Other stats on Fed..

He is the only player in the Open Era to have won 3 GS in one year and won at least one GS the next year...

1969-Rod Laver (4), 1970-0
1974-Jimmy Connors (3) 1975-0
1988-Mats Wilander (3) 1989 -0
2004-Roger Federer (3) 2005-2

***********
He is the first player to make at least six consecutive GS semifinals or better since Ivan Lendl in the 80's.....

He has guaranteed the # 1 ranking for the rest of the year...so he will jump to 3rd longest period of consecutively ranked #1 in the Open Era...

*************
AND Speculative more Fed's WHAT IFS':

If he wins an Indoor Carpet Masters he will be the First player in the Open era to win Masters titles on hardcourt/clay/indoors all in one year...

if he wins the YE Masters he will be the only player to win Wimbledon and the YE Masters 3 straight years...

The man is just so dominant its ridiculous.

It's astoounding what he has been able to accomplish. And to hear Agassi say that Fed is the greatest player he has ever faced really means something when you consider Agassi played against Sampras for 14 years. Sampras's 14 GS title-record is in jeapordy as is Agassi's 16 (or is it 17?) masters series titles record.

So, what is it about Federer? I can't pinpoint what it is about him that makes him so good. He's awfully consistent - makes very few errors - but what else does he do that makes him so great? Sampras had the serve, forehand and volley. Lendl had the serve and forehand. Wilander just didn't miss. Edberg volleyed like it was no one's business. Agassi had (has) precision and great eyes. Mac had great hands. What does Fed have? All of the above, I suppose. But not one thing really stands out IMO.

Start with his feet. The man hardly looks like he's moving, and then he's on the ball. Don't know how he'd do in a race, but he has fantastic tennis speed, which almost always puts him in position to hit a good ball.

Move to his hands. The hands that make solid contact with the ball virtually every shot. That know how to hit the ball each time to get the most out of the shot. That can hit each type of shot, with authority. That don't get stuck in one mode, letting his opponent get grooved.

Go up to his head. That intuitively understands the key moments of a game/set. That can be calm as he stalks the ball, ready to pounce, unrushed, but lethally quick. That comprehends that he is good, and uses that confidence to step up when challenged, to relish the contest of wills and power and skill.

He has even better feet/legs than Sampras, which I never expected. And has a tennis brain on par with Evert's. In my opinion it's too early to declare him the best ever, because that's a mantle that is achieved over time as well as with dominance. But if he continues as he is going, and, especially, if he turns his enormous talent to the challenge of the clay, then he could end his career with virtually no doubters of his place at the top.

Federer is perhaps the most talented player ever. Every expert who has talked about him has said as much. He really doesn't seem to have any weaknesses. He has amazing offensive and defensive capabilities and seems to be able to turn up his game at will. He certainly seems capable to break Sampras' records, but I'm not sure if it is a given. Sampras actually had 7 to Feds 6 majors at the same age, and dominance rarely lasts as long as you expect it to. It is a shame they didn't get to play more matches against each other. The one they played at Wimbledon was a close 5 setter won by Feds. Of course neither of them was at their peak so it's hard to infer much from this encounter. The interesting thing about that match was that Feds served and vollyed on nearly every service point, something he doesn't do much of, even on grass.

In his career, Sampras was NEVER thought to have a legitimate shot at the French. Federer does. I think that is so huge. I hope he pulls the Grand Slam off next year.

Roger is the only one capable of winning the grand slam. Hewitt? Please. Roddick is allergic to clay. Nadal doesn't have the game cut out to win Wimbledon. Safin is too much of a headcase to win all 4 majors. We'll see what players like Gasquet and Monfils do in the next few years. Monfils did almost win the junior grand slam. He won Australian, French, and Wimbledon juniors, but not the US Open. I think if he comes through with his potential he may possibly be able to in several years.

Sampras made the semis at the French one year. I'm probably wrong, but I think he lost to Kafelnikov. I agree, though, he never really did have a legitimate shot at taking the French. That's why, IMHO, I've always felt that Agassi was the best player during the open era, and probably of all-time (well, that and I've had a crush on Agassi since 1987). Although I would never say that Agassi has an "all-around game," he was able to win slams on four different surfaces - something only one other player in the history of the sport was able to accomplish (Wilander won the Australian on both grass and rebound ace, so I put him just a notch below Agassi because he never won Wimbledon). Behind Andre and Mats, what has really impressed me most during the open era is Connors winning the US Open on three different surfaces. Borg's five straight Wimbledons was also an incredible feat.

Sampras, although undoubtedly the best big-match player I've ever watched (until Federer came along), doesn't get my vote as the greatest player during the open era b/c he couldn't win on clay. Hell, even Edberg made the French finals, destroying Alberto Mancini (the top clay-courter from 1989) in the quarters, and he should have won the finals against Chang, but he ran out of gas (I believe he was up 2 sets to 1 but couldn't hang on).

I don't think Feds will win the slam, but I'd put money on him getting a career slam. He's proved at the German the past two years that he can win on clay (although a lot of the best clay-courters skip the German after playing Monte Carlo and Rome), and he's a helluva lot more consistent with his ground game than Sampras was. I still think he's a few years away from winning the French, though. Not necessarily because of the other players, but because I think it's going to take him that long to figure out how to be patient enough to win there. He really did have problems on Sunday against Agassi, and if he plays like that against a good clay-courter in Paris, he's not going to win.

I wouldn't be surprised if Feds takes 3/4 grand slams in a year another time or two. Unless Safin gets his head straight, or Roddick learns how to be patient (I think he's going to win another US and one Wimbledon before it's all said and done), or Blake (yes Blake) gets into Agassi-shape, or Nadal figures out how to win on hard courts, I think it could be the Federer show for several more years. You just can't argue with that winning percentage.

The tennis brain and gifts that Federer have are astounding and have been covered, in detail, in other posts.

What I noticed at the US Open is that some players are perhaps thinking about ways to beat him. In both the Kiefer and Hewitt matches they both continually came to the net, and, for some time these matches were tight.I noticed this at the Australian Open this year when Safin beat Federer, Safin uninjured and the head functioning, played an all court game which frustrated Federer. Federer likes to dominate and when he can't claim the net, or control from the back, he becomes flustered.

In the semi-final match Hewitt continually came to the net, and even serve-volleyed at times, which is unusual for his normal counter-punching style.Hewitt has a good net game and is an accomplished doubles player. He did this for three sets and he did have 5 set points in the second set, yet for some reason stopped coming forward in the 4th set.If he continued this pattern I am not saying the result would have been any different but the match could have been closer, possibly 5 sets.

[ September 15, 2005, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: xanthos ]

I think Hewitt has the potential for beating Federer. I was intrigued by the US Open match, when Hewitt seemed to recognize that he could take control during some points. Hewitt would have to play very well, and believe he can win in order to engage that fighting spirit that is his greatest strength. His work on getting stronger will also pay off over time. Nadal on clay and also other slow surfaces has the best chance against Federer. And a blue moon Safin (physically and emotionally ready to play), of course. Even though I'm impressed with Federer each time I watch him play, I think Hewitt could do it.

I'll relay the story here: People I know where attending a party on the Friday of the second week of the US Open, one glamourous lady and her high-profile artist friend--it must have been a good mix of people. He, the artist friend, spotted her talking to a man across the room and went to join them. They were all very chatty when the lady friend asked the newcomer why he was in NYC. He said he was here for the US Open. "OH, which matches have your seen?" "Well, I'm here to play in the Open." "Oh, are you doing well?" "Well, yes, I'm the number one player in the world." "Oh, what's your name?" They called the next day to report their encounter. I was awestruck and very jealous. They were humoured by it all and tried to watch the next day but the game made no sense to them.

Separated by two degrees from Roger Federer.

I almost find it more interesting to talk about the best years and the best streaks as opposed to the best ever. So often with "best ever" it's apples and oranges. Take Borg's four to five year stretch winning all those French Opens and Wimby's. Take Sampras's remarkable stretch of Wimbledon titles. I don't think Agassi's the best ever but certainly one of the top ten or fifteen ever. His "thirties" streak, if you will, of playing solid top five tennis after thirty years of age is quite an achievement. Federer's consecutive wins in finals is unbelievable and ranks right up there with the greatest individual sports achievements of all time. Evert may not be the #1 greatest female player of all time but her streak of thirteen years with at least one slam a year, and her winning streak on clay are easily two of the greatest achievements for an individual female athlete. Martina N. career is full of great streaks. Monica Seles winning seven of the last eight grand slams she entered before her stabbing is a streak unlikely to ever be matched.

I like the way you framed that Bryan. The best or remarkable streaks is an excellent way of understanding the accomplishments of individual players, without having to pick a best ever that is so subjective. Often felt that Evert's consistency was overlooked (don't forget her winning percentage, highest ever), especially given that in many of those years of winning majors she played in only 2 or 3 of them. Sampras' years as #1 (end of year ranking) was remarkable also. Laver's two grand slams. Connors winning the US Open on 3 surfaces. Among others.

Shore ... I just saw your story about Roger. I can just here him saying, "I'm the number one player in the world." That's hysterical!!

I've actually met Roger Federer. Before he was the dominant man on the tour, he signed autographs at Arthur Ashe Kids Day. I was volunteering and a friend of mine and I were bodyguards for Federer/Lappenti/and Michael Russell, who had nearly beaten Kuerten in Paris that year. This was hysterical because I'm so tiny ... anyone who wanted to rush the desk and attack the players would not have been dissuaded by my presence.

Anyway, Roger was very nice. He was wearing flip-flops and has the longest toes I've ever seen. There were like fingers!!

Maybe he should play with the the racket in his right foot, as a handicap.