Roger Federer

Roger Federer keeps winning tournaments, despite being in his 40s.

Do you consider Roger Federer to be the Ronnie O'Sullivan of tennis?

To the best of my knowledge Roger Federer is 36 years of age. His ‘40’s’ are some way off.

I don’t follow Ronnie O’Sullivan’s career (although I tend to hear good things about him) and your suggested analogy therefore means nothing to me personally. I would say, however, that the two sports make rather different demands on the body, not to mention the respective standards of physical fitness required to compete at the highest level in each.

Another difference being Roger Federer stands above all else on slam wins in men's tennis - the holy grail. In snooker the holy grail and biggest title is the World Champioship and Ronnie O'Sullivan stands some way behind the top dog - Stephen Hendry.

Both are unique natural talents in their sports. Biggest difference for me is that Federer loves his tennis and is happy to be on the circuit as long as possible whereas O'Sullivan seems to see snooker and being on the circuit as a bit of chore. I'm sure he could have been a lot more dominant in snooker had he the same outlook as Federer.

No. The two "sports" cannot be compared. Tennis very much depends on physical strength and endurance as well as skill. The longevity in tennis is limited by the declining ability to maintain physical strength and endurance as the body ages. Snooker is more about skill and physical endurance (not physical strength). The main thing limiting longevity in snooker is maintaining the skill level. To maintain the skill level you have to practice more or less every day for long periods. It is the long hours of practice that players in general lose motivation for when they get older and begin to have other things in their lives.

When I watch tennis matches, I often ponder on the similarities between Federer/Nadal and O'Sullivan/Selby

Federer's record is padded up imagine the amount of majors Nadal and Djokovic would had if they've been fortunate to dip their bread against Roddick

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Federer's record is padded up imagine the amount of majors Nadal and Djokovic would had if they've been fortunate to dip their bread against Roddick

As opposed to all the clay court greats that Nadal has faced.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Federer's record is padded up imagine the amount of majors Nadal and Djokovic would had if they've been fortunate to dip their bread against Roddick

As opposed to all the clay court greats that Nadal has faced.

Nadal in any era would've been the greatest on clay, 92% win rate with over 400 wins - ridiculous domination.

Federer has losing records to Nadal and Djokovic in major finals, he merely cleaned up against the no hopers.

Yes but Nadal has domination over equally ridiculous no hopers. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic - they're all hopelessly over-rated, having never played anyone any good.

Take Rafa's 2008 Wimby for example. He only had to beat Roger Federer. Now we all know that Federer's not a grass court great - he only had to beat a bunch of no hopers to win his 8 Wimbledons - hardly qualifies him as a grass court great. Thus Rafa in turn only had to beat an average Joe who isn't that great - hence Rafa's Wimby 2008 isn't much of an achievement.

Nathaniel Jacobs wrote:Federer's record is padded up imagine the amount of majors Nadal and Djokovic would had if they've been fortunate to dip their bread against Roddick

So funny.

I thought for one moment that Simple Analyst (or one of his countless aliases ) had made a surprise re-appearance. Or even the much-missed socal !!

Have often wondered whether that third-form schoolyard banter would ever be seen on 606 again