US Open Mens Final

[AFII]

Agreed, but....

Djokovic blew it.

Well, Federer blew it first, second and third but got away with it.

[AFII]

Djokovic is still very young. In the next year or so, he will get better and be told to keep composed when the big points come along, I felt that was the difference between the two today.

Hopefully next year we have a more exciting grand slam finals with each player getting better and more experienced.

I hope so because it's getting boring knowing before the Grand Slams who will win it.

[anfieldanfield]

Nadal and Djokovic are the only players that can get near Federer.

Federer was not at his best in the Wimbledon and US Open finals this year but he STILL won.

It's amazing.

The Australian Open will be fascinating.

[Joe King]

I hope so because it's getting boring knowing before the Grand Slams who will win it.

Yep, agreed.

I like it when Nadal wins the French Open, it sticks two fingers to Federer and says: 'You haven't conquered it all yet'

[AFII]

Yep, agreed.

I like it when Nadal wins the French Open, it sticks two fingers to Federer and says: 'You haven't conquered it all yet'

I don't like Nadal at all because he is cheating to much. He takes to much time between the balls. The day the umpires start to do their work then he will lose a big part of his mental advantage on the court.

[Joe King]

I don't like Nadal at all because he is cheating to much. He takes to much time between the balls. The day the umpires start to do their work then he will lose a big part of his mental advantage on the court.

Thats a massive part of his game, he makes his opponents wait. Sport is 50% body and 50% mind.

[MrMichael]

Federer is the best ever. He has now been in 10 straight Grand Slam finals and won eight of them.

He has won 14 out of 16 tiebreaks in Grand Slam finals. That shows what a winner and champion he is.

He is a true master. He still needs to win the French to be properly seen as the best ever though, the tennis world knows it and so does he.

[Parm]

Yep, agreed.

I like it when Nadal wins the French Open, it sticks two fingers to Federer and says: 'You haven't conquered it all yet'

Rafa

Thing is, I cant stand Federer, just like I couldnt stand Sampras! I respect their talents and that they are great players, but I just find them so mechanical and dull. Where as players like Aggasi, becker, and Nadal I love for their chracther, flaws and brilliance.

[anfieldanfield]

He is a true master. He still needs to win the French to be properly seen as the best ever though, the tennis world knows it and so does he.

Absolutely. He needs to win the French AND surpass Sampras' 14 titles, (he's currently on 12 of course). Once he has done that he'll unquestionaly be the best ever.

He's 26 now though, Djokovic and Nadal are both 20 ish, I think Federer has two or three years left at the very top before he starts to lose his 'invincible' tag.

[AFII]

So you consider Sampras great but not Federer until he has won Roland Garros?

Sampras didn't give a **** about the clay court season. That is why he never can be considered as one of the greats IMO.

Federer has been in two straight finals in Paris and the year before he was knocked out by Nadal in the semis.

[JohnDoe]

But Sampras never reached the French open final, let alone win it.

Federer has already proved he's a better player. Sampras' main strength were his 'serve and volley', which made him unstoppable on grass, but Federer has that and more in his locker.

He's also bound to win his 14th title in a much shorter time period, for me he's the most dominant tennis player of all time.

[Neil Young]

Rafa

Thing is, I cant stand Federer, just like I couldnt stand Sampras! I respect their talents and that they are great players, but I just find them so mechanical and dull. Where as players like Aggasi, becker, and Nadal I love for their chracther, flaws and brilliance.

I can't see that myself. I agree Sampras was a very efficient biff-biff-bang machine and so was very dull to watch (as well as being unfeasibly hairy).

Federer however plays brilliant tennis, he's got great touch and vision.

[Red Chilli]

So you consider Sampras great but not Federer until he has won Roland Garros?

Sampras didn't give a **** about the clay court season. That is why he never can be considered as one of the greats IMO.

Federer has been in two straight finals in Paris and the year before he was knocked out by Nadal in the semis.

How can you NOT consider Sampras great?

More Grand Slams than anyone else, world number one for a long long time. I think before Federer tuned up he was the greatest ever, but to say he's not even "one of the greats" seems a little harsh to me.
Lendl was a great player but he never won Wimbledon. In fact I think there are only 4 player ho have won all 4 Slams at some point. I think it was Agassi, Lever, Borg and I can't remember the other. So are there only 4 great players in mens tennis history?

FWIW Pete Sampras has deservedly taken his place in Tennis's hall of fame.

[Slim]

I can't see that myself. I agree Sampras was a very efficient biff-biff-bang machine and so was very dull to watch (as well as being unfeasibly hairy).

Federer however plays brilliant tennis, he's got great touch and vision.

Exactly. There is no way you could ever say Federer plays boring tennis - he makes shots other players dream of. One man's domination of any sport could be considered boring, but Federer's style of play could never be described as such.

[Parm]

I can't see that myself. I agree Sampras was a very efficient biff-biff-bang machine and so was very dull to watch (as well as being unfeasibly hairy).

Federer however plays brilliant tennis, he's got great touch and vision.

Thing is I just find Federer and Sampras these almost Terminator like players, they just dont allow any emotion interfere with them.
I dont disagree that Federer plays brilliant tennis, I just find him a bit dull.