tennis...

pky
about roger federer-
yes, he is amazing. as for the greatest of all time, i think i'm going to hold off on that for now. if he continues on this torrid pace, without a doubt. i've never seen anyone hit a ball as crisply and aggressively as I've seen him do it. it's absolutely ridiculous. the angles that he gets on the ball with the pace he hits it at is paranormal. he's metahuman. but longevity is also an important attribute. sampras and agassi still reign supreme in that regard. otherwise, i might be calling patrick rafter among the greats too because of the lack of the serve/volley game. in that sense, rafter was nasty. i've never seen a more dominant serve/volley-er, other than sampras, but i'm not sure i'd classify him as a S/V-er. dont think that i'm comparing federer to rafter; i think rafter would get rocked by federer, judging how solid federer is. he is amazing, and like roddick said, i too want to hate him, but he's just so damn good that i cant allow ignorance to muddle my perception of just how good this guy is. his serve placement alone is so skillful that it reminds you of sampras's in his prime. that's crazy. i never thought i'd ever see someone with as dominant a serve as sampras, but if anyone's serve can be compared, it'd be federer's. roddick has a fast serve, but i'm not as impressed with his placement. federer's range is excellent, and his footwork on the court is second to none. I've never seen him get out hit or out run on the court. his groundstrokes are as good as anyone else's i've seen. on balls that normally are hit defensively, he can corral a forehand from deep on the deuce side and while jumping away from the net, he can hit a ball on the defensive, offensively with an angle that rivals a volley. and they're not by accident. when you see him rally three of those badboys in a matter of a few points, it dawns on you that this guy must train awfully hard to have that kind of coordination. it blows my mind. watching that agassi/federer match, you knew that if agassi was going to win, he'd have to pummel federer's backhand, which he did, and still lost. why? because he can do teh same thing with his backhand. he'll power that thing down the line almost every time on the run, on the defensive, whatever you want. if you let him step in on the backhand, you're done. period, from either side of hte court, with any stroke. the only chance you have to beat him is to get him to hit defensively, and even then, he'll wreck you, as he did agassi. it's too bad, beacuse i was hoping agassi would pull it out one last time, and retire on top. he has one more in him. he will do it.