How is Roger Federer so invincible?
449426
One thing is that hes in incredible shape. Next time you watch him play, notice he isnt sweating much halfway into the match. Meanwhile, his opponent is visibly getting worn and cant keep up with Federer's pace. Another thing is he has great athletic ability. Meaning, he makes great saves/shots left and right, so he almost never gets beat by a great shot. Most of all though...he's extremely FOCUSED!!!
1026809
I think this is Federer's turn to finally beat Nadal on clay because his reign of however many consecutive wins is up.  Believe me, I'm not taking anything from the youngster because he's damn good but I think this is Federer's French open.  Maybe I'm just thinking ahead.
1185386
Federer is strong in all surfaces, and he hardly have an week point in his game, and also have a strong mentality... he don´t drop down if he is down by 2 sets,  he reminds me of Sampras in his good days... definitely Federer is the best option at this moment...
895756
it is there style of play. clay bounces high and slowly, which suits nadal because he plays with loads of topspin so the ball kicks up even higher on clay. also clay is a slow surface, so the points are longer, which he loves because his fitness is so good. federer is so good on grass because the ball stays low, which helps his one handed backhand. also the ball skids low so when he hits a slice its very difficult to deal with. grass is also a fast service so federers medium speed serve and big forehand are very effective. nadal has less power and more spin on his shot so its more effective on grass
442505
I'd love to see Federer win but Nadal still seems the safest bet. That said, with all the hype surrounding the clay-court winning streak, it almost seems like he could be riding for a fall. It often happens that way in sports. When someone is seen as so much of an invincible favorite going into a championship, that's when an upset or an injury or some other kind of misfortune occurs. Look at the New York Yankees. In 2000 they won the World Series over the Mets (the famous "Subway Series"). The next year they go out as HEAVY favorites over the Diamondbacks and...LOSE! So yes, stranger things have happened.\nAs far as my favorite of the two. Federer, hands down. Such all-round dominance over the past 3 years, 7 Slams without losing in a final, the best game to watch by a long way. He mixes offense and defense, and can hit every coceivable shot.\nFavorite of all-time. I guess, Sampras. When you look at what he did for most of a decade against a particularly strong top ten. The amount of classic matches. He's a natural pick. \nFederer looks like he could reach that level, but he's still got a lot of winning to do first
1107638
He chokes under pressure. He's been invisible during the whole tournament.
520793
No one can be replaced with Roger now . He is supreb . And proved his brilliance . He is improving in each match . He is absolutely brilliant in grass as well as hard courts . He is hardworking . He has to improve a lot on clay . I think he is improving a lot in this clay court season. Hope he will show his ability and talent once again in this comming French Open 2006 ... And will prove he is a legand of tennis ...
1133675
Yeah, Federer should definitely have charged the net more and also lure Nadal in with a dropshot.\n\nBut the main thing he did wrong was NOT attacking Nadal's serve.  He stood 3 ft behind the baseline and jusy let Nadal's wacky spin and he wind play him and just traded groundies with him all day.  Plus he wasn't playing aggressive at all.  No wonder he lost!\n\nOn the other hand, James Blake beats Nadal all the time by just stepping into the court, attacking Nadal's serve and taking the ball on the rise.  That nullifies Nadal's lefty spin and he's a lot more beatable that way.  Nadal even mentioned that Blake played "inside the court".  Fed would be wise to watch tapes of Blake playing Nadal and adopting Blake's strategy into his game.
491740
nadal was very very lucky to beat Federer on hard court and he'll have to have all the good luck available in the universe to beat him on grass.\nbut he is good on clay and I'll give him the credit for beating Federer here.but Federer is fast improving on clay also and I'll love to see him defeat Nadal in the final of French Open.
566397
Basically because he is such a complete player. He can hit all types of shots. He has no real weaknesses. He is good on all surfaces. Even though clay is not his favourite, he is still more than respectable on the surface. He can vary his tactics to counter all types of players. He has great stamina and athleticism to complement his inate talent too.\nSome players have proven tricky for him though. Nadal has won 4 of the five times they've played, and Nalbandian still has a winning edge on him. That said, his defeats are still few and far between.
181383
Right now, Federer is a better player -- but that is a meaningless distinction.  Federer is currently dominating the tour while Sampras has been retired for a number of years.\n\nIf you compare the careers of both, it is unquestionable that Sampras has a better overall list of accomplishments.  Sampras absolutely dominated the field when he was in his prime.  His Grand Slam tournament championships, consecutive years of holding the #1 ranking, etc. make him the player to beat.  \n\nFederer has all the tools necessary to become greater than Sampras, but he also has a long way to go if he's ever going to get there.
403337
For now, I would say Sampras because he did it for longer.  They both can play various styles but within that variety,  I'd say Sampras was more of a classic power player and Federer the more "artistic", touch player.\n\nWhen it's all said and done, and if Federer has a few more dominant years, I think that most people will answer your question with "Federer".  I'm definitely pulling for him to break Sampras' record for most majors won in a career.
695331
No, but he is among the greatest players of alltime. The fact of\nthe matter is, if he was able to win the US Open a few times,\nhe might not have left the game so early. He could have been\nthe greatest player ever, since the rate he was winning Slams during his peak years was even better than Sampras. His failure to win the US Open, despite four trips to the final, is what ultimately forced him to retire prematurely. If he had won even once in those four trips, I'm guessing he would have hung around the sport longer. Another factor is he didn't like to play so frequently, and the new rules that were coming into play would\nhave forced him to do that to retain his world ranking. Those two\nfactors probably had more to do with anything else for the reasons he didn't retire in his 30s, instead of his mid 20s, when\nmost players are about to hit their prime, or are in their prime.\n   No one has able to achieve the French Open-Wimbledon\ndouble in the same year since Borg did it (1976, 1978,1979,1980). Jim Courier (won 1993 French Open, lost in 1993 Wimbledon final), Rafael Nadal (won 2006 French Open and lost in 2006 Wimbledon final) and Roger Federer (lost 2006 French Open final, and won 2006 Wimbledon final) have come the closest in this regard. Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg also came close. Ivan Lendl won the 1987 French Open but lost in the 1987 Wimbledon final to Pat Cash. Stefan Edberg lost in the 1989 French Open final to Michael Chang and the 1989 Wimbledon final to Boris Becker. Bjorn Borg the French Open six times, but it wasn't in 6 consecutive years (1974, 1976, 1978-1981). Manuel Orantes won the French Open in 1975, while\nGuillermo Vilas won the 1977 French Open men's singles title.\nI think Borg didn't play the French Open in 1975 or 1977, but I'm\nnot sure. He did win Wimbledon five consecutive years (1976-1980), and made the final in 1981. Roger Federer has a chance\nto equal Borg's modern era record in 2007 and has to reach the final in 2008 to equal Borg's mark of 41 consecutive wins at \nWimbledon in the modern era. I forgot about how close John\nMcEnroe came in 1984 to winning the French Open against\nIvan Lendl. He went on to win Wimbledon and the US Open\nthat same season. I think his 1984 season is still one of the greatest seasons in tennis history for a male or female player.
1123960
He is a great player, very handsome, but unfortunately, he lost the game against Nadal because he was injured.\n\nAnd by the way, his last name is Djokovic.\nI adore him!!!
127698
I assume you mean men's -- Federer.
404245
Nadal can definatly beat Borg's record and I hope he beats Vilas! Nadal played great to beat Federer and unless some other player figures out how to beat him on clay, Nadal could win at least 12 more.
139697
At this stage, Roddick is not in the running. He has a big serve and a big forehand, but has few big wins to his credit. He does not volley well, he positions himself way to o far behind the baseline, and his backhand is just okay. His volleys are mediocre and he lacks the court coverage of Federer and Agassi.\nAgassi has one of the best returns, as good of groundstrokes as anyone, and a very effective serve when backed up by his groundstrokes. His volleys are okay, but he doesn't use them often, and he doesn't have as versatile a game as Federer.\nFederer has the strongest groundstrokes, equally adept at topspin and slice, a serve that he can hit with an awesome variety of pace and spin, superb volleys, fabulous balance and foot speed, and a creative tennis mind.\nFederer is significantly better than Roddick, and certainly better than Agassi is today. In both of their primes, it would be close, but Federer would clearly have the edge. Federer is simply the best tennis talent ever.