PDA

View Full Version : What if Federer had a REAL rival at his peak?


Magnificent!
04-18-2009, 02:47 AM
No one can question Federer's natural talent, he makes the game look elegant and effortless at times... but what would Fed' have achieved if he had a rival of equal (or nearly equal) ability? Would he have been strong enough mentally to cope...and how many grandslams would he have now?

vtmike
04-18-2009, 03:00 AM
If Fed was in his prime now (both mental & physical), he would still be blowing off the competition everywhere else except on clay...and ***********s would be saying the current field is really weak ;)

miyagi
04-18-2009, 03:19 AM
No one can question Federer's natural talent, he makes the game look elegant and effortless at times... but what would Fed' have achieved if he had a rival of equal (or nearly equal) ability? Would he have been strong enough mentally to cope...and how many grandslams would he have now?

Fed would still have tonnes of slams but I think he would have a few less. There is no doubt Fed was missing a real rival until Nadal arrived.

Fed and Nadal have been good for each other and tennis, I dont know why Fed & Nadal fans can't get along without calling each other names. Before Fed was Sampras who Fed admire so I don't see why there should be tension there either

If I had to guess a number I would say 10 slams...

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 04:27 AM
No one can question Federer's natural talent, he makes the game look elegant and effortless at times... but what would Fed' have achieved if he had a rival of equal (or nearly equal) ability? Would he have been strong enough mentally to cope...and how many grandslams would he have now? Not another one of these threads... If he had someone equal to or near equal to when Fed was in his prime Fed would still win alot but not as many (like 11) depending what this guys style was like. It would mean though in the long run that he would win more as he would be better prepared for tough matches against players like Nadal etc.

Andyk028
04-18-2009, 07:18 AM
You can't just discredit players like Hewitt and Safin..during their prime years they were both definite forces to be reckoned with.

mandy01
04-18-2009, 08:13 AM
If Fed was in his prime now (both mental & physical), he would still be blowing off the competition everywhere else except on clay...and ***********s would be saying the current field is really weak ;)
LOOOOL..You bet! :lol: , :wink:

raiden031
04-18-2009, 08:17 AM
This is a silly question. Its like asking if Nadal had an equal rival on clay, would he still be as dominant? The answer in both cases is NO. If Fed had an equal rival, then his rival would probably win a few slams because he is just as good as Fed, right?

A better question is whether Fed would be as dominant if he played in a different era. Such as how would he do if he was 10 years older and played with Sampras and Agassi?

deltox
04-18-2009, 08:28 AM
federer did have a rival, Roddick

cept he blew him off the court every time.

that is how roger rolled during his prime playing years. even his toughest rival was loosing to him with a bad percentage.

if roger was 24 right now. tennis would be the greatest sport on earth to watch hands down without argument. but unfortunately superstars come and go in 4-7 year streaks and its hard to squeeze 2 into the same time period.

deltox
04-18-2009, 08:30 AM
A better question is whether Fed would be as dominant if he played in a different era. Such as how would he do if he was 10 years older and played with Sampras and Agassi?

that is something id love to have seen, to me agassi is proably the most awesome player of my generation. i could care less about stats, i look for drive, heart and determination.

tangerine
04-18-2009, 08:37 AM
Unfortunately Roger dominated a really weak tennis era and the lack of true tennis talent made Roger look far more brilliant than he really is. When Nadal came along he blew the lid off the facade, so we are watching the "real" Federer now, exactly how he used to play when he was younger.

:)

deltox
04-18-2009, 08:48 AM
Unfortunately Roger dominated a really weak tennis era and the lack of true tennis talent made Roger look far more brilliant than he really is. When Nadal came along he blew the lid off the facade, so we are watching the "real" Federer now, exactly how he used to play when he was younger.

:)

R O F L

what u gonna say when this happens to nadal after his prime years? i bet the reason or "excuse" will be much more favorable to him.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 08:51 AM
If Nadal was actually at his peak 04-07 and current Djoker and Murray were around back then, Fed would be sitting on probably half the slams he is now. He sure as hell wouldnt be close to 13 IMO. Prime Fed, Peak, no way could prime Nadal. Prime-Peak Fed couldnt barely even beat Pre-prime nadal

DarthFed
04-18-2009, 08:54 AM
If Nadal was actually at his peak 04-07 and current Djoker and Murray were around back then, Fed would be sitting on probably half the slams he is now. He sure as hell wouldnt be close to 13 IMO. Prime Fed, Peak, no way could prime Nadal. Prime-Peak Fed couldnt barely even beat Pre-prime nadal

Which is why they weren't :roll:

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 08:57 AM
Which is why they weren't :roll:

Well Nadal wasnt a real rival back then to Fed since Nadal was only really a great clay court player and was just becoming a great player on grass while his Hardcourt game left much to be desired. Imagine if Fed would have had to deal with Nadal at the slams on all the surfaces back in 04-07. Nadal would be the one with most of the slams while Roger would be behind in the slam count most likely

Magnificent!
04-18-2009, 09:01 AM
I think Federer is mentally weak now and when he was at his prime, but there wasn't anyone good enough to put him under enough pressure to expose this. Roddick a rival to Federer? You must be joking! They both knew before each match that Federer would win. Safin never lived upto his potential, only twice in his career, once against Sampras and once against federer. Hewitt had about as good a chance as Roddick. No one else comes to mind...says it all really. If Federer had a rival of equal ability, I think he would have about as many majors as Agassi and no more.

DarthFed
04-18-2009, 09:02 AM
Well Nadal wasnt a real rival back then to Fed since Nadal was only really a great clay court player and was just becoming a great player on grass while his Hardcourt game left much to be desired. Imagine if Fed would have had to deal with Nadal at the slams on all the surfaces back in 04-07. Nadal would be the one with most of the slams while Roger would be behind in the slam count most likely

But he wasn't that's the point I'm making, speculation on the past is pretty pointless

vtmike
04-18-2009, 09:34 AM
But he wasn't that's the point I'm making, speculation on the past is pretty pointless

Agree...and again using the same logic the current field is more pathetic! ***********s will make this exact same argument IF Nadal starts to get close to Sampras' record of 14! and then all the *******s will start flaming him for it :rolleyes:

tennis_hand
04-18-2009, 09:41 AM
No one can question Federer's natural talent, he makes the game look elegant and effortless at times... but what would Fed' have achieved if he had a rival of equal (or nearly equal) ability? Would he have been strong enough mentally to cope...and how many grandslams would he have now?

he had his rival, but he beat them all.

your question is well before he had no rival. end of discussion.

380pistol
04-18-2009, 09:41 AM
Whether Federphiles care to admit it or not, the competition wasn't that great when Roger was dominating. Now if he had a rival, or a couple of more challengers at the top how would Roger do??

I still feel he 's gifted enough to spend a significant time at #1 and would still be winning slams. Would there 230+ weeks consecutively? Maybe not. I also doubt if there would be 3 slams a year 3 times or 5 consecutive titles at both Wimbledon and the US Open. He'd still have multiple slam years I think, but not 3 slams a year in 3 times.

Yes Roger's dominance has a lot to woth Federer himself, but you're absolutely kidding yourself if you believe the softness of the field around him didn't aid him.

Magnificent!
04-18-2009, 10:01 AM
"he had his rival, but he beat them all.

your question is well before he had no rival. end of discussion."

It's obvious that he beat them all. My point was, how would he respond to a REAL challenge, against someone who had a 50/50 chance of beating him. His achievements would be more respected for sure. He's only 27, for someone who has been mentioned as the GOAT, he's still young enough to make a case of it, now, WHEN HE REALLY HAS GOT SOME COMPETITION!

raiden031
04-18-2009, 10:10 AM
If Nadal was actually at his peak 04-07 and current Djoker and Murray were around back then, Fed would be sitting on probably half the slams he is now. He sure as hell wouldnt be close to 13 IMO. Prime Fed, Peak, no way could prime Nadal. Prime-Peak Fed couldnt barely even beat Pre-prime nadal

Lets assume Federer was 4 years younger. I would say that right now Federer would be #1 in the world and would be the best player on all surfaces except clay. I do think he might lose a few slams to guys like Murray/Djoker/Nadal, but he would have at least 8 probably.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 10:21 AM
Lets assume Federer was 4 years younger. I would say that right now Federer would be #1 in the world and would be the best player on all surfaces except clay. I do think he might lose a few slams to guys like Murray/Djoker/Nadal, but he would have at least 8 probably.

Sure Fed may have still managed in the high single digits so far even with Djoker, Murray, or Nadal around. Would Fed have 13 slams, consectutive slam finals appearances as he did 04-07 with those 3 around? Highlky unlikely. Would he have 13 slams only by 27 years of age? Hell freaking no.


Take Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzales, Davy, etc out of the equation, Fed aint coming out of every slam the winner if he has to go through the top guys today. I see Fed coming out with quite a few slams but not 13 slams if these are his obstacles at every slam.

thejoe
04-18-2009, 10:25 AM
Sure Fed may have still managed in the high single digits so far even with Djoker, Murray, or Nadal around. Would Fed have 13 slams, consectutive slam finals appearances as he did 04-07 with those 3 around? Highlky unlikely. Would he have 13 slams only by 27 years of age? Hell freaking no.


Take Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzales, Davy, etc out of the equation, Fed aint coming out of every slam the winner if he has to go through the top guys today. I see Fed coming out with quite a few slams but not 13 slams if these are his obstacles at every slam

I think he would. I think you overate the threat posed by Murray and Djoker to Federer in his real prime. Federer has a clear lead in the head-to-head against Djokovic, and Murray lost in their one slam meeting. Nadal would give him trouble, but he was well and truly around from 05-07 anyway. What exactly makes you think Murray is so much better than the 04-07 competition? The guy has been around for 8 months in the top 5. I honestly don't see how he is better than Hewitt was. And you think that Simon, Del Potro are better than Davydenko, Roddick etc? Roddick and Davydenko are still in the top 5, and Nalbandian was better than those two are.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 10:30 AM
We dont know how even prime Fed would manage this challenge presented today if it was back then. Has Fed declined so fast so quick being an automatic 3 slam a year winner on year and only 1 slam the next and now he cant even a single tournament? Hes only 27. No.. his confidence has waned. WOuld it wane back then as well under the pressure of better competiton? Possibly.

Not to mention Nadal is a much more solid all around, all surface, smarter, less defensive player today now, than back then. The competition increasing has had some to do with the Fed "declining issue". It aint all Fed.

Cyan
04-18-2009, 10:46 AM
Fed is a fraud. When he was in his prime the top 4 had flake and lube and baby nadal(not in his peak yet) so he piled up the slams and masters series... Now look at the awesome top 4 we have nowadays, no place for mugs like flake and lube.... Fed's era in his prime was ridiculously weak to allow the likes of boredo and monoancic to be in the top 10 and it's not a coincidence that now that we have a strong top 4 fed can't win m1000 titles anymore and needs a miracle to fluke a slam like uso 2008....

Magnificent!
04-18-2009, 10:49 AM
I think he would. I think you overate the threat posed by Murray and Djoker to Federer in his real prime. Federer has a clear lead in the head-to-head against Djokovic, and Murray lost in their one slam meeting. Nadal would give him trouble, but he was well and truly around from 05-07 anyway. What exactly makes you think Murray is so much better than the 04-07 competition? The guy has been around for 8 months in the top 5. I honestly don't see how he is better than Hewitt was. And you think that Simon, Del Potro are better than Davydenko, Roddick etc? Roddick and Davydenko are still in the top 5, and Nalbandian was better than those two are.
Federer is 27, not too old to show how good he still is. He has inscentive, he wants to beat Sampras's record. He;s been lucky with injuries over his carrer, momo and recently his back the only real hurdles. He's dominated rallies for most of his career so he's low mileage.
Murray is a much bigger talent than Davydenko and Roddick, can't believe you can't see it. Infact, Murray is the last person the top 3 want to play, now he has arrived, forget the past head to heads. It will be different from now on. Nalbandian? Not dedicated, having potential is not good enough.

thejoe
04-18-2009, 10:49 AM
Fed is a fraud. When he was in his prime the top 4 had flake and lube and baby nadal(not in his peak yet) so he piled up the slams and masters series... Now look at the awesome top 4 we have nowadays, no place for mugs like flake and lube.... Fed's era in his prime was ridiculously weak to allow the likes of boredo and monoancic to be in the top 10 and it's not a coincidence that now that we have a strong top 4 fed can't win m1000 titles anymore and needs a miracle to fluke a slam like uso 2008....

I assume you're joking, yes? Murray, Djokovic, really that much better? One slam between them? Ringing bells?

Cesc Fabregas
04-18-2009, 10:51 AM
I personally don't see how Murray has proved himself over Safin, Roddick and Hewitt.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 10:51 AM
I assume you're joking, yes? Murray, Djokovic, really that much better? One slam between them? Ringing bells?

Murray is just beginning his rise to dominance and is already proving himself over Roger and Djoker has a slam win over Roger at the AO . Hewitt got his only 2 slams when? The 01-03 time frame. Sampras and Agassi were just about finished and Fed had yet to begin to dominate.

Murray and Djoker will have better careers for themselves then Hewitt did when its all said and done

P_Agony
04-18-2009, 10:54 AM
If Nadal was actually at his peak 04-07 and current Djoker and Murray were around back then, Fed would be sitting on probably half the slams he is now. He sure as hell wouldnt be close to 13 IMO. Prime Fed, Peak, no way could prime Nadal. Prime-Peak Fed couldnt barely even beat Pre-prime nadal

Your posts are becoming worse by the minute. I would take peak Federer over any other player any day.

To the OP: Fed had a real rival - his name is Nalbandian, who gave Federer a lot of trouble and had a winning H2H against him until Fed has figured him out and turned it around.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 10:56 AM
Your posts are becoming worse by the minute. I would take peak Federer over any other player any day.

To the OP: Fed had a real rival - his name is Nalbandian, who gave Federer a lot of trouble and had a winning H2H against him until Fed has figured him out and turned it around.

Nalbandian a real rival? LOL!!! Are u kidding me. When was Nalbandian a real rival to anyone. THe guy underperformed at the slams like crazy and cant even keep himself in shape. The guy is a clown.. Always has been. Murray and Djoker are accomplishing more than Nalbandian already and Nalby has been around for 6-7 years already. 6 years in and Nalby has yet to even win a slam

deltox
04-18-2009, 10:58 AM
Fed is a fraud. When he was in his prime the top 4 had flake and lube and baby nadal(not in his peak yet) so he piled up the slams and masters series... Now look at the awesome top 4 we have nowadays, no place for mugs like flake and lube.... Fed's era in his prime was ridiculously weak to allow the likes of boredo and monoancic to be in the top 10 and it's not a coincidence that now that we have a strong top 4 fed can't win m1000 titles anymore and needs a miracle to fluke a slam like uso 2008....

when its fed going against no competition its , hes a fraud, but when nadal plays clay, with ABSOLUTELY no competition hes a great.. im confused here

P_Agony
04-18-2009, 11:01 AM
Nalbandian a real rival? LOL!!! Are u kidding me. When was Nalbandian a real rival to anyone. THe guy underperformed at the slams like crazy and cant even keep himself in shape. The guy is a clown.. Always has been. Murray and Djoker are accomplishing more than Nalbandian already and Nalby has been around for 6-7 years already. 6 years in and Nalby has yet to even win a slam

Sure, he's a clown, which is why he had a winning H2H over Federer and still has one over Nadal. Right...whatever.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 11:01 AM
Saying Nalbandian was a rival is like Saying Safin was a rival. These guys couldnt keep it together to even be considered rivals to any player. Both have a long distinguished history of disappearing or underperforming their whole careers. Nalbandian would disappear at the slams and Safin would disappear for half a decade.

thejoe
04-18-2009, 11:02 AM
when its fed going against no competition its , hes a fraud, but when nadal plays clay, with ABSOLUTELY no competition hes a great.. im confused here

Get used to it.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 11:04 AM
Sure, he's a clown, which is why he had a winning H2H over Federer and still has one over Nadal. Right...whatever.

He is a clown and people overrate him like crazy around here. HE has a winning h2h over Roger. Where the hell is Nalbandian's Slams then if he has a winning record over Fed? His slams are not there because he couldnt beat those inferior to him at the slams. HE underperformed most of his career and disappeared when it mattered most. Nalbandian was never a rival and Fed rarely had to deal with David at the slams because he was getting by bums most of the time

P_Agony
04-18-2009, 11:07 AM
Saying Nalbandian was a rival is like Saying Safin was a rival. These guys couldnt keep it together to even be considered rivals to any player. Both have a long distinguished history of disappearing or underperforming their whole careers. Nalbandian would disappear at the slams and Safin would disappear for half a decade.

Both are headcases, I'll agree to that. But funny that Nalby has a winning record over both Nadal and Murray. Safin too I think against either Djokovic or Murray. Yesterday in the "Is Fed consistency hurting him" thread you asked someone to give you any proof that Fed's era was just as strong as today. You got 2 replies, full of facts, of which you of course completley ignored. I'm not going to post that again (it's your problem for asking and not reading). I am going to say that any claim that Fed's competition was any weaker than today is a joke. If anything, it was stronger (at least on clay).

P_Agony
04-18-2009, 11:08 AM
He is a clown and people overrate him like crazy around here. HE has a winning h2h over Roger. Where the hell is Nalbandian's Slams then if he has a winning record over Fed? His slams are not there because he couldnt beat those inferior to him at the slams. HE underperformed most of his career and disappeared when it mattered most. Nalbandian was never a rival and Fed rarely had to deal with David at the slams because he was getting by bums most of the time

He had a winning streak against Fed. The later has mangaed to turn it around to his favor. Nalby is a headcase, but when he's on, he can be nearly unbeatable. Same goes for Safin.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 11:09 AM
Murray and Djoker are going to eclipse Safin and Nalbandian. These guys while maybe not be considered all time greats, they are at least pretty darn consistent and do not just pull disappearing acts at will.

P_Agony
04-18-2009, 11:12 AM
Murray and Djoker are going to eclipse Safin and Nalbandian. These guys while maybe not be considered all time greats, they are at least pretty darn consistent and do not just pull disappearing acts at will.

Sure, which is why Safin, in the end of his career, and on his worst surface, defeated Djokovic in straight sets at Wimbeldon 2008.
Roddick, another "joke" as you claim, has defeated Djokovic twice in a row this year. I wrote many more facts in yeserday's thread. You really have no case about the competition being weak. If anything, it was stronger.

Cyan
04-18-2009, 11:14 AM
Oh dear. If Fatass Nalbandian, who never won a slam, was Fed's biggest competition of his generation born in late 70s-early 80s then we have to laugh out loud.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 11:16 AM
Sure, which is why Safin, in the end of his career, and on his worst surface, defeated Djokovic and straight sets at Wimbeldon 2008.
Roddick, another "joke" as you claim, has defeated Djokovic twice in a row this year. I wrote many more facts in yeserday's thread. You really have no case about the competition being weak. If anything, it was stronger.

Career wise Djoker and Murray will eclipse Safin and David. Yes they will. Probably far surpass both players. Safin no doubt had the talent to be one of the best. And on any day he could defeat anyone. But history will look at Safin as underperforming, underachieving, headcase who never achieve what people were expecting him too.

Why do u say the competiton was stronger in 04-06 exactly. Djoker has only been on the radar since mid-late 07. He already has a slam win over Roger, YEC, Rome etc. Roddick has played Fed how many times now? Hes had how many opportunities to beat Fed and win slams? Years and Years worth of opportunities, and through all of it has managed one freakin slam.

Djoker IMO already has had a better career than Roddick and Roddick has been around for years. Djoker managed a slam win over Roger. While Roddick has had 10000000 opportunities and has done nada

P_Agony
04-18-2009, 11:21 AM
Career wise Djoker and Murray will eclipse Safin and David. Yes they will. Probably far surpass both players. Safin no doubt had the talent to be one of the best. And on any day he could defeat anyone. But history will look at Safin as underperforming, underachieving, headcase who never achieve what people were expecting him too.

Why do u say the competiton was stronger in 04-06 exactly. Djoker has only been on the radar since mid-late 07. He already has a slam win over Roger, YEC, Rome etc. Roddick has played Fed how many times now? Hes had how many opportunities to beat Fed and win slams? Years and Years worth of opportunities, and through all of it has managed one freakin slam.

Djoker IMO already has had a better career than Roddick and Roddick has been around for years. Djoker managed a slam win over Roger. While Roddick has had 10000000 opportunities and has done nada

You are clearly ignoring every thing I write, so this discussion is over.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 11:22 AM
You are clearly ignoring every thing I write, so this discussion is over.

I figured you could not explain why u feel the 04-07 compeition is better than it is today

thejoe
04-18-2009, 11:24 AM
^He just did. He also acknowledges that it is wasted on you as you won't really respond to what he says, you'll just post the same crap you usually do.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 11:26 AM
^He just did. He also acknowledges that it is wasted on you as you won't really respond to what he says, you'll just post the same crap you usually do.

And I am refuting it. I explained why David and Marat were never rivals to Fed. Yet he is trying to convince me they were. How exactly were they considered rivals at all much less Fed? These guys were nowhere to be found the slams 90 some percent of the time. Rivals dont do that

sheq
04-18-2009, 11:27 AM
hold on people what the ... are you talking about ?? when did you star watching tennis after 2007 2008 when ? ı have been following it hotly since 2000 and witnessed all the up and downs and reigns by roger nadal and arguably weak era between 2001 and 2003...

If you are that close to tennis and have some knowledge about it you must definetly know that federer has the best ability and skill over murray djoker nadal whoever..( for me on a good day he is the best ever but his good days are really fading away )..

plus,, he is the no2 in this terribly strong field,, even if he is just choking nowadays so it would be easy to figure out if he were at his best what would happen ?

Roger federer is playing at his %30 40 in these days and still finals at all slams ı must say this era is looking weaker with this aspect because he was at his best most of the time and still missing some finals at the slams..

P_Agony
04-18-2009, 11:31 AM
^He just did. He also acknowledges that it is wasted on you as you won't really respond to what he says, you'll just post the same crap you usually do.

Thank you, actually someone with a brain on this forum

Magnificent!
04-18-2009, 11:40 AM
hold on people what the ... are you talking about ?? when did you star watching tennis after 2007 2008 when ? ı have been following it hotly since 2000 and witnessed all the up and downs and reigns by roger nadal and arguably weak era between 2001 and 2003...

If you are that close to tennis and have some knowledge about it you must definetly know that federer has the best ability and skill over murray djoker nadal whoever..( for me on a good day he is the best ever but his good days are really fading away )..

plus,, he is the no2 in this terribly strong field,, even if he is just choking nowadays so it would be easy to figure out if he were at his best what would happen ?

Roger federer is playing at his %30 40 in these days and still finals at all slams ı must say this era is looking weaker with this aspect because he was at his best most of the time and still missing some finals at the slams..

He is not no2 in the world right now that is very obvious, doesn't matter what anyone says. He is living off points he earned a year ago. realisically he is maybe 4thj or 5th at present.
On a good day, Federer has a 35-40% chance of beating the top 3.

sheq
04-18-2009, 11:51 AM
He is not no2 in the world right now that is very obvious, doesn't matter what anyone says. He is living off points he earned a year ago. realisically he is maybe 4thj or 5th at present.
On a good day, Federer has a 35-40% chance of beating the top 3.

you mean offical atp world tour ranking right ? ı dont say or anyone says this ranking calculates this!!!.. and if he is living with the last year points how he earned these points the question is by beating the top 3 with his %30 40..

with his % 75 80 just watch the us open semi final and final to see what was going on..

Magnificent!
04-18-2009, 12:38 PM
you mean offical atp world tour ranking right ? ı dont say or anyone says this ranking calculates this!!!.. and if he is living with the last year points how he earned these points the question is by beating the top 3 with his %30 40..

with his % 75 80 just watch the us open semi final and final to see what was going on..

US win was unexpected, even though Federer has a great record there. That says alot about his decline last year. US was also over 6 months ago and alot has happened since then. None of it suggests that Federer belongs at no2.
It would be interesting to know Fed's record against Nadal, Murray and Dyoko over the last 18 months.

helloworld
04-18-2009, 12:40 PM
Fed had no rival because Nadal owns him... ;)

VivalaVida
04-18-2009, 12:47 PM
This thread is a joke. "Historians" over here think they know it all about competition. They get carried away with there bull without ever once stopping to realize that speculation on the past is unfeasible.

rubberduckies
04-18-2009, 12:51 PM
Obviously if he had a more serious rival, his results would be worse than what he was able to achieve. I mean that's the only possible outcome of such a scenario. I wonder who could possibly have stepped in to fill that role. Safin and Nalbandian are just way too inconsistent to make a real dent into Fed's dominance. Rafa was still too young. He was brimming with talent but hadn't found a way to channel that talent effectively. But if Nadal had peaked earlier, he also wouldn't really be a rival to Federer. It would just be Rafa dominating Roger on all surfaces because Nadal's talent advantage is just too large. It's pretty obvious that the moment Nadal peaks (he hasn't yet) would be the moment Fed becomes a total afterthought. Fed has always said how important it was to play Nadal while he was still young because he recognized these facts. He had watched Rafa do things with the ball that Fed could only dream of doing.

deltox
04-18-2009, 12:55 PM
everyone here says roddick isnt feds rival all those years and was just dominated, but roddick beats all the other top players with a much better percentage than he had with fed on hardcourts. so does that mean since roddick is such a punk that since he beat murray djoker and nadal on hardcourts, they must suck on HCs right?

rubberduckies
04-18-2009, 01:06 PM
Murray didn't peak until last year. Roddick's victories over Murray were back when he was still a fringe player.
Roddick did get hot in Dubai and beat Nadal and Djokovic. He then went on to beat Federer in Miami.
Roddick's other win over Nadal came in 2004.
Roddick's other victories came against a slumping Djokovic. He beat a guy suffering obvious health problems at the Aussie.

JoshDragon
04-18-2009, 01:15 PM
Unfortunately Roger dominated a really weak tennis era and the lack of true tennis talent made Roger look far more brilliant than he really is. When Nadal came along he blew the lid off the facade, so we are watching the "real" Federer now, exactly how he used to play when he was younger.

:)

You think that Federer is playing the same today as he was 3 years ago?!:-? You cannot be serious.

prosealster
04-18-2009, 01:20 PM
If Fed was in his prime now (both mental & physical), he would still be blowing off the competition everywhere else except on clay...and ***********s would be saying the current field is really weak ;)

totally agree :)

prosealster
04-18-2009, 01:32 PM
nalby was unfortunate that he played his best tennis during a really strong era so he never got to win any slams....now that he's clearly over the hill...he is still good enough to give the current-generation top-of-the-class nadal fits every time they play..;-)

Magnificent!
04-18-2009, 01:36 PM
You think that Federer is playing the same today as he was 3 years ago?!:-? You cannot be serious.

Maybe he isn't playing as well as 3years ago, but why? atlast he's got competition that are not scared of him. The youngsters have matured and Federer is feeling the heat. He knows he needs to take chances on his forehand before he gets pinned into his backhand corner. He goes for more than he would like or should.... that's pressure. what if his forehand is not working? Hit some backhand winners? Not going to happen is it. Then he needs to rely on his serve more to get him out of trouble.... he's not serving well at the moment either. He needs Agassi to help him make a comeback.
I am actually a Fed' fan, but I don't like how he is responding to what I think is his first real bunch of challengers.

P_Agony
04-18-2009, 01:43 PM
Obviously if he had a more serious rival, his results would be worse than what he was able to achieve. I mean that's the only possible outcome of such a scenario. I wonder who could possibly have stepped in to fill that role. Safin and Nalbandian are just way too inconsistent to make a real dent into Fed's dominance. Rafa was still too young. He was brimming with talent but hadn't found a way to channel that talent effectively. But if Nadal had peaked earlier, he also wouldn't really be a rival to Federer. It would just be Rafa dominating Roger on all surfaces because Nadal's talent advantage is just too large. It's pretty obvious that the moment Nadal peaks (he hasn't yet) would be the moment Fed becomes a total afterthought. Fed has always said how important it was to play Nadal while he was still young because he recognized these facts. He had watched Rafa do things with the ball that Fed could only dream of doing.

No.

10 char.

tennis-hero
04-18-2009, 02:48 PM
Nadal hasn't improved as much as Fed has gone into freefall

2006 Federer would bagel Rafa (even on slow fake grass)

oh wait- he DID bagel Rafa in 06 at wimbledon

helloworld
04-18-2009, 02:53 PM
Federer faltered under real competition. He is no longer in a consideration for GOAT.
"You can not be the greatest if you are not the best in your generation" - Every experts on GOAT

deltox
04-18-2009, 02:56 PM
Murray didn't peak until last year. Roddick's victories over Murray were back when he was still a fringe player.
Roddick did get hot in Dubai and beat Nadal and Djokovic. He then went on to beat Federer in Miami.
Roddick's other win over Nadal came in 2004.
Roddick's other victories came against a slumping Djokovic. He beat a guy suffering obvious health problems at the Aussie.

typical, roddicks wins came when someone had issues, excuses are worthless , he got paid the same amount for the wins.

the point is every has primes in their careers, and roddicks was right at feds prime, or just slightly before.

so if roddick wins at almost any given time. hes taking advanatge of someone else problems?

if nadal wins, its because he was dominant, not because someone else had a problem?

this forum is sooo full of the double standards. when rafa is after his prime ill be laughing away when everyone quickly changes their avatars and starts praising and jumping bandwagons on the next big thing

deltox
04-18-2009, 02:58 PM
Federer faltered under real competition. He is no longer in a consideration for GOAT.
"You can not be the greatest if you are not the best in your generation" - Every experts on GOAT

can you name the "every experts" you are quoting please?

VivalaVida
04-18-2009, 02:58 PM
Nadal hasn't improved as much as Fed has gone into freefall

2006 Federer would bagel Rafa (even on slow fake grass)

oh wait- he DID bagel Rafa in 06 at wimbledon

oh yeah! and right after feeding Rafa that bagel, federer had to play two tiebreak sets against a determined 20 yr old Rafa (even losing one!). Seriously, I know federer was much better player in 2006 but why take shots at nadal? who happened to be only a 20 yr old at the time.

VivalaVida
04-18-2009, 03:03 PM
can you name the "every experts" you are quoting please?
probably the TT experts and historians.

tennis-hero
04-18-2009, 03:07 PM
oh yeah! and right after feeding Rafa that bagel, federer had to play two tiebreak sets against a determined 20 yr old Rafa (even losing one!). Seriously, I know federer was much better player in 2006 but why take shots at nadal? who happened to be only a 20 yr old at the time.

Rafa's best year on clay

the only year he went undefeated on clay

also 2006 Roger beat Rafa 6-1 in the first set at RG

its not a shot at rafa

Roger Federer is only losing because he is in freefall

2006 Federer would have won the French open in 2007

deltox
04-18-2009, 03:09 PM
probably the TT experts and historians.

thats an elite group.. i feel so small now

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 03:19 PM
Nadal hasn't improved as much as Fed has gone into freefall

2006 Federer would bagel Rafa (even on slow fake grass)

oh wait- he DID bagel Rafa in 06 at wimbledon
He also lost a set to Rafa in Wimbledon 2006 :roll: and 2 sets to him in Wimbledon 2007.
You can spin it any way you want, Federer has never led in his head to head with Rafa and the only tournament in which he has significantly dominated Rafa is the Master Cup. In Miami 2005, when Rafa was only 18 and Federer was #1 and with maximum confidence, it took Fed 5 sets to defeat the youngster and Rafa had a match point to beat him in straights. In Miami 2004, Fed found a way to lose to 17 year old Nadal and he lost Dubai's final (one of his favorite tournaments, an indoor fast court) to Nadal as well.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 03:23 PM
The competition is weaker now. Roddick etc still beat the "tougher" players of today and they are way past their prime how does this make the current players better then them exactly??

rubberduckies
04-18-2009, 03:32 PM
Rafa's best year on clay

the only year he went undefeated on clay

also 2006 Roger beat Rafa 6-1 in the first set at RG

its not a shot at rafa

Roger Federer is only losing because he is in freefall

2006 Federer would have won the French open in 2007

Nadal was half asleep for those opening sets. If you actually watched them you could see that easily. He was spraying balls left and right. Once he decided to turn it on and compete, his level rose dramatically. He handed Fed the first set of the French 06 then upped his game and took the second set 6-1. Fed was playing out of his mind, but his talent is just so beneath Nadal's. Nadal was about to serve out the 2nd set of W06 but complete choked and lost it in a tiebreaker. If he had won, he would have won the match even though his standard back then wasn't anywhere close to what it is now. Wimbledon 2007 was another choke job by Nadal. Face the facts, if you took the absolute best match Federer has ever or could ever play and put it up against 80% Nadal, Rafa would demolish Fed in straight sets on any surface.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 03:36 PM
Nadal was half asleep for those opening sets. If you actually watched them you could see that easily. He was spraying balls left and right. Once he decided to turn it on and compete, his level rose dramatically. He handed Fed the first set of the French 06 then upped his game and took the second set 6-1. Fed was playing out of his mind, but his talent is just so beneath Nadal's. Nadal was about to serve out the 2nd set of W06 but complete choked and lost it in a tiebreaker. If he had won, he would have won the match even though his standard back then wasn't anywhere close to what it is now. Wimbledon 2007 was another choke job by Nadal. Face the facts, if you took the absolute best match Federer has ever or could ever play and put it up against 80% Nadal, Rafa would demolish Fed in straight sets on any surface. Are you joking? If you're not you might aswell stop watching tennis/Nadal.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 03:37 PM
Rafa's best year on clay

the only year he went undefeated on clay

also 2006 Roger beat Rafa 6-1 in the first set at RG

its not a shot at rafa

Roger Federer is only losing because he is in freefall

2006 Federer would have won the French open in 2007
2006 was NOT Nadal's best year on clay.
Actually his best year was 2007 with 4 wins: Monte-Carlo, Barcelona, Rome and RG + 1 final (Hamburg).
Second best year (so far) would be 2008, same wins as 2006 but with no set lost in Monte-Carlo (in 2006 he lost several sets in both Monte-Carlo and RG and had to play a 5 setter in the Rome final) + the double title as well and RG (+ the least # of games lost at RG).
The only reason why Nadal didn't lose a match in 2006 is because he only played 2 masters out of the 3 (he skipped Hamburg), whereas the following years he played everything.
Actually in terms of tennis quality his best year was rather 2008 where he played the most dominant tennis of his career (so far) in both Monte-Carlo and RG.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 03:39 PM
Are you joking? If you're not you might aswell stop watching tennis/Nadal.
You're the one who should stop commenting about Nadal since it's very clear from your posts that you can't stand him and you obviously never watch his matches (I even have my doubts about highlights) given the inane remarks you keep posting about his game.

edberg505
04-18-2009, 03:55 PM
Nadal was half asleep for those opening sets. If you actually watched them you could see that easily. He was spraying balls left and right. Once he decided to turn it on and compete, his level rose dramatically. He handed Fed the first set of the French 06 then upped his game and took the second set 6-1. Fed was playing out of his mind, but his talent is just so beneath Nadal's. Nadal was about to serve out the 2nd set of W06 but complete choked and lost it in a tiebreaker. If he had won, he would have won the match even though his standard back then wasn't anywhere close to what it is now. Wimbledon 2007 was another choke job by Nadal. Face the facts, if you took the absolute best match Federer has ever or could ever play and put it up against 80% Nadal, Rafa would demolish Fed in straight sets on any surface.

LOL, that's funny.

King of Aces
04-18-2009, 03:55 PM
Fed did have a real rival at his peak. It was Nadal . The rivalry is now 5 years old.

Besides Federe is still at his "peak"......the difference is that Nadal was not at his "peak"

Nadal was in the infancy of his career at 17.

edberg505
04-18-2009, 03:59 PM
Fed did have a real rival at his peak. It was Nadal . The rivalry is now 5 years old.

Besides Federe is still at his "peak"......the difference is that Nadal was not at his "peak"

Nadal was in the infancy of his career at 17.

Come and find me when Nadal is about to turn 28 and we'll see if say he's at this peak then.

King of Aces
04-18-2009, 04:02 PM
Come and find me when Nadal is about to turn 28 and we'll see if say he's at this peak then.

5 years ago Nadal was 17 and Federer was 22. (the same age Rafa is today!).

Nadal beat Roger back then as well.

The difference is that Nadal is now reaching his peak.......Rafa was not near as good as a 17 year old teenager as he is today as a 22 year old man,

edberg505
04-18-2009, 04:06 PM
5 years ago Nadal was 17 and Federer was 22. (the same age Rafa is today!).

Nadal beat Roger back then as well.

The difference is that Nadal is now reaching his peak.......Rafa was not near as good as a 17 year old teenager as he is today as a 22 year old man,

Darn, you got me there. Nadal is the GOAT!!!

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 04:06 PM
You're the one who should stop commenting about Nadal since it's very clear from your posts that you can't stand him and you obviously never watch his matches (I even have my doubts about highlights) given the inane remarks you keep posting about his game. Please, please don't tell me you agree with this quote: Face the facts, if you took the absolute best match Federer has ever or could ever play and put it up against 80% Nadal, Rafa would demolish Fed in straight sets on any surface.

VivalaVida
04-18-2009, 04:13 PM
He also lost a set to Rafa in Wimbledon 2006 :roll: and 2 sets to him in Wimbledon 2007.
You can spin it any way you want, Federer has never led in his head to head with Rafa and the only tournament in which he has significantly dominated Rafa is the Master Cup. In Miami 2005, when Rafa was only 18 and Federer was #1 and with maximum confidence, it took Fed 5 sets to defeat the youngster and Rafa had a match point to beat him in straights. In Miami 2004, Fed found a way to lose to 17 year old Nadal and he lost Dubai's final (one of his favorite tournaments, an indoor fast court) to Nadal as well.

Dubai is actually an outdoor court. Not that it matters.

luckyboy1300
04-18-2009, 04:13 PM
The competition is weaker now. Roddick etc still beat the "tougher" players of today and they are way past their prime how does this make the current players better then them exactly??

yeah, roddick is the perfect example that the competition is "stronger" than in fed's peak years. that messed-up logic is not taking into account roger's level of play and just looks at his age.

VivalaVida
04-18-2009, 04:14 PM
Nadal was half asleep for those opening sets. If you actually watched them you could see that easily. He was spraying balls left and right. Once he decided to turn it on and compete, his level rose dramatically. He handed Fed the first set of the French 06 then upped his game and took the second set 6-1. Fed was playing out of his mind, but his talent is just so beneath Nadal's. Nadal was about to serve out the 2nd set of W06 but complete choked and lost it in a tiebreaker. If he had won, he would have won the match even though his standard back then wasn't anywhere close to what it is now. Wimbledon 2007 was another choke job by Nadal. Face the facts, if you took the absolute best match Federer has ever or could ever play and put it up against 80% Nadal, Rafa would demolish Fed in straight sets on any surface.
Rubberduckies, are your up to trolling again? :D

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 04:16 PM
yeah, roddick is the perfect example that the competition is "stronger" than in fed's peak years. that messed-up logic is not taking into account roger's level of play and just looks at his age. I don't think the competition is any stronger now...

luckyboy1300
04-18-2009, 04:24 PM
I don't think the competition is any stronger now...

so do i, hence "messed up logic". until we got a non-fanboyish argument on how to assess level of competition, we just stick into a more logical approach, the competition is always on the same level as it always was.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 04:26 PM
so do i, hence "messed up logic". until we got a non-fanboyish argument on how to assess level of competition, we just stick into a more logical approach, the competition is always on the same level as it always was. Oh jokes I thought you were attacking me.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 04:30 PM
Dubai is actually an outdoor court. Not that it matters.
OK, thanks for the correction.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 04:45 PM
Please, please don't tell me you agree with this quote: Face the facts, if you took the absolute best match Federer has ever or could ever play and put it up against 80% Nadal, Rafa would demolish Fed in straight sets on any surface.
No, of course not. You are right to disagree with that.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 05:03 PM
In 2004, the competition was utter garbage.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 05:04 PM
In 2004, the competition was utter garbage.

So you would agree Fed's domination partly came to fruition because of a weaker era?

Serendipitous
04-18-2009, 05:08 PM
I think the OP is not giving Feddy Teddy enough credit.


He played really well to win 13 grand slams.


Federer had some real rivals in the past, but now he has a superhuman rival - Nadal.

GameSampras
04-18-2009, 05:14 PM
Fed was so dang dominant during that 4 year span and players so far behind the 8 ball , there wasnt really rival for Fed. At least a consistent one outside of Nadal on clay. Roddick I guess you could say was a rival, a consistent one , but a very weak one nonetheless. He cant even defeat a Roger who has lost a step in his game now. Hewitt best days didnt last very long. I dont consider him a rival since he was pretty washed up 3-4 years ago. Safin was barely around to be considered rival. Nalbandian didnt do jack diddly ever the slams to be considered a rival. The only legit rival I guess you could say Roger had was Nadal during that time period.

Djoker, Murray, prime Nadal are actual rivals to Fed I think even though Murray has yet to grab his first slam but he is showing some great promise and very soon will grab his first slam somewheres I think and even take Fed out in the process.

CyBorg
04-18-2009, 05:20 PM
So you would agree Fed's domination partly came to fruition because of a weaker era?

Weaker era than now by far.

msc886
04-18-2009, 05:24 PM
Unfortunately Roger dominated a really weak tennis era and the lack of true tennis talent made Roger look far more brilliant than he really is. When Nadal came along he blew the lid off the facade, so we are watching the "real" Federer now, exactly how he used to play when he was younger.

:)

Have you considered Nadal's clay court competition?

lawrence
04-18-2009, 05:51 PM
samptards are worse than *********s and *******s combined imo

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 06:03 PM
Weaker era than now by far. Um no, just no. I have often wondered why Sampras fans seem to try and compare the current era to Fed domination era when virtually the competition is at the same level. Wouldn't you have a better argument saying Sampras's era is stronger then the current era and Fed domination era?

tennis-hero
04-18-2009, 06:20 PM
2006 was NOT Nadal's best year on clay.
Actually his best year was 2007 with 4 wins: Monte-Carlo, Barcelona, Rome and RG + 1 final (Hamburg).
Second best year (so far) would be 2008, same wins as 2006 but with no set lost in Monte-Carlo (in 2006 he lost several sets in both Monte-Carlo and RG and had to play a 5 setter in the Rome final) + the double title as well and RG (+ the least # of games lost at RG).
The only reason why Nadal didn't lose a match in 2006 is because he only played 2 masters out of the 3 (he skipped Hamburg), whereas the following years he played everything.
Actually in terms of tennis quality his best year was rather 2008 where he played the most dominant tennis of his career (so far) in both Monte-Carlo and RG.

first of all

2006- ONLY YEAR HE DIDN'T LOSE ON CLAY

secondly 2006 monte carlo
Lost only 1 set leading upto the final against Federer PRIME- this was when Federer had NO mental block and could go toe to toe with Nadal

in 2005 Nadal only lost 1 set leading up to the final (against Gasquet- who himself beat Federer on the way there)

in 2005 it went to 4 sets

if anything you can argue in 2005-2006 there was better clay competition

he didn't lose sets in 07 and 08 at monte carlo

ROME
you point out that Rafa lost sets in 06- well the only people to take sets from Rafa at Monte Carlo and Rome were, Gaudio , Moya (took a set at rome) and Roger Federer

thats the only people in 2006 who took a set off Rafa at Rome and Monte carlo

the 2006 Rome final is considered one of the greatest matches of all time

you say that Rafa winning without dropping a set shows he played better

but i disagree because Roger was playing peak form in 2005 and 2006 and Rafa dropping sets should be "par for the course" considering who he was up against- if anything Roger's dipping form (2007 onwards) and the lack of any other serious challenger on clay is the reason Rafa has dominated on the dirt

back to Rome 2006- Rafa lost only 1 set leading upto the final
he lost 1 set leading upto the final in 2007
in 2008 (you say his best year) he lost in the 2nd round - we dont do excuses here

on 2005 he lost only 2 sets leading upto the final

He didn't play Hamburg in 2006
hewitt took a set off him in 2007 at hamburg before Roger Bagled him- you say 2007 was his best year, well Hewitt losing 7-5 in the 3rd to Rafa tells me that maybe that wasn't peak Rafa (considering Hewitt isn't known as a clay legend)

and for the record in 2008 only Joker and Roger could take a set off Rafa at Hamburg, where he won.

his best year has been 2006 because its his only perfect year

in 2005 he went 50-2 on clay-

he also won on clay
the brasil open
monte carlo masters
Open Sabadell Atlántico
rome masters
french open
swedish open
and the mercedes cup

whereas in 2006 onwards most of his finals came against Federer- you could argue at least there was depth in the clay field in 2005 when Nadal won the titles

basically, numbers speak for themselves

Rafa so far has only had 1 flawless clay court year, and that was in 2006- all the more impressive considering it was during Roger's prime

helloworld
04-18-2009, 06:26 PM
Fed's closest rival on non-clay surface, Andy Roddick is 1-5 against 'old' Andre broke-back Agassi, the closest rival to Sampras. I guess that explains it all. :lol:

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 06:33 PM
first of all

2006- ONLY YEAR HE DIDN'T LOSE ON CLAY

secondly 2006 monte carlo
Lost only 1 set leading upto the final against Federer PRIME- this was when Federer had NO mental block and could go toe to toe with Nadal

in 2005 Nadal only lost 1 set leading up to the final (against Gasquet- who himself beat Federer on the way there)

in 2005 it went to 4 sets

if anything you can argue in 2005-2006 there was better clay competition

he didn't lose sets in 07 and 08 at monte carlo

ROME
you point out that Rafa lost sets in 06- well the only people to take sets from Rafa at Monte Carlo and Rome were, Gaudio , Moya (took a set at rome) and Roger Federer

thats the only people in 2006 who took a set off Rafa at Rome and Monte carlo

the 2006 Rome final is considered one of the greatest matches of all time

you say that Rafa winning without dropping a set shows he played better

but i disagree because Roger was playing peak form in 2005 and 2006 and Rafa dropping sets should be "par for the course" considering who he was up against- if anything Roger's dipping form (2007 onwards) and the lack of any other serious challenger on clay is the reason Rafa has dominated on the dirt

back to Rome 2006- Rafa lost only 1 set leading upto the final
he lost 1 set leading upto the final in 2007
in 2008 (you say his best year) he lost in the 2nd round - we dont do excuses here

on 2005 he lost only 2 sets leading upto the final

He didn't play Hamburg in 2006
hewitt took a set off him in 2007 at hamburg before Roger Bagled him- you say 2007 was his best year, well Hewitt losing 7-5 in the 3rd to Rafa tells me that maybe that wasn't peak Rafa (considering Hewitt isn't known as a clay legend)

and for the record in 2008 only Joker and Roger could take a set off Rafa at Hamburg, where he won.

his best year has been 2006 because its his only perfect year

in 2005 he went 50-2 on clay-

he also won on clay
the brasil open
monte carlo masters
Open Sabadell Atlántico
rome masters
french open
swedish open
and the mercedes cup

whereas in 2006 onwards most of his finals came against Federer- you could argue at least there was depth in the clay field in 2005 when Nadal won the titles

basically, numbers speak for themselves

Rafa so far has only had 1 flawless clay court year, and that was in 2006- all the more impressive considering it was during Roger's prime
Wow such a long post to tell nothing significant! I already explained that in 2006 Nadal played 2 masters instead of 3, so he didn't lose a match technically but he WON LESS than he did in 2007 and 2008. In 2007 he won the same tournaments but also made the final in Hamburg. In 2008 he won Monte-Carlo double title on top of the others and was devastatingly dominant at RG.
2005 is nowhere near Nadal's best year on clay (even though of course it was still amazing, Nadal has always been amazing on clay), he even lost to Andreev that year, but of course he was only 18. The small tournaments you mention like Acapulco are relatively insignificant events with lesser competition in them. Don't get me wrong, Nadal's level on clay was already phenomenal, we're talking minimal differences here but it's obvious Nadal has progressed since 2005 and 2006. 2006 was Federer's best year and it was still a formative year for Rafa.

tennis-hero
04-18-2009, 06:42 PM
Wow such a long post to tell nothing significant! I already explained that in 2006 Nadal played 2 masters instead of 3, so he didn't lose a match technically but he WON LESS than he did in 2007 and 2008. In 2007 he won the same tournaments but also made the final in Hamburg. In 2008 he won Monte-Carlo double title on top of the others and was devastatingly dominant at RG.
2005 is nowhere near Nadal's best year on clay (even though of course it was still amazing, Nadal has always been amazing on clay), he even lost to Andreev that year, but of course he was only 18. The small tournaments you mention like Acapulco are insignificant events with little competition in them. Don't get me wrong, Nadal's level on clay was already phenomenal, we're talking minimal differences here but it's obvious Nadal has progressed since 2005 and 2006. 2006 was Federer's best year and it was still a formative year for Rafa.

in 2007 Federer Bagled him and Hewitt pushed him to 3 (in a best of 3) 7-5

in 2008 Ferrerro smoked him

in 2006- he didn't lose on clay at all

if your argument is he didn't lose because he didn't play as much, therefore he won more in 2007/08= better/improvement

then thats stupid- he won even more in 2005 and only lost TWICE on clay

also veronique its imporant to stay consistent- you said in another thread that winning close didn't mean anything when Pancho said Rafa won 7-5 in alot of matches that proved he could be beat

but you're using that same logic (in how many sets lost) to determine how well Rafa played- since you pointed out in 07 and 08 he never lost a set at monte carlo

well thats fine, but screw the sets- he NEVER LOST A MATCH IN 2006, he did in 07 and 08

i think 2009 is going to be his best year on clay, so this whole argument will become moot

VivalaVida
04-18-2009, 07:08 PM
in 2007 Federer Bagled him and Hewitt pushed him to 3 (in a best of 3) 7-5

in 2008 Ferrerro smoked him

in 2006- he didn't lose on clay at all

if your argument is he didn't lose because he didn't play as much, therefore he won more in 2007/08= better/improvement

then thats stupid- he won even more in 2005 and only lost TWICE on clay

also veronique its imporant to stay consistent- you said in another thread that winning close didn't mean anything when Pancho said Rafa won 7-5 in alot of matches that proved he could be beat

but you're using that same logic (in how many sets lost) to determine how well Rafa played- since you pointed out in 07 and 08 he never lost a set at monte carlo

well thats fine, but screw the sets- he NEVER LOST A MATCH IN 2006, he did in 07 and 08

i think 2009 is going to be his best year on clay, so this whole argument will become moot
the most unlegit win ever. Nadal has a massive blister on his foot.

veroniquem
04-18-2009, 07:10 PM
in 2007 Federer Bagled him and Hewitt pushed him to 3 (in a best of 3) 7-5

in 2008 Ferrerro smoked him

in 2006- he didn't lose on clay at all

if your argument is he didn't lose because he didn't play as much, therefore he won more in 2007/08= better/improvement

then thats stupid- he won even more in 2005 and only lost TWICE on clay

also veronique its imporant to stay consistent- you said in another thread that winning close didn't mean anything when Pancho said Rafa won 7-5 in alot of matches that proved he could be beat

but you're using that same logic (in how many sets lost) to determine how well Rafa played- since you pointed out in 07 and 08 he never lost a set at monte carlo

well thats fine, but screw the sets- he NEVER LOST A MATCH IN 2006, he did in 07 and 08

i think 2009 is going to be his best year on clay, so this whole argument will become moot
In 2008, Ferrero didn't smoke Nadal, Nadal had a hole in his foot, it had absolutely nothing to do with Nadal's general abilities that particular year, Nadal had actually smoked Ferrero 2 weeks before when he didn't have a hole in his foot! The reason why we can't communicate is that it's not humanly possible to win ALL the most important clay court tournaments in the space of 2 months: Monte-Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, Hamburg and RG. It's just not feasible but you insist on pretending that it is. 2006 was the only year Nadal didn't attempt to play all of them, if he's gonna play all of them, he can't win them all, which doesn't mean anything in terms of how better or how worse his clay court tennis is overall, it just means if he plays all of them, one of them is gonna have to be sacrificed, he's a human being lol, not a machine. (Although he did come close to achieving it in 2007)
The other reason we can't seem to agree is that Nadal's years on clay were actually immensely similar. In 2006, 2007 and 2008, he won 2 masters, a 500 and the slam. So the variations in level are automatically very subtle!
In a way, one could say that Nadal was always at his peak on clay from 2005 to now, it defies logic but he seems to be able to maintain the same level of results year after year. If you look at the WAY he wins all those matches though, you can see how he has become even more efficient and confident with time.

VivalaVida
04-18-2009, 07:11 PM
So you would agree Fed's domination partly came to fruition because of a weaker era?
yes, I agree gamesampras. federer maybe wouldnt be at 13 but this can be applied to every champion. Pete wouldn't have won 14 either if he had stronger competition rather than Pioline, Martin, Chang, and Moya at some points in his career.

vtmike
04-18-2009, 07:19 PM
If Nadal was actually at his peak 04-07 and current Djoker and Murray were around back then, Fed would be sitting on probably half the slams he is now. He sure as hell wouldnt be close to 13 IMO. Prime Fed, Peak, no way could prime Nadal. Prime-Peak Fed couldnt barely even beat Pre-prime nadal

This is how you come across EVERYTIME you start to talk about this topic...

http://i44.tinypic.com/2uzbj4o.jpg

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 07:24 PM
This is how you come across EVERYTIME you start to talk about this topic...

http://i44.tinypic.com/2uzbj4o.jpg Sadly its actually sort of like that. Sampras fans and Nadal fans to a lesser extent need to stop it because it gets tiring having these threads every single day.

edberg505
04-18-2009, 07:26 PM
yes, I agree gamesampras. federer maybe wouldnt be at 13 but this can be applied to every champion. Pete wouldn't have won 14 either if he had stronger competition rather than Pioline, Martin, Chang, and Moya at some points in his career.

Oh, don't forget the might Lleyton Hewitt, oh wait The Pistol got beat like a circus monkey in that final.

egn
04-18-2009, 07:28 PM
If Nadal was actually at his peak 04-07 and current Djoker and Murray were around back then, Fed would be sitting on probably half the slams he is now. He sure as hell wouldnt be close to 13 IMO. Prime Fed, Peak, no way could prime Nadal. Prime-Peak Fed couldnt barely even beat Pre-prime nadal

Huh what outside of clay where did Fed struggle against Nadal? Prime Nadal barely beat Prime Fed on two occassions can I apply the same logic that? You are simply assuming because Fed is losing to Nadal now that two years ago he would have lost to the same Nadal. The current DJoker and Murray..god you give them far more credit than they deserve. Can't wait for five years when Murray has one or two slams and is done and you will still try to find a way to say he is better than Hewitt/Roddick/Safin etc. by leaps and bounds. Of course if peak Fed faced peak Nadal he would have some less slams. But Nadal wouldn't be winning so many right now..SO they both would finish like around 8 or 9 and would wreck their field. SO really you would argue that the era is even weaker as for 4 or 5 years they would probably win every single slam..and every single masters. God do we need to have every dumb hypothetical scenario for ever GOAT candidate.

Serve_Ace
04-18-2009, 07:33 PM
Why do we even need a GOAT? Is there a rule somewhere that says there must be a GOAT?

380pistol
04-18-2009, 11:13 PM
Nadal hasn't improved as much as Fed has gone into freefall

2006 Federer would bagel Rafa (even on slow fake grass)

oh wait- he DID bagel Rafa in 06 at wimbledon

Yes he bagelled Nadal...... playing the 4th grasscourt tourney of his life!!!!!! One he retired from, and another he went out in the 2nd rd!!!!! Yet this Nadal had a chance to serve for the 2nd set (gave it away with 3 unforced errors and a double fault), and may have been up 2 sets to 1 on the then 3 time defending champion.

Ypu forgot about that so I just thought I'd remind you.

380pistol
04-18-2009, 11:14 PM
You think that Federer is playing the same today as he was 3 years ago?!:-? You cannot be serious.

You think the level of top players around Federer is the same as during his dominance??!? You cannot be serious!!!!

380pistol
04-18-2009, 11:16 PM
can you name the "every experts" you are quoting please?

probably the TT experts and historians.

I'll help helloworld. Thse experts include Agassi, McEnroe (John and Patrick), Bud Collins and even Gilbert has ushered the same sentiment.

380pistol
04-18-2009, 11:21 PM
Rafa's best year on clay

the only year he went undefeated on clay

also 2006 Roger beat Rafa 6-1 in the first set at RG

So you play ONE good set and that means what exactly??? What happened the final 3 sets??? Well according to Roger "I couldn't handle Nadal" is what happened the last 3 sets!!!!!



its not a shot at rafa

Roger Federer is only losing because he is in freefall

2006 Federer would have won the French open in 2007


Really he would have. You mean 2006 Federer who's backhand was beaten up to the tune of 4 winners and 28 unforced errors by Nadal??? Roger who had what 50-60 unforced erros on the day.

It's more likely that 2008 Rafa would have won Wimbledon in 2007 and maybe even 2006.

380pistol
04-18-2009, 11:26 PM
Um no, just no. I have often wondered why Sampras fans seem to try and compare the current era to Fed domination era when virtually the competition is at the same level. Wouldn't you have a better argument saying Sampras's era is stronger then the current era and Fed domination era?

So are you saying Nadal 2004-06 = Nadal 2008???
How about Hewitt 2005-07 = Djokovic 2008???

They are all equal, good to know.

380pistol
04-18-2009, 11:30 PM
yes, I agree gamesampras. federer maybe wouldnt be at 13 but this can be applied to every champion. Pete wouldn't have won 14 either if he had stronger competition rather than Pioline, Martin, Chang, and Moya at some points in his career.

Yes this apllies. But along with Pioline, Martin, Chang and Boya, Pete had to deal with Agassi, Becker, Courier, Rafter and Ivanisevic in slams, a combined 28 times. Were not just looking at slam final opponenets (by the way I see ACL knee'd out 48rk P'sis, 86th rk Safin, broke back 35 yr old Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal in his 4th grass court tournament and Gonzalez), but the top level of players surrounding you.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-18-2009, 11:35 PM
380pistol why did you post 6 times in a row??? Here is the approitate response to all six of your messages:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2uzbj4o.jpg
Currently today there are only 3 debatably four people who can realistically win slams. If players from 05 played today there would be about 7 players capable of winning slams in todays competition. Thats not including Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.

luckyboy1300
04-19-2009, 05:24 AM
Oh, don't forget the might Lleyton Hewitt, oh wait The Pistol got beat like a circus monkey in that final.

don't forget, pete was "exhausted", the term used by samptards and *******s (boy do they always agree!!) exhaustingly.

vtmike
04-19-2009, 05:40 AM
Yes he bagelled Nadal...... playing the 4th grasscourt tourney of his life!!!!!! One he retired from, and another he went out in the 2nd rd!!!!! Yet this Nadal had a chance to serve for the 2nd set (gave it away with 3 unforced errors and a double fault), and may have been up 2 sets to 1 on the then 3 time defending champion.

Ypu forgot about that so I just thought I'd remind you.

Yup and the 2008 Federer who had mono in Jan and then suffered from back problems throughout the end of the year, who did not win any masters 1000 series cups (a clear indicator that he declined drastically in form), lost to people who he owned before (Mardy Fish, Radek Štěpánek, James Blake, Andy Roddick), Nadal bagelled him for the first time, but he still managed to stretch a peak Nadal to 5 sets in the 2009 AO & on the slowed down grass of Wimbledon (and the slowing down of grass is according to the same experts you refer to i.e. Mcenroe, Bud Collins, Gilbert and many more)

vtmike
04-19-2009, 05:52 AM
So are you saying Nadal 2004-06 = Nadal 2008???
How about Hewitt 2005-07 = Djokovic 2008???

They are all equal, good to know.

I don't understand what your big argument is?? What have Djokovic and Murray done so far?? Djokovic has 1 GS and has never been ranked higher than 3, breaks down after playing one set in 80 F :shock: (even a 3.5 player has better physical conditioning than that).

Murray has never been ranked above 4, never won a GS, but suddenly he is better than peak Safin, peak Hewitt, peak Roddick who have all been ranked 1 in their careers, won Grand Slams, and have been multiple GS finalists just because he won a few Masters Shields?? He has potential but that does now mean he is better...there were many players in the Fed era who also had a lot of potential but could not do anything because Fed was that good!

And who are the rest of the players that constitute today's "deep" playing field?? Simon? Tsonga? Monfils? or is it Gasquet? All the good players from the Fed era are now old and some even retiring (take Safin for example)

The only reason Djoko and Murray are doing better now is because Fed's level has gone down sharply...Only a peak Nadal would have given a fight to Fed...but even then I am not sure he would be able to beat Fed on Grass and Hard courts in a GS!

pc1
04-19-2009, 06:56 AM
Obviously if Federer had an equal rival, you would assume he would have half the majors he has now. However if he had an equal rival, perhaps both players would raise the levels of their game so they would be better than the current Roger Federer and perhaps he may do better now.

Let's try to see some historical precedents--

Laver had a great rival in Rosewall and I think it improved his play. Laver probably would have had a lot more majors if not for Rosewall but he wouldn't have been as good.

Budge had a rival for a fraction of a second in Ellsworth Vines but Vines retired to play golf. Budge declined, also got hurt and Riggs took over.

McEnroe and Borg were great rivals and McEnroe improved because of Borg. After Borg retired, McEnroe had a few super years but he always felt he could have been better if Borg was there to push him.

Gonzalez and Hoad were awesome rivals. Hoad led Gonzalez in their series 18 to 9 before Gonzalez changed his backhand grip to be able to hit crosscourt better and it changed the momentum in the series and Gonzalez won 51 to 36. Gonzalez improved and may have become a better player in his late twenties and thirties than in his early and mid twenties.

Kramer claims that Riggs made him better by forcing him to learn to serve and volley. I have my doubts about this because I always got the feeling that Kramer just wanted to compliment his buddy Riggs but it's possible.

egn
04-19-2009, 07:42 AM
Yes he bagelled Nadal...... playing the 4th grasscourt tourney of his life!!!!!! One he retired from, and another he went out in the 2nd rd!!!!! Yet this Nadal had a chance to serve for the 2nd set (gave it away with 3 unforced errors and a double fault), and may have been up 2 sets to 1 on the then 3 time defending champion.

Ypu forgot about that so I just thought I'd remind you.

Okay so the fact that he made it to the finals means nothing? You make it sound like they played first round. God your arguements are ridiculous. OOH IF YOU SERVED OUT THE SET HE WOULD HAVE BEEN UP TWO TO ONE..Well if Fed didn't hit so many unforced errors in the third set tie break he would have won it in straights...gosh we all remember Nadals screw up in that second set tiebreak..it happened..Fed was able to overcome and win, accept it.

You think the level of top players around Federer is the same as during his dominance??!? You cannot be serious!!!!

Yes cause outside of three guys, two who combine for one slam the field is filled with talent. You want to tell me Del Potro who gets beat down when the going gets tough is worth challenge, Simon who can't go the distance, Monfils and Verdasco who get bounced early over and over again, Davydenko even older than he was in Fed's reign (well he was no threat then according to you) that according to you 'threatless Roddick' (who has beat DJokovic 2 times this year mind you...but no he is way below par of him.), Nalbandian (another Fed hang over), Tsogna who got injuried and has come back and faded away. Murray and Djokovic have done nothing Safin, Hewitt or Roddick did not do. The only difference in the field is Nadal is now at his peak, but than the equation can easily be flipped as Fed is not. So yes Fed has tougher competition, but then Fed is not the top dog anymore so the competition will look tougher.


Really he would have. You mean 2006 Federer who's backhand was beaten up to the tune of 4 winners and 28 unforced errors by Nadal??? Roger who had what 50-60 unforced erros on the day.

It's more likely that 2008 Rafa would have won Wimbledon in 2007 and maybe even 2006.

And its likely 2004-2006 Fed would have won the 2009 Australian Open. As 2009 Rafa benefited from another Fed breakdown in that AO final. Fed who didn't even win it in 2005 was playing far better than he was in 2009 and lost to someone who was playing unbeatable tennis that day.

Yes this apllies. But along with Pioline, Martin, Chang and Boya, Pete had to deal with Agassi, Becker, Courier, Rafter and Ivanisevic in slams, a combined 28 times. Were not just looking at slam final opponenets (by the way I see ACL knee'd out 48rk P'sis, 86th rk Safin, broke back 35 yr old Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal in his 4th grass court tournament and Gonzalez), but the top level of players surrounding you.

Okay lets do this.

Agassi = Good Threat.
Becker = Past his best years by 93 and other than that fluke 96 Australian Open only could pose a threat on grass and indoor where Sampras still owned him anyway.
Courier = What did he do after 1993? Finish out of the top in 94, 8 in 95 and never came close to the top again.
Rafter = Benefited from Sampras being off form and for most of Sampras' prime was ranked outside of the top 50. Won 2 slams in 97-98 and could not beat Sampras on his last leg in 2000 at Wimbledon.
Ivanisevic = Ivanisevic could not even beat Agassi the baseliner on the fast grass at Wimbledon..and outside of as you have said "Sampras's worst wimbledon" he never even pushed him.
Chang = Good Threat.

However in reality Agassi in Sampra's prime can easily be compared to pre prime Nadal. Chang is similar to Roddick. Courier is similar to Hewitt and Safin. Ivanisevic would also be similar to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin. Rafter? I don't know Djokovic..not really but Rafter is worse than Djokovic probably or well at least you talk like that. Becker is similar to what Agassi so there you might have a win.

Oh on your 86'th rank Safin comment how do you expect a man out most of the previous year with an injury to have a higher ranking..

colonelforbin
04-19-2009, 08:29 AM
Maybe if Sampras had a "better" rival during the 90's he would have never gotten to 14 slams. Maybe if Nadal had a "better" rival on clay he wouldn't be so dominant. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

These arguments are so stupid because there is no way to prove anything. Please let it rest. To get even reasonably close to a conclusion on the current competition we're going to need to wait until the careers of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray are over, and then look back. But by then we'll probably already be arguing about how weak their competition was compared to future generations.

I love Fed, but I don't think he was ever a mental fortress. He was just so good and so confident in his ability. His competition may not have included all the greats that the 90's had, but I still think he had very tough competition, he was just so much better than anyone else. If he was in his prime today, I still think he would be nearly as a dominant. But this is just my opinion, and once again, I can't prove anything.

380pistol
04-19-2009, 08:57 AM
Okay so the fact that he made it to the finals means nothing? You make it sound like they played first round. God your arguements are ridiculous. OOH IF YOU SERVED OUT THE SET HE WOULD HAVE BEEN UP TWO TO ONE..Well if Fed didn't hit so many unforced errors in the third set tie break he would have won it in straights...gosh we all remember Nadals screw up in that second set tiebreak..it happened..Fed was able to overcome and win, accept it.

The thread says REAL rival?? So a guy in his 4th grasscourt tournament, who hadn't fully reaced his peak who struggled vs the likes of Kendrick and who else took him to 5 sets, is a REAL rival???

Yeah Fed hit some errors in the 3rd set tie break, but didn't Nadal have something close to 18 winners and 3 unforced errors that entire set??? No what did Fed do to break Nadal to get back in the 2nd set??? That's right get 3 unforced erros and a double fault for Rafa?? Now do you see the difference.


Yes cause outside of three guys, two who combine for one slam the field is filled with talent. You want to tell me Del Potro who gets beat down when the going gets tough is worth challenge, Simon who can't go the distance, Monfils and Verdasco who get bounced early over and over again, Davydenko even older than he was in Fed's reign (well he was no threat then according to you) that according to you 'threatless Roddick' (who has beat DJokovic 2 times this year mind you...but no he is way below par of him.), Nalbandian (another Fed hang over), Tsogna who got injuried and has come back and faded away. Murray and Djokovic have done nothing Safin, Hewitt or Roddick did not do. The only difference in the field is Nadal is now at his peak, but than the equation can easily be flipped as Fed is not. So yes Fed has tougher competition, but then Fed is not the top dog anymore so the competition will look tougher.

You had Safin who was all over the place. Hewitt who came back to form in mid 2004 and after the 2005 US Open has been a non factor. Nadal who clearly isnn't as good or seasoned as Nadal now and Roddick.

Nadal 2008-present is better than anyone Roger faced 2004-07. Djokovic has proven to be a much bigger threat than Hewitt and far more consistent than Safin. Fed struggled so much in 2008. Well remove Djokovic who from Melbourne 2004-07 (excl. 05 Safin) beats Roger??? Put 2006 Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final, and what do you get???

Put 2008 Roger vs 2006 field and he goes home with 2 or even 3 slams. Yet it's Roger who has gotten so bad and not the field around him getting better.



And its likely 2004-2006 Fed would have won the 2009 Australian Open. As 2009 Rafa benefited from another Fed breakdown in that AO final. Fed who didn't even win it in 2005 was playing far better than he was in 2009 and lost to someone who was playing unbeatable tennis that day.

I was talking about the French Open. Fed only came close to Nadal on clay in Rome in 2006. Nadal handled him in Monte Carlo and in Paris.

As far as Aus Open, Federer did not play a great final. Well put 2009 Fed in 2004,06 and 07 and he wins it. Do you realize Federer in 2009 Aus QF and SF was......
SETS 6-0
GAMES 38-15
WINNERS 89
UNFORCED ERRORS 24
SERVICE GAMES 27/27
RETURN GAMES 11/26
ACES 28
DOUBLE FAULTS 0

So put 86th rk Safin, Baghdatis or Gonzalez in that 2007 final and what are the chances Fed walks away with his 4th Aus Open tite???



Okay lets do this.

Agassi = Good Threat.
Becker = Past his best years by 93 and other than that fluke 96 Australian Open only could pose a threat on grass and indoor where Sampras still owned him anyway.
Courier = What did he do after 1993? Finish out of the top in 94, 8 in 95 and never came close to the top again.
Rafter = Benefited from Sampras being off form and for most of Sampras' prime was ranked outside of the top 50. Won 2 slams in 97-98 and could not beat Sampras on his last leg in 2000 at Wimbledon.
Ivanisevic = Ivanisevic could not even beat Agassi the baseliner on the fast grass at Wimbledon..and outside of as you have said "Sampras's worst wimbledon" he never even pushed him.
Chang = Good Threat.

Agassi... just good.
Becker.... done after 1993, and 96 Aus Open was fluke.
Courier done after 1993, so what was Hewitt doing after 2002???
Rafter.... yes Sampras was injured in 1998 US Open SF, lbut lost just 2 sets en route to 1997 title and hit 39 winners and 5 unforced in 1998 final.Your boy Roger was 36 winners and 33 unfored vs Murray in 08.
Ivanisevic ... who has beaten Sampras, Edberg, Becker, krajicek, Rafter even Roddick and Safin (while ranked in the 100's) in slams, and pushing Sampras to 5 sets at Wimbledon (twice!!) is not pushing him.

Man you're making me laugh I'll give you that.


However in reality Agassi in Sampra's prime can easily be compared to pre prime Nadal. Chang is similar to Roddick. Courier is similar to Hewitt and Safin. Ivanisevic would also be similar to Roddick, Hewitt and Safin. Rafter? I don't know Djokovic..not really but Rafter is worse than Djokovic probably or well at least you talk like that. Becker is similar to what Agassi so there you might have a win.

Oh on your 86'th rank Safin comment how do you expect a man out most of the previous year with an injury to have a higher ranking..

Courier is ahead of Roddick. Nadal may end up ahead of Agassi when he's done, but the Agassi peak Sampras faced is better than the Nadal Roger dealt with 04-07. Safin...please Roger beat him in slams when he was ranked #24, #86, #75 and #63... so he was injured all those times?? Becker 92/93/96 > Djokovic 07-present. On clay you have Bruguera, Muster and Kuerten.

Roddick From 2004 - present list me all the top 10 players he's beaten in slams????

380pistol
04-19-2009, 09:03 AM
Yup and the 2008 Federer who had mono in Jan and then suffered from back problems throughout the end of the year, who did not win any masters 1000 series cups (a clear indicator that he declined drastically in form), lost to people who he owned before (Mardy Fish, Radek Štěpánek, James Blake, Andy Roddick), Nadal bagelled him for the first time, but he still managed to stretch a peak Nadal to 5 sets in the 2009 AO & on the slowed down grass of Wimbledon (and the slowing down of grass is according to the same experts you refer to i.e. Mcenroe, Bud Collins, Gilbert and many more)

I'll make it simple......

Take Federer from 2008 mono and all. Who from Aus Open 2004-07 (excl. Safin 2005) would have beaten him in 2008??? Tell me???

Same for Wimbledon, save for Nadal 2007, who from Wimbledon 2003 onwards beats Federer in 2008??? You know Fed who got the final without dropping a set en route to the final, while only being broken twce.

No if Fed lost 20 matches but won those 2, would we be talking about this???Hell no?? It would be how Fed is more focused on slams. In 2005 and 2006 Roger went 173-9. In 2007 he went 68-9, that's 105 fewer wins for the 9 losses, how come he wasn't slipping in 2007??? Cuz he won slams!!!!! If he'd won them in 2008 you wouldn't be saying this, or you would have said it about 2007. So why didn't he win multiple slams in 2008??? Maybe Djokovic and Nadal had something to do with it.

I mean be serious, Mardy Fish played the match of his life, that's more about Fish than Roger. Will Fish ever play that match again.

Federer actually outplayed Roddick in Miami. He was unfortunate to lose that match, and he hurt himself with a horrible service game at 3-4 in the 3rd set. But what about 2006 YEC where Roddick held match points on Roger??2006 US Open where Roddick was up 0-40 to go up a break in the 3rd set. 2004 Wimbledon F where Roddick led 6-4,5-7,4-2 before the rain. You make it seem as if Fed is blowing him out everytime. And save for the 2006 US Open, Fedmay have played better in the Miami match.

Stepanek and.....?? See Gasquet, Costa, Bo Jackson hipped Guga, Volandri, even Nalbandian who was up 6-3,3-0 at RG before being hurt. All this on clay 2004-07.

Blake... a bad loss. But wasn't Blake up a double break in Indian Wells on Roger before choking?? Have a chance to serve out sets in US Opeb QF and choked??? It's never about the opponents bad play when Roger wins that always gets overlooked.

Karlovic.... something like 11 of the 18 set they've played have gone to tie breaks. When Roger wins 7-6 in the 3rd all is right with the world, when he loses 7-6 in the 3rd the sky is falling.

2008
Aus Open vs Djokovic - Roger 53 winners, 32-33 unforced errors(he and Novak made the exact same # of unforced errros) and 13 aces.

Wimbledon F vs Nadal - 89 winners, 52 unforced errors, 25 aces.

US Open F vs Murray - 36 winners, 33 unfrced, 3 aces.

Yet only one of these matches is praised as a great performance. hell in the 2008 US Opeb SF vs Djokovic, he put up 51 winners, 28 unrced and 20 aces, compare that to his Aus Open performance. But howhtat performance was so bad (well Fed played a bad 2nd set anyway).

GameSampras
04-19-2009, 09:16 AM
Roger has declined a bit no doubt about that. Mostly I think its his confidence being shattered than it is his game going to complete ground zero. Hes 27 and has had no major injuries and plays a pretty fluid game not as taxing on the body ala Nadal. Fed shouldnt been that pathetic at only 27 should he? Considering he only started his domination 5 years ago. What can we take away from the smaller tourneys? They are simply not as important to Fed now as they were back then. Fed is reaching towards the end of his prime years obviously so what do u think is going to be more of a big deal on Fed's "to do" list? Worrying about Monte Carlo, Dubai, Cincy, Miami, Indan Wells? Not as much as worrying about the slams which he has time and again reached the finals either winning or only losing to Nadal. When Fed begins losing in the first week of the slams then we will talk about how much Fed is a complete imposter of his old self but I think he is. HE is just conserving himself for the big ones. Hes chasing records and history here. What does Winning Dubai, Miami etc help Fed in the grand scheme of things?

The competition is a tad better today even if for only Nadal peaking. Its definitely better. Djoker> Hewitt at this point. Murray> Roddick etc. Regardless if Hewitt has 2 slams or Roddick has the one USO. Did Hewitt really do anything post 02? No. Whats Roddick done in 6 years since the 03 USO? Has he won anything of big importance? Nope. DJoker already has a slam. And Murray is on his way to winning some as well. Just watching them you can see these guys are better players than the likes of Hewitt, GOnzales, Baghaditis,Blake, Ljubicic, Davy etc. I mean its painfully obvious. COME ON!!

egn
04-19-2009, 01:19 PM
The thread says REAL rival?? So a guy in his 4th grasscourt tournament, who hadn't fully reaced his peak who struggled vs the likes of Kendrick and who else took him to 5 sets, is a REAL rival???

Yeah Fed hit some errors in the 3rd set tie break, but didn't Nadal have something close to 18 winners and 3 unforced errors that entire set??? No what did Fed do to break Nadal to get back in the 2nd set??? That's right get 3 unforced erros and a double fault for Rafa?? Now do you see the difference.


Hmm what there is no difference. It is you still attempting to claim Nadal hitting unforced errors makes Feds win luckys


You had Safin who was all over the place. Hewitt who came back to form in mid 2004 and after the 2005 US Open has been a non factor. Nadal who clearly isnn't as good or seasoned as Nadal now and Roddick.

Nadal 2008-present is better than anyone Roger faced 2004-07. Djokovic has proven to be a much bigger threat than Hewitt and far more consistent than Safin. Fed struggled so much in 2008. Well remove Djokovic who from Melbourne 2004-07 (excl. 05 Safin) beats Roger??? Put 2006 Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final, and what do you get???

Put 2008 Roger vs 2006 field and he goes home with 2 or even 3 slams. Yet it's Roger who has gotten so bad and not the field around him getting better.


Okay take 2008 Nadal out of the equation and 2008 Roger wins 3 slams? 2008 Roger wins 2 slams in 2006 but way less small titles and heckhe might not. 2006 Nadal on grass vs. 2008 Roger on Grass might actually be different than you think. I am not arguing the field is better but the difference is not 3-100 the difference is who was number 2. 2008 Roger still wins 3 slams in 2007 and 2009 Roger without Nadal could very well still win 2 or 3 slams. He would allready have one..the Australian Open. Yet 2008-9 Roger are not playing as well as 2006. It is obvious from watch it. 2007 Roger was lucky to win 3 slams, I still have no idea how he did it..I had thought Djokovic was going to walk away that US Open, but Roger brought his best. The field is better but not that much better. One man is better.



I was talking about the French Open. Fed only came close to Nadal on clay in Rome in 2006. Nadal handled him in Monte Carlo and in Paris.

As far as Aus Open, Federer did not play a great final. Well put 2009 Fed in 2004,06 and 07 and he wins it. Do you realize Federer in 2009 Aus QF and SF was......
SETS 6-0
GAMES 38-15
WINNERS 89
UNFORCED ERRORS 24
SERVICE GAMES 27/27
RETURN GAMES 11/26
ACES 28
DOUBLE FAULTS 0

So put 86th rk Safin, Baghdatis or Gonzalez in that 2007 final and what are the chances Fed walks away with his 4th Aus Open tite???


2009 Fed I think would not win 04. 2009 Fed's QF-SF numbers are bloated due to Juan Martin Del Potro who I have established is right now proving to be a huge disappointment. 2009 AO got pushed by Berdych..I think 2009 Fed could have won 07..but 04 or 06 not as easily.. I actually could see Safin winning it. 2009 Fed would have struggle a lot more against 2004 Nalby and Hewitt and I think he would not have as much an advantage. Safin came off two long greuling five set matches against Roddick and Agassi in 04..Fed breezed through Ferrero and cured his Nalby bug. 2009 Fed in that situation I feel if he makes it to the finals would get beat by Safin. Then this is just my opinion but I think Fed 09 so far has benefited from a weak mental field. The talent is there but these guys in the top 10 have weaker mental games and consistency which is the only reason I feel Fed is still hanging around at the top, because his level of play is down.




Agassi... just good.
Becker.... done after 1993, and 96 Aus Open was fluke.
Courier done after 1993, so what was Hewitt doing after 2002???
Rafter.... yes Sampras was injured in 1998 US Open SF, lbut lost just 2 sets en route to 1997 title and hit 39 winners and 5 unforced in 1998 final.Your boy Roger was 36 winners and 33 unfored vs Murray in 08.
Ivanisevic ... who has beaten Sampras, Edberg, Becker, krajicek, Rafter even Roddick and Safin (while ranked in the 100's) in slams, and pushing Sampras to 5 sets at Wimbledon (twice!!) is not pushing him.


I said Agassi was a good threat..sorry i should have used GREATEST THREAT EVER..I agreed on Agassi being a threat, but if you want to say I called him just good and didn't call him amazing here are so of my reasons. Andre Agassi missed most of 93. Agassi gave Sampras about one and a half full years of rivalry late 94- early 96. Then he slowly dropped in the top 10 and was injuried. It was not Agassi's fault, but he only really challenged Sampras in his prime on hardcourts...(similar to pre-prime Nadal only really challenging Fed on clay.)

Becker was 4-9 against Sampras from 1993 on and his only victories were on carpet..as you have said slams are were Sampras cared most and in the 3 slams they met Sampras is 3-0? So apply your logic there...

Courier after 1993 had one good year. I wasn't trying to say he was better I said Courier post 93 equals what Hewitt did you are the one attempting to say I made them better?

So Safin have pushed Fed in slams and have beat him and so has Nalby. So Ivansevic is greater competition than the people Fed faced because he beat Sampras in slams although Fed's competition has beat him in slams too? At least Safin beat Fed in his prime Ivansevic could only beat Sampras in 1992 prior to his prime and went 3-10 against Sampras from 1993 onward..I know though Sampras trembled everytime Ivansevic was on the other side of the net.


Courier is ahead of Roddick. Nadal may end up ahead of Agassi when he's done, but the Agassi peak Sampras faced is better than the Nadal Roger dealt with 04-07. Safin...please Roger beat him in slams when he was ranked #24, #86, #75 and #63... so he was injured all those times?? Becker 92/93/96 > Djokovic 07-present. On clay you have Bruguera, Muster and Kuerten.

Peak Agassi vs Nadal..Nadal met Roger in 5 slam finals during that time and went 3-2 against him..Agassi was 1-2 against Sampras in slams in the best years for Sampras (93-98) From 93-96 I would say Agassi had his moments but overall Sampras was better. They both posed threats on two surfaces Nadal clay,grass Agassi hard,grass, but I would have to argue Nadal 04-07 was more difficult than Agassi was to Sampras. It is about match ups though Nadal's game matched up better and the results show that..Nadal won all the matches on clay..Agassi never did that on any surface against Sampras Though I agree with the rest of your post there.

THE BOLD is ridiculous. Djokovic 07-09 is a threat on three surfaces. Has won a slam and been winning big titles left and right. He beat Fed in a slam something Becker could not do at all. Boris made it past the semis only 5 times from 92-96 and in those 3 years you mentioned only 3 times. Djokovic since 2007 has made it to the semis on all slams a runner up at the 2007 US Open and won the 2008 Australian Open actually beating Roger Federer. He has been winning top tier titles and established himself as one of the best on all the surfaces and a threat at all the slams..when did Becker do that from 92-96. Nobody even thought Becker was going to win the 96 AO. Becker didn't even beat Sampras in that run at least Djokovic toppled Fed in his 2008 Australian Open title.

Roddick From 2004 - present list me all the top 10 players he's beaten in slams????

Are we talking at the moment or players who were top 10.

Ancic
Grosjean
Berdych
Djokovic

if you count who were top 10 players at a point in there career..but I would not count that
Johansson
Hewitt
Gonzo
Davydenko
Verdasco

So thats 4 who were top 10 at moment and 9 in total of those who have made top 10.

So now would you like to list all the top 10 players Becker, Ivansevic and Chang beat in slams from 93-98?

Nadal_Freak
04-19-2009, 01:25 PM
Pretty simple answer. Fed would've won far less slams. Lucky he got them before Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray came around.

GameSampras
04-19-2009, 01:33 PM
I dunno about Nadal 04-07 being on prime Andre's level. Nadal at the time was pretty much a great clay court player and with tons of promise on grass yet his game had much to be desired on hardcourts whereas in Andre's case Hardcourt's were his best surface especially the AO, and he was pretty darn good on clay and grass too. So that has 4 surfaces covered for Andre where Nadal was good on 2 of the 4. Now today is a different story. But clearly Nadal is still lacking at the USO. Andre could adapt his game ANYWHERES. Clay, fast grass, slow and fast hardcourts, indoor carpets, you name it. Whatever surface there was, Andre was a big time threat

egn
04-19-2009, 01:37 PM
I dunno about Nadal 04-07 being on prime Andre's level. Nadal at the time was pretty much a great clay court player and with tons of promise on grass yet his game had much to be desired on hardcourts whereas in Andre's case Hardcourt's were his best surface especially the AO, and he was pretty darn good on clay and grass too. So that has 4 surfaces covered for Andre where Nadal was good on 2 of the 4. Now today is a different story. But clearly Nadal is still lacking at the USO. Andre could adapt his game ANYWHERES. Clay, fast grass, slow and fast hardcourts, indoor carpets, you name it.

I agree Andre was more adapt I guess I am forgetting the fact that both hardcourts were different. I didn't really count clay because Sampras had other issues on clay and Agassi was not threatening him in his prime there as the two did not really meet on clay from 93-98. So yes Andre was good on 3 and Nadal was good on 2 valid point there. The hardcourts are separate entities.

GameSampras
04-19-2009, 01:43 PM
I agree Andre was more adapt I guess I am forgetting the fact that both hardcourts were different. I didn't really count clay because Sampras had other issues on clay and Agassi was not threatening him in his prime there as the two did not really meet on clay from 93-98. So yes Andre was good on 3 and Nadal was good on 2 valid point there. The hardcourts are separate entities.

I definitely agree with that.


The scary thing is I think if Nadal can just manage to make a USO final and Fed is on the other side of the net, Nadal can finally grab that USO he has long been waiting for. THe only slam that now alludes him. That is if Fed is still Number 2 in the world by the time the USO rolls around.

At this point, Im not so sure it matters on the surface in regards to Fed-Nadal. THough the USO IMO is probably Fed's best probability of winning.

egn
04-19-2009, 01:44 PM
At this point, Im not so sure it matters on the surface in regards to Fed-Nadal. THough the USO IMO is probably Fed's best probability of winning.

I agree there, Fed needs a shrink when he plays Nadal in the changeovers.

carlos djackal
04-19-2009, 06:20 PM
if Fed had a rival then, I think he wouldn't have achieved all those accomplishments, he would have fewer GS titles......If Nadal was it, I think Fed would be second best........

tlm
04-19-2009, 06:58 PM
fed was lucky to have played in a weak era.He still would have been a great player, but not even close in gs titles.

How many multi gs winners did he play against in all his gs wins? How many even had one gs title?

Who was #1 when he took over? Let me see his tough competition was roddick, hewitt, nutcase safin, loser lubi+the no brains blake.That is one weak bunch players.

helloworld
04-19-2009, 07:07 PM
I agree there, Fed needs a shrink when he plays Nadal in the changeovers.
Wouldn't have mattered. When Fed and Nadal met for the first time, Nadal was definitely not in Fed's head, yet Federer still lost in straight sets. It's clear that Nadal can easily beat Federer with or without mental edge.

egn
04-19-2009, 07:20 PM
fed was lucky to have played in a weak era.He still would have been a great player, but not even close in gs titles.

How many multi gs winners did he play against in all his gs wins? How many even had one gs title?

Who was #1 when he took over? Let me see his tough competition was roddick, hewitt, nutcase safin, loser lubi+the no brains blake.That is one weak bunch players.

Federer

9 of his 13 slams come against players who have won slams.
5 against multi slam winners (but this might change if Murray and Djokovic win them.)

Sampras

11 of his 14 slams againstplayers who have won slams.
7 against multislams.

So basically if djoker wins another slam and murray wins a slam..Fed finishes 10 for 13 and 6 are multislam..that basically exactly lines up with Sampras than..you fail =]

defrule
04-19-2009, 07:21 PM
WHAT IF Federer had a rival that was miles above him on grass, clay and hard courts and even indoors carpets?

I think he would be slamless.

WHAT IF...

egn
04-19-2009, 07:24 PM
Wouldn't have mattered. When Fed and Nadal met for the first time, Nadal was definitely not in Fed's head, yet Federer still lost in straight sets. It's clear that Nadal can easily beat Federer with or without mental edge.

Then fed beat him the following year that tournament? They were pretty even until Nadal gained the mental edge..I imagine they finish something like 10-12 or 15-19 without Nadal getting into his head.

defrule
04-19-2009, 07:29 PM
Wouldn't have mattered. When Fed and Nadal met for the first time, Nadal was definitely not in Fed's head, yet Federer still lost in straight sets. It's clear that Nadal can easily beat Federer with or without mental edge.

Yet Federer handed Nadal straight set losses in TMC 06 & 07.

If Nadal can "easily beat Federer with or without mental edge" then how do you account for those losses?

helloworld
04-19-2009, 07:42 PM
Then fed beat him the following year that tournament? They were pretty even until Nadal gained the mental edge..I imagine they finish something like 10-12 or 15-19 without Nadal getting into his head.
You mean the match that 18 year old Nadal was up 2 sets and served for the match, but choked? :confused: That match is another clear indication of Nadal's superiority, but lack of experience.

helloworld
04-19-2009, 07:43 PM
Then fed beat him the following year that tournament? They were pretty even until Nadal gained the mental edge..I imagine they finish something like 10-12 or 15-19 without Nadal getting into his head.
Oh, and we are talking about 17-18 year old Nadal here... What was Federer doing when he was 17? :confused:

egn
04-19-2009, 07:50 PM
Oh, and we are talking about 17-18 year old Nadal here... What was Federer doing when he was 17? :confused:

once again all you nadal fans know how to do is use age. Nadal at 18 was far ahead of fed at 18 because fed is a late bloomer..nadal is similar to becker and borg early bloomer. Fed is more of a late bloomer. Your arguement fails as you tried to avoid the fact that fed could beat him prior to the mental block forming. Nadal was rank 2 in the world therefore he was not chop liver or scrap so if you want to count his victories you have to count his defeats or please avoid debating as you can't use double standards because if you manage to get to rank 2 at such a young age than it counts. Fed at 17 was just going full time I think by the way to answer the question and there is really nothing wrong with that. Hewitt was number 1 at 19? He is not better than either Fed or Nadal so really stop the age crap.

tudwell
04-19-2009, 07:52 PM
Pretty simple answer. Fed would've won far less slams. Lucky he got them before Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray came around.

Right, because Djokovic and Murray have won just soooo many slams.

egn
04-19-2009, 07:55 PM
Right, because Djokovic and Murray have won just soooo many slams.

Yea I mean look at the way prime Djokovic handles roddick!

flyer
04-19-2009, 07:57 PM
nadal was around during federer's peak, that was certainly a real rivalry, nadal maybe was not at his peak and you can argue that nadal ended federer's peak...

helloworld
04-19-2009, 08:11 PM
*******s should face the true fact that 17 year-old Nadal is too much for Federer's peak. :lol:

380pistol
04-19-2009, 10:30 PM
Hmm what there is no difference. It is you still attempting to claim Nadal hitting unforced errors makes Feds win luckys

This in itself shows you don't comprehend what I've said or is meant or even want to. But it's hellafuuny seeing your insecurities about Roger become apparent.



Okay take 2008 Nadal out of the equation and 2008 Roger wins 3 slams? 2008 Roger wins 2 slams in 2006 but way less small titles and heckhe might not. 2006 Nadal on grass vs. 2008 Roger on Grass might actually be different than you think. I am not arguing the field is better but the difference is not 3-100 the difference is who was number 2. 2008 Roger still wins 3 slams in 2007 and 2009 Roger without Nadal could very well still win 2 or 3 slams. He would allready have one..the Australian Open. Yet 2008-9 Roger are not playing as well as 2006. It is obvious from watch it. 2007 Roger was lucky to win 3 slams, I still have no idea how he did it..I had thought Djokovic was going to walk away that US Open, but Roger brought his best. The field is better but not that much better. One man is better.

I asked a 2 simple questions and I got ZERO answers. Take Roger 2008 and....
a) place him in Aus Open from 2004-07, and with the exclusion of Safin 2005 who beats him???
b) who from 2003-07 with the exclusion of maybe Nadal 2007 beats Federer 2008 at Wimbledon????

And I got zero responses. Nice job 2 stepping around these simple questions though. I said nothing about Roger's level (well played deferring from the topic at hand) just 2 simple questions, which you failed to answer.




2009 Fed I think would not win 04. 2009 Fed's QF-SF numbers are bloated due to Juan Martin Del Potro who I have established is right now proving to be a huge disappointment. 2009 AO got pushed by Berdych..I think 2009 Fed could have won 07..but 04 or 06 not as easily.. I actually could see Safin winning it. 2009 Fed would have struggle a lot more against 2004 Nalby and Hewitt and I think he would not have as much an advantage. Safin came off two long greuling five set matches against Roddick and Agassi in 04..Fed breezed through Ferrero and cured his Nalby bug. 2009 Fed in that situation I feel if he makes it to the finals would get beat by Safin. Then this is just my opinion but I think Fed 09 so far has benefited from a weak mental field. The talent is there but these guys in the top 10 have weaker mental games and consistency which is the only reason I feel Fed is still hanging around at the top, because his level of play is down.

Ah Fed's #'s bloated due to Del Potro. Well he hit 51 winners, 15 unforced, 16 aces, was never broken and broke Roddick 4 times, so was it really all Del Potro blowing up Roger's #'s?? Much better than his 40 winner, 28 unforced eror 04 final peformance where he struggled to hold serve (broken 2-3 times) in the 1st set alone. Not to mention 86th rk Safin finished with 19 winners, and 41 unforced errors, while Roddick had 38 winners and 18 unforced in 2009 SF.

So Fed Aus Open 2009 not winning in 2004 is based on what exactly???





I said Agassi was a good threat..sorry i should have used GREATEST THREAT EVER..I agreed on Agassi being a threat, but if you want to say I called him just good and didn't call him amazing here are so of my reasons. Andre Agassi missed most of 93. Agassi gave Sampras about one and a half full years of rivalry late 94- early 96. Then he slowly dropped in the top 10 and was injuried. It was not Agassi's fault, but he only really challenged Sampras in his prime on hardcourts...(similar to pre-prime Nadal only really challenging Fed on clay.)

Becker was 4-9 against Sampras from 1993 on and his only victories were on carpet..as you have said slams are were Sampras cared most and in the 3 slams they met Sampras is 3-0? So apply your logic there...

Courier after 1993 had one good year. I wasn't trying to say he was better I said Courier post 93 equals what Hewitt did you are the one attempting to say I made them better?

So Safin have pushed Fed in slams and have beat him and so has Nalby. So Ivansevic is greater competition than the people Fed faced because he beat Sampras in slams although Fed's competition has beat him in slams too? At least Safin beat Fed in his prime Ivansevic could only beat Sampras in 1992 prior to his prime and went 3-10 against Sampras from 1993 onward..I know though Sampras trembled everytime Ivansevic was on the other side of the net.

I'm sorry Sampras went 4-0 vs Agassi Flushing, and every time they payed in NYC Agassi was the higher seed. But it's laughable calling Agassi "good" and then after seeing the error in your ways of trying to down play him, the remark sarcastically to save face. And he nly challenged Sampras on hardcourts, so again who was it that pushed Sampras to 6-4 in the 5th set at 93 Wimbledon?? Who payed that classic YEC SF vs Sampras in 1994??? I forget his name?? Help me out?? Also from 1993-98 Agassi played Sampras 3 times in slams, and 8 times in masters.

Did Federer ever beat a top 20 Safin in a slam?? Sampras beat a top 8 Becker 3 times in slams!!! Also twice in YEC F, when Becker was top 5.

Courier, do you know that from the 1992 US Open to the 1996 French Open JC participated in 15 slams, and in 6 of those he was eliminated by Sampras in the QF or later.....40% Yet Hewitt from 2003-07 participated in 18 slam and in 4 of those was taken out by Roger in the QF or later..... 22%!!! yet JC is washed up, and Hewitt is is a rival. Not to mention JC > Hewitt...all day!!!!!

Ivanisevic from 1993 to 1998 beat Becker, Kafelnikov, Krajicek (though #14). And also beat #2 Edberg and #3 Sampras in 1992. Care to show me who Roddick has beaten??? Oh that's right you don't answer questions, you dance like you just did again.





Peak Agassi vs Nadal..Nadal met Roger in 5 slam finals during that time and went 3-2 against him..Agassi was 1-2 against Sampras in slams in the best years for Sampras (93-98) From 93-96 I would say Agassi had his moments but overall Sampras was better. They both posed threats on two surfaces Nadal clay,grass Agassi hard,grass, but I would have to argue Nadal 04-07 was more difficult than Agassi was to Sampras. It is about match ups though Nadal's game matched up better and the results show that..Nadal won all the matches on clay..Agassi never did that on any surface against Sampras Though I agree with the rest of your post there.

5 slam finals. Was Nadal anywhere near his peak in the 2006 Wimbledon F??? Why don't you ever mention that was the 4th grasscourt tournament of his exhistence??? In 2007 he played 5 straight days and choked away 4 break pts in the 5thset. How many hardcourt slam SF did Naadal play on up to December 31st 2007??? So he was a non factor at 50% of the slams. good to know.

By 1998 Agassi had played a slam F at each slam, winning at 3 of the 4. And could claim at least 2 SF at each slam, proving his worth, Nadal hadn't.



THE BOLD is ridiculous. Djokovic 07-09 is a threat on three surfaces. Has won a slam and been winning big titles left and right. He beat Fed in a slam something Becker could not do at all. Boris made it past the semis only 5 times from 92-96 and in those 3 years you mentioned only 3 times. Djokovic since 2007 has made it to the semis on all slams a runner up at the 2007 US Open and won the 2008 Australian Open actually beating Roger Federer. He has been winning top tier titles and established himself as one of the best on all the surfaces and a threat at all the slams..when did Becker do that from 92-96. Nobody even thought Becker was going to win the 96 AO. Becker didn't even beat Sampras in that run at least Djokovic toppled Fed in his 2008 Australian Open title.

Wait one second Djokovic is a guy who can't play in 80 degree heat, now he's something special. Wait Federer was stricken with mono owhen it suits Roger, and Djokovic beat the great Roger when it suits Roger. Which one is it???

Djokovic won a slam, Becker did that. They both won masters, Becker won a YEC, Djokovic did not. Becker lost 2 YEC F to Sampras, and where was Novak, going 0-3 in RR??? Djokovic wasn't even a factor til midway 2007. Wimbledon 2007 was Roger's 11th slam, and waht had Djokovic accompished at that point?? While Roger was winning his 1st 11 slams, Djokovic had 2 slam SF (one he didn't even beat a top 50 player to get to except for Mathieu) and 1 masters title. Wow he was a threat. And then choked leads in the 2007 US Open F.

While Becker was beating #1 Agassi, #5 Stich, top 8 Kafelnikov and Chang in slams from 1993 to 1996.



Are we talking at the moment or players who were top 10.

Ancic
Grosjean
Berdych
Djokovic

if you count who were top 10 players at a point in there career..but I would not count that
Johansson
Hewitt
Gonzo
Davydenko
Verdasco

So thats 4 who were top 10 at moment and 9 in total of those who have made top 10.

So now would you like to list all the top 10 players Becker, Ivansevic and Chang beat in slams from 93-98?

See above for Ivanisevic and Becker. And Chang... Agassi (twice), Brugeura (twice once clay), Rios (and another for Rios when he was #11). Anything else??? I'm still waiting for Roddick's conquests. Even 2003 for Roddick as well. 2003-07 let's go??? He has shown the ability to beat who??? A agassed Ferrero who played what 4 matches in 5 or 6 days?!?

thalivest
04-19-2009, 10:45 PM
The bottom line is Federer with tougher competition than before is performing so poorly right now, at a relatively young age for tennis still. Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are all improved competition from Federer's competition during his dominance, yet Nadal is the only likely even top 10 player all time from that trio. Yet it is still enough that suddenly Federer is struggling so much. So of course those who wondered if Federer's competition was really as tough as past greats, and who questioned him before for that reason, have even more impetus to do so now than they would have had he fared well vs this improving younger talent. This past his prime stuff seems silly given that a supposed GOAT candidate like Federer is only 27, you would think he was 33 the way some people talk. Lets just say for arguments sake even that silly stance was correct though and Federer is suddenly way past his prime at only 27 even while not reaching his prime until 22. In that case he had about the shortest prime of any all time great (other than Agassi) ever and is not an already not a worthy GOAT candidate based on that alone.

TennisBallMachine
04-20-2009, 03:53 AM
I would Love that Federer had win Monte carlos 2009

drakulie
04-20-2009, 06:39 AM
Whether Federphiles care to admit it or not, the competition wasn't that great when Roger was dominating.


......you're absolutely kidding yourself if you believe the softness of the field around him didn't aid him.


I agree. He had guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin,,,,,, all of whom have a winning record against Sampras.

P_Agony
04-20-2009, 06:50 AM
*******s should face the true fact that 17 year-old Nadal is too much for Federer's peak. :lol:

Some *******s have stupid but funny posts. Yours are just stupid. So welcome to my igonre list.

JoshDragon
04-20-2009, 08:32 AM
*******s should face the true fact that 17 year-old Nadal is too much for Federer's peak. :lol:

Fed had not reached his peak in 2004. Fed's peak year was 2006.

pc1
04-20-2009, 08:46 AM
Fed had not reached his peak in 2004. Fed's peak year was 2006.

I agree Josh.

King of Aces
04-20-2009, 12:37 PM
Fed had not reached his peak in 2004. Fed's peak year was 2006.

yup just coincidentally right before Nadal arrived on the scene. Isnt that convenient. ;)

egn
04-20-2009, 12:45 PM
This in itself shows you don't comprehend what I've said or is meant or even want to. But it's hellafuuny seeing your insecurities about Roger become apparent.



Yea at least I don't find good to be an insult? I had no insecuriteies.


I asked a 2 simple questions and I got ZERO answers. Take Roger 2008 and....
a) place him in Aus Open from 2004-07, and with the exclusion of Safin 2005 who beats him???
b) who from 2003-07 with the exclusion of maybe Nadal 2007 beats Federer 2008 at Wimbledon????

And I got zero responses. Nice job 2 stepping around these simple questions though. I said nothing about Roger's level (well played deferring from the topic at hand) just 2 simple questions, which you failed to answer.



I answered it..2004 Safin I said nadal on grass in 2006 also had a shot. Probably should have mentioned 2007 nadal..but than logic usually means if a nadal on grass in 06 could have won who is to say he would not win 07. I answered the questions. Also now that I look back at it even Roddick in 04 might have had a chance.



Ah Fed's #'s bloated due to Del Potro. Well he hit 51 winners, 15 unforced, 16 aces, was never broken and broke Roddick 4 times, so was it really all Del Potro blowing up Roger's #'s?? Much better than his 40 winner, 28 unforced eror 04 final peformance where he struggled to hold serve (broken 2-3 times) in the 1st set alone. Not to mention 86th rk Safin finished with 19 winners, and 41 unforced errors, while Roddick had 38 winners and 18 unforced in 2009 SF.

So Fed Aus Open 2009 not winning in 2004 is based on what exactly???


I gave a whole paragraph you ignored it so why explain it again..



I'm sorry Sampras went 4-0 vs Agassi Flushing, and every time they payed in NYC Agassi was the higher seed. But it's laughable calling Agassi "good" and then after seeing the error in your ways of trying to down play him, the remark sarcastically to save face. And he nly challenged Sampras on hardcourts, so again who was it that pushed Sampras to 6-4 in the 5th set at 93 Wimbledon?? Who payed that classic YEC SF vs Sampras in 1994??? I forget his name?? Help me out?? Also from 1993-98 Agassi played Sampras 3 times in slams, and 8 times in masters.


You call me insecure since when has good threat been an insult. Good threat? I called him a good threat..than you said I played him down and then I pointed out some things. I didn't make any error he was a good threat! What is wrong with being good. ONly you and your insecureness saw that as a challenge. I did not even challenege the Agassi threat to you made some claim that I put him down because I didn't say agassi was the greatest thing ver. Agassi pushed Sampras just as much as Nadal pushed Federer in slams? You easily ignore my statements, but I am used to that by now you don't argue or debate.


Did Federer ever beat a top 20 Safin in a slam?? Sampras beat a top 8 Becker 3 times in slams!!! Also twice in YEC F, when Becker was top 5.

Fed did not beat a top 20 safin in slams..he faced a top 20 safin in slams once I believe..Fed beat a top 8 hewitt, roddick, agassi and nadal in slams.


Courier, do you know that from the 1992 US Open to the 1996 French Open JC participated in 15 slams, and in 6 of those he was eliminated by Sampras in the QF or later.....40% Yet Hewitt from 2003-07 participated in 18 slam and in 4 of those was taken out by Roger in the QF or later..... 22%!!! yet JC is washed up, and Hewitt is is a rival. Not to mention JC > Hewitt...all day!!!!!


Amazing as I was talking about 1993 and on! Oh look at the amount of slams you included...hewitt had particpated in 18 out of 20 and Courier in 15 for 15. Way to bend stats! My range Courier was 93 and past...Oh yea I don't deny JC being a threat but I did not say he was not I said he was equal a threat as Hewitt..Find where I said greater! You continue to claim I said he was better.

[qupte]
Ivanisevic from 1993 to 1998 beat Becker, Kafelnikov, Krajicek (though #14). And also beat #2 Edberg and #3 Sampras in 1992. Care to show me who Roddick has beaten??? Oh that's right you don't answer questions, you dance like you just did again.
[/qipte]

I did answer the question stop making false attacks.. So from 93 to 98 he beat 3 top 10..then you threw in 92! Amazing Roddick with 2003 has a fair share more top players also Ferrero and Nalbandian!...I answer your questions. So where was the dancing.



5 slam finals. Was Nadal anywhere near his peak in the 2006 Wimbledon F??? Why don't you ever mention that was the 4th grasscourt tournament of his exhistence??? In 2007 he played 5 straight days and choked away 4 break pts in the 5thset. How many hardcourt slam SF did Naadal play on up to December 31st 2007??? So he was a non factor at 50% of the slams. good to know.
50% is a lot...Becker won his second wimbledon..so? Okay how many I did not make claims for Nadal's hardcourts, but for 3 years he was a threat on clay and 2 years a threat on grass. Of a 4 year reign as number 1 that is competition. Why do you attack me on things I clearly agree with you on..did I say Nadal was not his hardcourt competition.

By 1998 Agassi had played a slam F at each slam, winning at 3 of the 4. And could claim at least 2 SF at each slam, proving his worth, Nadal hadn't.

No disagreeal.


Wait one second Djokovic is a guy who can't play in 80 degree heat, now he's something special. Wait Federer was stricken with mono owhen it suits Roger, and Djokovic beat the great Roger when it suits Roger. Which one is it???


Mono or not Djokovic beat Roger in 2008 end of story. Djokovic lost in 80 degree heat..never said that made him a bad player.



Djokovic won a slam, Becker did that. They both won masters, Becker won a YEC, Djokovic did not. Becker lost 2 YEC F to Sampras, and where was Novak, going 0-3 in RR??? Djokovic wasn't even a factor til midway 2007. Wimbledon 2007 was Roger's 11th slam, and waht had Djokovic accompished at that point?? While Roger was winning his 1st 11 slams, Djokovic had 2 slam SF (one he didn't even beat a top 50 player to get to except for Mathieu) and 1 masters title. Wow he was a threat. And then choked leads in the 2007 US Open F.


Oh really so what was indian wells and miami than nothing. Djokovic had also beaten Federer in 2007 and Nadal in 2007? So beating the no1 and no2 in the world is not threat worth okay...Okay so he did not win a YEC. You got me there..but where is Beckers semifinal on each slam over that period and his clay court master series title? Djokovic won the 2008 YEC though the same year took out Fed to win his 2008 AO.


While Becker was beating #1 Agassi, #5 Stich, top 8 Kafelnikov and Chang in slams from 1993 to 1996.



See above for Ivanisevic and Becker. And Chang... Agassi (twice), Brugeura (twice once clay), Rios (and another for Rios when he was #11). Anything else??? I'm still waiting for Roddick's conquests. Even 2003 for Roddick as well. 2003-07 let's go??? He has shown the ability to beat who??? A agassed Ferrero who played what 4 matches in 5 or 6 days?!?


Well you orginiall asked 2004 on..so from 2003-present day
#3 Djokovic
#3 Ferrero
#9 Ancic
#9 or 10 Berdych
#9 Grosjean

hewitt, nalby and gonzo were all top 15 nalby 12, gonzo 11 and hewitt was 13-15 range.

danb
04-20-2009, 01:30 PM
No one can question Federer's natural talent, he makes the game look elegant and effortless at times... but what would Fed' have achieved if he had a rival of equal (or nearly equal) ability? Would he have been strong enough mentally to cope...and how many grandslams would he have now?

Fed had Nadal as a rival in his prime and that was his undoing. Sampras has balls - Fed none. To go down this fast in front of ONE rival is just sad.
Pete lost his share of matches but he was never owned like Fed. Nadal and Murray now own him. There were players with a +1 or +2 against Pete but nobody owned him like Fed is owned by Rafa and Murray on both clay and HC.
Murray is 6-2 on HC against Fed and Rafa owns Fed from the beginning.

egn
04-20-2009, 01:31 PM
yup just coincidentally right before Nadal arrived on the scene. Isnt that convenient. ;)

Wait he said Fed's peak was 2006 the year Nadal won his second french open..how is he not around?

deltox
04-20-2009, 02:11 PM
yup just coincidentally right before Nadal arrived on the scene. Isnt that convenient. ;)

and when nadals peak ends, someone elses will start, there is almost always someone around to force the peak period to end.

JoshDragon
04-20-2009, 03:25 PM
yup just coincidentally right before Nadal arrived on the scene. Isnt that convenient. ;)

Nadal was incredibly unusual. He hit his prime very early on and was able to beat Federer 6 (nearly 7) times in a row. There is no player in the history of Men's tennis that had accomplished as much as he had by the time they were 22.

hyogen
04-20-2009, 03:30 PM
I agree. He had guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin,,,,,, all of whom have a winning record against Sampras.

i am confused by your wily words.. :confused:

anyway, didn't sampras' decline due to age help out these players' records against him?



I still hold to the observation that Federer simply dominated the i-have-no-real-talent-i-get-bageled-every-now-and-then-and-i-cave-in-to-high-pressure clowns.

egn
04-20-2009, 03:30 PM
Nadal was incredibly unusual. He hit his prime very early on and was able to beat Federer 6 (nearly 7) times in a row. There is no player in the history of Men's tennis that had accomplished as much as he had by the time they were 22.

*cough* bjorn borg *cough*

danb
04-20-2009, 03:37 PM
i am confused by your wily words.. :confused:

anyway, didn't sampras' decline due to age help out these players' records against him?



I still hold to the observation that Federer simply dominated the i-have-no-real-talent-i-get-bageled-every-now-and-then-and-i-cave-in-to-high-pressure clowns.

Exactly.
Agassi was 8-12 against Sampras which shows:
1) Neither of them was the other one's clown
2) They could lick their wounds and go fight some more

That's what tennis is about. Also watch Rafa - he got his shares of beatings on HC but never caved in. Enough said.

Murray -Fed 6-2 on HC
Rafa - Fed - ...

JoshDragon
04-20-2009, 04:13 PM
*cough* bjorn borg *cough*

Nope, not even Borg. Borg had 6 majors, finished 0 years at #1 and was undefeated at none of the majors. Nadal has won 3 out of 4 of the majors, has finished #1 for 1 year and is undefeated at the French.

egn
04-20-2009, 04:30 PM
Nope, not even Borg. Borg had 6 majors, finished 0 years at #1 and was undefeated at none of the majors. Nadal has won 3 out of 4 of the majors, has finished #1 for 1 year and is undefeated at the French.

Nadal won 3 out of the 4 but remember that borg came from an era when nobody considered the Australian Open to be held with as high regard other than for completing the "grand slam". Borg himself said he would only play Australia if he won all three lead ups. He went to Australia once in 1974.

ATP rankings were awkward in the 1970s the real number 1 in 78 was Borg.

Interesting fact the ATP and ITF awarded Borg their player of the year and champion awards for 78 and most sources ranked Borg #1 only the ATP computer rankings had Borg 2. The ATP rankings were very unreliable in the 70s, Villas never was ranked 1 and nobody is sure why he did not get in 77. I would not go by soley the ATP rankings alone for the 70s you might notice a lot of things do not make sense. Of the 3 big slams in 78 Borg made all 3 finals and won 2. Connors played 2 and only won 1 making the finals of the other. There is a lot of discrepency as Connors achieved 5 straight year end number 1 rankings but many would disagree. Researching the tour for the year 78 you know who is the best player and it was definitely Borg.

380pistol
04-20-2009, 11:15 PM
Yea at least I don't find good to be an insult? I had no insecuriteies.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself???



I answered it..2004 Safin I said nadal on grass in 2006 also had a shot. Probably should have mentioned 2007 nadal..but than logic usually means if a nadal on grass in 06 could have won who is to say he would not win 07. I answered the questions. Also now that I look back at it even Roddick in 04 might have had a chance.

So Fed '09 straight sets Roddick who put up 38 winners and 18 unforced errors. Played one bad set vs Djokovic (he served for the 1st set at 5-4 and lost the 3rd 7-5 in a tie break), but you're giving a gassed Safin who put up 19 winners and 41 inforced erros in the '04 final a shot???

Bottom line Fed Aus Open 08 or 09 beats 04 Aus Open Safin.

So Nadal who got broken 6 times in 2006 Wim F ( he held 29 of 30 serve games in 2008), vs Fed who struck 43 winners, 31 unforced errors and 13 aces to the 2008 Federer who struck 89 winners, 52 unforced and 25 aces in the final. Also do you realize Federer came into the 2008 final without dropping a set, and only being broken twice???

08 Federer would be clearly favoured and would likely defeat 06 Nadal in his forth grass tourney of his life.

Look at that what 2008 Roger does vs 04/06 class.



I gave a whole paragraph you ignored it so why explain it again..

Yes Fed plays well, very well, and nobody says a word. Loses to Nadal and now he's in decline, and is trash, I know, I kow. Maybe, just maybe, Nadal may have had a little something to do with Roger's performance in the final. Just like Wimbledon 2008, Fed was playing excellent tennis... til Nadal. But it's all Fed, and nothing to with Rafa I know.

So Fed only declines when Rafa shows up?!? Good to know.



You call me insecure since when has good threat been an insult. Good threat? I called him a good threat..than you said I played him down and then I pointed out some things. I didn't make any error he was a good threat! What is wrong with being good. ONly you and your insecureness saw that as a challenge. I did not even challenege the Agassi threat to you made some claim that I put him down because I didn't say agassi was the greatest thing ver. Agassi pushed Sampras just as much as Nadal pushed Federer in slams? You easily ignore my statements, but I am used to that by now you don't argue or debate.

Agassi was "good". tat's all, but you're not trying to downplay him. Please, take that to someone who'll buythat garbage. That's why you responded with "greatst threat ever" as if there's nothing in between that and "good".

And no Nadal did not push Federer the way Agassi pushed Sampras. Nadal was a non factor at 50% of the slam during Roger's dominance. FACT!!!! When Sampras played Agassi for the 1st time on grass, Dre had a Wimbledon title, and was proven by beating players like Becker and Ivanisevic. Nadal was in his 4th grass tournament struggling with the likes of Kendrick. Are you gonna tell me they're the same.

04-07 outside of clay Nadal was factor at ONE slam outsie of clay, the 07 Wimbledon where he choked away 4 break pts in the 5th set. Agassi was a factor at all 4 slams, as by 1998 he had played in the finals of all 4 slams, SF of all 4 at least twice. Dre was seasoned, Nadal was not.


Fed did not beat a top 20 safin in slams..he faced a top 20 safin in slams once I believe..Fed beat a top 8 hewitt, roddick, agassi and nadal in slams.

Fed faced a top 20 safin in slams once... and lost. Yet you throw Safin's name around like he's been a rival of Roger while calling Agassi a "good" threat. You kill me.

I've just broken down Nadal (see above) so that leaves Roddick and Hewitt.



Amazing as I was talking about 1993 and on! Oh look at the amount of slams you included...hewitt had particpated in 18 out of 20 and Courier in 15 for 15. Way to bend stats! My range Courier was 93 and past...Oh yea I don't deny JC being a threat but I did not say he was not I said he was equal a threat as Hewitt..Find where I said greater! You continue to claim I said he was better.

[qupte]
Ivanisevic from 1993 to 1998 beat Becker, Kafelnikov, Krajicek (though #14). And also beat #2 Edberg and #3 Sampras in 1992. Care to show me who Roddick has beaten??? Oh that's right you don't answer questions, you dance like you just did again.
[/qipte]

I did answer the question stop making false attacks.. So from 93 to 98 he beat 3 top 10..then you threw in 92! Amazing Roddick with 2003 has a fair share more top players also Ferrero and Nalbandian!...I answer your questions. So where was the dancing.

You asked who Ivansievic beat, I list the names, and then your response "I didn't answer the question". What are you on??? Leave Tina alone!!!!!

I listed who he beat, and do you what the reason for throwing in Goran's 1992conquests??? It shows what he possesses the abilty to do. If he can beat a #2 Edberg on grass what does that say??? If he can beat #3 Sampras (who destroyed def. champ Stich in QF), what does that say???

It shows Goran possesses the ability (maybe not the consistency) to challenge heavyweights in way someone like Roddick has not proven on the biggest stages.

Ferrero what in his 4th match in 5th days, and what has Nalnandian done??? Unless you're trying to compare 2003 Nalbandian to 1992 Edberg/Sampras which we both know you don't wanna do. So has proven more judging by their conquests Ivanisevic or Roddick??? OK then.



50% is a lot...Becker won his second wimbledon..so? Okay how many I did not make claims for Nadal's hardcourts, but for 3 years he was a threat on clay and 2 years a threat on grass. Of a 4 year reign as number 1 that is competition. Why do you attack me on things I clearly agree with you on..did I say Nadal was not his hardcourt competition.

I'm attacking for the way you spin things. 04-07 Fed and Nadal played in 5 slams. All 3 on clay Roger lost...granted Nadal is a beast on the red dirt. Wimbledon Nadal again his 4th grass court tournament, if it's so meaningless, what was Roger doing in his 4th grass court tourney?? Sampras for that matter???

Federer beat Sampras (albeit a fading one), then the following year lost to Ancic who was 18. If you're going to use that standard for Nadal, then use it for Roger. Nadal made a tremendous effort in 2006, but let's call a spade a spade. You're not even though you know what it is. Federer was at the height of his considerable powers, and Nadal was just starting to make his ascent. Man up and call it what it is, and stop blowing up Nadal on grass 2006to boost Roger, it's not a good look.

2007 Nadal played how many days in a row, and choked away how many break chances ni the 5th set. Fed needed one of the best serving days of his life to get him through.


No disagreeal.

You're learning now.



Mono or not Djokovic beat Roger in 2008 end of story. Djokovic lost in 80 degree heat..never said that made him a bad player.

That's certainly wasn't the consensus being thrown around.



Oh really so what was indian wells and miami than nothing. Djokovic had also beaten Federer in 2007 and Nadal in 2007? So beating the no1 and no2 in the world is not threat worth okay...Okay so he did not win a YEC. You got me there..but where is Beckers semifinal on each slam over that period and his clay court master series title? Djokovic won the 2008 YEC though the same year took out Fed to win his 2008 AO.

Again please. Djokovic beat Fed for the first time in his life in Aug 2007, and Roger won how many slams by then??? 11!!!!!!

From slam 0-11 for Roger, please tell me everything Djoovci had acomplished in his career at that point??? 1 masters title, slam SF where the only top 50 player he beat was Mathieu. Djokovic still had breast milk on his breath!!!!

Don't take Novak a an independent. If we're talking Roger's rivals, take him in respect to Roger. 2004,05,06 where was he?? To the middle of 2007 where was he??? A non factor for 3.5 of Roger's 4 year reign, and this is who you're going on about???




Well you orginiall asked 2004 on..so from 2003-present day
#3 Djokovic
#3 Ferrero
#9 Ancic
#9 or 10 Berdych
#9 Grosjean

hewitt, nalby and gonzo were all top 15 nalby 12, gonzo 11 and hewitt was 13-15 range.

Djokovic - RETIRED!!!!!!!!!!
Ferrero - in his 4th match in 5 days!!!!!!!!!
Ancic - who's accomplished what in his slam life????
Berdych - see Ancic
Grosjean -see Bedych and Ancic.

And you wanna compare this to......
IVANISEVIC - Edberg, 92 Sampras, Becker, #14 Krajicek, and in 2001 top 5 Rafter and Henman
CHANG - Agassi (twice), Brugeura (twice once clay), Rios (and another for Rios when he was #11)...this excluding Lendland Edberg in 1989
... are you serious????

Are you gonna tell me Roddick has conquered the same quality of top 10 players in slams as Chang and Ivanisevic. Damn he's surpassed Roddick 2009, before his 18th b-day!!!!!!!!!

obsessedtennisfandisorder
04-21-2009, 02:49 AM
samptards are worse than *********s and *******s combined imo

lawrence, this whole thread (debating) fed's competition...is quite important.

i disagree with that statement entirely..

*******s are precious and *********s disregard histroy.

In 2006, i came on here with pistol,azzuri and others explaining that

FACTS people :

lubijic no3 most of 2006 FACT
Blake no 6 most of 2006
Robredo no7 most of 2006 FACT.

When we claimed fed's competition was crap compared to pete's we got
flamed as "Jocksniffers","full of bias"etc....

blake's presser after 2006 quarters made me physically ill...i love tennis
and now these so called "rivals" just line up to get done by fed.

point is: you guys are all getting the point, feds era was weak 2004-07

REFUTE THAT PLEASE.

380pistol
04-21-2009, 10:22 PM
lawrence, this whole thread (debating) fed's competition...is quite important.

i disagree with that statement entirely..

*******s are precious and *********s disregard histroy.

In 2006, i came on here with pistol,azzuri and others explaining that

FACTS people :

lubijic no3 most of 2006 FACT
Blake no 6 most of 2006
Robredo no7 most of 2006 FACT.

When we claimed fed's competition was crap compared to pete's we got
flamed as "Jocksniffers","full of bias"etc....

blake's presser after 2006 quarters made me physically ill...i love tennis
and now these so called "rivals" just line up to get done by fed.

point is: you guys are all getting the point, feds era was weak 2004-07

REFUTE THAT PLEASE.


AHEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

edberg505
04-21-2009, 10:36 PM
Conclusion: Sampras is a god and Federer is garbage!

julesb
04-21-2009, 10:50 PM
Federer is one of the most overrated players in history along with Steffi Graf. Enough said.

380pistol
04-21-2009, 11:02 PM
Conclusion: Sampras is a god and Federer is garbage!

I just love these type of posts. No logical recoure, so this. Classic!!!!!!

edberg505
04-21-2009, 11:08 PM
I just love these type of posts. No logical recoure, so this. Classic!!!!!!

LOL, I don't get it. Isn't this what you guys have been saying all along? So now you don't agree with it? So, what's the problem with this post? The only difference between my post and yours is that you guys beat around the bush instead of coming out and saying what you really want to say which is what I stated above.

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 04:49 AM
Sampras could not handle Hewitt ....so what the hell could he do against Nadal?

PimpMyGame
04-22-2009, 05:05 AM
Read the first few pages of the thread and got totally bored with the arguments, so I apologise if someone has said the same thing:

IF (and it's a big if) there was more competition in the field in Fed's heyday, isn't it possible that he was that good that they would have been blown away in any case? Regardless of whether you like him, he's one of the most talented players to have walked the earth. Maybe it was not possible for anyone to step up to the plate between 04 and 07.

vtmike
04-22-2009, 05:07 AM
Sampras could not handle Hewitt ....so what the hell could he do against Nadal?

So you think Nadal would own Sampras?

deltox
04-22-2009, 05:16 AM
Sampras could not handle Hewitt ....so what the hell could he do against Nadal?

i find this statement insanely funny.

nadal vs sampras would be a whole new game for nadal, nadal has never faced a true S&V player on grass or HCs, noone knows what woulda happened.

as for sampras dealing with nadals spin, volleying at net is the one place spin isnt as crucial of a concern. it would be a great fantasy matchup on any surface but clay of course.

id like to see nadal vs isner on HC, although im certain nadal would win quite easily, id love to see how he handled the HUGE kick serves over his head and the humungous tall human being lingering around the net.

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 06:26 AM
i find this statement insanely funny.

nadal vs sampras would be a whole new game for nadal, nadal has never faced a true S&V player on grass or HCs, noone knows what woulda happened.

as for sampras dealing with nadals spin, volleying at net is the one place spin isnt as crucial of a concern. it would be a great fantasy matchup on any surface but clay of course.

id like to see nadal vs isner on HC, although im certain nadal would win quite easily, id love to see how he handled the HUGE kick serves over his head and the humungous tall human being lingering around the net.

The best we can possibly do is compare the closest type of players in both eras.


Nadal is at least as fast as Hewitt or Chang and way more powerful, but the deciding factor is that game has been immensely slowed down now (both the surfaces and the balls have been slowed down)! Furthermore Add into that the Luxilon Polyester revolution and Sampras is in deep sheet.
Remeber guy like Hewitt and Chang were still playing with gut.

The speedsters have too much of an advantage in todays game. Thats why serve and volley is dead

ksbh
04-22-2009, 06:35 AM
ROFL X 380! Good one, Pistol!


So Fed only declines when Rafa shows up?!? Good to know.

ksbh
04-22-2009, 06:37 AM
Yes, an old, past the hill Sampras couldn't handle a young prime Hewitt. Poor comparison.

Sampras could not handle Hewitt ....so what the hell could he do against Nadal?

drakulie
04-22-2009, 06:53 AM
^^Well, he coulnd't handle Roddick either.

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 07:00 AM
Yes, an old, past the hill Sampras couldn't handle a young prime Hewitt. Poor comparison.

Even Chang drove Pete crazy.

Bit this all belongs in the other thread about Nadal & sampras.

ksbh
04-22-2009, 07:28 AM
Not surprising, Drak. Roddick possesses the most lethal serve in tennis history! Well, at least according to some Federer fans! LOL!

^^Well, he coulnd't handle Roddick either.

ksbh
04-22-2009, 07:29 AM
Yes, we're digressing too much. Old habits die hard! :)

Even Chang drove Pete crazy.

Bit this all belongs in the other thread about Nadal & sampras.

deltox
04-22-2009, 07:56 AM
The best we can possibly do is compare the closest type of players in both eras.


Nadal is at least as fast as Hewitt or Chang and way more powerful, but the deciding factor is that game has been immensely slowed down now (both the surfaces and the balls have been slowed down)! Furthermore Add into that the Luxilon Polyester revolution and Sampras is in deep sheet.
Remeber guy like Hewitt and Chang were still playing with gut.

The speedsters have too much of an advantage in todays game. Thats why serve and volley is dead

i respectfully disgaree whole heartedly, S&V is gone because the players in todays game prefer baeline points. S&V is still just as good a weapon as any other time in history.

there is NO comparisons cept borg to nadals play in the past era, and for sampras there is no one person at all in todays game that can come close to his S&V play.

deltox
04-22-2009, 07:58 AM
if fed didnt have any top rivals in his peak then what is nadal playing against?

murray and jokovic are nadals true rivals? your saying by this thread that fed had no competition and other than murray and nole there is noone new that is threatening. you could argue this is nadals peak, and nole and murray have yet to peak, so in essence where is nadals rivals under this same argument?

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 08:04 AM
i respectfully disgaree whole heartedly, S&V is gone because the players in todays game prefer baeline points. S&V is still just as good a weapon as any other time in history.

there is NO comparisons cept borg to nadals play in the past era, and for sampras there is no one person at all in todays game that can come close to his S&V play.


Sampras volleys were set up by the greatest serve ever known to man.

But today the courts are slower and the balls are slower. Therefore the serves are slower.

To make matters worse groundstrokes and passing shots are now bigger than ever due to the Luxilon polyester revolution.

Logically if the game is slowed down then serve and volley has to be slowed down. Therefore it loses its effectiveness.

deltox
04-22-2009, 08:08 AM
Sampras volleys were set up by the greatest serve ever known to man.

But today the courts are slower and the balls are slower. Therefore the serves are slower.

To make matters worse groundstrokes and passing shots are now bigger than ever due to the Luxilon polyester revolution.

Logically if the game is slowed down then serve and volley has to be slowed down. Therefore it loses its effectiveness.

what??? serve and volley isnt about pace as much as placement of serve and volleying on a slower surface means absolutely nothing.

on top of that as you mentioned the strings and equipment, the courts are slower but the serves are faster which nearly equals it out.

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 08:13 AM
what??? serve and volley isnt about pace as much as placement of serve and volleying on a slower surface means absolutely nothing.

on top of that as you mentioned the strings and equipment, the courts are slower but the serves are faster which nearly equals it out.

Well ....the returns are much bigger now because of the polyester. Placement is not such a big deal.

Dont get me wrong.....I LOVE S & V. In fact I am a serve and volleyer.

I wish it would come back!! But unfortunately because of how tennis has changed its completely dead. They just should go back to wood and fast courts.

Tennis wa sslower back then but much more exciting.

deltox
04-22-2009, 08:35 AM
Well ....the returns are much bigger now because of the polyester. Placement is not such a big deal.

Dont get me wrong.....I LOVE S & V. In fact I am a serve and volleyer.

I wish it would come back!! But unfortunately because of how tennis has changed its completely dead. They just should go back to wood and fast courts.

Tennis wa sslower back then but much more exciting.

if you totally run someone off court with your serve it cuts down the angles available for the passing shot thus giving the volleyer at the net a huge advantage. so placement even in todays game is as big a deal as power speed and spin. probably still even more so than those i just listed.

courts might have slowed down but take roddick for example. using him because he a has big serve, has his average number of aces per match decreased? answer is no.

vtmike
04-22-2009, 08:37 AM
Well ....the returns are much bigger now because of the polyester. Placement is not such a big deal.

Dont get me wrong.....I LOVE S & V. In fact I am a serve and volleyer.

I wish it would come back!! But unfortunately because of how tennis has changed its completely dead. They just should go back to wood and fast courts.
Tennis wa sslower back then but much more exciting.

You realize that Nadal will not even be in the top 3 if they do that!

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 11:11 AM
You realize that Nadal will not even be in the top 3 if they do that!

I'm not so Sure......a guy by the name of Bjorn Borg played a very similar game to Nadal and did quite well.

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 11:13 AM
if you totally run someone off court with your serve it cuts down the angles available for the passing shot thus giving the volleyer at the net a huge advantage. so placement even in todays game is as big a deal as power speed and spin. probably still even more so than those i just listed.

courts might have slowed down but take roddick for example. using him because he a has big serve, has his average number of aces per match decreased? answer is no.

But who cares about aces. Roddick keeps losing...even on grass.

Besides Roddick is all about power ....not placement.

deltox
04-22-2009, 11:27 AM
But who cares about aces. Roddick keeps losing...even on grass.

Besides Roddick is all about power ....not placement.


roddick doesnt ace people by power.. he gets service winners by power.. aces by power + placement

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 11:34 AM
roddick doesnt ace people by power.. he gets service winners by power.. aces by power + placement

hmmmm.....maybe? Give me some time to chew on that.

deltox
04-22-2009, 11:43 AM
hmmmm.....maybe? Give me some time to chew on that.

check youtube.. he has nice control on his serves. karlovic also has great control on serves, but neither has the control sampras had to place a serve

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 11:44 AM
check youtube.. he has nice control on his serves. karlovic also has great control on serves, but neither has the control sampras had to place a serve

well thats true....no one does!

devila
04-22-2009, 10:42 PM
Sampras begged for Roddick's ankle injury to worsen in the 2002 US Open (the one time he could get lucky against Roddick). Then, Roddick, his biggest fantard, embarrassed himself further by saying "I told you not to to ignore Sampras." Idiot didn't mind opening his big mouth. He couldn't wait to run his shameless mouth last year against Djokovic...(it made life easier for Federer, Roddick's protected friend)...

No wonder cowardly Roddick only cared about Roddick Foundation money (he admits it), and pummeled himself versus Federer, even though no one else played decently between 2003-2007.

flyer
04-22-2009, 10:51 PM
this is a catch 22 argument, the only reason federer didnt have a rival was because he advanced the game and was so much better than his potential rivals, to have a legitimate rival (and the the argument of this thread, define himself as a "true," or somehow great player than he is now) would have been for him to be worse and loss a few more matches to guys like roddick and hewitt...

federer did have a rival, and that rival was the game itself, he conquered tennis, of course eventually tennis caught up and his "reign" so to speek ended...

but to suggest that the game was somehow weeker just because he himself was sooooo good, when his competition was better than the game before it had ever been is simply obtuse, which not so coincidently desribes some of the posters on this forum

Magnificent!
04-23-2009, 01:46 AM
this is a catch 22 argument, the only reason federer didnt have a rival was because he advanced the game and was so much better than his potential rivals, to have a legitimate rival (and the the argument of this thread, define himself as a "true," or somehow great player than he is now) would have been for him to be worse and loss a few more matches to guys like roddick and hewitt...

federer did have a rival, and that rival was the game itself, he conquered tennis, of course eventually tennis caught up and his "reign" so to speek ended...

but to suggest that the game was somehow weeker just because he himself was sooooo good, when his competition was better than the game before it had ever been is simply obtuse, which not so coincidently desribes some of the posters on this forum

Actually, my question was how Federer would have dealt with someone of equal ability to himself. I believe mentally, he would have struggled to impose himself over a REAL rival. I think Federer is a great player but it disappoints me how he is responding to the challenges from the youngsters. He's 27, all the talk of him being passed his best physically is a poor excuse. Federer's rivals have adjusted to his game and played to his weaknesses, he needs to do the same....but seems reluctant. Big mistake.

Leublu tennis
04-23-2009, 04:31 AM
A three ..........

flyer
04-23-2009, 07:42 AM
Actually, my question was how Federer would have dealt with someone of equal ability to himself. I believe mentally, he would have struggled to impose himself over a REAL rival. I think Federer is a great player but it disappoints me how he is responding to the challenges from the youngsters. He's 27, all the talk of him being passed his best physically is a poor excuse. Federer's rivals have adjusted to his game and played to his weaknesses, he needs to do the same....but seems reluctant. Big mistake.

i dont disagree with you in your disapointment in his currrent form, but federer is the guy that pushed that game forward, he didnt have anyone "of equal ability to himself" because of the 7,000,000,000 people living in this world not one of those people was even close to as remarkable as him, that dominance is a more remarkable feat than going back and forth with a guy and usually beating him (apparently a rivalry)...and thats why the argument that he needed a rival to define his greatness is absurd

Magnificent!
04-23-2009, 01:46 PM
i dont disagree with you in your disapointment in his currrent form, but federer is the guy that pushed that game forward, he didnt have anyone "of equal ability to himself" because of the 7,000,000,000 people living in this world not one of those people was even close to as remarkable as him, that dominance is a more remarkable feat than going back and forth with a guy and usually beating him (apparently a rivalry)...and thats why the argument that he needed a rival to define his greatness is absurd

There is no question that Federer was way ahead of the field when he won all of his majors. I would like to have seen Federer really pushed when he was at his peak to see how he would have held up mentally. I think his achievements would have been even more respected.
GOAT? No, but I still think he could be if, in the next 2-3 years, he responds to the new and real challenges sucessfully, like the GOAT would.

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 02:03 PM
There is no question that Federer was way ahead of the field when he won all of his majors. I would like to have seen Federer really pushed when he was at his peak to see how he would have held up mentally. I think his achievements would have been even more respected.
GOAT? No, but I still think he could be if, in the next 2-3 years, he responds to the new and real challenges sucessfully, like the GOAT would.
Gamewise Safin and Nalbandian could easily push Federer but they didn't have the consistency (Roddick and Davydenko had the consistency but not the talent, ie played right into Federer's strengths). Nadal pushed Federer from the start, despite being much younger than Fed: beat him at 17 in Miami, had match point against Fed in the next Miami, challenged Fed at W 3 years in a row and successfully stopped Fed from winning big tournaments on clay. Murray also as a teenager beat Fed on hard, once again despite the age difference and during Fed's best peak. To me, it's obvious that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic had been the same age as Fed, Fed would never have been #1. Nadal was much stronger than Fed at a much younger age, meaning he would have established his domination on the tour long before Fed came into his own and Fed would never have had against Nadal and Murray or even Djoko the same rate of success he could enjoy against Davy and Roddick, he could not have garnered as much confidence as he did (thank Roddick for that!), he would have struggled to keep a spot in the top 3 IMO.

deltox
04-23-2009, 02:04 PM
Sampras begged for Roddick's ankle injury to worsen in the 2002 US Open (the one time he could get lucky against Roddick). Then, Roddick, his biggest fantard, embarrassed himself further by saying "I told you not to to ignore Sampras." Idiot didn't mind opening his big mouth. He couldn't wait to run his shameless mouth last year against Djokovic...(it made life easier for Federer, Roddick's protected friend)...

No wonder cowardly Roddick only cared about Roddick Foundation money (he admits it), and pummeled himself versus Federer, even though no one else played decently between 2003-2007.

/marks up another roddick hater. nothing you say bout roddick will ever be taken to heart again.. so much disrespect.

Magnificent!
04-23-2009, 02:31 PM
Gamewise Safin and Nalbandian could easily push Federer but they didn't have the consistency (Roddick and Davydenko had the consistency but not the talent, ie played right into Federer's strengths). Nadal pushed Federer from the start, despite being much younger than Fed: beat him at 17 in Miami, had match point against Fed in the next Miami, challenged Fed at W 3 years in a row and successfully stopped Fed from winning big tournaments on clay. Murray also as a teenager beat Fed on hard, once again despite the age difference. To me, it's obvious that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic had been the same age as Fed, Fed would never have been #1. Nadal was much stronger than Fed at a much younger age, meaning he would have established his domination on the tour long before Fed came into his own and Fed would never have had against Nadal and Murray or even Djoko the same rate of success he could enjoy against Davy and Roddick, he could not have garnered as much confidence as he did (thank Roddick for that!), he would have struggled to keep a spot in the top 3 IMO.

ATLAST! I totally agree, Federer would have struggled against Nadal, Murray and Dyoko, even if they were around while he was at his peak. At 27, he is still nearly as good, if not as good as he ever was. He can no longer rely on his talent alone to win him titles. He needs to train harder. Tactically, he is looking naive. I think he has tried different ways of playing the new top 3, but not much is working. Fascinating to watch how this year will unfold for Federer.

King of Aces
04-23-2009, 02:34 PM
ATLAST! I totally agree, Federer would have struggled against Nadal, Murray and Dyoko, even if they were around while he was at his peak. At 27, he is still nearly as good, if not as good as he ever was. He can no longer rely on his talent alone to win him titles. He needs to train harder. Tactically, he is looking naive. I think he has tried different ways of playing the new top 3, but not much is working. Fascinating to watch how this year will unfold for Federer.

But nadal was around at his so called "peak".

Federer has ALWAYS had a losing record to Nadal.

egn
04-23-2009, 03:11 PM
But nadal was around at his so called "peak".

Federer has ALWAYS had a losing record to Nadal.

Yes that is true but most times this losing record could be offset as it was 1-9 on clay and he had the winning record 5-2 on all other surfaces.

edberg505
04-23-2009, 03:15 PM
Gamewise Safin and Nalbandian could easily push Federer but they didn't have the consistency (Roddick and Davydenko had the consistency but not the talent, ie played right into Federer's strengths). Nadal pushed Federer from the start, despite being much younger than Fed: beat him at 17 in Miami, had match point against Fed in the next Miami, challenged Fed at W 3 years in a row and successfully stopped Fed from winning big tournaments on clay. Murray also as a teenager beat Fed on hard, once again despite the age difference and during Fed's best peak. To me, it's obvious that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic had been the same age as Fed, Fed would never have been #1. Nadal was much stronger than Fed at a much younger age, meaning he would have established his domination on the tour long before Fed came into his own and Fed would never have had against Nadal and Murray or even Djoko the same rate of success he could enjoy against Davy and Roddick, he could not have garnered as much confidence as he did (thank Roddick for that!), he would have struggled to keep a spot in the top 3 IMO.

Damn straight.

P.S. Pete Sampras is a god and Roger Federer is garbage

P.S. P.S. Come and find me when Murray and Djokovic combine for the same number of slam titles as Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt.

tudwell
04-23-2009, 03:16 PM
Federer did have a rival in his prime. His name was history. And he lost.

illkhiboy
04-23-2009, 03:42 PM
Dubai is actually an outdoor court. Not that it matters.

What matters is that she KNOWS it's an outdoor hard court tournament. But the Hard-On-for-Nadal Group here works like the Republican Slime Machine.

egn
04-23-2009, 04:01 PM
Federer did have a rival in his prime. His name was history. And he lost.

Lol that's sig worthy.

devila
04-23-2009, 04:35 PM
Gamewise Safin and Nalbandian could easily push Federer but they didn't have the consistency (Roddick and Davydenko had the consistency but not the talent, ie played right into Federer's strengths).

Nadal was much stronger than Fed at a much younger age, meaning he would have established his domination on the tour long before Fed came into his own and Fed would never have had against Nadal and Murray or even Djoko the same rate of success he could enjoy against Davy and Roddick, he could not have garnered as much confidence as he did (thank Roddick for that!), he would have struggled to keep a spot in the top 3 IMO. Safin just won a match between 2002-2008. He won no tournament after the Federer defeat.
Roddick is well-known for his severe boredom of tennis and need to "enjoy life". If he didn't have personality and fitness problems, he wouldn't be called stupid and classless. His constant praise for Federer is beyond normal. It's pathological. Thank him, Federer.

vtmike
04-23-2009, 04:39 PM
Damn straight.

P.S. Pete Sampras is a god and Roger Federer is garbage

P.S. P.S. Come and find me when Murray and Djokovic combine for the same number of slam titles as Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt.

LMAO!! But sadly GameSamp will still say they were better competition and one of the greatest tennis players just to prove Fed was playing in a weak era...

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 04:55 PM
Damn straight.

P.S. Pete Sampras is a god and Roger Federer is garbage

P.S. P.S. Come and find me when Murray and Djokovic combine for the same number of slam titles as Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt.
Where did I mention Sampras? My post isn't about him at all. Federer is not garbage at all but he's still lucky to be older than Nadal, Murray, etc because they would have posed him more problems than his regular same age rivals. As I said Roddick was very consistent but a perfect matchup for Fed (which is not the case for either Nadal, Murray or Djoko IMO), I see both Safin and Hewitt as kind of "flash in the pan" also taking advantage of a period: 2000-2002 when Sampras was declining and Agassi was too old for overwhelming dominance. Safin had a great year 2000 and then totally checked out, Hewitt had a very good 2001 and an excellent 2002 and that's about it. Compared to those guys, my claim is that the current competition (Nadal, Murray and Djoko) can go the distance and stay a threat on the long term. Fed could not have counted on them withering away.

egn
04-23-2009, 05:28 PM
Where did I mention Sampras? My post isn't about him at all. Federer is not garbage at all but he's still lucky to be older than Nadal, Murray, etc because they would have posed him more problems than his regular same age rivals. As I said Roddick was very consistent but a perfect matchup for Fed (which is not the case for either Nadal, Murray or Djoko IMO), I see both Safin and Hewitt as kind of "flash in the pan" also taking advantage of a period: 2000-2002 when Sampras was declining and Agassi was too old for overwhelming dominance. Safin had a great year 2000 and then totally checked out, Hewitt had a very good 2001 and an excellent 2002 and that's about it. Compared to those guys, my claim is that the current competition (Nadal, Murray and Djoko) can go the distance and stay a threat on the long term. Fed could not have counted on them withering away.

Let us see I hope your claim is right as tennis willl be more interesting but let us see.

thalivest
04-23-2009, 05:33 PM
Hewitt actually played his best tennis ever in 2004-2005. He lost to the eventual winner of all 7 slams he played, and 5 of those 7 were Federer. He was nowhere near that consistently strong even when he was #1 in 2001 and 2002. If it were not for Federer, Hewitt would have had an even better 2004 and 2005 than 2001 and 2002. Safins most consistent years of tennis were definitely 2000 and 2002 though.

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 05:40 PM
Federer did have a rival in his prime. His name was history. And he lost.
Very typical of the kind of hyperbolic hype that Federer's name drags after it. Federer didn't play anyone called "history", he played flesh and blood players, some of whom could beat him even during his prime. Time to get back to earth and forget about the media manufactured "delusions of grandeur".

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 05:46 PM
Hewitt actually played his best tennis ever in 2004-2005. He lost to the eventual winner of all 7 slams he played, and 5 of those 7 were Federer. He was nowhere near that consistently strong even when he was #1 in 2001 and 2002. If it were not for Federer, Hewitt would have had an even better 2004 and 2005 than 2001 and 2002. Safins most consistent years of tennis were definitely 2000 and 2002 though.
All I know is that since 2005 Hewitt has won no more than 1 tournament a year (and 2001-2002 are Hewitt's only years at the top). Even Roddick has done better than that! Safin also didn't have a great year in 2002, he only won 1 tournament as well that year (Paris), not that impressive really.

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 05:52 PM
What matters is that she KNOWS it's an outdoor hard court tournament. But the Hard-On-for-Nadal Group here works like the Republican Slime Machine.
Wrong, I just made a mistake. You never do?

edberg505
04-23-2009, 06:08 PM
Where did I mention Sampras? My post isn't about him at all. Federer is not garbage at all but he's still lucky to be older than Nadal, Murray, etc because they would have posed him more problems than his regular same age rivals. As I said Roddick was very consistent but a perfect matchup for Fed (which is not the case for either Nadal, Murray or Djoko IMO), I see both Safin and Hewitt as kind of "flash in the pan" also taking advantage of a period: 2000-2002 when Sampras was declining and Agassi was too old for overwhelming dominance. Safin had a great year 2000 and then totally checked out, Hewitt had a very good 2001 and an excellent 2002 and that's about it. Compared to those guys, my claim is that the current competition (Nadal, Murray and Djoko) can go the distance and stay a threat on the long term. Fed could not have counted on them withering away.

Ok, then that means Murray and Djokovic shouldn't have any problem of collecting a total of 5 slams. I thought the funniest part of your post though was that Federer would have never reached #1 in the world. That is just laughable. If Rios reached #1 without winning a slam then surely Federer would have gotten there, even with these world beaters Djokovic and Murray. You can say whatever you want about the guy, but his consistency throughout his domination is unparalleled. I mean how many times did you see him losing to someone he shouldn't have lost to in that time period. You certainly cannot say the same about either of those guys. Anyways, we'll see. I'm reluctant to just give people slams without them having earned it. People are talking them up now, but for all you know they could go into the FO and get their teeth kicked in by a couple of nobodies.

icedevil0289
04-23-2009, 06:15 PM
Gamewise Safin and Nalbandian could easily push Federer but they didn't have the consistency (Roddick and Davydenko had the consistency but not the talent, ie played right into Federer's strengths). Nadal pushed Federer from the start, despite being much younger than Fed: beat him at 17 in Miami, had match point against Fed in the next Miami, challenged Fed at W 3 years in a row and successfully stopped Fed from winning big tournaments on clay. Murray also as a teenager beat Fed on hard, once again despite the age difference and during Fed's best peak. To me, it's obvious that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic had been the same age as Fed, Fed would never have been #1. Nadal was much stronger than Fed at a much younger age, meaning he would have established his domination on the tour long before Fed came into his own and Fed would never have had against Nadal and Murray or even Djoko the same rate of success he could enjoy against Davy and Roddick, he could not have garnered as much confidence as he did (thank Roddick for that!), he would have struggled to keep a spot in the top 3 IMO.

delete post

GameSampras
04-23-2009, 06:15 PM
The thing about Nadal now, Djoker, and Murray is these guys bearing injury are going to stay extremely consistent most likely and should remain threats for quite a few years down the line and in Nadals case should be continuing to collect slams. Djoker as well most likely if he gets his head on straight. Definitely Murray as well who will no doubt get some slams under his belt. Its inevitable if he continues to improve.

Will you see Murray, Nadal, Djoker just completely wither away during their best tenis years ? No. Will you see these guys take a half decade off in Safins case? Will you see these guys be complete non factors at the slams like Nalbandian was? No. Will they be Fed's whipping boy week in week out their whole careers like Roddick was? No. Will they just disappear like Hewitt after 2 or so years of a good tennis? No.


Whether Nadal, Djoker, Murray have the raw talent of a safin or Nalbandian or not. THey have one thing none of Fed's contemporaries had 04-07 outside of Nadal. They dont just DISAPPEAR at the slams or for half a decade like Safin or Nalbandian. And they possess the games to give matchup problems for Roger unlike Nadal.

egn
04-23-2009, 06:20 PM
The thing about Nadal now, Djoker, and Murray is these guys bearing injury are going to stay extremely consistent most likely and should remain threats for quite a few years down the line and in Nadals case should be continuing to collect slams. Djoker as well most likely if he gets his head on straight. Definitely Murray as well who will no doubt get some slams under his belt. Its inevitable if he continues to improve.

Will you see Murray, Nadal, Djoker just completely wither away during their best tenis years ? No. Will you see these guys take a half decade off in Safins case? Will you see these guys be complete non factors at the slams like Nalbandian was? No. Will they be Fed's whipping boy week in week out their whole careers like Roddick was? No.


Whether Nadal, Djoker, Murray have the raw talent of a safin or Nalbandian or not. THey have one thing none of Fed's contemporaries had 04-07 outside of Nadal. They dont just DISAPPEAR

Roddick never disappeared he just got beat, neither did a bunch of others. How do we know that Murray and Djoker will not wither away? Murray hasn't had a full year in the top 5. It is just give credit when it is due..no need to credit either yet. Besides on Feds way to his US Open run in 2008 he did beat both back to back? There comes a point where eventually they will pass him and he will age out of it.

Djokovic is 3-7 against Fed? Nadal I see continuing to collect slams, but just like back in 2003 everyone saw Fed, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalby, Safin and Hewitt grabbing slams for years to come they did not..so let us just wait for it to happen.

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 06:21 PM
Ok, then that means Murray and Djokovic shouldn't have any problem of collecting a total of 5 slams. I thought the funniest part of your post though was that Federer would have never reached #1 in the world. That is just laughable. If Rios reached #1 without winning a slam then surely Federer would have gotten there, even with these world beaters Djokovic and Murray. You can say whatever you want about the guy, but his consistency throughout his domination is unparalleled. I mean how many times did you see him losing to someone he shouldn't have lost to in that time period. You certainly cannot say the same about either of those guys. Anyways, we'll see. I'm reluctant to just give people slams without them having earned it. People are talking them up now, but for all you know they could go into the FO and get their teeth kicked in by a couple of nobodies.
What we were talking about was a hypothetical situation where Nadal, Murray, Djokovic and Federer would have been all the same age. The power balance would have been completely different as Federer would not have "owned" those guys the way he did with some of his contemporary competition and you're aware that tennis has a lot to do with confidence, don't you? Because Nadal was already a dominating figure at 19 and Federer didn't dominate before 22, I claim that Nadal would have had a grip on the tour before Federer woud have had a chance to hit his prime and Nadal would not roll over the way Hewitt did, that's a given. Federer would not have owned Murray the way he owned Roddick, not even remotely and Djokovic would have hung around much more consistently than Safin ever did. What are those 5 slams business? Did you just add the 2 Hewitt slams, 2 Safin slams and 1 Roddick slam to make that number? Then you're making my case for me: Nadal and Djoko combined make 7 slams, more to come I'm sure...

GameSampras
04-23-2009, 06:23 PM
Roddick never disappeared he just got beat, neither did a bunch of others. How do we know that Murray and Djoker will not wither away? Murray hasn't had a full year in the top 5. It is just give credit when it is due..no need to credit either yet. Besides on Feds way to his US Open run in 2008 he did beat both back to back? There comes a point where eventually they will pass him and he will age out of it.

Djokovic is 3-7 against Fed? Nadal I see continuing to collect slams, but just like back in 2003 everyone saw Fed, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalby, Safin and Hewitt grabbing slams for years to come they did not..so let us just wait for it to happen.



Roddick didnt disappear for sure. He was prolly the most consistent out of Fed's contemporaries, but has a 1 and whatever the hell it is record overrall against Fed doesnt he? And after 5 years has barely been able to to even ever beat Fed at all anywheres. Even now with Fed declining a bit, Roddick still cant handle Fed, yet Murray and Djoker can when you factor in all the tourneys. So Djoker and Murray are already doing something Roddick could NEVER DO.... and thats beat Fed.

egn
04-23-2009, 06:40 PM
Roddick didnt disappear for sure. He was prolly the most consistent out of Fed's contemporaries, but has a 1 and whatever the hell it is record overrall against Fed doesnt he? And after 5 years has barely been able to to even ever beat Fed at all anywheres. Even now with Fed declining a bit, Roddick still cant handle Fed, yet Murray and Djoker can when you factor in all the tourneys. So Djoker and Murray are already doing something Roddick could NEVER DO.... and thats beat Fed.

Yet Roddick can beat Djoker somehow now lol..though then would you really expect Roddick to beat Fed now when he could not handle him when he was at his own personal best.

icedevil0289
04-23-2009, 06:50 PM
What we were talking about was a hypothetical situation where Nadal, Murray, Djokovic and Federer would have been all the same age. The power balance would have been completely different as Federer would not have "owned" those guys the way he did with some of his contemporary competition and you're aware that tennis has a lot to do with confidence, don't you? Because Nadal was already a dominating figure at 19 and Federer didn't dominate before 22, I claim that Nadal would have had a grip on the tour before Federer woud have had a chance to hit his prime and Nadal would not roll over the way Hewitt did, that's a given. Federer would not have owned Murray the way he owned Roddick, not even remotely and Djokovic would have hung around much more consistently than Safin ever did. What are those 5 slams business? Did you just add the 2 Hewitt slams, 2 Safin slams and 1 Roddick slam to make that number? Then you're making my case for me: Nadal and Djoko combined make 7 slams, more to come I'm sure...

delete post

King of Aces
04-23-2009, 07:03 PM
Yes that is true but most times this losing record could be offset as it was 1-9 on clay and he had the winning record 5-2 on all other surfaces.

Huh?? all I know is that Federer ALWAYS had a losing record to Rafa. Even when Rafa was a teenybopper.

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 07:11 PM
Yes that is true but most times this losing record could be offset as it was 1-9 on clay and he had the winning record 5-2 on all other surfaces.
What do you mean "offset"? You would convince the ATP to just cancel all tournaments on clay or erase all the points they give? And you think they'd do it just to gratify your little agenda? Sorry my friend but in rankings, points, prize money, trophies and head to heads all surfaces count. A 13-6 head to head is a 13-6 head to head, no kind of quirky manipulation will make it go away. So it's 1-9 on clay and 5-4 on the rest? Who cares? The end result is 13-6 and that's the only thing that matters.

King of Aces
04-23-2009, 07:13 PM
What do you mean "offset"? You would convince the ATP to just cancel all tournaments on clay or erase all the points they give? And you think they'd do it just to gratify your little agenda? Sorry my friend but in rankings, points, prize money, trophies and head to heads all surfaces count. A 13-6 head to head is a 13-6 head to head, no kind of quirky manipulation will make it go away. So it's 1-9 on clau and 4-5 on the rest? Who cares? The end result is 13-6 and that's the only thing that matters.

exactly,.,....and if you want to make excuse....how about that Nadal was only 17 years old in his very first grand slam against the seasoned #1 in the world in his "prime".

Nadal was a baby and still beat Federer. (Then again Nadal beat Pat Cash at the age of 13).

edberg505
04-23-2009, 07:26 PM
What we were talking about was a hypothetical situation where Nadal, Murray, Djokovic and Federer would have been all the same age. The power balance would have been completely different as Federer would not have "owned" those guys the way he did with some of his contemporary competition and you're aware that tennis has a lot to do with confidence, don't you? Because Nadal was already a dominating figure at 19 and Federer didn't dominate before 22, I claim that Nadal would have had a grip on the tour before Federer woud have had a chance to hit his prime and Nadal would not roll over the way Hewitt did, that's a given. Federer would not have owned Murray the way he owned Roddick, not even remotely and Djokovic would have hung around much more consistently than Safin ever did. What are those 5 slams business? Did you just add the 2 Hewitt slams, 2 Safin slams and 1 Roddick slam to make that number? Then you're making my case for me: Nadal and Djoko combined make 7 slams, more to come I'm sure...

Ah, I see. Since we are speaking hypothetically then who's to say Federer wouldn't have figured them out? Federer used to be Hewitt's little whippin boy but we see how that turned out. And please don't come back with, "but Murray is a better player." Because I'll say Hewitt 2 slams Murray none!

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 07:34 PM
Ah, I see. Since we are speaking hypothetically then who's to say Federer wouldn't have figured them out? Federer used to be Hewitt's little whippin boy but we see how that turned out. And please don't come back with, "but Murray is a better player." Because I'll say Hewitt 2 slams Murray none!
Murray started beating Federer in 2006 (Fed's prime) and he was just a teenager. If they had been the same age, he would have beaten him even more easily IMO. Even if it had been tight, it certainly wouldn't have been one-sided. My argument about Hewitt is not that he was never good, he was but for a short period of time (like Safin), he was unable to keep it up. I'm betting that Murray will be. Future will tell, right?

vtmike
04-23-2009, 07:53 PM
Murray started beating Federer in 2006 (Fed's prime) and he was just a teenager. If they had been the same age, he would have beaten him even more easily IMO. Even if it had been tight, it certainly wouldn't have been one-sided. My argument about Hewitt is not that he was never good, he was but for a short period of time (like Safin), he was unable to keep it up. I'm betting that Murray will be. Future will tell, right?

If Murray does win a slam, then how do you know that it was not due to Fed's decline and Nadal not being able to dominate like Fed? See how anyone make assumptions to see what they want to see...

King of Aces
04-23-2009, 08:16 PM
If Murray does win a slam, then how do you know that it was not due to Fed's decline and Nadal not being able to dominate like Fed? See how anyone make assumptions to see what they want to see...

Because Fed lost to Both Murray and Nadal when Federer was his arguable "prime" and Murray and Nadal were still in diapers.

edberg505
04-23-2009, 08:43 PM
Murray started beating Federer in 2006 (Fed's prime) and he was just a teenager. If they had been the same age, he would have beaten him even more easily IMO. Even if it had been tight, it certainly wouldn't have been one-sided. My argument about Hewitt is not that he was never good, he was but for a short period of time (like Safin), he was unable to keep it up. I'm betting that Murray will be. Future will tell, right?

Because Fed lost to Both Murray and Nadal when Federer was his arguable "prime" and Murray and Nadal were still in diapers.


LOL, this whole argument is pointless. You are absolutely right. If Federer were the same age as Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic he wouldn't have won a single slam and he wouldn't be ranked #1. Feel better now?

kaiotic
04-23-2009, 08:50 PM
that is something id love to have seen, to me agassi is proably the most awesome player of my generation. i could care less about stats, i look for drive, heart and determination.

i have to agree with you on this. agassi, to me, is one of the greatest.

380pistol
04-23-2009, 09:45 PM
LOL, this whole argument is pointless. You are absolutely right. If Federer were the same age as Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic he wouldn't have won a single slam and he wouldn't be ranked #1. Feel better now?

Insecure much??

grafselesfan
04-23-2009, 09:47 PM
Insecure much??

Probably distressed by how much sense what veroniquem said actually made.

380pistol
04-23-2009, 09:50 PM
Probably distressed by how much sense what veroniquem said actually made.

I see how he has so much to say about posts, little slick comments, but never actually addresses what is said in those posts. Laughable.

edberg505
04-23-2009, 09:53 PM
Insecure much??

Why should I be insecure. I just agreed with you guys. Now I'm wrong because I'm agreeing?

380pistol
04-23-2009, 09:58 PM
Conclusion: Sampras is a god and Federer is garbage!
I just love these type of posts. No logical recoure, so this. Classic!!!!!!
LOL, I don't get it. Isn't this what you guys have been saying all along? So now you don't agree with it? So, what's the problem with this post? The only difference between my post and yours is that you guys beat around the bush instead of coming out and saying what you really want to say which is what I stated above.


First of all who are "you guys"?? Don't blame your patheic insecurities on what others aren't saying. This thread is about Federer and his rivals (rather lack there of) an no one else. Why is the comparison automatically made to you know whom?? If anything that does not portray Roger in the greates light, it cuz of you know who???

Read my post on the 1st page discussing this.....

Whether Federphiles care to admit it or not, the competition wasn't that great when Roger was dominating. Now if he had a rival, or a couple of more challengers at the top how would Roger do??

I still feel he 's gifted enough to spend a significant time at #1 and would still be winning slams. Would there 230+ weeks consecutively? Maybe not. I also doubt if there would be 3 slams a year 3 times or 5 consecutive titles at both Wimbledon and the US Open. He'd still have multiple slam years I think, but not 3 slams a year in 3 times.

Yes Roger's dominance has a lot to woth Federer himself, but you're absolutely kidding yourself if you believe the softness of the field around him didn't aid him.

.....obviously you didn't so this means you're doing nothing but talking out of your ***!!!

The 1st one who mention "you know who" in this thread was a Fed fan vtmike, who has Fed pic in his avatar. Page 1 post 17.

Agree...and again using the same logic the current field is more pathetic! ***********s will make this exact same argument IF Nadal starts to get close to Sampras' record of 14! and then all the *******s will start flaming him for it :rolleyes:

So who's really making this thread about you know who?? Why mention him if we're talking about Roger and the players around him.

Well if you've come to you're "conclusion", then it's good that you know!!!!

edberg505
04-23-2009, 10:02 PM
First of all who are "you guys"?? Don't blame your patheic insecurities on what others aren't saying. This thread is about Federer and his rivals (rather lack there of) an no one else. Why is the comparison automatically made to you know whom?? If anything that does not portray Roger in the greates light, it cuz of you know who???

Read my post on the 1st page discussing this.....



.....obviously you didn't so this means you're doing nothing but talking out of your ***!!!

The 1st one who mention "you know who" in this thread was a Fed fan vtmike, who has Fed pic in his avatar. Page 1 post 17.



So who's really making this thread about you know who?? Why mention him if we're talking about Roger and the players around him.

Well if you've come to you're conclusion well then it's good that you know!!!!

Ok, how's this? Federer is garbage. He only won those slams because of weak comp. He definitely wouldn't have been number one and he surely wouldn't have compiled the win/loss record that he did during the 04-07 season. He is a complete joke.

380pistol
04-23-2009, 10:06 PM
Ok, how's this? Federer is garbage. He only won those slams because of weak comp. He definitely wouldn't have been number one and he surely wouldn't have compiled the win/loss record that he did during the 04-07 season. He is a complete joke.

I would continue this game of Hungry Hungry Hippo with you, but I was once told....
"A wise man said don't argue with fools, cuz people watching from a distance can't tell who's who".

Clearly what I posted.....

Whether Federphiles care to admit it or not, the competition wasn't that great when Roger was dominating. Now if he had a rival, or a couple of more challengers at the top how would Roger do??

I still feel he 's gifted enough to spend a significant time at #1 and would still be winning slams. Would there 230+ weeks consecutively? Maybe not. I also doubt if there would be 3 slams a year 3 times or 5 consecutive titles at both Wimbledon and the US Open. He'd still have multiple slam years I think, but not 3 slams a year in 3 times.

Yes Roger's dominance has a lot to woth Federer himself, but you're absolutely kidding yourself if you believe the softness of the field around him didn't aid him.

But it's hellafunny to see you insecurities become even more more apparent with each post. But of course you're not insecure, you're bringing logical arguements and reasonings that no one is seeing.

deltox
04-23-2009, 10:12 PM
i love the weak era threads, they are nothing more than hatred threads. in 3 years people will be saying if nadals competition on clay wasnt a joke he woulda never won more than 7 slams in his career. and the argument will continue like this thread never existed. there is NO weak era in tennis. not a single 3 years period ever.


people hate roddick and hate fed so they roll the 2 together to make one big hatred pool or opinions and garbage.

who cares. im sure federer and his 170 million dollar fortune could care less what you guys think.

edberg505
04-23-2009, 10:13 PM
I would continue this game of Hungry Hungry Hippo with you, but I was once told....
"A wise man said don't argue with fools, cuz people watching from a distance can't tell who's who".

But it's hellafunny to see you insecurities become even more more apparent with each post.

Says, the guy with a pic of "you know who" and nickname in his screen name. I'm not the one who jumps in every Federer thread to down play his achievements. I on the other hand, don't have one single thing in my moniker or screen name relevant to "you know who" or that crappy Federer.

380pistol
04-23-2009, 10:18 PM
Says, the guy with a pic of "you know who" and nickname in his screen name. I'm not the one who jumps in every Federer thread to down play his achievements. I on the other hand, don't have one single thing in my moniker or screen name relevant to "you know who" or that crappy Federer.

Love how you avoided what I originally said in this thread, even though I resposted it twice. What?? No response?? Oh those insecuties....... more and more clear with each and every post.

I'm a Sampras fan and will never deny it. Not hiding and masqeurading under the guise of impartial, when we really know what you are.

edberg505
04-23-2009, 10:21 PM
Love how you avoided what I originally said in this thread, even though I resposted it twice. What?? No response?? Oh those insecuties....... more and more clear with each and every post.

I'm a Sampras fan and will never deny it. Not hiding and masqeurading under the guise of impartial, when we really know what you are.

And what am I? A Federer fan? Yeah, I created a name Edberg505 because I'm such a huge Federer fan. Get real. I do have one thing to ask though, are you saying that from 08 to now is a strong era?

By the way, that post means nothing. That's your let me throw Federer a bone while still putting down his accomplishments post.

380pistol
04-23-2009, 10:25 PM
And what am I? A Federer fan? Yeah, I created a name Edberg505 because I'm such a huge Federer fan. Get real. I do have one thing to ask though, are you saying that from 08 to now is a strong era?

By the way, that post means nothing. That's your let me throw Federer a bone while still putting down his accomplishments post.

Don't ask me any question that if you actually read what I've posted in this thread, you would already have the answer for.

Oh love how you agreed that Fed is garbage and Sampras is God, then tried to make slick comments about myscreenname and avatar?? Oh you don't agree with me anymore?? the insecure one changed on dime did he???

edberg505
04-23-2009, 10:33 PM
Don't ask me any question that if you actually read what I've posted in this thread, you would already have the answer for.

Oh love how you agreed that Fed is garbage and Sampras is God, then tried to make slick comments about myscreenname and avatar?? Oh you don't agree with me anymore?? the insecure one changed on dime did he???

What on earth are you talking about here?

Don't ask me any question that if you actually read what I've posted in this thread, you would already have the answer for.

Ok, this is a strong era, how on earth is that darn Federer still making slam finals? Look you can say what you want, but let's see how many early slam exits these guys make, oh wait, Murray was a victim of that already. How can Murray and Djokovic stop Federer from winning slams when they bow out in the quarters and the round of 16s. What I think is people will look at things and twist stuff to make their heroes look better. One thing is for sure, you won't see me hoping into Sampras threads to put down his achievements.

380pistol
04-23-2009, 10:34 PM
Probably distressed by how much sense what veroniquem said actually made.

I said I'd stop trading comments, but it's so laughable how insecure he his, and when tries to show otherwise it makes it more apparent.It's like a car wreck I should keep it moving but can't stop watching.