Roger Federer - talent or hardworking?
360377
I don't think talent and "hard-working" are mutually exclusive, although there are players in all sports - and people in all endeavors - that may fit more easily into just one of these categories.\n\nFor example, Agassi used to be a great talent, but squandered a lot of it by not working hard enough in his early years.  Now, he's one of the hardest working players out there.  Marat Safin has Federer's level of talent, but not the right mental approach and work ethic (seemingly) to get to the top.  Jimmy Connors might be the best (past) example of hard-working, but not all that talented for the level he achieved.\n\nPer Federer, he has amazing speed, agility, balance, touch, etc. --he's extrememly talented - but he would not reach his level of tour domination without putting in the hard work as well.
596271
MEN:\nIt is most likely that Nadal will make it into the final, but if Federer makes it to the final too, Federer might beat Nadal. Federer has been adjusting to Nadal's play on clay, and i think Federer will put an end to Nadal's winning streak on clay, because what goes up must come down. But, if Federer does not make it to the Final (maybe gets beaten by Nalbandian if on the same side of the draw), then Nadal has the best chance. So my point is: Federer has the best chance then the rest at beating Nadal on clay.\n\nWOMEN:\nThis one is mostly a wild guess since dominance in women's tennis is very distributed. In fact, there has not been a women in tennis in the past 10(?) grand slams that has won at least 2 out of those 10(?) grand slams. But here are my predictions of who has a chance: WINNERS: Hardenne, Petrova, or Kuznetsova. RUNNER UPS: Hingis, Clijsters, or Mauresmo.
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.
275075
I would say Federer on the men's side. No question. 7 slams, 24 consecutive wins in finals, 2 years finishing number one. Nuff said. \nOn the women's side, it's a little tougher, but I guess on balance Henin-Hardenne.
671588
Quite possibly.\n\nRight now, i think Nadal is better than Federer on clay however. Nadal has a few years in hand over Federer to round out the rest of his game.\n\nOnly thing that stands in Nadal's way in my opinion is his emotions. Sometimes he lets them get the best of him at the most inopportune times.
51646
He has lost several times.  While yes, he is unreal when it comes to tennis, he has been beaten.  I believe his record this year is something like 56-4.  Or somewhere around there.  So you can see he does not lose often.  He also puts in some insane hours to be at the level he is, he has earned it all.
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.
431447
because Nadal is an expert on clay court not like Federer who is only best on grass and hard court
702373
federer. even in pete's prime.
1085733
Federer over Roddick, Henin-H over Mauresmo. May be wrong, but sounds like a good bet.
156090
I totally agree that Federer's the best player, but one can't ignore the performance of other players. So, I'll give you what I think are best qualities in players-\n\nRoger Federer- Overall\nAndy Roddick-Serves\nLlewton Hewitt-Comebacks\nAndre Aggassi-Extremely hard to beat\nJuan Carlos Ferrero-Style of play\nDavid Nalbandian-Never-Say-Die spirit\nCarlos Moya-Strength
634891
The best player - Federer
414517
I agree that he has a great forehand and a good serve, although his certainly is not the best serve around. What makes him so good is that he has the whole package--something that no other pro in recent memory can claim. \nIn addition to his forehand and serve, his backhand is exceptional, his volleys are as good as anyone's, and his strategic sense is among the best.\nFinally, he is one of the best players I have ever seen at reading the opponent's shots and getting to them with speed and balance. I don't know if he is the fastest pro when it comes to sheer footspeed, but no one moves as fluidly and quickly to the ball.\nHe's not quite invincible, but he is clearly the best player the world has ever seen.
343309
In about ten years from now if you remember this question, you will likely come to the conclusion that Andre was very lucky in finding a woman like Steffi Graf.  Steffi is a lot more active, can do a lot of things for herself, and is probably a great mom for his children.  I have always had a lot of respect for the way she conducted herself throughout her career.  Steffi probably understands Andre better than any woman he has ever met and that is why it was clear to him that she was the one.  Andre can sometimes be a little head-strong at times, but his heart is almost always in the right place.  Andre is a very generous man to those seeking to better themselves with the School he started and has really helped tennis grow along the way.  I am truly glad that Andre grew out of his earlier ways on tour when he was young.  he wasn't a bad kid or anything, he just didn't have the wisdom and experience that comes with maturity.  I wish I would have been able to see Andre perform live, but I have always enjoyed watching his epic matches on TV against Sampras and the fact that he truly found happiness with Steffi in the end.  The real funny thing was that I actually told a friend that Andre would be happier with someone like Steffi, and then 2 years later it actually happened.
970906
i couldn't really say yes basing solely on federer's winning titles and the fact that he has acquired more than sampras at the same age.\n\n\nthe deal is, in the pete sampras era, another tennis great was co-dominating the circuit --- andre agassi. federer had no real competition (the competition that agassi gives to sampras is incomparable to that of nadal-roddick.) which is the reason why he has won more tennis matches
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.
542973
nope and to be honest i dont really care as i cant stand the arrogance of him.\n\nnadal is going to win the french open by beating federer again :)