PDA

View Full Version : Federer should be HAPPY everytime he PLAYS NADAL or MURRAY!!!


wow246
03-28-2009, 01:15 AM
Because everytime he plays them he ALREADY knows HOW THEY ARE GONA PLAY.

They just gona keep peppering his backhand all match long all federer has to do is adjust and BOOOOM he'll beat em both.

Anyone agree????

msc886
03-28-2009, 01:22 AM
Explain how he should adjust. It'll be more convincing.

batz
03-28-2009, 01:34 AM
Because everytime he plays them he ALREADY knows HOW THEY ARE GONA PLAY.

They just gona keep peppering his backhand all match long all federer has to do is adjust and BOOOOM he'll beat em both.

Anyone agree????

Not sure I agree 100%. If you listen to Roger's interview before the IW semi he said that Murray changes something everytime they play. Murray said after the match that 'I changed a couple of little things'. It's those little things that keep Roger guessing and gice Murray the edge at the moment.

maximo
03-28-2009, 01:35 AM
Its harder than it sounds.

Bhagi Katbamna
03-28-2009, 08:59 AM
The fact that they don't do anything new and he knows what's coming and still loses is why they've gotten into his head.

Cesc Fabregas
03-28-2009, 09:08 AM
Murray and Fed's head to head would look a little different if they met on grass and clay, Roger would thrash Murray on those surfaces but Murray isn't good enough to go deep into clay tourenments.

vtmike
03-28-2009, 09:10 AM
Yeah but thats the thing...Nadal says "here is what I am going to do before the match begins...lets see if you can stop me!"
Fed's timing on his backhand is off and is very unreliable now...As soon as he fixes that, he will beat Murray comfortably...Don't know about Nadal though...because with Nadal its more mental

oneguy21
03-28-2009, 09:16 AM
Perhaps using a slightly more extreme grip on his backhand?

RoddickAce
03-28-2009, 09:19 AM
Not sure I agree 100%. If you listen to Roger's interview before the IW semi he said that Murray changes something everytime they play. Murray said after the match that 'I changed a couple of little things'. It's those little things that keep Roger guessing and gice Murray the edge at the moment.

That's the thing that allowed Federer to dominate, variety. He kept his opponents guessing, wrongfooting them, not letting his opponents read his shots. Now, his execution of the shots aren't as consistent and the other players have started to get used to his style of playing. Roger should realize that he should never stop innovating and improving himself.

rubberduckies
03-28-2009, 11:33 AM
Roger should be HONORED every time he plays Nadal. He should be grateful that he is able to share a court with the best player of his era. Roger knows he isn't talented enough to beat Nadal, but he has known this since the beginning when Rafa demolished him in Miami 2004.

Roger thought, "wow, here's a kid who came out of nowhere to destroy me with talent alone. I'm already World #1 and a multiple slam winner. My game won't get much better than this, and his game won't get much worse. Even his worst is better than my best. Wow. He can do so many things and make so many genius shots that a poor talentless clown like me could never do. Good thing he's still young - hopefully, I can get at least 5 wins off him before I'm through."

Good news for Roger: he's done that and more. He has 6 wins over a far superior player. Granted, those wins came before Nadal really found his game, but beating a man with much better abilities is an achievement nonetheless. Roger has tried many things over the years to try to compete with Rafa, but he lacks to abilities to execute at a level capable of getting a win. With sheer mental focus and willpower, Federer was able to steal a couple of matches from Nadal at Miami 05 and Wimby 07, and, really, that's all a guy like Federer can hope for. Nowadays, he should count his blessings every time Nadal honors his legacy by blasting passing shots and winners from all over the court against him. In his heart, Fed knows that losing to Nadal isn't really losing.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 11:58 AM
Roger should be HONORED every time he plays Nadal. He should be grateful that he is able to share a court with the best player of his era. Roger knows he isn't talented enough to beat Nadal, but he has known this since the beginning when Rafa demolished him in Miami 2004.

Roger thought, "wow, here's a kid who came out of nowhere to destroy me with talent alone. I'm already World #1 and a multiple slam winner. My game won't get much better than this, and his game won't get much worse. Even his worst is better than my best. Wow. He can do so many things and make so many genius shots that a poor talentless clown like me could never do. Good thing he's still young - hopefully, I can get at least 5 wins off him before I'm through."

Good news for Roger: he's done that and more. He has 6 wins over a far superior player. Granted, those wins came before Nadal really found his game, but beating a man with much better abilities is an achievement nonetheless. Roger has tried many things over the years to try to compete with Rafa, but he lacks to abilities to execute at a level capable of getting a win. With sheer mental focus and willpower, Federer was able to steal a couple of matches from Nadal at Miami 05 and Wimby 07, and, really, that's all a guy like Federer can hope for. Nowadays, he should count his blessings every time Nadal honors his legacy by blasting passing shots and winners from all over the court against him. In his heart, Fed knows that losing to Nadal isn't really losing.

Sorry but i dont think you are right. Firstly i ama Nadal / roddick fan defending Federer becuase i have seen him tear apart both guys like chicken stu

When Federer and Nadal played in 2004, Federer was hardly in his best form. He was number 1, but he had just taken that role, and at that time, many people thought he was on a really hot streak. While definitely the best player at the time. Over the course of 2004and 2005 he improved immensly. By 2004, Nadal was the biggest young gun the game had. He had beaten Moya, made the 3rd round of a major twice and was in the top 50. He definitely did not come out of no where. At the same time, i dont think in March 2004 that anyone thought Rafa Nadal would be the undisputed no 2 in the world in one year.

When Fed lost to rafa that year, im pretty sure everyone thought that Federer was playing out of his mind, and just came down to earth for a game against a rising star.

Right now we clearly all know that there H2H is so one sided because of the numerous clay matches they have played. If they played more on hard court from 2005 - 2007 we all know it would be closer.

Federer didnt steal Miami, he used his experience to grind out the young Nadal, and stepped it up when it mattered. At Wimby 07 Federer won it. While watching the match i earned a lot of respect for Roger because we all know it was Nadal had fought way harder than fed to get to the final, and outplayed him for most of the match, but then Fed stepped it up.

In the end, Nadal has reached his prime right when Fed is starting to fall. That has hurt fed in the H2H. I really hope Nadal does greater things then Fed in the future, but right now Federer is still the legend, and Nadal is still the protege.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 12:35 PM
Fed knows the style of game Nadal is going to play obviously.. But can he do anything about it at this point is the question. So far he has shown he cant

tangerine
03-28-2009, 01:22 PM
Federer should be happy he won so many slams during a weak era when Nadal and Murray weren't around. ;)

P_Agony
03-28-2009, 01:39 PM
rubberduckies should be HONORED every time he posts in these boards. He should be grateful that he is able to post in a forum of the best player ever, Federer. rubberduckies knows he isn't talented enough to post decent posts, but he has known this since the beginning when joined in August 2008.

rubberduckies thought, "wow, here's a poster who came out of nowhere to destroy me with talent alone. I'm already World's worst poster and a multiple worst post award winner. My posts won't get much worse than this, and his posts are so much better. Even his worst is better than my best. Wow. He can do so many things and make so many genius posts that a poor talentless poster like me could never do. Good thing he's still young - hopefully, I can get at least 5 posts before I'm banned."



fixed it for you.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 01:43 PM
Federer should be happy he won so many slams during a weak era when Nadal and Murray weren't around. ;)

Firstly Murray is no legend yet. He has the capability to win a few slams, but hasnt done that yet. Second, roger has won 9 of his slams while Rafa has been no 2 in the world.

Third, when rafa wasn't around (2003 - early 05), Federer was beating the likes of Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt. Are you calling those three guys weak. Agassi needs no introduction. And Roddick and Hewitt have been the two youngest # 1's in history.

I hate how people call the "pre-Nadal" era weak. Just because presently only federer and nadal have 3+ slams, doesnt mean the era is weak. Go to the former player section and see Who would have won Federer's slams if he wasnt around. Without federer, Roddick would have around 5, same for Hewitt, Agassi could have a couple more, same for Safin. Unfortunetly federer had to dominate for 4 years like no one else in the games history had, so of course Sampras lovers had to say that competition was weak

Mansewerz
03-28-2009, 01:45 PM
Federer should be happy he won so many slams during a weak era when Nadal and Murray weren't around. ;)

Hmm, can you enlighten me on who was in the last GS final. Thanks.

Nadal_Freak
03-28-2009, 01:50 PM
Federer should be happy that Nadal and Murray are beating him. Thus, creating more interest in tennis. The boring days of tennis are no more. ;)

P_Agony
03-28-2009, 01:52 PM
Federer should be happy that Nadal and Murray are beating him. Thus, creating more interest in tennis. The boring days of tennis are no more. ;)

The boring days of tennis are just starting. Hopefully Federer will return to his former self and show the world once more what tennis is.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 01:56 PM
Firstly Murray is no legend yet. He has the capability to win a few slams, but hasnt done that yet. Second, roger has won 9 of his slams while Rafa has been no 2 in the world.

Third, when rafa wasn't around (2003 - early 05), Federer was beating the likes of Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt. Are you calling those three guys weak. Agassi needs no introduction. And Roddick and Hewitt have been the two youngest # 1's in history.

I hate how people call the "pre-Nadal" era weak. Just because presently only federer and nadal have 3+ slams, doesnt mean the era is weak. Go to the former player section and see Who would have won Federer's slams if he wasnt around. Without federer, Roddick would have around 5, same for Hewitt, Agassi could have a couple more, same for Safin. Unfortunetly federer had to dominate for 4 years like no one else in the games history had, so of course Sampras lovers had to say that competition was weak

I certainly wouldnt call Roddick or Hewitt "strong" competition when u look back at some of other eras. Sure they were solid.

But...

I dont how anyone would consider Fed's competition 04-06 strong. There were some good players in that era. But I would never call Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Nalbandian and down the line "great players" by any stretch of the imagination. And Agassi was around 35 years old at that point crippled with Sciatica. Safin and Nalby were as inconsistent as inconsistent could get though both had great talent.


Hewitt's wheels fell of pretty quickly due to injuries. Roddick... well hes been a consistent player. But its no secret the kid has always had many holes in his game to exploit.

Nadal at that time could maintain a #2 ranking in the world and making a name for himself on clay the majority of the time while many aspects of his game left much to be desired.


Now that he has tweaked his game and has become a multi-surfaced player. He is the best in the world. Its no coincidence.

Prime Nadal is 10 times a more formidable opponent than Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, Ljubicic, Blake, Baghaditis, Gonzales ever were.

Early-mid 00's was one of the more weaker era's in history in terms of great players. THis era is shaping to be more promising.. But again. As of now. There are still only 2 great players IMO. Fed-Nadal. Since they are the two at this point who bring their A games to the slams and wins when it matters most. Djoker was on the right track. Hes plummeting a bit. Murray has yet to prove his worth at the slams

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 02:06 PM
I certainly wouldnt call Roddick or Hewitt "strong" competition when u look back at some of other eras. Sure they were solid.

But...

I dont how anyone would consider Fed's competition 04-06 strong. There were some good players in that era. But I would never call Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Nalbandian and down the line "great players" by any stretch of the imagination. And Agassi was around 35 years old at that point crippled with Sciatica.

In no way am i comparing Roddick and Hewitt to Sampras, Courier, Wilander, Edberg, Becker

What i am saying is that these guys success's and hardware have certainly been limited a lot by federer. And Agassi was still playing great tennis through 2005. He could hold his own against prime federer and almost prime Nadal.

and where did Blake and Nalbandian come up? Blake especially. roddick and Hewitt have been making slam finals and semis for years.

And you wouldnt call people like Hewitt and roddick great players becuase youl probably jsut look at stats in the future, and you will forget that they were dominated by the second greatest player in the games history (behind Laver).
The strength of an era is not defined by the number of slams that each player has, but by the ability that the top players had. And i can tell you that from 2003 - 2005, roddick and Hewitt could play

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:08 PM
Federer should be happy that Nadal and Murray are beating him. Thus, creating more interest in tennis. The boring days of tennis are no more. ;)
In terms of being "boring," Nadal's style is very polarizing. Some people really like his grind it out, spin-everything style. Others find it very annoying to watch.

Nadal_Freak
03-28-2009, 02:10 PM
In terms of being "boring," Nadal's style is very polarizing. Some people really like his grind it out, spin-everything style. Others find it very annoying to watch.
Except Nadal has a lot more variety then you give him credit for. Read Roddick's comments on playing Nadal.

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:10 PM
In no way am i comparing Roddick and Hewitt to Sampras, Courier, Wilander, Edberg, Becker

What i am saying is that these guys success's and hardware have certainly been limited a lot by federer. And Agassi was still playing great tennis through 2005. He could hold his own against prime federer and almost prime Nadal.

and where did Blake and Nalbandian come up? Blake especially. roddick and Hewitt have been making slam finals and semis for years.

And you wouldnt call people like Hewitt and roddick great players becuase youl probably jsut look at stats in the future, and you will forget that they were dominated by the second greatest player in the games history (behind Laver).
The strength of an era is not defined by the number of slams that each player has, but by the ability that the top players had. And i can tell you that from 2003 - 2005, roddick and Hewitt could play
It's all relative. If a player dominates, he gets "weak era" label almost by default. If Michael Jordan hadn't retired and let someone else (Hakeem Olajuwan) take the spotlight from under him, everyone would claim that the 90s basketball was really weak, even though it clearly wasn't the case.

I, for one, see no evidence that the era Federer dominated was any weaker than any other era. The guys of the late 90s weren't exactly beating up on guys like Roddick or Hewitt either.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:11 PM
In no way am i comparing Roddick and Hewitt to Sampras, Courier, Wilander, Edberg, Becker

What i am saying is that these guys success's and hardware have certainly been limited a lot by federer. And Agassi was still playing great tennis through 2005. He could hold his own against prime federer and almost prime Nadal.

and where did Blake and Nalbandian come up? Blake especially. roddick and Hewitt have been making slam finals and semis for years.

And you wouldnt call people like Hewitt and roddick great players becuase youl probably jsut look at stats in the future, and you will forget that they were dominated by the second greatest player in the games history (behind Laver).
The strength of an era is not defined by the number of slams that each player has, but by the ability that the top players had. And i can tell you that from 2003 - 2005, roddick and Hewitt could play


How many slams do u really think Roddick or HEwitt would have gotten in the 90s, 80s and 70s? Not many IMO. IF ANY!!!

I would give Hewitt as many as he is sitting with now. 2 slams going back 30 some years. Hes good.. Not great. At his peak or prime 01-02 or a little after. He was a tough counterpuncher. But lacked weapons

Its all assumptions of course.

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:11 PM
Except Nadal has a lot more variety then you give him credit for. Read Roddick's comments on playing Nadal.
I never said Nadal had a no variety. I said his style is a lot more defensive and grinding than most of the other players.

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:12 PM
How many slams do u really think Roddick or HEwitt would have gotten in the 90s, 80s and 70s? Not many IMO. IF ANY!!!

I would give Hewitt as many as he is sitting with now. 2 slams going back 30 some years. Hes good.. Not great.

Its all assumptions of course.
If they played in the 90s, 80s, or 70s, they would spank the field with their superior rackets. ;)

Nadal_Freak
03-28-2009, 02:14 PM
I never said Nadal had a no variety. I said his style is a lot more defensive and grinding than most of the other players.
Yet Nadal hit like twice the winners Murray did in the finals. Nadal's offensive game is not given enough credit. Don't let him get control of the points. That's why players try to attack Nadal because they don't want Nadal attacking them. He'll yo-yo you around the court.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:14 PM
As for Roddick. Its no secret the holes in his game would be exploited by ANY GREAT PLAYER in the last 20-30 years

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 02:16 PM
It's all relative. If a player dominates, he gets "weak era" label almost by default. If Michael Jordan hadn't retired and let someone else (Hakeem Olajuwan) take the spotlight from under him, everyone would claim that the 90s basketball was really weak, even though it clearly wasn't the case.

I, for one, see no evidence that the era Federer dominated was any weaker than any other era. The guys of the late 90s weren't exactly beating up on guys like Roddick or Hewitt either.

thank you, and for GameSpampras, how do you know Roddick and Hewitt would not have competed for majors, give some support to back up your case

Becuase for me, i see one of the great severs we will ever see, and also in his prime, a counter puncher who could go from defence to offence in no time

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:17 PM
Yet Nadal hit like twice the winners Murray did in the finals. Nadal's offensive game is not given enough credit. Don't let him get control of the points. That's why players try to attack Nadal because they don't want Nadal attacking them. He'll yo-yo you around the court.
1.) Murray's a counterpuncher himself.

2.) It's one match. In the past, Murray has gotten just as many, if not more, winners against Nadal as vice versa.

I'm not sure why this is even a point. A lot of people, in general, like to see proactive, attacking tennis, rather than defensive, reacting tennis, which is what players like Nadal and Murray prefer to play. Sure, they have offensive aspects of their game, but their best tennis and recognizable styles are not usually played this way.

That's why a player like Nadal is polarizing to the tennis audience. Some people, believe it or not, are genuinely bored when watching Nadal play.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:18 PM
Do u guys have any idea what Lendl, Mcenroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg would do to Roddick? Ohh it would be a BLOODBATH

Nadal_Freak
03-28-2009, 02:20 PM
1.) Murray's a counterpuncher himself.

2.) It's one match. In the past, Murray has gotten just as many, if not more, winners against Nadal as vice versa.

I'm not sure why this is even a point. A lot of people, in general, like to see proactive, attacking tennis, rather than defensive, reacting tennis, which is what players like Nadal and Murray prefer to play. Sure, they have offensive aspects of their game, but their best tennis and recognizable styles are not usually played this way.

That's why a player like Nadal is polarizing to the tennis audience. Some people, believe it or not, are genuinely bored when watching Nadal play.
Nadal is recognized as playing both styles equally well. He doesn't always play aggressive tennis but he definitely has it a lot of the time. He gets in trouble when he doesn't play like that on hardcourts. I'm looking forward to some aggressive tennis from him tonight. ;)

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:20 PM
thank you, and for GameSpampras, how do you know Roddick and Hewitt would not have competed for majors, give some support to back up your case

Becuase for me, i see one of the great severs we will ever see, and also in his prime, a counter puncher who could go from defence to offence in no time


Roddick's serve can be taken apart if you can anticipate. As Fed has shown. Why do u think a player with good anticipation such as Fed could so easily handle Roddick's 140-150 mphs serve time and time again? Because he doesnt possess the ability to disguise his serve.

And when you take apart Roddick's serve, whats left? His Volleying skills? NOPE.. He has a limited ability at the net.. Hes no Edberg. His BH? Not really. His FH? Thats disappeared over the years.

The guy has more holes in his game than a pin cushion. You have to be BLIND not to see that.

Andre could handle Roddick with ease. Pete dismantled Roddick at 31 years old etc.

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:20 PM
Do u guys have any idea what Lendl, Mcenroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg would do to Roddick? Ohh it would be a BLOODBATH
Do you guys know what Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg, etc did to the second and third best players of their own era? It was often a "BLOODBATH."

Again, I see no evidence to suggest that the guys Federer played against were weaker than the guys played against by other champions. Federer clearly was heads and shoulders better than everyone else in the field, and that made the era look weak in comparison, but that doesn't mean the era lacked dangerous players.

McEnroe won 80+ matches in one season, does that mean his era was weak too?

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:22 PM
Nadal is recognized as playing both styles equally well. He doesn't always play aggressive tennis but he definitely has it a lot of the time. He gets in trouble when he doesn't play like that on hardcourts. I'm looking forward to some aggressive tennis from him tonight. ;)
To his credit, he has gotten more aggressive, and that's improved his game. But look at his matches against some of the bigger hitters. Whenever he's in trouble, he retreats ten feet behind the baseline and reverts to fetching every ball.

It works, and he's the best player in the world, but don't act like that's not true.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:22 PM
It boggles my mind why anyone could possibly fathom that Roddick would be a multi-time slam winner in any era from the 70s on. The guy is just NOT THAT GREAT.


He lacks too many elements in his game to be a multi-time champion

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 02:23 PM
Do u guys have any idea what Lendl, Mcenroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg would do to Roddick? Ohh it would be a BLOODBATH

Courier and Edberg. Hahahaha. You could argue they had thier peak in an even worse time. Lendl was getting old, Connors and Mcenroe were done, and Agassi and Pete were just emerging

and i see you are picking on Roddick, im assuming becuase his big weapon is his serve, and his ground game is not as good as agassis. Like i said he doesnt have more slams becuase he is being beaten by Nadal and Federer, two guys who you could argue could beat Lendl, Macenroe, borg and Pete in their prime

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:24 PM
Do you guys know what Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg, etc did to the second and third best players of their own era? It was often a "BLOODBATH."

Again, I see no evidence to suggest that the guys Federer played against were weaker than the guys played against by other champions. Federer clearly was heads and shoulders better than everyone else in the field, and that made the era look weak in comparison, but that doesn't mean the era lacked dangerous players.

McEnroe won 80+ matches in one season, does that mean his era was weak too?


Of course the 80s wasnt a weak era. It was one of the strongest ever. And Roddick isnt even in the same area code with Mac. Johnny was the superior all around tennis player.

Nadal_Freak
03-28-2009, 02:24 PM
To his credit, he has gotten more aggressive, and that's improved his game. But look at his matches against some of the bigger hitters. Whenever he's in trouble, he retreats ten feet behind the baseline and reverts to fetching every ball.

It works, and he's the best player in the world, but don't act like that's not true.
Yes and I get annoyed when he starts doing that. He is too good to just play all defense. He should be stepping into the court more but I guess you got to change things up if you aren't striking the ball well that day.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:26 PM
Do you guys know what Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Courier, Borg, etc did to the second and third best players of their own era? It was often a "BLOODBATH."

Again, I see no evidence to suggest that the guys Federer played against were weaker than the guys played against by other champions. Federer clearly was heads and shoulders better than everyone else in the field, and that made the era look weak in comparison, but that doesn't mean the era lacked dangerous players.

McEnroe won 80+ matches in one season, does that mean his era was weak too?


So youre saying a field that consisted of Edberg, Courier, Mac, Lendl, Becker and down the line isnt a stronger field than Nalbandian, Blake, Ljubcic, Gonzales, old man agassi, Safin, Roddick, Hewit?

OMG!!!


Whats the point of arguing if you dont even realize this

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:26 PM
It boggles my mind why anyone could possibly fathom that Roddick would be a multi-time slam winner in any era from the 70s on. The guy is just NOT THAT GREAT.


He lacks too many elements in his game to be a multi-time champion
You don't need to be a great all-around player to have multiple slams. Wimbledon is always tailor made to players who can play very fast. The French Open is always going to favor players who can retrieve every ball and grind out wins.

What's the difference between a champion that plays 1 championship-level hard-court specialist, 1 championship-level clay-court specialist, and 1 championship-level grass specialist versus someone that plays 1 or 2 guys that are all-around championship level players?

The guy that beats the all-around guys may 'seem' to have the stronger resume, even though in both cases, it's probably just as hard to win slams.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:29 PM
You don't need to be a great all-around player to have multiple slams. Wimbledon is always tailor made to players who can play very fast. The French Open is always going to favor players who can retrieve every ball and grind out wins.

What's the difference between a champion that plays 1 championship-level hard-court specialist, 1 championship-level clay-court specialist, and 1 championship-level grass specialist versus someone that plays 1 or 2 guys that are all-around championship level players?

The guy that beats the all-around guys may 'seem' to have the stronger resume, even though in both cases, it's probably just as hard to win slams.


What Wimbeldons are Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Blake etc going to win in the 90s, 80s, or 70s enlighten me.

You say Wimbeldon favors the big server? Well where the hell are Roddick's Wimbeldon titles? The point is.. You need more than ust a serve to get it done at wimbeldon. You needed a solid all around game. Roddick doesnt have this

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:29 PM
Of course the 80s wasnt a weak era. It was one of the strongest ever. And Roddick isnt even in the same area code with Mac. Johnny was the superior all around tennis player.
So if it wasn't a weak era, how did McEnroe go 82-3 one year?

So youre saying a field that consisted of Edberg, Courier, Mac, Lendl, Becker and down the line isnt a stronger field than Nalbandian, Blake, Ljubcic, Gonzales, old man agassi, Safin, Roddick, Hewit?

OMG!!!


Whats the point of arguing if you dont even realize this

I love to see you point out when ALL of these players were in their primes at the same time.

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:30 PM
What Wimbeldons are Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Blake etc going to win in the 90s, 80s, or 70s enlighten me.

You say Wimbeldon favors the big server? Well where the hell are Roddick's Wimbeldon titles? The point is.. You need more than ust a serve to get it done at wimbeldon. You needed a solid all around game. Roddick doesnt have this
Going to a guy named Roger Federer, because he is/was that good on grass.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 02:30 PM
So youre saying a field that consisted of Edberg, Courier, Mac, Lendl, Becker and down the line isnt a stronger field than Nalbandian, Blake, Ljubcic, Gonzales, old man agassi, Safin, Roddick, Hewit?

OMG!!!


Whats the point of arguing if you dont even realize this

right now you yourself are talking about two different eras. Im pretty sure courier and Becker didnt play in the same era as Mcenroe. So get your dates straight.

And Ljubiicic and Gonzalez and Blake should be replaced by Djokovic, Murray, Kuerton.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:32 PM
Going to a guy named Roger Federer, because he is/was that good on grass.

And Roddick was going to beat Sampras at Wimbeldon? A player EVER MORE DOMINANT on grass than Roger? LOL

P_Agony
03-28-2009, 02:32 PM
What Wimbeldons are Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Blake etc going to win in the 90s, 80s, or 70s enlighten me.

You say Wimbeldon favors the big server? Well where the hell are Roddick's Wimbeldon titles? The point is.. You need more than ust a serve to get it done at wimbeldon. You needed a solid all around game. Roddick doesnt have this

Actually Roddick had all it took to win Wimbeldon. The big serve, the forehand, good movement, decent backhand at times. Problem is he also had Federer. Had it not been for Federer I think Roddick would have won Wimbeldon, maybe more than once.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:34 PM
Mac had a dominant season in 84, because he was JUST THAT GOOD. Roddick, Hewitt, and any other player from 04-07 dont even compare to Johnny Mac during that time. These guys cant even sniff Johnny Mac's jockstrap Im sorry

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 02:35 PM
why do you keep mentioning Nalbandian, Blake, Lubicic.
They arent even the top of thier own era.
Why dont i mention Yannick Noah, jose Hiegueras, Juan agulera

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:35 PM
And Roddick was going to beat Sampras at Wimbeldon? A player EVER MORE DOMINANT on grass than Roger? LOL
Why are you comparing a secondary player (Andy Roddick) to the primary player (Pete Sampras) in an argument of eras?

Do you have to resort to straw man now?

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:35 PM
Mac had a dominant season in 84, because he was JUST THAT GOOD. Roddick, Hewitt, and any other player from 04-07 dont even compare to Johnny Mac during that time. These guys cant even sniff Johnny Mac's jockstrap Im sorry
Circular argument. McEnroe beat players because he was just that good?

So why isn't that the case for Federer?

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 02:38 PM
And Roddick was going to beat Sampras at Wimbeldon? A player EVER MORE DOMINANT on grass than Roger? LOL
Your mad right? You could probably count the number of sets lots by Federer at Wimbledon from 2003 - 2008.
1999 is the only year that i cant think of that Sampras dominated Wimbledon, and 2000, where he didnt play a seed until the finals if i am correct

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:42 PM
Circular argument. McEnroe beat players because he was just that good?

So why isn't that the case for Federer?

Ohhhh boy..... :mad:....

listen if you want to believe Fed had the tougher era than what say Mac had.. Go right ahead. Obviously if you havent compared the players of each era.

1984 finals

Mac played Lendl at RG... A far superior player than to any player in Fed's era.

Mac played Lendl again at the USO.

Than he played Connors At Wimbeldon.....


Who did Fed play during his best year in 06?
06 Finals.
Baghaditis??? HUH?




Nadal? Pre Primed and pre puberty and on his best surface at the time

Nadal at Wimbeldon.. Again.. Still young and devloping his game

Then Roddick..

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:44 PM
Your mad right? You could probably count the number of sets lots by Federer at Wimbledon from 2003 - 2008.
1999 is the only year that i cant think of that Sampras dominated Wimbledon, and 2000, where he didnt play a seed until the finals if i am correct

7 Wimbeldon in 8 years is more impressive.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 02:49 PM
Ohhhh boy..... :mad:....

listen if you want to believe Fed had the tougher era than what say Mac had.. Go right ahead. Obviously if you havent compared the players of each era.

1984 finals

Mac played Lendl at RG... A far superior player than to any player in Fed's era.

Mac played Lendl again at the USO.

Than he played Connors At Wimbeldon.....


Who did Fed play during his best year in 06?
06 Finals.
Baghaditis??? HUH?




Nadal? Pre Primed and pre puberty and on his best surface at the time

Nadal at Wimbeldon.. Again.. Still young and devloping his game

Then Roddick..

When I look at Federer's dominance, I see:

2004 USO final against Hewitt with 2 bagels
2007 AO semi vs Roddick loosing 6 games
2005 Masters Cup vs Gaudio double bagel
2007 Master Cup vs Nadal 6-4 6-1

I see him winning some 40 matches in a row in 2005 - 2006. I see him loosing 24 matches over a course of 4 years, winning 11 of 16 slams in that period.

And before you talk about him being in a bad era. Didnt he beat 4 time defending champ Sampras at Wimbledon when he was 19. Roddick did the same, and Hewitt would follow. While Sampras was not the same guy as he was in the 90's , he could still play

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:49 PM
Ohhhh boy..... :mad:....

listen if you want to believe Fed had the tougher era than what say Mac had.. Go right ahead. Obviously if you havent compared the players of each era.

1984 finals

Mac played Lendl at RG... A far superior player than to any player in Fed's era.

Mac played Lendl again at the USO.

Than he played Connors At Wimbeldon.....


Who did Fed play during his best year in 06?
06 Finals.
Baghaditis??? HUH?




Nadal? Pre Primed and pre puberty and on his best surface at the time

Nadal at Wimbeldon.. Again.. Still young and devloping his game

Then Roddick..
A 20 year old Nadal would give Lendl a run for his money on clay, and would probably beat him.

Jimmy Connors in 1984 was 32 years old. How is that more impressive than Agassi in his 30s?

As for Baghdatis, I'm pretty sure Baghdatis would beat "NO ONE," which is who McEnroe played by skipping the Aussie Open.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 02:50 PM
7 Wimbeldon in 8 years is more impressive.

Not when Tim Henman is your competition.
And you have to been guys like voltchov, and Gambil
that doesnt say much either

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:54 PM
You guys obviously have no idea about tennis. Just the fact you are trying to compare Fed's era 04-07 to Mac's, is pretty ridiculous. There is NO COMPARISON. Bottom line the 80s era were far superior in terms of competition. No comparison at all. Fed had it easy compared to how Mac had it.

And now once the going got tough.. Fed got going and his Number 1 ranking was waved bye bye as soon as Nadal hit his prime

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 02:55 PM
You guys obviously have no idea about tennis. Just the fact you are trying to compare Fed's era 04-07 to Mac's, is pretty ridiculous. There is NO COMPARISON. Bottom line the 80s era were far superior in terms of competition. No comparison at all. Fed had it easy compared to how Mac had it.

And now once the going got tough.. Fed got going and his Number 1 ranking was waved bye bye as soon as Nadal hit his prime
It's far superior because you keep harping that it's far superior?

Again, your argument for it being far superior is what? The players in that stretch don't have many grand slam titles? Well, no really, that's because Federer was winning them all. :rolleyes:

Could it be a weak era? Possibly. But just because Federer was cleaning their clocks doesn't mean it's a weak era, it could also mean that Federer was just that good.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 02:56 PM
You guys obviously have no idea about tennis. Just the fact you are trying to compare Fed's era 04-07 to Mac's, is pretty ridiculous. There is NO COMPARISON. Bottom line the 80s era were far superior in terms of competition. No comparison at all. Fed had it easy compared to how Mac had it.

And now once the going got tough.. Fed got going and his Number 1 ranking was waved bye bye as soon as Nadal hit his prime

Exactly, how can you compare eras? for all we know guys like Nadal and Roddick would be eating up people in other eras, well never know.

All i am trying to say is that you have to give this ear more respect, as it would be easy for these guys to give up and not care, when like i said, they are being beat in the greatest period of domination by a single player EVER

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 02:58 PM
It's far superior because you keep harping that it's far superior?

Again, your argument for it being far superior is what? The players in that stretch don't have many grand slam titles? Well, no really, that's because Federer was winning them all. :rolleyes:

Could it be a weak era? Possibly. But just because Federer was cleaning their clocks doesn't mean it's a weak era, it could also mean that Federer was just that good.

It was "just because Fed was winning them all?" How about because the opposition just werent that good? Fed is proving more and more it was a weaker era. How did he relinquish his Number 1 rank so fast? How is it now Nadal is winning the slams while Fed cant defeat him?


All it took was for nadal to his prime. Now Roger cant even beat him. Kiss that Number 1 goodbye. Fed will never see it again

ChanceEncounter
03-28-2009, 03:01 PM
It was "just because Fed was winning them all?" How about because the opposition just werent that good? Fed is proving more and more it was a weaker era. How did he relinquish his Number 1 rank so fast? How is it now Nadal is winning the slams while Fed cant defeat him?


All it took was for nadal to his prime. Now Roger cant even beat him. Kiss that Number 1 goodbye. Fed will never see it again
He's proving it how? By losing to Nadal in every final? You act like Roger is suddenly unable to even get to the second week of these slams. :rolleyes:

Nadal has surpassed him, but that doesn't mean that Federer was beating up on a weak era. By this logic, the 90s were weak because Hewitt and Safin spanked a declining Sampras.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 03:02 PM
He's proving it how? By losing to Nadal in every final? You act like Roger is suddenly unable to even get to the second week of these slams. :rolleyes:

Nadal has surpassed him, but that doesn't mean that Federer was beating up on a weak era. By this logic, the 90s were weak because Hewitt and Safin spanked a declining Sampras.

Exactly, and also if you don't think federer was that great watch the 2004 USO final, or the 2007 AO semi, and you will see

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:03 PM
Im not even going to argue about this anymore. Nadal is the BEST of this generation of While Fed is the 2nd best.

Fed is not the GOAT. Nor will he ever sniff it. If you cant defeat your rival, you have no business being even remotely considered to be the GOAT. NONE!!!
A 6-14 orr whatever it is against your rival is pathetic when youre being considered as a GOAT candidate

tudwell
03-28-2009, 03:04 PM
It was "just because Fed was winning them all?" How about because the opposition just werent that good? Fed is proving more and more it was a weaker era. How did he relinquish his Number 1 rank so fast? How is it now Nadal is winning the slams while Fed cant defeat him?


All it took was for nadal to his prime. Now Roger cant even beat him. Kiss that Number 1 goodbye. Fed will never see it again
Fed relinquished his Number 1 ranking fast? He held onto it for 4 and a half straight years. And Nadal, the one who eventually overtook him, had to spend 3 years at the number 2 spot before finally overcoming Federer. Federer's loss of the number one spot was anything but fast. We get it, you feel Sampras's records are threatened by Federer so you'll do everything you can to disqualify Federer's achievements. But you still haven't offered any hard and fast proof that Federer's era is weaker than any other era.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:06 PM
Fed relinquished his Number 1 ranking fast? He held onto it for 4 and a half straight years. And Nadal, the one who eventually overtook him, had to spend 3 years at the number 2 spot before finally overcoming Federer. Federer's loss of the number one spot was anything but fast. We get it, you feel Sampras's records are threatened by Federer so you'll do everything you can to disqualify Federer's achievements. But you still haven't offered any hard and fast proof that Federer's era is weaker than any other era.


He relinquished it faster than lightning as soon as Nadal hit his prime.


I didnt say I had PROOF that Fed's era 04-07 era was weaker than others . I think its just common knowledge. At least among people with brains.

P_Agony
03-28-2009, 03:07 PM
Federer made his era look weak because he was just too good. Anyone who says otherwise is in denial. You don't win 13 slams and rule the tennis world for almost 5 years if your'e not something special.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:08 PM
Federer made his era look weak because he was just too good. Anyone who says otherwise is in denial. You don't win 13 slams and rule the tennis world for almost 5 years if your'e not something special.

Then why arent Roddick. Blake, Safin, Nalbandan, etc winning slams now? Have an answer for that? Now that Fed is supposedly "not in his prime" anymore

thejoe
03-28-2009, 03:08 PM
Im not even going to argue about this anymore. Nadal is the BEST of this generation of While Fed is the 2nd best.

Fed is not the GOAT. Nor will he ever sniff it. If you cant defeat your rival, you have no business being even remotely considered to be the GOAT. NONE!!!
A 6-14 orr whatever it is against your rival is pathetic when youre being considered as a GOAT candidate

I smell bull throughout this post...

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:09 PM
I smell bull throughout this post...

Explain "the bull".

I think its pretty obvious Nadal has solidified himself as the best now that he has hit his prime. Fed is not the best player anymore. Its a FACT

thejoe
03-28-2009, 03:11 PM
Explain "the bull".

I think its pretty obvious Nadal has solidified himself as the best now that he has hit his prime

Precisely. Bottom line is, Fed of 2004 was the best player ever. Better than Nadal now. You're right, he isn't the best anymore. But really, they are from different eras. Nadal is part of the Djokovic, Murray etc. era, whereas Fed is part of the Roddick, Hewitt and Safin era.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:11 PM
Precisely. Bottom line is, Fed of 2004 was the best player ever. Better than Nadal now.

BWAAHAHAH.. HOO HOOO HOOO.. Fed was getting beaten by Nadal who had not yet even prime way back then. If Nadal had primed back then he would still be number 1. Nadal is just the better player.. END OF STORY.

icedevil0289
03-28-2009, 03:13 PM
BWAAHAHAH.. HOO HOOO HOOO.. Fed was getting beaten by Nadal who had not yet even prime way back then.

i think that shows that nadal has always been a bad matchup for fed. You can't deny that. I do agree with you that its hard for fed to be called the best of his generation of he's being dominated by another player, but he's still amazing in my eyes.

thejoe
03-28-2009, 03:13 PM
BWAAHAHAH.. HOO HOOO HOOO.. Fed was getting beaten by Nadal who had not yet even prime way back then.

Right, in one match. He won three slams that year.

Nadal lost to Seppi last year. Does that mean he had a terrible 2008? Of course not.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:16 PM
Right, in one match. He won three slams that year.

Nadal lost to Seppi last year. Does that mean he had a terrible 2008? Of course not.



And a prime Nadal wouldnt be able to beat Fed in 2004? He was beating Fed before he even hit his prime. It was most certain as soon as Nadal primed and devloped his game and matured he would overtake Roger. It was foreshadowing.

Fed is NOT better than Nadal. I think Nadal has proven he is greater then Fed at this point.

Even back in 2006. Fed's best year statistically. Who did his losses go to? Thats right Nadal.. A young Nadal at that. Now imagine Prime Nadal back then.

thejoe
03-28-2009, 03:17 PM
And a prime Nadal wouldnt be able to beat Fed in 2004? He was beating Fed before he even hit his prime. It was most certain as soon as Nadal primed and devloped his game and matured he would overtake Roger. It was foreshadowing.

Fed is NOT better than Nadal. I think Nadal has proven he is greater then Fed at this point.

Even back in 2006. Fed's best year statistically. Who did his losses go to? Thats right Nadal.. A young Nadal at that. Now imagine Prime Nadal back then.

Put Nadal down the other end for the US Open final 2004, it would still be a thrashing. So no, he wouldn't.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:17 PM
How many times does Nadal need to own Roger especially at the slam finals to prove Nadal is the better player?

Does Nadal need a 30-6 record over Fed to prove his point and prove he is the better player?

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:18 PM
Put Nadal down the other end for the US Open final 2004, it would still be a thrashing. So no, he wouldn't.

And the other 3 slams would go to who? Probably Nadal. Since he has now proven he can defeat Roger at the other 3 slams.

3 slams > 1 slam

tudwell
03-28-2009, 03:20 PM
How many times does Nadal need to own Roger especially at the slam finals to prove Nadal is the better player?

Does Nadal need a 30-6 record over Fed to prove his point and prove he is the better player?
Maybe when he wins over 13 slams and loses fewer than 4 matches in a single season. Then I'll readily admit Nadal is the greater player.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:21 PM
Maybe when he wins over 13 slams and loses fewer than 4 matches in a single season. Then I'll readily admit Nadal is the greater player.


Nadal just defeating Fed at 3 of the 4 slams doesnt prove it? Nor does a 14-6 h2h?

VivalaVida
03-28-2009, 03:22 PM
And the other 3 slams would go to who? Probably Nadal. Since he has now proven he can defeat Roger at the other 3 slams.

3 slams > 1 slam
so are you saying AO 2004 and Wimbledon 2004 would clearly go to nadal? that is BS. A non prime federer took nadal to 5 sets this year at the AO! you think federer in 2004 would clearly lose? I dont think so? for one thing, he would play much better and aggressive than he does now. btw Wimbledon 2004 was a much faster court than Wimbledon 2008, so nadal winning then isnt a guarantee either. I am not saying Nadal wouldnt win, all I am saying is that for you blatantly claim that federer of 2004 would lose 3 slams to nadal is delusional

tudwell
03-28-2009, 03:22 PM
And the other 3 slams would go to who? Probably Nadal. Since he has now proven he can defeat Roger at the other 3 slams.

3 slams > 1 slam
He can defeat Federer. That doesn't mean he will every single time they play. Nadal's in great form at the moment, but even he will have a dip in form sometime. If you really think Federer will never defeat Nadal again, I don't know what to say, except that I strongly disagree.

Zaragoza
03-28-2009, 03:22 PM
Because everytime he plays them he ALREADY knows HOW THEY ARE GONA PLAY.

They just gona keep peppering his backhand all match long all federer has to do is adjust and BOOOOM he'll beat em both.

Anyone agree????

It looks the other way, Nadal and Murray already know how Federer is going to play and they know how to beat him.

edberg505
03-28-2009, 03:24 PM
And the other 3 slams would go to who? Probably Nadal. Since he has now proven he can defeat Roger at the other 3 slams.

3 slams > 1 slam

We'll see how well Nadal is doing when he reaches 27/28. Heck I think Nadal is better than the great Pete Sampras by the way.

P_Agony
03-28-2009, 03:25 PM
Then why arent Roddick. Blake, Safin, Nalbandan, etc winning slams now? Have an answer for that? Now that Fed is supposedly "not in his prime" anymore

Because these guys are not in their primes either! Hewitt is 28 now, Nalbandian has proven he can beat any one when he's on, but that happens now about twice a year, Blake and Safin are near retirement, and Roddick is actually playing really well at the moment and is ownning Djokovic in the process. Also, please don't give me the "Nadal just entered his prime" nonesense. Nadal reached the Wimbly final already in 2006. He did it in 2007 too. Both times he failed to beat Federer, and only in 2008, Federer's worst year in his whole career, he managed to win (barely!!!).

Safin IMO is more talented than both Nadal and Joker, and is on par with Federer and Murray as far as talent goes. Yet Safin never had good results against Roger (despite one popular semi final). People beat a past-prime Roger today exactly like Roger beat a past-prime Pete back then. I'm not taking anything away from Sampras, he's an amazing player and he hold the record, and righfuly so. Who had the tougher era? Who knows? I would say every era was equally balanced with some very tough competition, and I'm happy I live in a time where I could watch both the Sampras/Agassi era AND the Roger Federer era.

tudwell
03-28-2009, 03:25 PM
Nadal just defeating Fed at 3 of the 4 slams doesnt prove it? Nor does a 14-6 h2h?
It proves Nadal's game matches up well with Federer's. But Nadal won't be the greater player until he achieves greater things than Federer. Yes, Nadal could lead Federer 30-6 in the head-to-head, but if he never wins another slam, there's no way you can call him the better player.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:25 PM
so are you saying AO 2004 and Wimbledon 2004 would clearly go to nadal? that is BS. A non prime federer took nadal to 5 sets this year at the AO! you think federer in 2004 would clearly lose? I dont think so? for one thing, he would play much better and aggressive than he does now. btw Wimbledon 2004 was a much faster court than Wimbledon 2008, so nadal winning then isnt a guarantee either. I am not saying Nadal wouldnt win, all I am saying is that for you blatantly claim that federer of 2004 would lose 3 slams to nadal is delusional

I still would like to know how you consider Fed not to be in his prime still since he has reached every slam final imaginable?

Its obvious Nadal was not in his prime 04-07. Since he could barely make a DENT at the HC slams losing to the likes of Ferrer and Youzhny etc.

Fed is still in his prime. Until proven otherwise at the slams. The only difference is Nadal has hit his which means loss after loss for Roger

thejoe
03-28-2009, 03:28 PM
I still would like to know how you consider Fed not to be in his prime still since he has reached every slam final imaginable?

Its obvious Nadal was not in his prime 04-07. Since he could barely make a DENT at the HC slams losing to the likes of Ferrer and Youzhny etc.

Fed is still in his prime. Until proven otherwise at the slams. The only difference is Nadal has hit his which means loss after loss for Roger

You claim Pete wasn't in his prime from 2000-2002, but he still reached slam finals. What is the difference? Just watch a Fed video from 2004, and tell me that the player today is as good as then. Federer is not in his prime anymore, he is just still good enough to beat most of the tour, like Sampras was.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:28 PM
Because these guys are not in their primes either! Hewitt is 28 now, Nalbandian has proven he can beat any one when he's on, but that happens now about twice a year, Blake and Safin are near retirement, and Roddick is actually playing really well at the moment and is ownning Djokovic in the process. Also, please don't give me the "Nadal just entered his prime" nonesense. Nadal reached the Wimbly final already in 2006. He did it in 2007 too. Both times he failed to beat Federer, and only in 2008, Federer's worst year in his whole career, he managed to win (barely!!!).

Safin IMO is more talented than both Nadal and Joker, and is on par with Federer and Murray as far as talent goes. Yet Safin never had good results against Roger (despite one popular semi final). People beat a past-prime Roger today exactly like Roger beat a past-prime Pete back then. I'm not taking anything away from Sampras, he's an amazing player and he hold the record, and righfuly so. Who had the tougher era? Who knows? I would say every era was equally balanced with some very tough competition, and I'm happy I live in a time where I could watch both the Sampras/Agassi era AND the Roger Federer era.


Safin is more talented?? OK.. But whats he done with his talent? Besides win 2 slams and going AWOL for half a decade? Same goes for Nalbandian.. where has he been the last 5-6 years at the slams? I havent seen him. Have you? Ohh thats right losing to bums


As for as Im concerned Nadal did not reach his Prime-Peak whatever you call it before last year. If you want to debate that go right ahead. But Nadal has proven NOW unlike BEFORE he can win almost everywheres now. 04-06 he couldnt. He was new to the wimbeldon scene and was mainly just a great clay court player. He was nowhere near the level he is today.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:31 PM
You claim Pete wasn't in his prime from 2000-2002, but he still reached slam finals. What is the difference? Just watch a Fed video from 2004, and tell me that the player today is as good as then. Federer is not in his prime anymore, he is just still good enough to beat most of the tour, like Sampras was.


Difference is Pete was 29-31 during those times. Fed is only 27 mind you. And Roger is reaching the slam finals of ever slam losing to only one player. Sampras was almost out of the picture during the 00-02 timeframe except for some big runs at the USO. Outside of that. Sampras' results dropped big time.

JeMar
03-28-2009, 03:31 PM
He relinquished it faster than lightning as soon as Nadal hit his prime.


I didnt say I had PROOF that Fed's era 04-07 era was weaker than others . I think its just common knowledge. At least among people with brains.

Crap becomes common knowledge after copious amount of evidence is presented, not when enough people ramble it to themselves.


And oh boy...

Sampras had losing records against three players, including Paul Haarhuis (.25 winning percentage, Federer has a winning percentage of .310 against Nadal.)

THE GOAT... IS A LIE!!!

Unless.. Paul Haarhuis is the one and only true GOAT!!!.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:33 PM
Crap becomes common knowledge after copious amount of evidence is presented, not when enough people ramble it to themselves.


And oh boy...

Sampras had losing records against three playuers, including Paul Haarhuis (.25 winning percentage, Federer has a winning percentage of .310 against Nadal.)

THE GOAT... IS A LIE!!!

Unless.. Paul Haarhuis is the one and only true GOAT!!!.


we werent talking about Pete. We were talking about Mac's era opposed to Fed's era. Do you want to say Fed had a more competitive field to play against then Johnny Mac did too?


Sampras had some losing records in minimal accounts to various players. Fed does too in case you didnt know. But did Sampras have a pathetic record to his rival? Especially in the slams finals?? NOPE

JeMar
03-28-2009, 03:35 PM
we werent talking about Pete. We were talking about Mac's era opposed to Fed's era. Do you want to say Fed had a more competitive field to play against then Johnny Mac did too?

So, by choosing to ignore what I'm saying, are you saying Federer had a field that was just as strong as Pete's?

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:37 PM
So, by choosing to ignore what I'm saying, are you saying Federer had a field that was just as strong as Pete's?

I didnt say that either. IMO no he didnt. At least not the early part of pete's career where he began his rise. 93-96 or so. From then on I suppose you could say Fed-Sampras' competition was about even.

I also mentioned before in the previous post:

Sampras had some losing records in minimal accounts to various players. Fed does too in case you didnt know. But did Sampras have a pathetic record to his rival? Especially in the slams finals?? NOPE

VivalaVida
03-28-2009, 03:37 PM
I still would like to know how you consider Fed not to be in his prime still since he has reached every slam final imaginable?

Its obvious Nadal was not in his prime 04-07. Since he could barely make a DENT at the HC slams losing to the likes of Ferrer and Youzhny etc.

Fed is still in his prime. Until proven otherwise at the slams. The only difference is Nadal has hit his which means loss after loss for Roger
well your post makes sense too. I think Roger has certainly declined even if it is a small amount. Maybe you are right about Nadal being the sole reason federer is not winning slam. Anyways, it doesnt really matter, this has made tennis more interesting and all we can do now instead of arguing is wait and see how matches unfold in the future between federer and nadal

P_Agony
03-28-2009, 03:40 PM
Safin is more talented?? OK.. But whats he done with his talent? Besides win 2 slams and go AWOL for half a decade? Same goes for Nalbandian.. where has he been the last 5-6 years at the slams? I havent seen him. Have you? Ohh thats right losing to bums


As for as Im concerned Nadal did not reach his Prime-Peak whatever you call it before last year. If you want to debate that go right ahead. But Nadal has proven NOW unlike BEFORE he can win almost everywheres now. 04-06 he couldnt. He was new to the wimbeldon scene and was mainly just a great clay court player. He was nowhere near the level he is today.

I have actually seen both Nalbandian and Safin. I've seen Safin when Roger was beating him almost every match they played. I've seen Nalbandian when Roger took a losing record and turned it to a winning one.

The main difference from Nadal of before 2008 and current Nadal is his confidence. He's got the same confidence that the likes of Roger and Pete used to have and he's showing it by winning. It's his time now, and he's playing his best tennis. Sure, he improved his serve a bit and his backhand, but in return he's not as fast as the 04-06 Nadal. The fact Roger is way past his prime, plus has a mental problem against Nadal, and can still reach a GS final after a GS final and take Nadal to 5 is amazing, and shows just how consistent he is with good results. How about beating Djokovic and Murray back to back in the 2008 US Open? Was that a weak field too?

Hey, if we go by the "weak era" logic, then Nadal has a weak era too: Federer is past his prime, Djokovic is incosistent and usually can't breath, Del Potro is REALLY overrated and Simon is a new version of Hewitt. Murray is a choker, and his clay results are less than impressive, and Roddick, well he's from another era. Of course saying the field today is weak is a joke, just like saying Federer's field was weak is.

JeMar
03-28-2009, 03:42 PM
we werent talking about Pete. We were talking about Mac's era opposed to Fed's era. Do you want to say Fed had a more competitive field to play against then Johnny Mac did too?


Sampras had some losing records in minimal accounts to various players. Fed does too in case you didnt know. But did Sampras have a pathetic record to his rival? Especially in the slams finals?? NOPE

A loss is a loss is a loss.

If we're gonna talk about "common knowledge," like you're so apt to do without providing any proof whatsoever, it might be said that Federer's head-to-head against Nadal might not be so lopsided if Nadal hadn't been such an average-to-crappy fast court player when their rivalry was first starting up. They've played the vast majority of their early matches on Nadal's best surface because Nadal wasn't getting into the later rounds on fast courts. The conditions were heavily skewed in Nadal's favor and all the early losses got into Federer's head. Now that lack of confidence that began on clay has spread to other surfaces.

Sampras didn't have to play against the greatest clay court player of all time on clay.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:43 PM
A loss is a loss is a loss.

If we're gonna talk about "common knowledge," like you're so apt to do without providing any proof whatsoever, it might be said that Federer's head-to-head against Nadal might not be so lopsided if Nadal hadn't been such an average-to-crappy fast court player when their rivalry was first starting up. They've played the vast majority of their early matches on Nadal's best surface because Nadal wasn't getting into the later rounds on fast courts. The conditions were heavily skewed in Nadal's favor and all the early losses got into Federer's head. Now that lack of confidence that began on clay has spread to other surfaces.

Sampras didn't have to play against the greatest clay court player of all time on clay.



Then Explain Wimbeldon and the Australian? Is Nadal the greatest on both of them as well? It isnt just clay Fed is losing to nadal on

thejoe
03-28-2009, 03:44 PM
I have actually seen both Nalbandian and Safin. I've seen Safin when Roger was beating him almost every match they played. I've seen Nalbandian when Roger took a losing record and turned it to a winning one.

The main difference from Nadal of before 2008 and current Nadal is his confidence. He's got the same confidence that the likes of Roger and Pete used to have and he's showing it by winning. It's his time now, and he's playing his best tennis. Sure, he improved his serve a bit and his backhand, but in return he's not as fast as the 04-06 Nadal. The fact Roger is way past his prime, plus has a mental problem against Nadal, and can still reach a GS final after a GS final and take Nadal to 5 is amazing, and shows just how consistent he is with good results. How about beating Djokovic and Murray back to back in the 2008 US Open? Was that a weak field too?

Hey, if we go by the "weak era" logic, then Nadal has a weak era too: Federer is past his prime, Djokovic is incosistent and usually can't breath, Del Potro is REALLY overrated and Simon is a new version of Hewitt. Murray is a choker, and his clay results are less than impressive, and Roddick, well he's from another era. Of course saying the field today is weak is a joke, just like saying Federer's field was weak is.

Great post.

JeMar
03-28-2009, 03:46 PM
A loss is a loss is a loss.

If we're gonna talk about "common knowledge," like you're so apt to do without providing any proof whatsoever, it might be said that Federer's head-to-head against Nadal might not be so lopsided if Nadal hadn't been such an average-to-crappy fast court player when their rivalry was first starting up. They've played the vast majority of their early matches on Nadal's best surface because Nadal wasn't getting into the later rounds on fast courts. The conditions were heavily skewed in Nadal's favor and all the early losses got into Federer's head. Now that lack of confidence that began on clay has spread to other surfaces.

Sampras didn't have to play against the greatest clay court player of all time on clay.



Then Explain Wimbeldon and the Australian? Is Nadal the greatest on both of them as well? It isnt just clay Fed is losing to nadal on

Sure, I'd love to:

A loss is a loss is a loss.

If we're gonna talk about "common knowledge," like you're so apt to do without providing any proof whatsoever, it might be said that[B] Federer's head-to-head against Nadal might not be so lopsided if Nadal hadn't been such an average-to-crappy fast court player when their rivalry was first starting up. They've played the vast majority of their early matches on Nadal's best surface because Nadal wasn't getting into the later rounds on fast courts. The conditions were heavily skewed in Nadal's favor and all the early losses got into Federer's head. Now that lack of confidence that began on clay has spread to other surfaces.

Sampras didn't have to play against the greatest clay court player of all time on clay.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 03:49 PM
Difference is Pete was 29-31 during those times. Fed is only 27 mind you. And Roger is reaching the slam finals of ever slam losing to only one player. Sampras was almost out of the picture during the 00-02 timeframe except for some big runs at the USO. Outside of that. Sampras' results dropped big time.

Let me make this easy for everyone. It is clear that Game Sampras beleives that Sampras somehow had a better career.
So let me prove why Federer deserves to be ranked higher on GOAT lists than Sampras:

While Pete did spent about a year longer at # 1, Federer's streak for most #1 weeks in row is incredible. This shows that during his ultimate prime, Federer never wavered and never had bad streaks.;

Federer has won 3 slams in a year three times. sampras, never won more than 2 slams in a year. Over federer's 4 year dominance (04 - 07) he won 42 titles and lost only 24 matches. 12 of his wins were Masters. Only once (2007) was his winning % less than 90%

In Sampras's 6 year dominance won 43 titles and lost 84 matches. 8 wins were Masters. Also, his yearly winning % was never over federers worst year (2007)

Federer made 10 straight GS finals. I don't think Pete ever made 3 semi finals in a row

Those were the stats here are other comparisons.

federer began as a S&V player but adapted his game to play on clay. While pete had a deadly Forhand to add to his S&V, his backhand could be targeted. While Federer's backhand can make errors, he can make ridiculos passes from that wing

edberg505
03-28-2009, 03:49 PM
A loss is a loss is a loss.

If we're gonna talk about "common knowledge," like you're so apt to do without providing any proof whatsoever, it might be said that Federer's head-to-head against Nadal might not be so lopsided if Nadal hadn't been such an average-to-crappy fast court player when their rivalry was first starting up. They've played the vast majority of their early matches on Nadal's best surface because Nadal wasn't getting into the later rounds on fast courts. The conditions were heavily skewed in Nadal's favor and all the early losses got into Federer's head. Now that lack of confidence that began on clay has spread to other surfaces.

Sampras didn't have to play against the greatest clay court player of all time on clay.



Then Explain Wimbeldon and the Australian? Is Nadal the greatest on both of them as well? It isnt just clay Fed is losing to nadal on

I can explain it: Nadal>Federer>Pete thus Nadal is the GOAT!

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:50 PM
Sure, I'd love to:

A loss is a loss is a loss.

If we're gonna talk about "common knowledge," like you're so apt to do without providing any proof whatsoever, it might be said that[B] Federer's head-to-head against Nadal might not be so lopsided if Nadal hadn't been such an average-to-crappy fast court player when their rivalry was first starting up. They've played the vast majority of their early matches on Nadal's best surface because Nadal wasn't getting into the later rounds on fast courts. The conditions were heavily skewed in Nadal's favor and all the early losses got into Federer's head. Now that lack of confidence that began on clay has spread to other surfaces.

Sampras didn't have to play against the greatest clay court player of all time on clay.


I dunno what is going to take to prove to you guys.. That Nadal is just plain better than Roger. Confidence problems whatever... The last 3 of the 4 slams have been Nadal defeating Roger. Like you said a loss is a loss. But a win is a win. Nadal has been the winner. Fed the loser. Bottom line

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 03:51 PM
Oh and for those who say Federer cant even dominate his rival, well, Nadal could end up being just as good as fed, and of course, clay ruins the H2H

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:53 PM
Oh and for those who say Federer cant even dominate his rival, well, Nadal could end up being just as good as fed, and of course, clay ruins the H2H

And while Nadal continues to dominate Roger on a consistent basis the h2h wont be so scewed becuase of the clay.

So in the end it evens out. Nadal is better than Roger. End of story.

If Nadal had the wins over Roger at the non slams then I could see. But these are slam finals we are talking about. The biggest matches of all. Not Small tournaments

thejoe
03-28-2009, 03:54 PM
And while Nadal continues to dominate Roger on a consistent basis the h2h wont be so scewed becuase of the clay.

So in the end it evens out. Nadal is better than Roger. End of story

Now, yes. But better than Roger was? No.

tudwell
03-28-2009, 03:54 PM
Of course Nadal is better right now. But over all, Nadal has a lot more to achieve if he wants to become a better GOAT candidate than Federer.

JeMar
03-28-2009, 03:55 PM
I dunno what is going to take to prove to you guys.. That Nadal is just plain better than Roger. Confidence problems whatever... The last 3 of the 4 slams have been Nadal defeating Roger. Like you said a loss is a loss. But a win is a win. Nadal has been the winner. Fed the loser. Bottom line

We're talking about accomplishments, right? After all, that's what the ******** GOAT debate is focused on. As soon as Nadal wins ONE MORE major than Federer, I will be the first person to move his name ahead of Federer on my GOAT list. When he wins the calendar grand slam twice, I will finally have to bring Rod Laver down from his rung.

P_Agony
03-28-2009, 03:55 PM
Let me make this easy for everyone. It is clear that Game Sampras beleives that Sampras somehow had a better career.
So let me prove why Federer deserves to be ranked higher on GOAT lists than Sampras:

While Pete did spent about a year longer at # 1, Federer's streak for most #1 weeks in row is incredible. This shows that during his ultimate prime, Federer never wavered and never had bad streaks.;

Federer has won 3 slams in a year three times. sampras, never won more than 2 slams in a year. Over federer's 4 year dominance (04 - 07) he won 42 titles and lost only 24 matches. 12 of his wins were Masters. Only once (2007) was his winning % less than 90%

In Sampras's 6 year dominance won 43 titles and lost 84 matches. 8 wins were Masters. Also, his yearly winning % was never over federers worst year (2007)

Federer made 10 straight GS finals. I don't think Pete ever made 3 semi finals in a row

Those were the stats here are other comparisons.

federer began as a S&V player but adapted his game to play on clay. While pete had a deadly Forhand to add to his S&V, his backhand could be targeted. While Federer's backhand can make errors, he can make ridiculos passes from that wing

I wouldn't say Fed has/had a better career than Pete. I'd say it was a different career, for the better and worse. Federer was stronger in some stuff and Pete was in others. That's why I always said the GOAT thing is the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

At the end of the day, as a fan I don't care about the number of titles, the prize money, the winning %, or the H2Hs. All I care about is the moments, the great tennis, the big points, the ones you'll remember for the rest of your life. Both Fed and Pete delivered in that department, so how can I say one is better than the other? Why can't I say both are great in their own way?

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 03:57 PM
We're talking about accomplishments, right? After all, that's what the ******** GOAT debate is focused on. As soon as Nadal wins ONE MORE major than Federer, I will be the first person to move his name ahead of Federer on my GOAT list. When he wins the calendar grand slam twice, I will finally have to bring Rod Laver down from his rung.

And lets suppose for a fact the slams today consisted of both just grass and clay since 2008. Just as it did in Laver's time. What would Nadal's domination look like then? Greater than Lavers? Possibly. How many calendar slams do u think nadal would achieve or willl achieve? Nadal is doing it on Hardcourts also mind you. Not just grass and clay

edberg505
03-28-2009, 03:58 PM
And lets suppose for a fact the slams today consisted of both just grass and clay since 2008. Just as it did in Laver's time. What would Nadal's domination look like then? Greater than Lavers? Possibly. How many calendar slams do u think nadal would achieve. Nadal is doing it on Hardcourts also mind you. Not just grass and clay

And that's why Nadal is better than both Pete and Federer.

thejoe
03-28-2009, 03:59 PM
And lets suppose for a fact the slams today consisted of both just grass and clay since 2008. Just as it did in Laver's time. What would Nadal's domination look like then? Greater than Lavers? Possibly. How many calendar slams do u think nadal would achieve. Nadal is doing it on Hardcourts also mind you. Not just grass and clay

One minute you are using the current state of the Grass to diminish Roger's achievements, and the next, you are using it to talk up Rafa's. How insecure are you that perhaps both of them will overtake Sampras as GOAT candidates? I have seen you complaining about the homogenization of the surfaces, so in your book, what is Nadal doing that is so special?

JeMar
03-28-2009, 04:00 PM
And lets suppose for a fact the slams today consisted of both just grass and clay since 2008. Just as it did in Laver's time. What would Nadal's domination look like then? Greater than Lavers? Possibly. How many calendar slams do u think nadal would achieve or willl achieve? Nadal is doing it on Hardcourts also mind you. Not just grass and clay

Uh, none?

Federer still has a winning H2H against Nadal on grass courts and is by far a more accomplished grass court player, plus until 2009 had been just as dominant on grass as Nadal has been on clay.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:03 PM
Uh, none?

Federer still has a winning H2H against Nadal on grass courts and is by far a more accomplished grass court player, plus until 2009 had been just as dominant on grass as Nadal has been on clay.

If the 2008 slams consisted of just grass and clay.. Nadal may have very achieved it last year. Just as he could this year bearing some unfortunate injury. No one was or is going to take Nadal down on clay. Grass he is showing to be the best on that surface as well.

Its not fair to compare Laver's era which consisted of grass and clay court slams to those today where you need to win on two separate hc entities along with the grass and clay court surface.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 04:04 PM
Uh, none?

Federer still has a winning H2H against Nadal on grass courts and is by far a more accomplished grass court player, plus until 2009 had been just as dominant on grass as Nadal has been on clay.

Replace grass with hard and i think that would be ok. Becuase if you look at grass Nadal beat Fed in the ultimate clash of titans. That match alone was the single most impt match the two had played. Nadal had just embarresed federer at RG, and Fed was out for revenge, Nadal was threatening to takeeover the no 1 spot

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:05 PM
One minute you are using the current state of the Grass to diminish Roger's achievements, and the next, you are using it to talk up Rafa's. How insecure are you that perhaps both of them will overtake Sampras as GOAT candidates? I have seen you complaining about the homogenization of the surfaces, so in your book, what is Nadal doing that is so special?

Im not insecure about it all. If Fed doesnt take the GS slam title. Nadal very well could. Im trying to put some things into perspective here.

I dont think u can just base the GOAT on slam counts. It goes deeper than that

thejoe
03-28-2009, 04:06 PM
Im not insecure about it all. If Fed doesnt take the GS slam title. Nadal very well could. Im trying to put some things into perspective here.

I dont think u can just base the GOAT on slam counts. It goes deeper than that

Yet you still place Sampras ahead of Federer due to Slam count? That is all he has left going for him...

JeMar
03-28-2009, 04:09 PM
If the 2008 slams consisted of just grass and clay.. Nadal may have very achieved it last year. Just as he could this year bearing some unfortunate injury. No one was or is going to take Nadal down on clay. Grass he is showing to be the best on that surface as well.

Its not fair to compare Laver's era which consisted of grass and clay court slams to those today where you need to win on two separate hc entities along with the grass and clay court surface.

If the 2003-2007 seasons consisted of just grass and hard courts, Federer may have very well achieved one or two (or four) grand slams during those four years. What's your point? Every era and every career is different because of different circumstances.

You know, I'm part of the school of thought that believes there is no answer to who the GOAT is, and this is why.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:09 PM
Yet you still place Sampras ahead of Federer due to Slam count? That is all he has left going for him...

Sampras has the number 1 record of 6 years. Longer than Fed. He was never dominated by a player at the slams as Nadal has dominated Fed nor the abysmal h2h record. He has 7 Wimbeldon titles in 8 years. 5 USO's and 2 AO's. Managed to win a slam even at 31 years of age and had the deeper competition to compete against overrall IMO

No French Open titles. But of course Neither does Fed right?

thejoe
03-28-2009, 04:13 PM
Yes, but Federer has three finals, and four losses to perhaps the greatest clay court player ever. And before you give your usual rant about the strength of the field in Pete's day, I would like to point out that it is impossible for the depth of the field to be great when you are playing in an era where you are still rewarded for serve-volley. Pete's sole clay court title was against Boris Becker, a serve-volleying Wimbledon champion. An era where Stefan Edberg reaches a RG final cannot be that great, right? :rolleyes:

edberg505
03-28-2009, 04:15 PM
Sampras has the number 1 record of 6 years. Longer than Fed. He was never dominated by a player at the slams as Nadal has dominated Fed nor the abysmal h2h record. He has 7 Wimbeldon titles in 8 years. 5 USO's and 2 AO's. Managed to win a slam even at 31 years of age.

No French Open titles. But of course Neither does Fed right?

Not entirely true, he has the record for the year end number 1 which is hardly an impressive feat when you think about it. Especially when there wasn't really a consistent performer in the slams for him to really compete against for the year end number one.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:15 PM
Yes, but Federer has three finals, and four losses to perhaps the greatest clay court player ever. And before you give your usual rant about the strength of the field in Pete's day, I would like to point out that it is impossible for the depth of the field to be great when you are playing in an era where you are still rewarded for serve-volley. Pete's sole clay court title was against Boris Becker, a serve-volleying Wimbledon champion. An era where Stefan Edberg reaches a RG final cannot be that great, right? :rolleyes:

I want to give my usual rant on the clay court competition today as opposed to the 90s but I will digress. LOL.

Lets just leave it at that.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:16 PM
Not entirely true, he has the record for the year end number 1 which is hardly an impressive feat when you think about it. Especially when there wasn't really a consistent performer in the slams for him to really compete against for the year end number one.

Why is it not true. Its gone down in the history book as so.. Whatever the circumstance. It still happened. And there is no proof to say that Nadal wouldnt be blasted off the court by Pete outside of clay

thejoe
03-28-2009, 04:16 PM
I want to give my usual rant on the clay court competition today as opposed to the 90s but I will digress. LOL.

Lets just leave it at that.

Btw, I'm just trying to push your buttons. I know there were some great clay-courters, but it seems that everyone is a baseliner, or a clay-courter today.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:18 PM
Btw, I'm just trying to push your buttons. I know there were some great clay-courters, but it seems that everyone is a baseliner, or a clay-courter today.


It is.. And its sickening really from a fan like myself who prefers the diversity in play. Thats why I enjoyed the 90s and the 80s much more.( From what I saw on youtube from the 80s since I didnt begin watching until the 90s) Some found serve-volley boring. What I find boring is the homogenize play and 5 hour long baseline borefests. A mixture of both would be nice.

msc886
03-28-2009, 04:19 PM
Federer should be happy he won so many slams during a weak era when Nadal and Murray weren't around. ;)

That's like saying Nadal should be happy he won so many French Opens in a weak clay field. i mean Federer was the 2nd best clay player at the time and you could hardly call him a clay court specialist.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 04:20 PM
Sampras has the number 1 record of 6 years. Longer than Fed. He was never dominated by a player at the slams as Nadal has dominated Fed nor the abysmal h2h record. He has 7 Wimbeldon titles in 8 years. 5 USO's and 2 AO's. Managed to win a slam even at 31 years of age and had the deeper competition to compete against overrall IMO

No French Open titles. But of course Neither does Fed right?

Quality beats Quantity

10sdude85
03-28-2009, 04:20 PM
[QUOTE=rubberduckies;3260091]Roger should be HONORED every time he plays Nadal. He should be grateful that he is able to share a court with the best player of his era. Roger knows he isn't talented enough to beat Nadal, but he has known this since the beginning when Rafa demolished him in Miami 2004.

Roger thought, "wow, here's a kid who came out of nowhere to destroy me with talent alone. I'm already World #1 and a multiple slam winner. My game won't get much better than this, and his game won't get much worse. Even his worst is better than my best. Wow. He can do so many things and make so many genius shots that a poor talentless clown like me could never do. Good thing he's still young - hopefully, I can get at least 5 wins off him before I'm through."

Good news for Roger: he's done that and more. He has 6 wins over a far superior player. Granted, those wins came before Nadal really found his game, but beating a man with much better abilities is an achievement nonetheless. Roger has tried many things over the years to try to compete with Rafa, but he lacks to abilities to execute at a level capable of getting a win. With sheer mental focus and willpower, Federer was able to steal a couple of matches from Nadal at Miami 05 and Wimby 07, and, really, that's all a guy like Federer can hope for. Nowadays, he should count his blessings every time Nadal honors his legacy by blasting passing shots and winners from all over the court against him. In his heart, Fed knows that losing to Nadal isn't really losing.[/QUOTE

Man.....you have no idea what your talking about...

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:20 PM
Quality beats Quantity

Hmmm.. Thats your opinion.

icedevil0289
03-28-2009, 04:20 PM
It is.. And its sickening really from a fan like myself who prefers the diversity in play. Thats why I enjoyed the 90s and the 80s much more.( From what I saw on youtube from the 80s since I didnt begin watching until the 90s) Some found serve-volley boring. What I find boring is the homogenize play and 5 hour long baseline borefests. A mixture of both would be nice.

I definitely agree with you there. Some diversity would be nice and I'm sorry, but they should really speed up wimbledon again.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:24 PM
I definitely agree with you there. Some diversity would be nice and I'm sorry, but they should really speed up wimbledon again.

Yea but I dont think we are going to get it. These young guys would need to be trained in the basics of the serve-volley game. From the looks of it now.. This is the avenue tennis is going. I think there is a reason they slowed most of the courts down and just discontinued the indoor carpets. Its really sad. But what can u do..

JeMar
03-28-2009, 04:29 PM
Sampras has the number 1 record of 6 years. Longer than Fed. He was never dominated by a player at the slams as Nadal has dominated Fed nor the abysmal h2h record. He has 7 Wimbeldon titles in 8 years. 5 USO's and 2 AO's. Managed to win a slam even at 31 years of age and had the deeper competition to compete against overrall IMO

No French Open titles. But of course Neither does Fed right?

Hmm, well, let's give it a shot.

Federer has the most consecutive weeks at number 1, with an advantage of about 80 weeks;

Federer won 5 Wimbledons in 5 years, losing less than 5 (I think?) sets during that time span;

only player in history to win at least three grand slams three times each;

only male player to win 5 U.S. Opens and 5 Wimbledons;

won his first 12 grand slam finals when not playing on clay against the greatest clay court player of all time;

won 4 TMC in 5 years; has 3 more TMS titles than Sampras;

held a 65-match winning streak on grass, and only had to go to five sets once (against Sampras);

held a 26-match winning streak against top ten opponents;

held a 56-match winning streak on hard courts, and then another 36-match winning streak;

won 24 tournament finals in a row (mentally weak lol);

win-loss records... 2004: 74-6, 2005: 81-4, 2006: 92-5; In 2006, Federer reached the final in 16 of the 17 tournaments he played, setting a new record of 94.1 percent finals appearances;

From 2004 through 2006, Federer won 94.3 percent of his singles matches (247-15) and 69.4 percent of the singles tournaments he entered (34 titles in 49 tournaments, including eight of
twelve Grand Slam tournaments).

Even Sampras has said that Federer dominated in a way that Sampras never could, and he never said anything about the men's field being weaker.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 04:29 PM
Yea but I dont think we are going to get it. These young guys would need to be trained in the basics of the serve-volley game. From the looks of it now.. This is the avenue tennis is going. I think there is a reason they slowed most of the courts down and just discontinued the indoor carpets. Its really sad. But what can u do..

Now you need an all around game to win big tournaments. As much as i like all round games, Wimbledon does need to sped up

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:30 PM
Hmm, well, let's give it a shot. Federer has the most consecutive weeks at number 1, with an advantage of about 80 weeks; Federer won 5 Wimbledons in 5 years, losing less than 5 (I think?) sets during that time span; only player in history to win at least three grand slams three times each; only male player to win 5 U.S. Opens and 5 Wimbledons; won his first 12 grand slam finals when not playing on clay against the greatest clay court player of all time; won 4 TMC in 5 years; has 3 more TMS titles than Sampras; held a 65-match winning streak on grass, and only had to go to five sets once (against Sampras); held a 26-match winning streak against top ten opponents; held a 56-match winning streak on hard courts, and then another 36-match winning streak; won 24 tournament finals in a row (mentally weak lol); win-loss records... 2004: 74-6, 2005: 81-4, 2006: 92-5; In 2006, Federer reached the final in 16 of the 17 tournaments he played, setting a new record of 94.1 percent finals appearances; From 2004 through 2006, Federer won 94.3 percent of his singles matches (247-15) and 69.4 percent of the singles tournaments he entered (34 titles in 49 tournaments, including eight of twelve Grand Slam tournaments).

Even Sampras has said that Federer dominated in a way that Sampras never could, and he never said anything about the men's field being weaker.


Fed did have a PERIOD of dominance probably unmatched by any player in the last 20-30 years. Does that mean he has the greater career when all is said and done? Who knows.



I like to factor longevity in as well.

P_Agony
03-28-2009, 04:31 PM
10sdude85:

Hey, look at my post in the same page. I fixed his post.

JeMar
03-28-2009, 04:32 PM
It is.. And its sickening really from a fan like myself who prefers the diversity in play. Thats why I enjoyed the 90s and the 80s much more.( From what I saw on youtube from the 80s since I didnt begin watching until the 90s) Some found serve-volley boring. What I find boring is the homogenize play and 5 hour long baseline borefests. A mixture of both would be nice.

I'm totally with you here.

JeMar
03-28-2009, 04:33 PM
Fed did have a PERIOD of dominance probably unmatched by any player in the last 20-30 years. Does that mean he has the greater career when all is said and done? Who knows.



I like to factor longevity in as well.

Right-o, so let's just let this thread die and I'll necrobump it the day Federer retires.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:34 PM
Hmm, well, let's give it a shot.

Federer has the most consecutive weeks at number 1, with an advantage of about 80 weeks;

Federer won 5 Wimbledons in 5 years, losing less than 5 (I think?) sets during that time span;

only player in history to win at least three grand slams three times each;

only male player to win 5 U.S. Opens and 5 Wimbledons;

won his first 12 grand slam finals when not playing on clay against the greatest clay court player of all time;

won 4 TMC in 5 years; has 3 more TMS titles than Sampras;

held a 65-match winning streak on grass, and only had to go to five sets once (against Sampras);

held a 26-match winning streak against top ten opponents;

held a 56-match winning streak on hard courts, and then another 36-match winning streak;

won 24 tournament finals in a row (mentally weak lol);

win-loss records... 2004: 74-6, 2005: 81-4, 2006: 92-5; In 2006, Federer reached the final in 16 of the 17 tournaments he played, setting a new record of 94.1 percent finals appearances;

From 2004 through 2006, Federer won 94.3 percent of his singles matches (247-15) and 69.4 percent of the singles tournaments he entered (34 titles in 49 tournaments, including eight of
twelve Grand Slam tournaments).

Even Sampras has said that Federer dominated in a way that Sampras never could, and he never said anything about the men's field being weaker.



You're wrong about that. Sampras implied it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbMlFKxcEUE&feature=related

At 7:28

He said there are alot of good players today.. But there isnt many GREAT PLAYERS. When asked about about which era he would like to of played in

icedevil0289
03-28-2009, 04:34 PM
Yea but I dont think we are going to get it. These young guys would need to be trained in the basics of the serve-volley game. From the looks of it now.. This is the avenue tennis is going. I think there is a reason they slowed most of the courts down and just discontinued the indoor carpets. Its really sad. But what can u do..

get used to tennis where we will be seeing more unforced errors than winners? :( lol

JeMar
03-28-2009, 04:37 PM
You're wrong about that. Sampras implied it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbMlFKxcEUE&feature=related

At 7:28

He said there are alot of good players today.. But there isnt many GREAT PLAYERS. When asked about about which era he would like of played in

Dang, foiled.

Well, a part of me believes it's only natural to look back on your past with rose-colored glasses. Kinda like those old people that always say that things were better back in the day, even though they have no clue as to what they're talking about.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:39 PM
Dang, foiled.

Well, a part of me believes it's only natural to look back on your past with rose-colored glasses. Kinda like those old people that always say that things were better back in the day, even though they have no clue as to what they're talking about.

Well it was tying it into the state of american men's tennis today compared to his era. I think we can agree its much weaker than the 90s cant we? I mean Roddick, Blake are no Pete, Courier, Andre.

Its a tough time being an american tennis fan.

clayman2000
03-28-2009, 04:41 PM
Thats comparing American Tennis.

Federer is todays Sampras
Hewitt is todays courier -- in terms of accomplishmnet
Nadal is todays Andre

JeMar
03-28-2009, 04:43 PM
Oh, you'd have to be mad to argue that American tennis is as good now as it used to be. What I was referring to was the state of the world game, which I don't think is as ****-poor as some people make it out to be just because Federer was winning everything under the sun.

thejoe
03-28-2009, 04:44 PM
American tennis isn't even that weak now, it was just exceptionally strong before. They were the Spain of today, but perhaps had even better players.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:45 PM
Oh, you'd have to be mad to argue that American tennis is as good now as it used to be. What I was referring to was the state of the world game, which I don't think is as ****-poor as some people make it out to be just because Federer was winning everything under the sun.

But do u really believe Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Blake, and all the other formildable opponents,(worth mentioning at the time) would have had much more success in any other era than they did 04-07

I would assume Safin and Nalbandian would stay headcases and inconsistent. A headcase is a headcase. IMO. Roddick.. Still I dont see how his game wouldnt be picked apart by any other great. Be it a Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Borg etc. Hewitt. Im not sure on that.

JeMar
03-28-2009, 04:46 PM
Thats comparing American Tennis.

Federer is todays Sampras
Hewitt is todays courier -- in terms of accomplishmnet
Nadal is todays Andre

That's a funky comparison.

Hewitt accomplished a little over half of what Courier did.

Nadal couldn't be more different than Andre, both in their approach to the game and in their relationship to their "Sampras."

thejoe
03-28-2009, 04:47 PM
^Perhaps. The 90's was an era dominated by big servers. I think he would have had a shout at the Open.

JeMar
03-28-2009, 04:52 PM
But do u really believe Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Blake, and all the other formildable opponents,(worth mentioning at the time) would have had much more success in any other era than they did 04-07

I would assume Safin and Nalbandian would stay headcases and inconsistent. A headcase is a headcase. IMO. Roddick.. Still I dont see how his game wouldnt be picked apart by any other great. Be it a Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Borg etc. Hewitt. Im not sure on that.

I believe Roddick may have lucked his way into one grand slam, especially with the way he played in 2003. The inspired tennis he played at the 2003 AO may have been enough to take out Schuttler and then Agassi in the final if he hadn't been dead-tired.

Hewitt one major playing against Sampras, so I wouldn't discount his ability to grind his way into one or two slams.

Safin, during a good run would've beaten anybody in the world, as he showed against an in-form Sampras.

Blake sucks now, and would've sucked no matter when he played.

Nalbandian's kinda like Safin.

These are just speculations, and I really have no proof one way or the other, aside from Safin's and Hewitt's matches with Pete and Andre.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 04:56 PM
Im sorry.. It could be me.. maybe Im stubborn at assessing the true situation of things. But whether Fed at his peak 04-07 was dominant as he was or not. It doesnt negate the fact, IMO, that during that small timeframe of an era that it was one of the weaker eras tennis has seen.

Im sure many will continue to disagree with me on that matter. But IMO. Murray even on HC's could have been a formidable opponent to Roger. He did defeat Roger in 2006 I believe and gave roger one of his few losses that year. So he did possess the game to defeat Roger on hards even back then. If Nadal had hit his prime back then, I still say he takes some slams away from Roger other than the French.

I just dont see how Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Nalbandian. Safin, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Davydenko would have fared ANY BETTER in a different a time frame than they did during that respective time.

I just dont see it. I dont look at that crew of players and see a tough field. I look at that.. And I say. Its just not that strong compared to other eras.

Regardless of Fed's domination

JeMar
03-28-2009, 04:58 PM
The thing is, though, that only two of those players managed to squeak out a major because of Federer's dominance. We might have a very different opinion of them if Federer hadn't made them look like losers. As it stands, they didn't fare very well in this era!

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 04:59 PM
Roger should be HONORED every time he plays Nadal. He should be grateful that he is able to share a court with the best player of his era. Roger knows he isn't talented enough to beat Nadal, but he has known this since the beginning when Rafa demolished him in Miami 2004.

Roger thought, "wow, here's a kid who came out of nowhere to destroy me with talent alone. I'm already World #1 and a multiple slam winner. My game won't get much better than this, and his game won't get much worse. Even his worst is better than my best. Wow. He can do so many things and make so many genius shots that a poor talentless clown like me could never do. Good thing he's still young - hopefully, I can get at least 5 wins off him before I'm through."

Good news for Roger: he's done that and more. He has 6 wins over a far superior player. Granted, those wins came before Nadal really found his game, but beating a man with much better abilities is an achievement nonetheless. Roger has tried many things over the years to try to compete with Rafa, but he lacks to abilities to execute at a level capable of getting a win. With sheer mental focus and willpower, Federer was able to steal a couple of matches from Nadal at Miami 05 and Wimby 07, and, really, that's all a guy like Federer can hope for. Nowadays, he should count his blessings every time Nadal honors his legacy by blasting passing shots and winners from all over the court against him. In his heart, Fed knows that losing to Nadal isn't really losing.

This is exactly correct, I nominate for post of the year, good job.

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 05:04 PM
I believe Roddick may have lucked his way into one grand slam, especially with the way he played in 2003. The inspired tennis he played at the 2003 AO may have been enough to take out Schuttler and then Agassi in the final if he hadn't been dead-tired.

Hewitt one major playing against Sampras, so I wouldn't discount his ability to grind his way into one or two slams.

Safin, during a good run would've beaten anybody in the world, as he showed against an in-form Sampras.

Blake sucks now, and would've sucked no matter when he played.

Nalbandian's kinda like Safin.

These are just speculations, and I really have no proof one way or the other, aside from Safin's and Hewitt's matches with Pete and Andre.

Roddick would have been very lucky to even take a set off Agassi at the Australian Open, remember Agassi beat Sampras in the 1995 Australian Open Final and the 2000 Australian Open Semi-Final, it was his bread and butter, in fact Agassi beat Joachim Johansson at the 2005 Australian Open in FOUR SETS 6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 6-4 despite Johansson's record 51 aces:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/agassi-survives-ordeal-by-aces-as-johansson-serves-record-51-488062.html

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 05:09 PM
You know its odd. Agassi didnt play the AO for a quite a few years there and thats where he performed his best I thought. Beating Pete TWICE and then a few other titles there. Go figure.

Andre was a just a machine there when he was on.

JeMar
03-28-2009, 05:10 PM
Roddick would have been very lucky to even take a set off Agassi at the Australian Open, remember Agassi beat Sampras in the 1995 Australian Open Final and the 2000 Australian Open Semi-Final, it was his bread and butter, in fact Agassi beat Joachim Johansson at the 2005 Australian Open in FOUR SETS 6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 6-4 despite Johansson's record 51 aces:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/agassi-survives-ordeal-by-aces-as-johansson-serves-record-51-488062.html

Yep, I saw that match. Roddick was much more of a beast off the ground back then.

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 06:47 PM
You know its odd. Agassi didnt play the AO for a quite a few years there and thats where he performed his best I thought. Beating Pete TWICE and then a few other titles there. Go figure.

Andre was a just a machine there when he was on.

Yeah I know Agassi won 4 Australian Opens and he didn't play the Australian Open until 1995, so I figure he would have won a couple more slams had he wanted to start his year a bit sooner. Although you never know, maybe he would have retired earlier if he was dedicated before 1995, or maybe not we will never know.

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 06:50 PM
I certainly wouldnt call Roddick or Hewitt "strong" competition when u look back at some of other eras. Sure they were solid.

But...

I dont how anyone would consider Fed's competition 04-06 strong. There were some good players in that era. But I would never call Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Nalbandian and down the line "great players" by any stretch of the imagination. And Agassi was around 35 years old at that point crippled with Sciatica. Safin and Nalby were as inconsistent as inconsistent could get though both had great talent.


Hewitt's wheels fell of pretty quickly due to injuries. Roddick... well hes been a consistent player. But its no secret the kid has always had many holes in his game to exploit.

Nadal at that time could maintain a #2 ranking in the world and making a name for himself on clay the majority of the time while many aspects of his game left much to be desired.


Now that he has tweaked his game and has become a multi-surfaced player. He is the best in the world. Its no coincidence.

Prime Nadal is 10 times a more formidable opponent than Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, Ljubicic, Blake, Baghaditis, Gonzales ever were.

Early-mid 00's was one of the more weaker era's in history in terms of great players. THis era is shaping to be more promising.. But again. As of now. There are still only 2 great players IMO. Fed-Nadal. Since they are the two at this point who bring their A games to the slams and wins when it matters most. Djoker was on the right track. Hes plummeting a bit. Murray has yet to prove his worth at the slams
Great post, I agree 100%!
Federer should be happy everytime he plays Nadal or Murray because it means he made the semi or final again! That is something he should really appreciate for what it's worth because even he should be aware that it's not gonna last forever. He'd better enjoy the moments while he can...

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 06:54 PM
I never said Nadal had a no variety. I said his style is a lot more defensive and grinding than most of the other players.
Then you haven't watched any of Nadal's recent matches. And you haven't looked at all at his new serve either.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 06:57 PM
Come to think it.. was of Safin even apart of that era? LOL He showed up when? The 05 Australian Open? Where was he the rest of the time? Nalbandian showed up very rarely. Once in the Master's. But I cant seem to think of any time Nalby was making impressive showings at the slams. The only consistent challengers were the likes of Hewitt and Roddick. And Hewitt was plagued by injuries by 05 or 06 and never recovered again.

Safin was off the radar so much i forgot he even existed. I cant believe he even made a run at the AO much less win it. People will dog Pete's era but at least Andre showed back up and better than ever. Safin just DISAPPEARED

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 06:59 PM
Hmm, well, let's give it a shot.

Federer has the most consecutive weeks at number 1, with an advantage of about 80 weeks;

Federer won 5 Wimbledons in 5 years, losing less than 5 (I think?) sets during that time span;

only player in history to win at least three grand slams three times each;

only male player to win 5 U.S. Opens and 5 Wimbledons;

won his first 12 grand slam finals when not playing on clay against the greatest clay court player of all time;

won 4 TMC in 5 years; has 3 more TMS titles than Sampras;

held a 65-match winning streak on grass, and only had to go to five sets once (against Sampras);

held a 26-match winning streak against top ten opponents;

held a 56-match winning streak on hard courts, and then another 36-match winning streak;

won 24 tournament finals in a row (mentally weak lol);

win-loss records... 2004: 74-6, 2005: 81-4, 2006: 92-5; In 2006, Federer reached the final in 16 of the 17 tournaments he played, setting a new record of 94.1 percent finals appearances;

From 2004 through 2006, Federer won 94.3 percent of his singles matches (247-15) and 69.4 percent of the singles tournaments he entered (34 titles in 49 tournaments, including eight of
twelve Grand Slam tournaments).

Even Sampras has said that Federer dominated in a way that Sampras never could, and he never said anything about the men's field being weaker.
What do you mean "only male player who won 5 Wimbledons and 5 USOs"? Sampras won 7 Wimbledons and 5 USOs. Or did you mean best record over 2 slams? Borg also won 6 RGs and 5 Wimbledons.
And just for the trivia bit, those match winning streaks are nice but the record for match winning streak on 1 surface goes to Nadal with an 81 match streak (on clay)

icedevil0289
03-28-2009, 07:07 PM
What do you mean "only male player who won 5 Wimbledons and 5 USOs"? Sampras won 7 Wimbledons and 5 USOs. Or did you mean best record over 2 slams? Borg also won 6 RGs and 5 Wimbledons.
And just for the trivia bit, those match winning streaks are nice but the record for match winning streak on 1 surface goes to Nadal with an 81 match streak (on clay)

true and I believe fed was the one who stopped it. Although, I suppose you're going to tell me nadal was tired during that match.

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 07:09 PM
Not entirely true, he has the record for the year end number 1 which is hardly an impressive feat when you think about it. Especially when there wasn't really a consistent performer in the slams for him to really compete against for the year end number one.
Year end #1 for 6 years is not an impressive feat? :shock:
I really wonder why nobody else has ever done it then :???:

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 07:37 PM
I think Nadal has a good chance at year ending number one record, he is so dedicated and takes every month of the season seriously, he will finish number one ever year till he's 30.

GameSampras
03-28-2009, 07:39 PM
I think Nadal has a good chance at year ending number one record, he is so dedicated and takes every month of the season seriously, he will finish number one ever year till he's 30.

Oh if he stays healthy and focused no doubt he will end this year at number 1. I dunno about the until he is 30 part. Doubt his body can hold up that long

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 07:41 PM
true and I believe fed was the one who stopped it. Although, I suppose you're going to tell me nadal was tired during that match.
Ha ha it doesn't matter if Nadal was tired or not, Federer did end the streak and although it's no consolation for losing RG so many times, it must have felt sweet for Roger and just sheer relief to finally beat Rafa on clay...

icedevil0289
03-28-2009, 07:43 PM
Ha ha it doesn't matter if Nadal was tired or not, Federer did end the streak and although it's no consolation for losing RG so many times, it must have felt sweet for Roger and just sheer relief to finally beat Rafa on clay...

yeah. It is interesting, they both ended each other's streaks. Nadal ended roger' streak on grass, I think it was 61 matches or something like that and roger ended nadal's streak on clay. Although nadal's win was more special.

edberg505
03-28-2009, 07:59 PM
Year end #1 for 6 years is not an impressive feat? :shock:
I really wonder why nobody else has ever done it then :???:

I just think that nearly 5 consecutive years of being #1 week in and week out is a bit more impressive. Sure 6 years as the year end number one is a great feat I just happen to think 5 years with out letting go of it is amazing. That means you have to be there week in and week out every single month. One shows consistency and the other shows consistency and dominance.

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 08:04 PM
I just think that nearly 5 consecutive years of being #1 week in and week out is a bit more impressive. Sure 6 years as the year end number one is a great feat I just happen to think 5 years with out letting go of it is amazing. That means you have to be there week in and week out every single month. One shows consistency and the other shows consistency and dominance.
Sure but when everything is said and done total # of weeks at #1 will still prevail. Fed's run was mindboggling and unique but he needs to somehow get the #1 back for a while to be the best #1 ever. Otherwise he will be seen as the guy with the most amazing run in his prime but a little short on the longevity side. At least that's my take on things. I know most Federer fans will probably find reasons to disagree...

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 08:04 PM
Oh if he stays healthy and focused no doubt he will end this year at number 1. I dunno about the until he is 30 part. Doubt his body can hold up that long

Yeah if his body holds up, same applies to everyone else on tour, but the diffierence between Nadal and everyone else is he never loses focus so that part of the equation is already taken care of. Even an exhibition event is a big deal to Nadal. That attitude is what ultimately makes him more likely to stay number one for 7 years than any player ever to play. He doesn't have those low-points of the year the way Sampras did now and then.

Serve_Ace
03-28-2009, 08:05 PM
No.....Federer will go down in history with more than just "that guy who had a amazing run in his prime"

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 08:07 PM
Federer will be remembered the same as Borg, maybe even with an early retirement too.

danb
03-28-2009, 08:09 PM
Murray and Fed's head to head would look a little different if they met on grass and clay, Roger would thrash Murray on those surfaces but Murray isn't good enough to go deep into clay tourenments.

We heard these excuses with Nadal instead of Murray. AT this point Murray is just a better player than Fed. Anytime any surface. When Fed will get it (if ever) their H2H will look even more lopsided.

edberg505
03-28-2009, 08:12 PM
No.....Federer will go down in history with more than just "that guy who had a amazing run in his prime"

Yeah, I'd like to think so too. I know "GameSampras" likes to think that Sampras poops Tiffany cufflinks, but I don't think the great Sampras would have had the percentage wins that Federer had during his period of domination.

edberg505
03-28-2009, 08:13 PM
Federer will be remembered the same as Borg, maybe even with an early retirement too.

LOL, yeah, let's see how Nadal is doing at 27/28.

JeMar
03-28-2009, 08:13 PM
What do you mean "only male player who won 5 Wimbledons and 5 USOs"? Sampras won 7 Wimbledons and 5 USOs. Or did you mean best record over 2 slams? Borg also won 6 RGs and 5 Wimbledons.
And just for the trivia bit, those match winning streaks are nice but the record for match winning streak on 1 surface goes to Nadal with an 81 match streak (on clay)

I used Wiki. I think it's only male player to win five consecutive Wimbledons and 5 consecutive U.S. Opens.

edberg505
03-28-2009, 08:14 PM
We heard these excuses with Nadal instead of Murray. AT this point Murray is just a better player than Fed. Anytime any surface. When Fed will get it (if ever) their H2H will look even more lopsided.

So you are saying that Murray will at least play Federer this year at Wimbledon?

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 08:15 PM
^^ Sampras wasn't in an era that could be dominated completely (if we're talking about the 90s). Sampras did about all a player could do in an extremely sttrong era, and his GOAT serve allowed him to stand out. I don't see anything in Federer's game that would have stood out and allowed him to dominate the 90s.

Serve_Ace
03-28-2009, 08:15 PM
Yeah, I'd like to think so too. I know "GameSampras" likes to think that Sampras poops Tiffany cufflinks, but I don't think the great Sampras would have had the percentage wins that Federer had during his period of domination.

Yeah, the mere fact that Roger was just going through his draws like a hot knife through butter, winning 3 of the 4 slams, almost every single time.

Serve_Ace
03-28-2009, 08:17 PM
^^ Sampras wasn't in an era that could be dominated completely (if we're talking about the 90s). Sampras did about all a player could do in an extremely sttrong era, and his GOAT serve allowed him to stand out. I don't see anything in Federer's game that would have stood out and allowed him to dominate the 90s.

His forehand, court creativity, the shots that he just invents out of thin air.

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 08:17 PM
LOL, yeah, let's see how Nadal is doing at 27/28.

The diffierence between Nadal and everyone else is he never loses focus so that part of the equation is already taken care of. Even an exhibition event is a big deal to Nadal. That attitude is what will make Nadal dominant at 27+, it is quite the opposite attitude of Federer.

Serve_Ace
03-28-2009, 08:20 PM
The diffierence between Nadal and everyone else is he never loses focus so that part of the equation is already taken care of. Even an exhibition event is a big deal to Nadal. That attitude is what will make Nadal dominant at 27+, it is quite the opposite attitude of Federer.

And the cost of having that type of attitude is his knees, he's already having problems with them, do you really think that his knees won't give out in 2 years?

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 08:23 PM
No.....Federer will go down in history with more than just "that guy who had a amazing run in his prime"
Let's hope so for his sake because that would be a little embarrassing after being touted by mostly everybody as the best tennis player who has ever lived...

edberg505
03-28-2009, 08:26 PM
^^ Sampras wasn't in an era that could be dominated completely (if we're talking about the 90s). Sampras did about all a player could do in an extremely sttrong era, and his GOAT serve allowed him to stand out. I don't see anything in Federer's game that would have stood out and allowed him to dominate the 90s.

Ah, yes because Gilbert Schaller, Jaime Yzaga, Jonas Bjorkman, and Brad Gilbert were just too good in that strong era.

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 08:29 PM
And the cost of having that type of attitude is his knees, he's already having problems with them, do you really think that his knees won't give out in 2 years?
Every year since 2005 people have been saying that Nadal's knees were gonna give out in 2 years. I wouldn't be surprised if they never gave out at all!
Now it's very hard to predict longevity. Look at Fed, people were predicting 20+ slams for him and an exceptional longevity, now they're anxiously wondering if he can make 15 slams and ever recover #1. How quickly things change! So I'm certainly not gonna make the same mistake about Nadal. Anything can happen, I'm just living it in the moment and enjoying the ride while it lasts!

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 08:30 PM
And the cost of having that type of attitude is his knees, he's already having problems with them, do you really think that his knees won't give out in 2 years?

It's only tendinitis, Michael Jordan had knee tendinitis for the last 12 years (from 1991 onwards) of his career, even had to have his knee drained of built-up fluid several times when he was 38, and in his final season at age 40 he was the only player in his team to play all 82 regular season games. The Williams sisters have had wrist tendinitis all their careers. I don't even consider it an injury, more of a condition that needs rest a couple of times each year. It won't stop a player playing till he's 35 though. The kind of injury that players careers are cut short by is the back injury, example being Federer who could well be retired by next year.

JeMar
03-28-2009, 08:31 PM
Let's hope so for his sake because that would be a little embarrassing after being touted by mostly everybody as the best tennis player who has ever lived...

Not to go off on a tangent or anything, but I'm sure there's plenty of people that would argue that Federer could retire today and still go down as "the best tennis player who has ever lived." I, for one, don't subscribe to this view, but many of your more aesthetically-inclined tennis fans cast this vote long, long ago.

Serve_Ace
03-28-2009, 08:34 PM
It's only tendinitis, Michael Jordan had knee tendinitis for the last 12 years (from 1991 onwards) of his career, even had to have his knee drained of built-up fluid several times when he was 38, and in his final season at age 40 he was the only player in his team to play all 82 regular season games. The Williams sisters have had wrist tendinitis all their careers. I don't even consider it an injury, more of a condition that needs rest a couple of times each year. It won't stop a player playing till he's 35 though. The kind of injury that players careers are cut short by is the back injury, example being Federer who could well be retired by next year.

The condition gets worse every time he plays, or even uses his knees, how do you know he just aren't playing through the pain? They are, world class athletes after all.

Serve_Ace
03-28-2009, 08:34 PM
Every year since 2005 people have been saying that Nadal's knees were gonna give out in 2 years. I wouldn't be surprised if they never gave out at all!
Now it's very hard to predict longevity. Look at Fed, people were predicting 20+ slams for him and an exceptional longevity, now they're anxiously wondering if he can make 15 slams and ever recover #1. How quickly things change! So I'm certainly not gonna make the same mistake about Nadal. Anything can happen, I'm just living it in the moment and enjoying the ride while it lasts!

Of course It would be silly to make predictions about the future.

edberg505
03-28-2009, 08:35 PM
Every year since 2005 people have been saying that Nadal's knees were gonna give out in 2 years. I wouldn't be surprised if they never gave out at all!
Now it's very hard to predict longevity. Look at Fed, people were predicting 20+ slams for him and an exceptional longevity, now they're anxiously wondering if he can make 15 slams and ever recover #1. How quickly things change! So I'm certainly not gonna make the same mistake about Nadal. Anything can happen, I'm just living it in the moment and enjoying the ride while it lasts!

I didn't know longevity was measured in the number of slams one amasses. The guy is still making slam finals and he turns 28 this Aug. That is pretty darn impressive.

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 08:35 PM
Not to go off on a tangent or anything, but I'm sure there's plenty of people that would argue that Federer could retire today and still go down as "the best tennis player who has ever lived." I, for one, don't subscribe to this view, but many of your more aesthetically-inclined tennis fans cast this vote long, long ago.

It would be possible to call Federer the GOAT and make some sense if Nadal wasn't in his era, but now that Nadal is chasing every record and about to achieve the Career or Calender Year Grand Slam it really puts to rest any idea of Federer being a GOAT.

Serve_Ace
03-28-2009, 08:36 PM
It would be possible to call Federer the GOAT and make some sense if Nadal wasn't in his era, but now that Nadal is chasing every record and about to achieve the Career or Calender Year Grand Slam it really puts to rest any idea of Federer being a GOAT.

How do you know that he is going the get the a career or calender year grand slam?

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 08:39 PM
Not to go off on a tangent or anything, but I'm sure there's plenty of people that would argue that Federer could retire today and still go down as "the best tennis player who has ever lived." I, for one, don't subscribe to this view, but many of your more aesthetically-inclined tennis fans cast this vote long, long ago.
To me it's a matter of records because the evaluation of the "beauty" of a player's game is too subjective and too personal. Records stand.
At the moment, Federer doesn't hold most year ends or most weeks at #1, most slams, most titles, most master shields, calendar or career slam, most wins at 1 slam. How can he be considered the best ever without ANY of those records? Subjectively for some people sure but objectively facts don't back it up YET.

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 08:39 PM
How do you know that he is going the get the a career or calender year grand slam?

Why wouldn't he? He gets better every year and only needs the US Open. And Calender Year is likely once Wimbledon is taken care of. Wimbledon is the key slam this year, because if he is playing for the Calender Year Slam entering the US Open then his adrenaline level will be off the charts, so it will probably take nothing short of a broken bone to stop him at the US. That's if he wins Wimbledon which is the key slam.

tudwell
03-28-2009, 08:41 PM
Why wouldn't he? He gets better every year and only needs the US Open. And Calender Year is likely once Wimbledon is taken care of. Wimbledon is the key slam this year, because if he is playing for the Calender Year Slam entering the US Open then his adrenaline level will be off the charts, so it will probably take nothing short of a broken bone to stop him at the US. That's if he wins Wimbledon which is the key slam.

He's gotta win the French too.

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 08:41 PM
I didn't know longevity was measured in the number of slams one amasses. The guy is still making slam finals and he turns 28 this Aug. That is pretty darn impressive.
It is but it will become much less impressive if in the end he doesn't break the # slam record, just because he's so close and Roger knows it. That's why he's a little nervous about it now.

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 08:41 PM
To me it's a matter of records because the evaluation of the "beauty" of a player's game is too subjective and too personal. Records stand.
At the moment, Federer doesn't hold most year ends or most weeks at #1, most slams, most titles, most master shields, calendar or career slam, most wins at 1 slam. How can he be considered the best ever without ANY of those records? Subjectively for some people sure but objectively facts don't back it up YET.

Yeah I don't think beauty is in the equation when considering GOAT, I think you'll hear people talk about Federer and marvel at his booty but its the same as Johnny Mac, people marvel at his beauty but they don't call him the GOAT, Federer similar situation.

Serve_Ace
03-28-2009, 08:43 PM
Why wouldn't he? He gets better every year and only needs the US Open. And Calender Year is likely once Wimbledon is taken care of. Wimbledon is the key slam this year, because if he is playing for the Calender Year Slam entering the US Open then his adrenaline level will be off the charts, so it will probably take nothing short of a broken bone to stop him at the US. That's if he wins Wimbledon which is the key slam.

And you're so sure that he will get that rush right? I had no idea, you could see so far ahead, to be honest we just can't even say things like, who knew that Roger was going to contract mono? Who knew that he was going to win another slam after the season that he had? We can't tell the future no matter how things are looking in the present.

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 08:45 PM
How do you know that he is going the get the a career or calender year grand slam?
I don't know about the calendar slam but I would bet on the career slam. Nadal is too talented and too motivated to never get a USO.

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 08:51 PM
And you're so sure that he will get that rush right? I had no idea, you could see so far ahead, to be honest we just can't even say things like, who knew that Roger was going to contract mono? Who knew that he was going to win another slam after the season that he had? We can't tell the future no matter how things are looking in the present.

Well I did say 'nothing short of a broken bone' so yeah I think of Nadal got mono or the flu he would overcome it because the adrenaline he'd feel while playing to complete the Calender Year GS would allow him to win. Federer actually played at a high level with the effects of mono, he was still making GS Finals and Semis.

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 08:54 PM
Actually Nadal said he was exhausted when he arrived at the Olympics but he said when he saw the other Spanish athletes at the Olympic village it made him lift his whole work rate and it carried him past Djokovic and to the Gold, so he is an adrenaline player.

LOOSeDAWG
03-28-2009, 08:56 PM
Actually Nadal said he was exhausted when he arrived at the Olympics but he said when he saw the other Spanish athletes at the Olympic village it made him lift his whole work rate and it carried him past Djokovic and to the Gold (on a court surface many have said is faster than the US Open), so he is an adrenaline player.

Serve_Ace
03-28-2009, 08:59 PM
Well I did say 'nothing short of a broken bone' so yeah I think of Nadal got mono or the flu he would overcome it because the adrenaline he'd feel while playing to complete the Calender Year GS would allow him to win. Federer actually played at a high level with the effects of mono, he was still making GS Finals and Semis.

Yeah I won't doubt Nadal's spirit to continue, but with viruses like mono, your body just won't move the way you want it to. I guess that's how Roger felt when he had even just a mild case, even though he was making slam semis and finals I bet he just didn't feel like he had the game that he used to play and that frustrates him, restricting him to play like he did before.

danb
03-28-2009, 09:02 PM
So you are saying that Murray will at least play Federer this year at Wimbledon?

Nope - Fed will not make it to the final.

Serve_Ace
03-28-2009, 09:03 PM
Actually Nadal said he was exhausted when he arrived at the Olympics but he said when he saw the other Spanish athletes at the Olympic village it made him lift his whole work rate and it carried him past Djokovic and to the Gold (on a court surface many have said is faster than the US Open), so he is an adrenaline player.

There were a ton of people at the US open cheering for him when he was playing against Murray,that should have given him that adrenaline with the New York crowd and all. But yet he still just ended it at the last point with a drop shot as if he just decided to give in and thought that he couldn't go forward.

Spider
03-28-2009, 09:16 PM
Nope - Fed will not make it to the final.

Thats true, fed will never beat Murray again, ever. Murray has raised his game to another level at the moment and fed just cannot keep up with him.

The only surface I give fed some chance is clay (not because fed is better but because Murray hasn't proven himself there yet).

On the Hard courts and Grass, Murray won't ever lose to fed again. :)

edberg505
03-28-2009, 09:20 PM
Thats true, fed will never beat Murray again, ever. Murray has raised his game to another level at the moment and fed just cannot keep up with him.

The only surface I give fed some chance is clay (not because fed is better but because Murray hasn't proven himself there yet).

On the Hard courts and Grass, Murray won't ever lose to fed again. :)

Right because Murray is just so awesome on grass courts! Refresh my memory, how far has Murray made it in the Queen's Club tournament and Wimbledon?

Spider
03-28-2009, 09:24 PM
Right because Murray is just so awesome on grass courts! Refresh my memory, how far has Murray made it in the Queen's Club tournament and Wimbledon?

No, there is a huge difference in Murray's play last year and this year. He is so much improved that he won't lose many matches under normal circumstances (ofcource injury, sickness, are not something that he can control).

This year, at Wimbledon, Murray shouldn't have any problem beating fed there. Look how Nadal did it last year. :)

danb
03-28-2009, 09:26 PM
Right because Murray is just so awesome on grass courts! Refresh my memory, how far has Murray made it in the Queen's Club tournament and Wimbledon?

This thing with "how far has Murray made it in the Queen's Club" doesn't apply to players that are 22. I heard the same about Rafa and next year he was in the final. One year later he makes Fed cry. Murray is 22. Open the TV and watch how he plays then watch Fed.

edberg505
03-28-2009, 09:33 PM
This thing with "how far has Murray made it in the Queen's Club" doesn't apply to players that are 22. I heard the same about Rafa and next year he was in the final. One year later he makes Fed cry. Murray is 22. Open the TV and watch how he plays then watch Fed.

Ah, I didn't know Murray's name was Nadal.

danb
03-28-2009, 09:38 PM
Ah, I didn't know Murray's name was Nadal.

Read again. This time try to read the part:


"I heard the same about Rafa and next year he was in the final. One year later he makes Fed cry."


Then read:

Murray is 22. Open the TV and watch how he plays then watch Fed.

edberg505
03-28-2009, 09:39 PM
Read again. This time try to read the part:


"I heard the same about Rafa and next year he was in the final. One year later he makes Fed cry."


And read this part slowly, "Murray is NO Nadal".

danb
03-28-2009, 09:44 PM
:):):) And read this part slowly, "Murray is NO Nadal".


Well it all started with "Who is more likely to make the Wimby final this year?"
What I am saying is "Fed is done." - Murray plays better so it is more likely to see Murray then Fed in a final.
Murray is not Rafa - that is why I am a Rafa fan. But Murray can sure beat Fed today. This "Fed almighty" has been around forever. Fed can't beat the kind of defense Murray is playing - (almost) the very same way he can't beat Nadal.

edberg505
03-28-2009, 09:46 PM
Well it all started with "Who is more likely to make the Wimby final this year?"
What I am saying is "Fed is done." - Murray plays better so it is more likely to see Murray then Fed in a final.
Murray is not Rafa - that is why I am a Rafa fan. But Murray can sure beat Fed today. This "Fed almighty" has been around forever. Fed can't beat the kind of defense Murray is playing - (almost) the very same way he can't beat Nadal.

I guess we'll have to see about that. I'm not sold on this whole Federer is done thing.

danb
03-28-2009, 09:49 PM
I guess we'll have to see about that. I'm not sold on this whole Federer is done thing.

My guess is no be better than yours - otherwise I'd bet some money on it (which I don't :)).

tudwell
03-28-2009, 10:21 PM
Why do you think Murray is so much better than Federer? Last I checked, he lost in the fourth round at the Australian, while Federer made the final. That's pretty good for someone who is "done".

Spider
03-28-2009, 11:25 PM
Murray was very sick at the AO, thats why he lost early (normally Murray doesnt lose early at a slam). There were tests done to see whether he had Mono but luckily for him that wasnt the case.

edberg505
03-28-2009, 11:31 PM
Murray was very sick at the AO, thats why he lost early (normally Murray doesnt lose early at a slam). There were tests done to see whether he had Mono but luckily for him that wasnt the case.

LOL, what the hell? Sure he does. In fact I'm going to be shocked if he makes it pass the 4th round of the FO.

Spider
03-28-2009, 11:36 PM
LOL, what the hell? Sure he does. In fact I'm going to be shocked if he makes it pass the 4th round of the FO.

Since US open 08.

Come on, Murray will get past the fourth round at RG, why underestimate him?

tahiti
03-29-2009, 01:01 AM
This thing with "how far has Murray made it in the Queen's Club" doesn't apply to players that are 22. I heard the same about Rafa and next year he was in the final. One year later he makes Fed cry. Murray is 22. Open the TV and watch how he plays then watch Fed.

I wouldn't Open the tv. You might get an electric shock :) Better to turn it on. Edberg, what you seem to be forgetting is that players evolve and improve all the time so past results are not always an accuracte benchmark for young upcoming players.

Yes Fed should be happy playing both these players. He gets his chance to shine and prove his championship ability whilst in adversity. This is what his pyschologist should be telling him if they want Fed to improve his mental prowess and stop folding when under pressure. He was the alleged GOAT wasn't he? That's what he has to think and rise to the occasion. He will, but when I don't know. Maybe Miami, he needs to do well now coz that baby is coming :)

Gorecki
03-29-2009, 03:48 AM
Federer should be happy that Nadal and Murray are beating him. Thus, creating more interest in tennis. The boring days of tennis are no more. ;)

yes... you are correct. now we have the boring days of ball pushing!

Nadal vs Simon... what a match of PONG that is...

vtmike
03-29-2009, 06:22 AM
I have actually seen both Nalbandian and Safin. I've seen Safin when Roger was beating him almost every match they played. I've seen Nalbandian when Roger took a losing record and turned it to a winning one.

The main difference from Nadal of before 2008 and current Nadal is his confidence. He's got the same confidence that the likes of Roger and Pete used to have and he's showing it by winning. It's his time now, and he's playing his best tennis. Sure, he improved his serve a bit and his backhand, but in return he's not as fast as the 04-06 Nadal. The fact Roger is way past his prime, plus has a mental problem against Nadal, and can still reach a GS final after a GS final and take Nadal to 5 is amazing, and shows just how consistent he is with good results. How about beating Djokovic and Murray back to back in the 2008 US Open? Was that a weak field too?

Hey, if we go by the "weak era" logic, then Nadal has a weak era too: Federer is past his prime, Djokovic is incosistent and usually can't breath, Del Potro is REALLY overrated and Simon is a new version of Hewitt. Murray is a choker, and his clay results are less than impressive, and Roddick, well he's from another era. Of course saying the field today is weak is a joke, just like saying Federer's field was weak is.

Agree +1 Very Good Post!

vtmike
03-29-2009, 06:38 AM
:):):)


Well it all started with "Who is more likely to make the Wimby final this year?"
What I am saying is "Fed is done." - Murray plays better so it is more likely to see Murray then Fed in a final.
Murray is not Rafa - that is why I am a Rafa fan. But Murray can sure beat Fed today. This "Fed almighty" has been around forever. Fed can't beat the kind of defense Murray is playing - (almost) the very same way he can't beat Nadal.


Yeah sure Fed is done just because a poster named danb said he is done on a tennis warehouse forum...sure the fact that he has consistently been reaching finals in his worst year has no bearing on that argument whatsoever...

It seems that YOU want Fed to be done and not look at the reality...and you are basing this on what? IW semi-finals?? I'm not even sure how badly Fed wants to win those master's cups anyways

danb
03-29-2009, 07:18 AM
Yeah sure Fed is done just because a poster named danb said he is done on a tennis warehouse forum...sure the fact that he has consistently been reaching finals in his worst year has no bearing on that argument whatsoever...

It seems that YOU want Fed to be done and not look at the reality...and you are basing this on what? IW semi-finals?? I'm not even sure how badly Fed wants to win those master's cups anyways

It's just a guess. I am just ****ed at Fed the way he plays. I'd love to be proven wrong but I think he got left MAYBE 1 or 2 GS (2 would be a surprise to me) in his career. I know that is a fantastic career but it could have been better if he adapted to today's game.

GameSampras
03-29-2009, 07:25 AM
So quick to throw dirt on Roger people are. Hell Pete went 2 Years with NOTHING!! Andre came back from being 3 years and some change off the radar.

Of course with Roger's ego, if he went 2 years without a slam he would prolly retire.

Serve_Ace
03-29-2009, 12:39 PM
Nadal is pretty lucky to be in this era.

asafi2
01-20-2010, 09:08 PM
Hey, Texan Guru, why didn't Nadal's victories over Djokovic get into Novak's head? Why is Novak crushing Nadal consistently on hardcourts even after Rafa has spanked him hard so many times on clay?

You have 2 posts so you're prolly a banned troll/*********...but only 2 of djokovic's wins against Nadal have been on a slow hard court and the other 5 on a fast hardcourt. Fed has only played Nadal on a fast hardcourt twice. If Fed played 5 times against Nadal on fast hardcourts and only 2 times on slow hard courtslike Jokey did, then Fed would be owning Nadal in hard court head to head.

joeri888
01-21-2010, 05:43 AM
Whats up with the constant revival of irrelevant old threads?

Anaconda
01-21-2010, 09:28 AM
Roger should be HONORED every time he plays Nadal. He should be grateful that he is able to share a court with the best player of his era. Roger knows he isn't talented enough to beat Nadal, but he has known this since the beginning when Rafa demolished him in Miami 2004.

Roger thought, "wow, here's a kid who came out of nowhere to destroy me with talent alone. I'm already World #1 and a multiple slam winner. My game won't get much better than this, and his game won't get much worse. Even his worst is better than my best. Wow. He can do so many things and make so many genius shots that a poor talentless clown like me could never do. Good thing he's still young - hopefully, I can get at least 5 wins off him before I'm through."

Good news for Roger: he's done that and more. He has 6 wins over a far superior player. Granted, those wins came before Nadal really found his game, but beating a man with much better abilities is an achievement nonetheless. Roger has tried many things over the years to try to compete with Rafa, but he lacks to abilities to execute at a level capable of getting a win. With sheer mental focus and willpower, Federer was able to steal a couple of matches from Nadal at Miami 05 and Wimby 07, and, really, that's all a guy like Federer can hope for. Nowadays, he should count his blessings every time Nadal honors his legacy by blasting passing shots and winners from all over the court against him. In his heart, Fed knows that losing to Nadal isn't really losing.

Wow, what an idiot!

But that post did make me laugh so thumbs up for you!

Anaconda
01-21-2010, 09:41 AM
I certainly wouldnt call Roddick or Hewitt "strong" competition when u look back at some of other eras. Sure they were solid.

But...

I dont how anyone would consider Fed's competition 04-06 strong. There were some good players in that era. But I would never call Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Nalbandian and down the line "great players" by any stretch of the imagination. And Agassi was around 35 years old at that point crippled with Sciatica. Safin and Nalby were as inconsistent as inconsistent could get though both had great talent.


Hewitt's wheels fell of pretty quickly due to injuries. Roddick... well hes been a consistent player. But its no secret the kid has always had many holes in his game to exploit.

Nadal at that time could maintain a #2 ranking in the world and making a name for himself on clay the majority of the time while many aspects of his game left much to be desired.


Now that he has tweaked his game and has become a multi-surfaced player. He is the best in the world. Its no coincidence.

Prime Nadal is 10 times a more formidable opponent than Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin, Ljubicic, Blake, Baghaditis, Gonzales ever were.

Early-mid 00's was one of the more weaker era's in history in terms of great players. THis era is shaping to be more promising.. But again. As of now. There are still only 2 great players IMO. Fed-Nadal. Since they are the two at this point who bring their A games to the slams and wins when it matters most. Djoker was on the right track. Hes plummeting a bit. Murray has yet to prove his worth at the slams


Actually i would call Roddick and Hewitt 'strong' comptetion, between tham they have 56 titles and have achieved great things with not much to work with. Agassi played great tennis when he was older; everyone peaks at different periods of their career. Roddick and Hewitt have achieved more than Murray and Djokovic when they were living with prime Federer who would almost **** the field nowadays.

'This era is shaping up to be more promising'. What? We have Murray, (very good player but hasn't won a slam yet) Djokovic who in his prime is losing to guys who played better 5 years ago and retires through exaustion and sore throwts and tsonga who can't keep a ball in to save his life. The only good thing to come out of the last 3 years was JMDP who actually did something this year, unlike the others.

I would call Safin a great player, regardless of his 'inconsistent' ways, simply because of what he has achieved on court whilst not really caring about the game and having other prioroties than playing tennis. He's beaten the two greatest players ever and even cained one of them to the ground like a little lost puppy.

If anything the players (except Nadal) were of a better quite a few years ago.

maddogz32
01-21-2010, 12:21 PM
if thats how it happens, then why hasnt federer been able to do that often before