Federer or Tiger?

[AmadeusDC]

Huge debate on the American talk shows at the moment as to who is the greater sportsman?
Both achieved amazing feats over the weekend, a grand slam without losing a set and a 7th win from 7 starts on the PGA tour. Both are arguably going to be considered the greatest of all time in their respective sports by the time they finish up so I put the question out there, who do you think is greater and why?

-AmadeusDC-

[parrotbait]

I voted Tiger partly due to my lack of knowledge about tennis!!
Tiger because of the competition he has. Federer is a great athlete but it has been claimed that some of his opponents aren't up to scratch(don't watch too much tennis mind) but he has wiped the floor with them. Tiger on the other hand does have some great opponents(Singh, Els, Goosen, Monty(!), Paidraig and all those other American 'superstars') and has done so well through the years. Also the fact that Tiger went through a lean spell for a couple of years and has come back even stronger shows his character while I don't know if Federer has had similar tests of his will as of yet.
One problem with Tiger is that he isn't really a team player as seen at the Ryder Cup but Federer hasn't played in a team either that I know of so that makes them equal on that front in my eyes.

[STEVIEG]

Tiger for me

In Golf you are playing against a greater field and tougher and more varied terrains plus it can go really really wrong very quickly-in a way that a tennis player has a much greater margin for error

I admire them both as they have stayed on top for a long time but Tiger has been at the top longer and is still as hungry so at the moment he wins for me

Doubt i'd hang out with any of them btw but that's a good thing too and shows their dedication

[shtopem_floppen]

I voted Tiger partly due to my lack of knowledge about tennis!!
Tiger because of the competition he has. Federer is a great athlete but it has been claimed that some of his opponents aren't up to scratch(don't watch too much tennis mind) but he has wiped the floor with them. Tiger on the other hand does have some great opponents(Singh, Els, Goosen, Monty(!), Paidraig and all those other American 'superstars') and has done so well through the years. Also the fact that Tiger went through a lean spell for a couple of years and has come back even stronger shows his character while I don't know if Federer has had similar tests of his will as of yet.
One problem with Tiger is that he isn't really a team player as seen at the Ryder Cup but Federer hasn't played in a team either that I know of so that makes them equal on that front in my eyes.
Kinda hard to talk about it if you don't know anything about it tbh
Mens tennis is probably at it's highest level ever; people like McEnroe and Connors (surely you've heard of them) are constantly saying it. The players are of a very high quality but which just puts emphasis on how good Federer is because he makes them look ordinary. Being ordinary and being made to look ordinary are two very different things. For a while now the tennis word have been waxing lyrical about how much Federer is dominating; that he's doing it unlike anyone else in history. Sampras broke Connors year-ending #1 ranking record of 6 years but even in that time he didn't dominate players the way Federer is; losing 4 matches (to 2 players; Nadal beating him 3 times and Murray once) in the entire of last year for example.
As for your question has he got character? Just a bit. From a young age people were talking about him. I remember Annabel Croft who does presenting/commentary for Eurosport talking about this young guy coming through who a lot of people are excited about. He'll be an all-court, all-surface player in the mould of Sampras. And I was thinking eh yeah, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. He bet Sampras in the 4th round of Wimbledon one year when he was about 17 and even then I thought "ye good player. Did well. But then got beaten up by Henman in the quarter and didn't handle the intimidation of the crowd etc. He found that pressure and expectation very hard to deal with and, as has been documented a lot, he struggled with his first few years on the tour and wasn't fulfilling his potential at all. He was actually very temperamental on court in his early years. If things weren't going well he used to completely lose it. He consciously worked on this and it was barely noticable by the time he was playing the full tour. Now Federer is known for being so relaxed he can give the impression he's not trying. And to put it mildly, he's fulfilling his potential no end

[shtopem_floppen]

Tiger for me

In Golf you are playing against a greater field and tougher and more varied terrains plus it can go really really wrong very quickly-in a way that a tennis player has a much greater margin for error

I admire them both as they have stayed on top for a long time but Tiger has been at the top longer and is still as hungry so at the moment he wins for me

Doubt i'd hang out with any of them btw but that's a good thing too and shows their dedication
See my last post about mens' tennis being at an all time high. It constantly gets higher ratings and audiences than womens because its so much more competitive. There is quite a high chance of a lower ranked player causing an upset in mens tennis whereas it very very rarely happens in womens tennis.
Tennis has hard court, clay court and grass court. There is indoor, carpet, many types of hard court each being different as some are almost as quick as grass, others have high bounce, others will allow you slide into shots almost like a clay court.

Tell that to Andy Roddick, who was 4-3 up in the first set of the Australian Open to Federer, who then in the space of about 40 minutes lost 11 games on the bounce, winning just 6 points in the second set, losing the second and third sets and so the match in 1hr 23mins - a time reserved for women's matches and is unheard of in men's tennis.

[RonnyB]

Despite being an avid golf fan, I've got to say Federer. Tiger is the best golfer ever probably but he has one or two major flaws, just shows how remarkable the rest of his game is to make up for them. His driving the golf ball off the tee is erractic to say the least but because he's got more natural power than most of his competitors he can use a more forgiving club & still not be disadvantaged.

I dont think Federer has one weakness in his game. As for competitors, I think most of Tiger's have had slumps in their game from time to time which have increased his dominance. Look back at his main rivals over the last 5 years.

Duval - former world number 1 whose game collapsed

Els - Looked like he was the main threat to Tiger until his confidence took a battering from losing the '04 Open play-off to Todd Hamilton & then injured his knee seriously. Showing signs of form again.

Singh - Has remained in the top 10 but his putting troubles are killing his chances of challenging Tiger.

Mickelson - Finally began to live up to the talent and was at last giving Tiger a good run in the majors until Winged Foot last year and the loss of form since has been alarming.

Furyk - Got the temperment & a good all round game....just lacks natural talent. He's like Harrington with a un-erring nerve.

Now Federer's rivals have had similar troubles in their sport, but even when at top form like Roddick appeared to be last week, its not good enough.

[legend76]

this was a close one, but going strictly on the basis of the question, i.e. "the greatest" Tiger edges it for me. there is no serious debate as to wether or not Tiger will be regarded as the greatest golfer ever. Jack Nicklaus has the most majors at 18, but he was 46 when he won the masters in '86. Woods had won 12 majors by the time he was 30, Nicklaus had only won 8 when he was the same age. the logic here is than one would assume that by the time woods retires he should/will have eclipsed 'the golden bear' as having the most titles ever.

However Federer at 25 hasn't surpassed what Borg had achieved by the time he was 24, the french open in '81 was his eleventh grand slam title, Federer still has "only" 10.

The question was who "IS" the greatest sportman, Federer may be regarded by the time he retires, and no doubt wins loads more titles, as a better player than Borg, but romantics will alway point to the brevity of Borg's career, and judging like for like, he hasn't eclipsed Borg, whereas is an easier agrument to make that Woods has at his age done more than Nicklaus had when he was 30.

So for me it's Woods, but only just

[Murdock]

I'd go for Federer definitely.
Simply because his game is very nearly completely flawless and he's on a whole different planet to his peers.
And I don't believe this is because of his competition being weak in comparison to previous eras. I think the general standard in tennis is higher than ever. I'd also agree with RonnyB that his competition is stronger than that of Woods.
Also, to look at him in action you get the impression that he could have turned his hand to any sporting code (apparently he was a decent soccer player as a young fella), because he's got speed, balance, rhythm and agility and is generally a great athlete. I don't think you could say the same about Woods even though he is one of the most athletic-looking golfers around (yes, even more than the likes of Colin Montgomerie and Hohn Daly;) )
As for the comparison with Borg, I think it's unfair to say that Borg was superior because he had won more titles at this stage. The main reason it took Federer a while to break into the big time was, as was mentioned, because of his mentality, but the fact that he has improved this aspect of himself to such an extent that he's now as cool as the Iceman himself just adds to his greatness. A major factor in Borg's retirement was that he was just burnt out. The type of game he played required a massive amount of energy, so much that after a few years he couldn't keep up the intensity. The case of Lleyton Hewitt is similar.
Also, for what it's worth, while I know it's a bit unfair to compare players from different eras, if they both met when in their respective primes at Wimbledon, Federer would have beaten him, simply because he is a superb all-rounder while Borg, although obviously great, was not a great all-rounder.



Tiger for me

In Golf you are playing against a greater field and tougher and more varied terrains plus it can go really really wrong very quickly-in a way that a tennis player has a much greater margin for error

I admire them both as they have stayed on top for a long time but Tiger has been at the top longer and is still as hungry so at the moment he wins for me

Doubt i'd hang out with any of them btw but that's a good thing too and shows their dedication

I don't think the terrain a sport is played on should have much baring on the greatness of one of its stars (soccer is played on one surface of a fairly fixed size. Does that mean Tiger is greater than Maradona/Cruyff/Pelé by default?), but if you're going to talk about it remember that while golf is always played on grass, tennis can be played on a variety of surfaces. The players have to master a very different set of skills for each surface type. Federer is one of a select few (from any era) who are excellent on all surfaces (clay is his weakest surface, but only Nadal can beat him on that nowadays).

I voted Tiger partly due to my lack of knowledge about tennis!!
Tiger because of the competition he has. Federer is a great athlete but it has been claimed that some of his opponents aren't up to scratch(don't watch too much tennis mind) but he has wiped the floor with them. Tiger on the other hand does have some great opponents(Singh, Els, Goosen, Monty(!), Paidraig and all those other American 'superstars') and has done so well through the years. Also the fact that Tiger went through a lean spell for a couple of years and has come back even stronger shows his character while I don't know if Federer has had similar tests of his will as of yet.
One problem with Tiger is that he isn't really a team player as seen at the Ryder Cup but Federer hasn't played in a team either that I know of so that makes them equal on that front in my eyes.

FFS!

He's practically carried the whole Swiss team in the Davis Cup on numerous occasions.

You don't know what you're on about.

[Rebelred]

It's tough to compare two sportsmen from different fields.I chose Federer because I've never seen someone with a top class abililty in every skill in his game, normally the greats do have one or two weaknesses, like Tigers aforementioned occasional off-centre drives. Federer just seems to have an innate ability to do everything perfectly it seems

[legend76]

Sampras says he could have held his own against Federer
Tue 30 Jan, 11:00 PM


"I think our games are pretty similar. It would have been a great clash to see us in our prime. Roger is doing what I never did; dominate the way he is. He's lost five matches in two years, that's unheard of.
But I feel like my game is too big to be dominated by someone. When my game was on, my serve was on, I felt I was tough to beat. I felt unbeatable."

full story here:

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/30012007/2/photo/sampras-says-held-own-against-federer.html

[Papa Smurf]

Would go with Tiger for a couple of reasons. One being the fact that I dont know a whole lot about Tennis and the standard of Ferderers opposition.

In respect of Tiger, the guy was at the top of his game a couple of years ago when he decided that he could improve himself further. So he went through a process of changing elements in his swing and struggled for a while to return to form. Then he gets his knee injury which he seems to have overcome. Now playing the best golf of his life and beating the best quality fields we have seen for years. I think its the mark of the proffesional he is, also a good guy with no bullshit attached. Legend

[parrotbait]

I'd go for Federer definitely.
Simply because his game is very nearly completely flawless and he's on a whole different planet to his peers.
And I don't believe this is because of his competition being weak in comparison to previous eras. I think the general standard in tennis is higher than ever. I'd also agree with RonnyB that his competition is stronger than that of Woods.
Also, to look at him in action you get the impression that he could have turned his hand to any sporting code (apparently he was a decent soccer player as a young fella), because he's got speed, balance, rhythm and agility and is generally a great athlete. I don't think you could say the same about Woods even though he is one of the most athletic-looking golfers around (yes, even more than the likes of Colin Montgomerie and Hohn Daly;) )
As for the comparison with Borg, I think it's unfair to say that Borg was superior because he had won more titles at this stage. The main reason it took Federer a while to break into the big time was, as was mentioned, because of his mentality, but the fact that he has improved this aspect of himself to such an extent that he's now as cool as the Iceman himself just adds to his greatness. A major factor in Borg's retirement was that he was just burnt out. The type of game he played required a massive amount of energy, so much that after a few years he couldn't keep up the intensity. The case of Lleyton Hewitt is similar.
Also, for what it's worth, while I know it's a bit unfair to compare players from different eras, if they both met when in their respective primes at Wimbledon, Federer would have beaten him, simply because he is a superb all-rounder while Borg, although obviously great, was not a great all-rounder.





I don't think the terrain a sport is played on should have much baring on the greatness of one of its stars (soccer is played on one surface of a fairly fixed size. Does that mean Tiger is greater than Maradona/Cruyff/Pelé by default?), but if you're going to talk about it remember that while golf is always played on grass, tennis can be played on a variety of surfaces. The players have to master a very different set of skills for each surface type. Federer is one of a select few (from any era) who are excellent on all surfaces (clay is his weakest surface, but only Nadal can beat him on that nowadays).



FFS!

He's practically carried the whole Swiss team in the Davis Cup on numerous occasions.

You don't know what you're on about.

Thats agreed and why I voted for Tiger, chill out. Thats why I said the whole 'THAT I KNOW OF' bit, I'm unknowledgeable about Federer and tennis in general and thats why I voted for Tiger. I admire the guy.
The only reason I said Federer didn't have as good competition was cos I was reading some of the Federer : the greatest? thread last week and saw a few people saying it there, thats all I know about the guy which is why I clearly said so in my post.

[Murdock]

Sampras says he could have held his own against Federer
Tue 30 Jan, 11:00 PM


"I think our games are pretty similar. It would have been a great clash to see us in our prime. Roger is doing what I never did; dominate the way he is. He's lost five matches in two years, that's unheard of.
But I feel like my game is too big to be dominated by someone. When my game was on, my serve was on, I felt I was tough to beat. I felt unbeatable."

full story here:

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/30012007/2/photo/sampras-says-held-own-against-federer.html


Hmmm....
I dunno about that. When Federer beat him in 2001, Sampras was still only 29 and Federer wasn't half the player he is today.
I'd say Sampras knows his records are going to go soon enough now, and perhaps the widely held opinion that he's the greatest of the open era.

In other words, someone's rattled....





Thats agreed and why I voted for Tiger, chill out. Thats why I said the whole 'THAT I KNOW OF' bit, I'm unknowledgeable about Federer and tennis in general and thats why I voted for Tiger. I admire the guy.
The only reason I said Federer didn't have as good competition was cos I was reading some of the Federer : the greatest? thread last week and saw a few people saying it there, thats all I know about the guy which is why I clearly said so in my post.

Yeah, I know what you said. What I'm saying is voting for one person when you clearly know shit-all about the other guy is just plain stupid, whether you're voting in the U.S. presidential elections or some poll on an internet sports forum.
Same goes for the other eejit above ya.

[STEVIEG]

A good debate

I'd still say Tiger myself though

[parrotbait]

Hmmm....
I dunno about that. When Federer beat him in 2001, Sampras was still only 29 and Federer wasn't half the player he is today.
I'd say Sampras knows his records are going to go soon enough now, and perhaps the widely held opinion that he's the greatest of the open era.

In other words, someone's rattled....







Yeah, I know what you said. What I'm saying is voting for one person when you clearly know shit-all about the other guy is just plain stupid, whether you're voting in the U.S. presidential elections or some poll on an internet sports forum.
Same goes for the other eejit above ya.

Ha ha someone start a Tiger vs Tiger poll please, I'll vote for Tiger!!

[RonnyB]

Sampras says he could have held his own against Federer
Tue 30 Jan, 11:00 PM


"I think our games are pretty similar. It would have been a great clash to see us in our prime. Roger is doing what I never did; dominate the way he is. He's lost five matches in two years, that's unheard of.
But I feel like my game is too big to be dominated by someone. When my game was on, my serve was on, I felt I was tough to beat. I felt unbeatable."

full story here:

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/30012007/2/photo/sampras-says-held-own-against-federer.html

He's right though. Sampras' serve was bullet-proof almost. When Federer beat him in '01 he got to his serve like no one I had ever seen do at Wimbledon before. I believe that was to do with the 'slowing' up of the courts to a certain extent.

I also think around 97/98 was his peak & once he beat Emerson's slam record in '00 he mentally tuned out. I mean Hewitt destroyed him in the '01 US Open & safin did the same a year earlier at the same event. To me he appeared to lose his hunger & once he had acheived a title as a married man (something that was important to him apparently) in the '02 US against his greatest rival he knew he'd never get a better oppertunity to retire.

Anyway I'm gonna be biased towards Sampras because the man was just awesome even though I do think Federer would have an edge on most surfaces with the exception of grass maybe.

[AmadeusDC]

I posted this thread just before I finished work yesterday in the hope that I'd have a good thread to read in the morning. Take a bow PROC Sports Forum. Quality for the most part, the forum at it's best!! -AmadeusDC-

[AmadeusDC]

My two cents:

To be honest I haven't a clue which one is greater right now so for me it's a case of only time will tell. They are both completely dominating their respective sports in a way that I've never seen in my lifetime. To be honest Federer was going through a little phase with Nadal when they met in the French final. The couple of losses on the bounce must have planted a tiny seed of doubt in his mind. I don't see a run of losses like that happening again.
As for Nadal, I believe there is a very high chance that he will end up burnt out just like Lleyton Hewitt. Apparently he is on the court practicing intensly for 5 or 6 hours a day and that is outside of other parts of his training. Those in the know in the tennis world believe that he will have to alter his regime to have any sort of longevity. If Nadal falls away then Federer will probably win the lot which would be just incredible.
Also, I do believe that the standard of men's tennis is higher now than ever before but Federer is still putting all of them in the shade. I would say that the Top 10 player for player was probably stronger 10 years ago than now but after that the modern playing standards have skyrocketed!!! Sampras, Agassi and co. seemed to have an easy run until at least the quarter finals of most major tournaments where as now there are pretty tough games right from the get go. The fact that Federer wipes the floor with these guys is testament to his ability and not a his opponents lack of.
What's amazing about Tiger for me is that he mind-fucks the shit out of all his opposition. While he is an unbelievable player out on the course it is the affect he has on those he's playing against that is most astonishing. A guy will shoot 67-69-68 for the first 3 rounds and shoot 76 playing with Tiger on the final day. When this doesn't happen he just ups a gear and shoots a 65 anyway to win. This happens to pretty much EVERYONE as well. Great players, average players, rookies, yanks, internationals, guys in tournaments, guys in match play etc.
The only time players seem safe from him is when they have a partner (e.g. in the Ryder Cup) so they can banter away with each other, share the pressure and relieve the stress. Tiger on the other hand underachieves in these situations because he has to rely on a vastly inferior team mate. A great example of this is when Woods and Phil were teamed up in the Ryder Cup and Phil reached for his driver on 17 in a tight match. You could see Tiger in the background shaking his head and looking at his own caddy. Needless to say Phil shanked it and they lost the game. There is a reason they now partner him almost exclusively with stedy-Eddies like Jim Furyk.
Tiger's mind games also extend further than just one day or one tournament. Duval buckled to the point that he couldn't break 80. Els accepted defeat and started trying to win elsewhere in the world before coming back to challenge Tiger with a head of steam. It hasn't really worked. Singh tried a bit of trash talk and Tiger prcoeeded to batter him to the point that he's a Top 5/10 player now and not a No.2. Mickelson is a frickin joke against Tiger and only stept it up when Tiger has the issues with his fathers health. Furyk is now No.2 but isn't rattled because no one in their right mind would ever consider him a genuine challenge to Woods dominance. I'm sure there'll be more in years to come.
Anyway, as I said I haven't got a clue which one is the greater sportsman now or who will be remembered as the greatest when it all winds up but right now we can all just sit back and enjoy to unbelievable competitors at the top of their respective games. -AmadeusDC-

[legend76]

My two cents:


What's amazing about Tiger for me is that he mind-fucks the shit out of all his opposition. ......The only time players seem safe from him is when they have a partner (e.g. in the Ryder Cup) so they can banter away with each other, share the pressure and relieve the stress. Tiger on the other hand underachieves in these situations because he has to rely on a vastly inferior team mate. -AmadeusDC-

Brilliant point, totally agreed.

History will probably remember Tiger more than Federer, for a few reasons other than, who was/wasn't the better sportsman. Woods has already left a legacy. He's a darling of the Nike generation, and as a black player,altough he affably refers to his ethnic make-up as Cablinasian (a portmanteau of Caucasian, Black, American-Indian, and Asian), a term he coined himself, he's been a pioneer in opening up the game of golf to a much wider and multi-cultural audience.

I can only imagine with glee how horrified some WASPs were to see him put on the green jacket

[shtopem_floppen]

He's right though. Sampras' serve was bullet-proof almost. When Federer beat him in '01 he got to his serve like no one I had ever seen do at Wimbledon before. I believe that was to do with the 'slowing' up of the courts to a certain extent.

I also think around 97/98 was his peak & once he beat Emerson's slam record in '00 he mentally tuned out. I mean Hewitt destroyed him in the '01 US Open & safin did the same a year earlier at the same event. To me he appeared to lose his hunger & once he had acheived a title as a married man (something that was important to him apparently) in the '02 US against his greatest rival he knew he'd never get a better oppertunity to retire.

Anyway I'm gonna be biased towards Sampras because the man was just awesome even though I do think Federer would have an edge on most surfaces with the exception of grass maybe.

I agree with you there. Both Sampras and Federer have been the only complete players of the last few generations. Federer holds over Sampras the fact he can play so well on clay whereas Sampras can't while Sampras's serve is easily the best ever in the game (Federer's ain't bad but it's definitely weaker)
I don't think Federer would dominate Sampras the way he does the players around him now; he has near double figure winning streaks against most people inside the top ten for instance. Sampras's serve got him out of trouble so often that I think it would be the same if he played Federer. I'd imagine they'd share the spoils 3:2 in favour of Federer. I believe he's a better player overall but would still be unable to totally dominate Sampras. Having said all that I do think Sampras is trying to say "hey don't forget about me and what I accomplished" (which I think is extremely fair enough) because as has been said his records look like they'll be broken.

As regards Tiger's mind-fuck card over his opponents; it's been said countless times that the majority of players have lost to Federer before they walk on the court simply because they don't believe they can beat him. in order for the top ten players to beat him they have to play at the top of their game (and beyond it) and Federer has to be way below par (no pun intended). For an outsider to beat him? - good luck. Hewitt for instance is a great player in his own right but his game has nothing in it that can hurt Federer and he always gets his ass handed to him. I've seen Federer win 6-0 sets against him too often it's almost funny. Hewitt knows all he can do it keep the score as respectable as possible. Roddick isn't far off. His serve is a massive weapon and gives everyone trouble, except Federer. In their match last week Roddick was hitting 140+mph serves, Federer returned them and on his next shot was hitting winners. In their 14 competitive matches Roddick has broken Federer's serve an average of once per match; Federer has broken Roddicks over 40 times.
One of the most telling statements you'll ever hear to demonstrate how inferior players feel towards another sportsman was what Roddick said after losing for the second year in a row to Federer at Wimbledon - when asked about how their rivalry would progress in the coming years Roddick said "I have to start winning some matches against him in order for it to be a rivalry". If that's not a mind-fuck I don't know what is. That, while standing next to the man, says "you already have me beaten before I walk we walk out there" and what a lift that must be for Federer.

[STEVIEG]

With Nadal gone too, the playing field evens up


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/7208679.stm

[STEVIEG]

Kinda hard to talk about it if you don't know anything about it tbh
Mens tennis is probably at it's highest level ever; people like McEnroe and Connors (surely you've heard of them) are constantly saying it.


The current Championships would back up that statement

[HappyMonday83]

Where's the cristy ring option?

[AmadeusDC]

Where's the cristy ring option?

In a Tiger or Federer poll there's none. Good for the game of Tennis to see Federer and Nadal beaten. Djokovic looks like a helluva talent and I see him winning the final in straight sets. Tasty pair playing in the ladies final too! :D

-AmadeusDC-

[marco 2005]

In a Tiger or Federer poll there's none. Good for the game of Tennis to see Federer and Nadal beaten. Djokovic looks like a helluva talent and I see him winning the final in straight sets. Tasty pair playing in the ladies final too! :D

-AmadeusDC-

i wouldnt writte off tsonga man

[koka noodle]

i wouldnt writte off tsonga man

he played some great tennis against nadal the other night. id nearly fancy him to win it.

[Murdock]

Nadal is just a dirt baller really, although Tsonga's done brilliantly to get this far. Djokovic should win.

[STEVIEG]

This thread deserves a big fat bump

Tiger is on fire in 2008 whereas Roger is looking bit vulnerable these days

[xvis]

There's someone missing from this poll..

http://www.thierryhenry-14.com/fotos/fotos-thierry-henry-con-roger-federer-y-tiger-woods.jpg

http://galleries.lycos.co.u k/d/19815-2/henryshave.jpg

[RodrigoCardoso]

This thread deserves a big fat bump

Tiger is on fire in 2008 whereas Roger is looking bit vulnerable these days

Oh dear...
Mark Petchy was talking about this yesterday saying most people who are saying/thinking this don't understand tennis or they're being incredibly unfair to Federer. The headlines are 'Federer loses back to back matches for the first time in 3 years and is on the downward spiral'. It's misleading at best and crap at worst.
He lost 'back to back' matches but they were over a month apart - his defeat to Djokovic in the Australian Open semi and then to Andy Murray in a first round match. A huge part of this is simply because the great British hope Murray was the one to beat Federer. Another point is that he was unfit and not where he'd normally be at this time of the year playing wise. The biggest point is that he finally found out what was bothering him - towards the end of December he began feeling run down. He had no energy and couldn't figure out what was wrong. He was tired and had temperatures and couldn't practice properly. Still got to the Australian Open semi though. He took some time off after his defeat and while in Switzerland he was told he had glandular fever which explained why he'd been finding it so difficult to play. The fact most people don't get to a Grand Slam semi in their careers says a lot. The fact he did it with glandular fever says it all. All through the tournament he looked really subdued and the commentators highlighted it constantly. They didn't know why and neither did he. Explains a lot.
Having taken six weeks off to recover from that where he didn't train until the last week he wasn't properly fit, and definitely not match fit or able to play anywhere near his potential obviously, he got a tough first round tie with Murray and lost in a close match. Putting it all in context gives a completely different picture.

[STEVIEG]

Oh dear...
Mark Petchy was talking about this yesterday saying most people who are saying/thinking this don't understand tennis or they're being incredibly unfair to Federer. The headlines are 'Federer loses back to back matches for the first time in 3 years and is on the downward spiral'. It's misleading at best and crap at worst.
He lost 'back to back' matches but they were over a month apart - his defeat to Djokovic in the Australian Open semi and then to Andy Murray in a first round match. A huge part of this is simply because the great British hope Murray was the one to beat Federer. Another point is that he was unfit and not where he'd normally be at this time of the year playing wise. The biggest point is that he finally found out what was bothering him - towards the end of December he began feeling run down. He had no energy and couldn't figure out what was wrong. He was tired and had temperatures and couldn't practice properly. Still got to the Australian Open semi though. He took some time off after his defeat and while in Switzerland he was told he had glandular fever which explained why he'd been finding it so difficult to play. The fact most people don't get to a Grand Slam semi in their careers says a lot. The fact he did it with glandular fever says it all.
Having taken six weeks off to recover from that where he didn't train until the last week he wasn't properly fit, and definitely not match fit or able to play anywhere near his potential obviously, he got a tough first round tie with Murray and lost in a close match. Putting it all in context gives a completely different picture.

Take Federer out of it for a moment

and look at Woods

That win at the weekend was immense

Remember, i'm not knocking the tennis player here

And you don't have to be a tennis expert to understand this, he does look a bit vulnerable (you have explained the widely reported reasons why)

[STEVIEG]

There's someone missing from this poll..


Nando?

[ho chi feen]

There's someone missing from this poll..

http://www.thierryhenry-14.com/fotos/fotos-thierry-henry-con-roger-federer-y-tiger-woods.jpg

http://galleries.lycos.co.u k/d/19815-2/henryshave.jpg

Yeah, it's kind of embarrassing when you see the ads. World's number 1 tennis player, world'd best golfer, and... huh? You can pure see the same though going through Woods' and Federer's minds.

[AmadeusDC]

Yeah, it's kind of embarrassing when you see the ads. World's number 1 tennis player, world'd best golfer, and... huh? You can pure see the same though going through Woods' and Federer's minds.


Well in fairness he was probably the second best player in the world when the contract was originally signed and the only one ahead then isn't exactly a pretty picture. -AmadeusDC-

[RonnyB]

Well in fairness he was probably the second best player in the world when the contract was originally signed and the only one ahead then isn't exactly a pretty picture. -AmadeusDC-

Surprised Gillette havent photshopped Lewis Hamilton's head on to Terry Henry's body!

[RonnyB]

Take Federer out of it for a moment

and look at Woods

That win at the weekend was immense

Remember, i'm not knocking the tennis player here

And you don't have to be a tennis expert to understand this, he does look a bit vulnerable (you have explained the widely reported reasons why)

To be honest I've never been so lax in my golf viewing as I have so far this year but while Tiger's playing well he's still being handed titles easily. Watched the Dubai Desert Classic when Ernie Els just folded completely. None of his main rivals are playing anyway decent golf (barring Mickelson having a good 1st 6 weeks or so).

For me its still Federer whose the better of the two.

[Maw Maw]

http://rapidcityjournal.com/blogs/sports/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/tiger-woods.jpg

it's gotta be Tiger, i play both of them. not outstanding or anything but i'm okay at both. Golf is way more skilful, nerves of steel are needed. try being 200 yards out into wind and having to go over water. Tiger eats Federer up,

In saying that Federer is awesome too, don't get me wrong on this

[ho chi feen]

No takers for Titi Henry, then?

[legend76]

Lads just back from a week in Canada and while I was there I saw something which was of Rocky Balboa proportions!!!

Sampras out of retirment to play Federer, Roger's mate and Gillette co-star was in the front row. Sampras looked old as you'd expect, but Federer couldn't handle his serve at all. it went to a tie break. thrilling stuff

[legend76]

http://www.netjets.com/NetJets_Experience/NetJets_Showdown.asp

[AmadeusDC]

Lads just back from a week in Canada and while I was there I saw something which was of Rocky Balboa proportions!!!

Sampras out of retirment to play Federer, Roger's mate and Gillette co-star was in the front row. Sampras looked old as you'd expect, but Federer couldn't handle his serve at all. it went to a tie break. thrilling stuff

Sure Sampras beat him in a charity game a while back. Who do you think is taking it more seriously though? -AmadeusDC-

[legend76]

Sure Sampras beat him in a charity game a while back. Who do you think is taking it more seriously though? -AmadeusDC-

I was surpirsed by how rattled Federer was getting, he was seriously upset when it looked like Sampras was going to win

[STEVIEG]

We might have to change the title of this thread someday.........

Seriously though, unreal match yesterday between great two players

[AmadeusDC]

We might have to change the title of this thread someday.........

Seriously though, unreal match yesterday between great two players

Mickelson or any of the other 'challengers' to Tiger's throne (do Els, Singh and Goosen still even count) aren't in the same ball park in relative terms as Nadal though. Rafael to Federer would be more like a Tom Watson to Jack Nicklaus than a Phil/anyone else to Tiger.

Tiger has the lead now but it is harsh on Federer who has to deal with a much more formidable rival. Woods though has never had to deal with a pounding like Federer took at Roland Garros. I'd put that as the equivalent of losing a 5 shot lead to your biggest rival on the final day of a major. Kinda like when Norman blew it grouped with Faldo at Augusta in the mid 90's.

Some game yesterday anyhow! Should be an unreal U.S. Open in August. Federer wins that and I'd say he's back. Nadal beats him again and he's in serious trouble!

-AmadeusDC-

[STEVIEG]

Tiger has brushed many aside though, in his longer career

The reason so many of these players, some, who are not even rivals anymore, have dissapeared is often because Tiger has been so relentless and has struck such fear into them (though the fall of Duval was down to other reasons too)

They know they can't come even close to his perfectionism

This is gonna be a great rivalry now though between the top 2 tennis stars

and as for those who mentioned how competitive men's tennis is?

Sure, it may well be, but there's now two on a totally different level

In fairness, it is inspiring both to new heights and upping the ante for both

[STEVIEG]

We might need a new thread:)

[mightyquark]

We might need a new thread:)

Should be a Giggs or Tiger thread.

[STEVIEG]

:)

[AmadeusDC]

Not too likely but if Federer sneaks in 1 or 2 more Grand Slams and Tiger can't rediscover his form there might be a lot of opinions being changed around here. Personally, I think Tiger will still win a couple of more majors but he's done as the dominant force he was. Federer was able to fight on during his downturn to break the record for most grandslams. It's easier in Tennis though. Find it hard to see Tiger having 5 left in him. That's a Hall of Fame career for any other player!

[legend76]

It's mad how much has changed since my post at the top of the page. Tiger is at a really low ebb at the moment. The europeans at stronger than they've been in living memory. However look at Tom Watson. Tiger is only a rookie in comparison, so I wouldn't write him off just yet. In five years time he'd still be young enough to be the top player in the world

[Cowboy-]

Federer is not only the greater, he is an ambassador

Tennis is alot tougher to stay at the top, round the year intense training, no slacking off to ride a few ladyboys on the Thailand route, golf for reasons beyond my understanding is a bigger sport so Tiger will win, ask an objective view though and twill be a very different debate