henman. I
> > > > had an argument with a coach a couple of years ago cos he tried to =
tell me
> > > > Sampras only had a slightly better 2nd serve than Fed and nothing e=
lse, I
> > > > said Sampras' volleys were way better, but it was like talking to t=
he
> > > > Fedfans here.
>
> > > No player that I've ever seen has the complete package. Not Mac or
> > > Sampras
> > > because they weren't dominant baseline players and not Fed because
> > > (here I agree with
> > > Whisper) he lacks the overwhelming power to wipe the floor with guys
> > > like Nadal on fast courts.
>
> > > I'm still waiting for the Tiger Woods of tennis. Maybe it will happen
> > > in our lifetimes?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > ++ Tiger Woods has his weaknesses as well... his driver sprays around
> > quite a lot and he admits to that as well...
>
> That's true, but imo Tiger's highest level is totally untouchable.
> Sure, he can spray the driver, but what about
> when he doesn't and he's putting well, then he can slaughter the
> field.
>
> Fed's close to that, but then there's always the Nadal dilemma. He's
> never thoroughly dominated Nadal in a huge
> match, like a Slam final. The closest you could say was the 2006
> Wimbledon, and even then once Nadal got his teeth into the match it
> was a dogfight until the 4th set. Then as Nadal improved and got more
> experience, Fed struggled more and more until last year Nadal very
> nearly beat him in straight sets in last year's Wimby final.
>
> For me, Fed is the greatest *all-surface* talent I've seen (I never
> saw Laver play) and he does have a big game. But I don't think it's as
> dominating a game as Sampras used to play at Wimbledon and I still
> think he's lacking that thoroughly dominating performance over Nadal.
> Maybe it will come this year at Wimbledon against Rafa in the final?
> Some Fed fans say he doesn't need that 1999-Wimbledon-final-like
> performance but I think he absolutely does to erase all the "yeah, but
> what about Nadal" comments from doubters after he's retired.- Hide quoted=
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ I agree with you about Fed-Nadal... Tiger frankly has not met his
Tom Watson (or Gary Player) yet... Phil Mickelson and Ernie Els are
great players in terms of wins but they aren't hard men, who love a
dog fights, who have the internal doggedness to make Tiger blink...
they are much more talents and less fighter on the course... Miller
said, "The thing about me was I liked to be 5 ahead going down 18 and
Watson didn't care if he was 5 ahead or tied, he loved to butt horns,
right to the end if need be, to the bitter end."

Tiger has yet to face a mega-talented tough guy in his prime as Jack
had in Player and Watson... to me that's the question I have... much
like Federer needs another big win over Nadal in a slam, Tiger needs a
true rival, a multi-slam winning tough guy who lives to take him
down... Singh would be close to that guy if he were 30 and not 45... a
29 year-old Singh with a slam or 2 more majors than Vijay's 3...
that's the level of player Tiger has not YET come up against...

P


  
Date: 07 Jan 2009 14:57:45
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 8:59 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 7, 10:40 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 7, 6:37 am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 7, 9:32 am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>
>> > > > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> > > >news:49649f98$0$28537$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> > > > > Iceberg wrote:
>> > > > >> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>>
>> > > > > Once you screen out the ceibs factor that's the sort of thing history will
>> > > > > judge him on when he retires - not the 'talent goat' some clown was
>> > > > > crapping on about the other day.
>>
>> > > > I'm pleased somebody in the public eye is finally pointing this out. Fed's
>> > > > fh is very nice, I like his serve and his backhand looks good, but his
>> > > > volley...it's nothing like that of McEnroe, Sampras, Woodbridge or Henman. I
>> > > > had an argument with a coach a couple of years ago cos he tried to tell me
>> > > > Sampras only had a slightly better 2nd serve than Fed and nothing else, I
>> > > > said Sampras' volleys were way better, but it was like talking to the
>> > > > Fedfans here.
>>
>> > > No player that I've ever seen has the complete package. Not Mac or
>> > > Sampras
>> > > because they weren't dominant baseline players and not Fed because
>> > > (here I agree with
>> > > Whisper) he lacks the overwhelming power to wipe the floor with guys
>> > > like Nadal on fast courts.
>>
>> > > I'm still waiting for the Tiger Woods of tennis. Maybe it will happen
>> > > in our lifetimes?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > ++ Tiger Woods has his weaknesses as well... his driver sprays around
>> > quite a lot and he admits to that as well...
>>
>> That's true, but imo Tiger's highest level is totally untouchable.
>> Sure, he can spray the driver, but what about
>> when he doesn't and he's putting well, then he can slaughter the
>> field.
>>
>> Fed's close to that, but then there's always the Nadal dilemma. He's
>> never thoroughly dominated Nadal in a huge
>> match, like a Slam final. The closest you could say was the 2006
>> Wimbledon, and even then once Nadal got his teeth into the match it
>> was a dogfight until the 4th set. Then as Nadal improved and got more
>> experience, Fed struggled more and more until last year Nadal very
>> nearly beat him in straight sets in last year's Wimby final.
>>
>> For me, Fed is the greatest *all-surface* talent I've seen (I never
>> saw Laver play) and he does have a big game. But I don't think it's as
>> dominating a game as Sampras used to play at Wimbledon and I still
>> think he's lacking that thoroughly dominating performance over Nadal.
>> Maybe it will come this year at Wimbledon against Rafa in the final?
>> Some Fed fans say he doesn't need that 1999-Wimbledon-final-like
>> performance but I think he absolutely does to erase all the "yeah, but
>> what about Nadal" comments from doubters after he's retired.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ I agree with you about Fed-Nadal... Tiger frankly has not met his
> Tom Watson (or Gary Player) yet... Phil Mickelson and Ernie Els are
> great players in terms of wins but they aren't hard men, who love a
> dog fights, who have the internal doggedness to make Tiger blink...
> they are much more talents and less fighter on the course... Miller
> said, "The thing about me was I liked to be 5 ahead going down 18 and
> Watson didn't care if he was 5 ahead or tied, he loved to butt horns,
> right to the end if need be, to the bitter end."
>
> Tiger has yet to face a mega-talented tough guy in his prime as Jack
> had in Player and Watson... to me that's the question I have... much
> like Federer needs another big win over Nadal in a slam, Tiger needs a
> true rival, a multi-slam winning tough guy who lives to take him
> down... Singh would be close to that guy if he were 30 and not 45... a
> 29 year-old Singh with a slam or 2 more majors than Vijay's 3...
> that's the level of player Tiger has not YET come up against...

OMG are you suggesting... golf clown era? :D


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 08:59:00
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 10:40=A0am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 6:37=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 9:32=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
> > > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > >news:49649f98$0$28537$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> > > > Iceberg wrote:
> > > >> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterda=
y!
>
> > > > Once you screen out the ceibs factor that's the sort of thing histo=
ry will
> > > > judge him on when he retires - not the 'talent goat' some clown was
> > > > crapping on about the other day.
>
> > > I'm pleased somebody in the public eye is finally pointing this out. =
Fed's
> > > fh is very nice, I like his serve and his backhand looks good, but hi=
s
> > > volley...it's nothing like that of McEnroe, Sampras, Woodbridge or He=
nman. I
> > > had an argument with a coach a couple of years ago cos he tried to te=
ll me
> > > Sampras only had a slightly better 2nd serve than Fed and nothing els=
e, I
> > > said Sampras' volleys were way better, but it was like talking to the
> > > Fedfans here.
>
> > No player that I've ever seen has the complete package. Not Mac or
> > Sampras
> > because they weren't dominant baseline players and not Fed because
> > (here I agree with
> > Whisper) he lacks the overwhelming power to wipe the floor with guys
> > like Nadal on fast courts.
>
> > I'm still waiting for the Tiger Woods of tennis. Maybe it will happen
> > in our lifetimes?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ++ Tiger Woods has his weaknesses as well... his driver sprays around
> quite a lot and he admits to that as well...

That's true, but imo Tiger's highest level is totally untouchable.
Sure, he can spray the driver, but what about
when he doesn't and he's putting well, then he can slaughter the
field.

Fed's close to that, but then there's always the Nadal dilemma. He's
never thoroughly dominated Nadal in a huge
match, like a Slam final. The closest you could say was the 2006
Wimbledon, and even then once Nadal got his teeth into the match it
was a dogfight until the 4th set. Then as Nadal improved and got more
experience, Fed struggled more and more until last year Nadal very
nearly beat him in straight sets in last year's Wimby final.

For me, Fed is the greatest *all-surface* talent I've seen (I never
saw Laver play) and he does have a big game. But I don't think it's as
dominating a game as Sampras used to play at Wimbledon and I still
think he's lacking that thoroughly dominating performance over Nadal.
Maybe it will come this year at Wimbledon against Rafa in the final?
Some Fed fans say he doesn't need that 1999-Wimbledon-final-like
performance but I think he absolutely does to erase all the "yeah, but
what about Nadal" comments from doubters after he's retired.


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 07:47:34
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 6:35=A0am, Javier Gonzalez <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com > wrote:
> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> > "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon....@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:8ame36-319.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> >> Iceberg <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
> >>> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>
> >> And that's surprising... why, exactly? It's a pretty good assessment o=
f
> >> Federer's abilities at the net.
>
> >> Wake me up when the commentator says "Ferer is rubbish at the net".
>
> > 'Ferrer' IS RUBBISH AT THE NET!!
>
> Heh. No argument there, though I intended to type "Federer is rubbish at =
the
> net".

++ Well, why do the McEnroe brothers and Wilander and Lendl and Goron
I. and so many others keep saying he's such a great net player and
praising his touch at the net? Why do they keep saying this during
slam broadcasts if the KNOW it's not true, that he's just average or
rubbish as many have say here on RST. Why? Because they don't really
believe it, but, want to say it anyway? Because they like to
characterize players falsely/innacurately and impugn their own
reputations as annalists, experts or informed persons within the
game?

P


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 07:40:02
From:
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer

> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!

I think he's 'pretty good' and improving. He's not a natural if
compared to Mac, but he's better than just 'good' at volleying.





 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 07:40:00
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 6:37=A0am, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 9:32=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> >news:49649f98$0$28537$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> > > Iceberg wrote:
> > >> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>
> > > Once you screen out the ceibs factor that's the sort of thing history=
will
> > > judge him on when he retires - not the 'talent goat' some clown was
> > > crapping on about the other day.
>
> > I'm pleased somebody in the public eye is finally pointing this out. Fe=
d's
> > fh is very nice, I like his serve and his backhand looks good, but his
> > volley...it's nothing like that of McEnroe, Sampras, Woodbridge or Henm=
an. I
> > had an argument with a coach a couple of years ago cos he tried to tell=
me
> > Sampras only had a slightly better 2nd serve than Fed and nothing else,=
I
> > said Sampras' volleys were way better, but it was like talking to the
> > Fedfans here.
>
> No player that I've ever seen has the complete package. Not Mac or
> Sampras
> because they weren't dominant baseline players and not Fed because
> (here I agree with
> Whisper) he lacks the overwhelming power to wipe the floor with guys
> like Nadal on fast courts.
>
> I'm still waiting for the Tiger Woods of tennis. Maybe it will happen
> in our lifetimes?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Tiger Woods has his weaknesses as well... his driver sprays around
quite a lot and he admits to that as well... he's amazing but has his
issues... like Fed with Sampras, he hasn't climbed Mount Nicklaus
quite yet... I'm sure he will... but he's not there yet... 4 to tie
and 5 to pass yet to be his...

P


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 06:37:58
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 9:32=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:49649f98$0$28537$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> > Iceberg wrote:
> >> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>
> > Once you screen out the ceibs factor that's the sort of thing history w=
ill
> > judge him on when he retires - not the 'talent goat' some clown was
> > crapping on about the other day.
>
> I'm pleased somebody in the public eye is finally pointing this out. Fed'=
s
> fh is very nice, I like his serve and his backhand looks good, but his
> volley...it's nothing like that of McEnroe, Sampras, Woodbridge or Henman=
. I
> had an argument with a coach a couple of years ago cos he tried to tell m=
e
> Sampras only had a slightly better 2nd serve than Fed and nothing else, I
> said Sampras' volleys were way better, but it was like talking to the
> Fedfans here.

No player that I've ever seen has the complete package. Not Mac or
Sampras
because they weren't dominant baseline players and not Fed because
(here I agree with
Whisper) he lacks the overwhelming power to wipe the floor with guys
like Nadal on fast courts.

I'm still waiting for the Tiger Woods of tennis. Maybe it will happen
in our lifetimes?


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 06:13:46
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 7:27=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
> > That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>
> Once you screen out the ceibs factor that's the sort of thing history
> will judge him on when he retires - not the 'talent goat' some clown was
> crapping on about the other day.

Mac could also be described as a "good but not great" groundstroker.
Certainly he would
appear on no lists of the greatest groundstrokers of all time. Doesn't
mean he wasn't
an otherworldly talent.


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 10:12:08
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:
> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!

And that's surprising... why, exactly? It's a pretty good assessment of
Federer's abilities at the net.

Wake me up when the commentator says "Ferer is rubbish at the net".


  
Date: 08 Jan 2009 13:39:53
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>
> And that's surprising... why, exactly? It's a pretty good assessment of
> Federer's abilities at the net.
>
> Wake me up when the commentator says "Ferer is rubbish at the net".

That is Ferrer, right?

--
Cheers,

vc


  
Date: 07 Jan 2009 14:33:28
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
"Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote in message
news:8ame36-319.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>
> And that's surprising... why, exactly? It's a pretty good assessment of
> Federer's abilities at the net.
>
> Wake me up when the commentator says "Ferer is rubbish at the net".

'Ferrer' IS RUBBISH AT THE NET!!




   
Date: 07 Jan 2009 11:35:57
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay > wrote:
> "Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8ame36-319.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
>> Iceberg <big_bad_iceberg@moc.oohay> wrote:
>>> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>>
>> And that's surprising... why, exactly? It's a pretty good assessment of
>> Federer's abilities at the net.
>>
>> Wake me up when the commentator says "Ferer is rubbish at the net".
>
> 'Ferrer' IS RUBBISH AT THE NET!!

Heh. No argument there, though I intended to type "Federer is rubbish at the
net".


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 05:09:03
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
On Jan 7, 6:35=A0am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!

Federer doesn't make living by volleying only, he uses it with other
parts of his game to win matches.
To be super in something, it has to be the main thing you do most of
the time and says.


 
Date: 07 Jan 2009 23:27:02
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Iceberg wrote:
> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>
>


Once you screen out the ceibs factor that's the sort of thing history
will judge him on when he retires - not the 'talent goat' some clown was
crapping on about the other day.



  
Date: 07 Jan 2009 14:32:22
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:49649f98$0$28537$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Iceberg wrote:
>> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>>
>>
> Once you screen out the ceibs factor that's the sort of thing history will
> judge him on when he retires - not the 'talent goat' some clown was
> crapping on about the other day.

I'm pleased somebody in the public eye is finally pointing this out. Fed's
fh is very nice, I like his serve and his backhand looks good, but his
volley...it's nothing like that of McEnroe, Sampras, Woodbridge or Henman. I
had an argument with a coach a couple of years ago cos he tried to tell me
Sampras only had a slightly better 2nd serve than Fed and nothing else, I
said Sampras' volleys were way better, but it was like talking to the
Fedfans here.




   
Date: 08 Jan 2009 06:26:41
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Fed a "good but not great" volleyer
Iceberg wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:49649f98$0$28537$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Iceberg wrote:
>>> That's what the commentator said during the Starace match yesterday!
>>>
>>>
>> Once you screen out the ceibs factor that's the sort of thing history will
>> judge him on when he retires - not the 'talent goat' some clown was
>> crapping on about the other day.
>
> I'm pleased somebody in the public eye is finally pointing this out. Fed's
> fh is very nice, I like his serve and his backhand looks good, but his
> volley...it's nothing like that of McEnroe, Sampras, Woodbridge or Henman. I
> had an argument with a coach a couple of years ago cos he tried to tell me
> Sampras only had a slightly better 2nd serve than Fed and nothing else, I
> said Sampras' volleys were way better, but it was like talking to the
> Fedfans here.
>
>


You shoulda smacked him one.