Today Federer's opponents are just too weak. Don't get me wrong,
Federer is a fantastic player, but if you say he's the best tennis
player EVER, that's just too much.
Besides, in Wimbledon you barely see Federer serve and rally. But he
keeps winning there by consistently playing from baseline. Come on,
playing from baseline just doesn't look right in Wimbledon.
Pete in prime should be able to beat him in Wimbledon, lose to him in
French, 50/50 in US and Aussie Open.
Andre in prime should be able to beat him in French Open, 50/50 in all
the other 3 majors.
Federer can only play against the opponents that are around today.
Don't blame him because he was too young to take on Sampras in his
prime. Hell, I would have loved to see Federer/Sampras too, just like
I would have liked to seen Bjorg/Sampras or Laver/Sampras or Laver/
Federer, but what can you do? This is like saying ARod is overrated
because he never had to hit off Bob Gibson or Walter Johnson. Federer
is the best of this generation as Sampras and Laver were the best of
theirs.
Is Tiger Woods overrated too? Isn't his situation about the same? I don't
see how you can criticize a player because he wins all of the time.
Besides, how do we know that the rest of the players are "too weak?" If
Federer retired tomorrow, and Nadal and Rodick became fierce rivals,
meeting in lots of Slam finals, splitting them, would that mean they were
better? Having another player that beats you means you are better? If
Federer keeps on winning majors and has the most ever, you have to include
his name as one of the best ever...
Tim
No, I am not criticizing him at all. On the other hand, I think he's
one of the best. But I just don't think he's the best ever.
I admit to not being a huge tennis fan, but are they calling him the best
ever? He hasn't passed Sampas in all time grand slams won yet...
Tim
oh yeah, all of THEM (ESPN , CBS at least) call him the best ever.
He will break the record next year.