PDA

View Full Version : Let's disspel the myth that Federer thrived against a "weak field"


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Jamin2112
05-31-2012, 09:13 AM
I see it all the time on here:

"Federer only snatched so many titles because the players were weak during 2003-2007. The fact that he later had a trouble with Nadal and Djokovic, eventually losing his #1 rank to them, proves this."

What a ludicrous argument!

First of all, in tennis, as in any sport, the level of play is always improving (I guess "level of play" would have to be measured by average speed of groundstrokes and serves, physical fitness of players, and a few other metrics). The game gets more competitive at every level, every year.

Second of all, the fact that there was a greater variety of finalists to face Federer in 2003-2007 does not mean he had it easy. The guys who made it to the final in a given tournament were on fire during that tournament. Just because they weren't on fire as consistently (á la Nadal or Djokovic) does not mean they were any less difficult to defeat when they were on fire. (Say it were true that the same 2 or 3 Rookie players always showed up in the final match, while the Champs tournaments, on the other hand, always seemed to have a different set of players in the final. Would that mean that Champs is less competitive?)

Third of all, Roddick, Safin, and the other supposed "light weights" of yesteryear were not in fact lightweights. Roddick was hitting 25 aces per game and successfully charging the net off his forehand. Against a prime 2003-2005 Roddick on a 2003-2005 hard court, Nadal got whooped, and I bet Djokovic would've too.

Fourth of all, the fact that Nadal and Djokovic, both of whom originally had trouble against Federer, were eventually able to crack him (when he reached age 28+), does not mean they are better players. But suppose it does mean that. Then we can apply the same argument for any player, since they all reach a state of permanent decline at some point (Not to say that Federer has reached permanent decline). "Player X used to beat player Y, but eventually player Y started to beat player X. Therefore player X was never better than player Y; he only was able to beat player X before player X had reached his full potential."


Discuss.

10is
05-31-2012, 09:40 AM
Discuss.

Golly gee whiz...how novel... its not like this "myth of a myth" hasn't been discussed ad nauseum 52657967897365346^9868768697709 times before or anything.

Agassifan
05-31-2012, 09:40 AM
This is a non-issue and only brought up by loser Rafa fans. Not worth discussing.

zcarzach
05-31-2012, 09:42 AM
This is a non-issue and only brought up by loser Rafa fans. Not worth discussing.

Well said. +10federers

BeHappy
05-31-2012, 09:42 AM
1)Safin hurt his knee in 2005, never the same again = GONE

2)Roddick started pushing in 2005= GONE

3) Hewitt has not had 6 months injury free tennis in 7 years (2005) = GONE

4) Guillermo Coria had a mental breakdown after 2005 = GONE

5) Gaston Gaudio (42-8 on clay 2005) had a mental breakdown in 2005 = GONE

6) Gustavo Kuerten retired with an injured hip shortly after beating Federer in the French Open in 2004 = GONE

7) Nalbandian got fat and his nephew was crushed in an elevator shaft = GONE (except for a few months towards the end of 2007)

8 ) Ferrero got the chicken pox and somehow (no one really understands this) couldn't hit his forehand hard anymore when he came back = GONE

9 ) Philipoussis hurt his knee and had to retire = GONE

10) Tommy Haas has been constantly injured for the last ten years, whenever he gets close to reaching Federer's level he gets injured (AO 2006, FO 2009) = GONE

So in 2005, basically, overnight, players like Tommy Robredo were in the top 10.

The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

sureshs
05-31-2012, 09:49 AM
I see it all the time on here:



What a ludicrous argument!

First of all, in tennis, as in any sport, the level of play is always improving (I guess "level of play" would have to be measured by average speed of groundstrokes and serves, physical fitness of players, and a few other metrics). The game gets more competitive at every level, every year.

Second of all, the fact that there was a greater variety of finalists to face Federer in 2003-2007 does not mean he had it easy. The guys who made it to the final in a given tournament were on fire during that tournament. Just because they weren't on fire as consistently (á la Nadal or Djokovic) does not mean they were any less difficult to defeat when they were on fire. (Say it were true that the same 2 or 3 Rookie players always showed up in the final match, while the Champs tournaments, on the other hand, always seemed to have a different set of players in the final. Would that mean that Champs is less competitive?)

Third of all, Roddick, Safin, and the other supposed "light weights" of yesteryear were not in fact lightweights. Roddick was hitting 25 aces per game and successfully charging the net off his forehand. Against a prime 2003-2005 Roddick on a 2003-2005 hard court, Nadal got whooped, and I bet Djokovic would've too.

Fourth of all, the fact that Nadal and Djokovic, both of whom originally had trouble against Federer, were eventually able to crack him (when he reached age 28+), does not mean they are better players. But suppose it does mean that. Then we can apply the same argument for any player, since they all reach a state of permanent decline at some point (Not to say that Federer has reached permanent decline). "Player X used to beat player Y, but eventually player Y started to beat player X. Therefore player X was never better than player Y; he only was able to beat player X before player X had reached his full potential."


Discuss.

Only flaw with the argument is that Fed admitted in an interview a couple of days back that his shoulders are stronger and his backhand is better than ever before, so we are actually seeing a prime Federer now. This argument is offset to some extent because he is older and so his eyesight and quickness could have degraded to some extent.

mcenroefan
05-31-2012, 09:50 AM
I think the field is a bit weak as to all of the top three.

10is
05-31-2012, 09:55 AM
Only flaw with the argument is that Fed admitted in an interview a couple of days back that his shoulders are stronger and his backhand is better than ever before

Yeeeeeaaaah.... nice "sound byte", except he only meant "better" that in the context of how his backhand holds up on clay with returning over the shoulder moon balls more efficiently.

sureshs
05-31-2012, 10:01 AM
Yeeeeeaaaah.... nice "sound byte", except he only meant "better" that in the context of how his backhand holds up on clay with returning over the shoulder moon balls more efficiently.

Yes, that was a huge problem for him before (and one of the reasons the 1 hander is dying).

kishnabe
05-31-2012, 10:43 AM
They won't listen....so what ever. The competition in 04-06 was much more entertaining than the grinds fests for the last two years.

dudeski
05-31-2012, 10:46 AM
This is a non-issue and only brought up by loser Rafa fans. Not worth discussing.

I agree. Loser Sampras fans already know very well that their hero had much weaker field to deal with.

dudeski
05-31-2012, 10:49 AM
Only flaw with the argument is that Fed admitted in an interview a couple of days back that his shoulders are stronger and his backhand is better than ever before, so we are actually seeing a prime Federer now. This argument is offset to some extent because he is older and so his eyesight and quickness could have degraded to some extent.

Fed's physical recovery is total crap compared to lets say 2006 (same age Novak is now) when Federer could play several tournaments back and without any rest and still either win them or at least lose in epic finals. These days he can't play two tournaments back to back or even get deep in a slam without being half injured.

dudeski
05-31-2012, 10:59 AM
Fed can claim all he wants that he is as good as ever but all you need to see that he is wrong is to look at his 2006 results and imagine him repeating the same thing today. He is simply unable to do it physically:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2006&m=s&e=0#

Just take a look at how many long matches he played back to back in 2006. For example at Rome Q,S,F. Or being able to play 5 long matches including 4 back to back 3 setters at Halle only days after exhausting FO final. If he tried that today he would be out for the rest of the season with an injury. 2006 Federer would still own anyone expect maybe for Nadal on clay today.

The-Champ
05-31-2012, 11:20 AM
Fed can claim all he wants that he is as good as ever but all you need to see that he is wrong is to look at his 2006 results and imagine him repeating the same thing today. He is simply unable to do it physically:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2006&m=s&e=0#

Just take a look at how many long matches he played back to back in 2006. For example at Rome Q,S,F. Or being able to play 5 long matches including 4 back to back 3 setters at Halle only days after exhausting FO final. If he tried that today he would be out for the rest of the season with an injury. 2006 Federer would still own anyone expect maybe for Nadal on clay today.

2006 federer would own current Nadal on clay.

813wilson
05-31-2012, 12:46 PM
OP - Great Post!

I'll add....

Fifth of all - how does "Roddick hit 25 aces per game"?

Sixth of all - be sure to weigh in on any number of the other "weak v strong era" threads.....

Seventh of all - oh, why bother. Palms to face.....

BeHappy
05-31-2012, 12:51 PM
I listed every single rival that Federer had and they all became non factors after 2005.

Hood_Man
05-31-2012, 12:55 PM
Your insight serves you well. Bury your feelings deep down, Jamin2112. They do you credit, but they could be made to serve the Emperor.

TopFH
05-31-2012, 12:56 PM
I listed every single rival that Federer had and they all became non factors after 2005.

So the fact that after 05, when Nadal already was No.2, Federer has won 10 slams doesn't mean anything to you?

Evan77
05-31-2012, 01:00 PM
I do agree that Fed didn't really have any big competition. Forget about Roddick, Hewitt, Safin... However, it's not his fault. He was winning matches, sometimes because everyone was *****ting their pants when they saw Roger.

Then a little buttpicker "showed up". again, the worst match up in tennis history. One thing I hate about Fed is that he simply refused to adapt, he was too stubborn.

TopFH
05-31-2012, 01:06 PM
I do agree that Fed didn't really have any big competition. Forget about Roddick, Hewitt, Safin... However, it's not his fault. He was winning matches, sometimes because everyone was *****ting their pants when they saw Roger.

Then a little buttpicker "showed up". again, the worst match up in tennis history. One thing I hate about Fed is that he simply refused to adapt, he was too stubborn.

Now he is trying a bit, winning two of their last three matches and giving a hell of a fight in the other one, but it is too late. Had he done it as a 25-26 year old, there would be no GOAT discussion.

PCXL-Fan
05-31-2012, 01:10 PM
Only flaw with the argument is that Fed admitted in an interview a couple of days back that his shoulders are stronger and his backhand is better than ever before, so we are actually seeing a prime Federer now. This argument is offset to some extent because he is older and so his eyesight and quickness could have degraded to some extent.

I've done a bit of snooping and Federer stated in some interviews in 2011 that hes as good as he's ever been. So basically Federer is beyond his peakest peak form, and if he grew up in the era of Murray and Berdych he would be ranked #7-#8. All the tournie wins in the weak era gap gave him a mental boost while derailing confidence and momentum in his opponents. If he was Murrays age he'd be a 1 slam wonder with a losing record against older more veteran 6 time slam winner Roddick.

Evan77
05-31-2012, 01:16 PM
Now he is trying a bit, winning two of their last three matches and giving a hell of a fight in the other one, but it is too late. Had he done it as a 25-26 year old, there would be no GOAT discussion.
he is much more humble nowadays then 5 years ago. I guess, it has something to do with his family, kids etc. As much as I've always loved his game, I didn't like a young arrogant Fed. but everyone matures ... gosh, I was the biggest idiot when I was 25 yo thinking I knew everything. lol.

TopFH
05-31-2012, 01:20 PM
I've done a bit of snooping and Federer stated in some interviews in 2011 that hes as good as he's ever been. So basically Federer is beyond his peakest peak form, and if he grew up in the era of Murray and Berdych he would be ranked #7-#8. All the tournie wins in the weak era gap gave him a mental boost while derailing confidence and momentum in his opponents. If he was Murrays age he'd be a 1 slam wonder with a losing record against older more veteran 6 time slam winner Roddick.

Him saying he plays better now is just like you saying "I can win this match", being set and break down. It is a mental boost.

Besides, nobody is likely to say he's worse than before.

PCXL-Fan
05-31-2012, 01:20 PM
he is much more humble nowadays then 5 years ago. I guess, it has something to do with his family, kids etc. As much as I've always loved his game, I didn't like a young arrogant Fed. but everyone matures ... gosh, I was the biggest idiot when I was 25 yo thinking I knew everything. lol.

I disagree you were probably smarter at 25. The brain only shrinks in size as you get older. Your brain volume and neuron count was at a higher peak at 25 (though not the peakiest of peaks), and your neuronal adenosine-5'-triphosphate output was higher too.

SystemicAnomaly
05-31-2012, 01:30 PM
1)Safin hurt his knee in 2005, never the same again = GONE

2)Roddick started pushing in 2005= GONE

3) Hewitt has not had 6 months injury free tennis in 7 years (2005) = GONE

4) Guillermo Coria had a mental breakdown after 2005 = GONE

5) Gaston Gaudio (42-8 on clay 2005) had a mental breakdown in 2005 = GONE

6) Gustavo Kuerten retired with an injured hip shortly after beating Federer in the French Open in 2004 = GONE

7) Nalbandian got fat and his nephew was crushed in an elevator shaft = GONE (except for a few months towards the end of 2007)

8 ) Ferrero got the chicken pox and somehow (no one really understands this) couldn't hit his forehand hard anymore when he came back = GONE

9 ) Philipoussis hurt his knee and had to retire = GONE

10) Tommy Haas has been constantly injured for the last ten years, whenever he gets close to reaching Federer's level he gets injured (AO 2006, FO 2009) = GONE

So in 2005, basically, overnight, players like Tommy Robredo were in the top 10.

The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

So the fact that after 05, when Nadal already was No.2, Federer has won 10 slams doesn't mean anything to you?

BeHappy lost his perspective/objectivity = GONE


And yet Roger remained #1 til late 2008 and maintained the #1 or #2 slot until mid 2010. Sure Murray had done pretty well against Federer in the past. However, in their last 7 meetings, Roger leads 5-2.

Novak turned pro in 2003 but did not post a win against Federer until 2007. Prior to 2011 Roger lead Novak 13-6 h2h. Despite Novak's dominance and Roger's mini-decline since 2011, Roger still leads 14-11.

Evan77
05-31-2012, 01:43 PM
I disagree you were probably smarter at 25. The brain only shrinks in size as you get older. Your brain volume and neuron count was at a higher peak at 25 (though not the peakiest of peaks), and your neuronal adenosine-5'-triphosphate output was higher too.
ok bud ... I was talking about "THE Emotional intelligence" :), it's just as important as 'the other one' :)

now, seriously, I've always seen Fed as a super smart guy. same with Djoko. great intelligent guys. sure Rog is a maestro ... and Djoko is moving like a puma but I think we'll have to wait for a long time to see a player like Roger again.

on the other hand, when I hear Nudall talking, I'm like, wtf, where the hell you little monkey came from? I truly love Spanish/Latin culture, their passion for everything ... have some great Latin friends ... but when it comes to Nadal, it's like meh

BeHappy
05-31-2012, 01:44 PM
So the fact that after 05, when Nadal already was No.2, Federer has won 10 slams doesn't mean anything to you?

Nadal couldn't play on anything but clay till 2008 (and not really well on hard till 2010), and was injured for the slam season in 2009. So no, to answer your question.

Evan77
05-31-2012, 01:59 PM
Nadal couldn't play on anything but clay till 2008 (and not really well on hard till 2010), and was injured for the slam season in 2009. So no, to answer your question.
yup, it's the fact, but many guys posting here started watching tennis like yesterday ...

SystemicAnomaly
05-31-2012, 02:27 PM
yup, it's the fact, but many guys posting here started watching tennis like yesterday ...

Yesterday was the the early 1970s for me.

BTW, Novak has been in the top 3 or 4 since 2007. There has been plenty of good competition in the past decade. This weak era talk is nonsense.

jm1980
05-31-2012, 02:31 PM
2006 federer would own current Nadal on clay.

You're kidding me, right?

Fed in his absolute prime got straight setted on clay by Kuerten just getting back from hip surgery. Current Nadal would own any version of Federer on clay.

Evan77
05-31-2012, 03:03 PM
Yesterday was the the early 1970s for me.

BTW, Novak has been in the top 3 or 4 since 2007. There has been plenty of good competition in the past decade. This weak era talk is nonsense.
cool, 1980 JMac vs. Borg at W. first match I've ever seen and I went crazy about tennis :)

now, we can discuss this 'weak era' thing all night long. I still think that Fed was lucky in a way that he was not really challenged by anybody. Rafa was doing his clay *****, Djoko was not matured enough. Tell me one name, one person who was Fed's big rival, NOBODY (except Nadal on clay). now don't get me wrong, don't want to take anything away from Fed. I love the guy.

yes, Djoko was it the top 3 since 2007, but he wasn't really able to compete with Rog and Rafa till 2011. sure he won the AO 2008, some masters but it took time for him to mature and spank everyone left and right in 2011.

FlashFlare11
05-31-2012, 03:10 PM
cool, 1980 JMac vs. Borg at W. first match I've ever seen and I went crazy about tennis :)

now, we can discuss this 'weak era' thing all night long. I still think that Fed was lucky in a way that he was not really challenged by anybody. Rafa was doing his clay *****, Djoko was not matured enough. Tell me one name, one person who was Fed's big rival, NOBODY (except Nadal on clay). now don't get me wrong, don't want to take anything away from Fed. I love the guy.

yes, Djoko was it the top 3 since 2007, but he wasn't really able to compete with Rog and Rafa till 2011. sure he won the AO 2008, some masters but it took time for him to mature and spank everyone left and right in 2011.

Don't get me wrong, Evan, you're one of my favorite posters here. And I sincerely mean that. :)

But why did he need a consistent rival? If he had one player who met him everywhere and still lost to him, could we still say Roger ruled a weak era? He had someone meeting him consistently, but they weren't good enough. See, it makes no sense. Roger is being punished for not losing so often to other players. If Roger lost more often, then would his wins be more legitimate?

Again, not taking a dig at you, just asking a general question.

The-Champ
05-31-2012, 03:20 PM
You're kidding me, right?

Fed in his absolute prime got straight setted on clay by Kuerten just getting back from hip surgery. Current Nadal would own any version of Federer on clay.

as much as I hate federer, I do believe his 2006 clay version would own any Nadal from 2009-2012.

2006 federer was lot faster and had a much better footwork although he himself doesn't want to admit it, plus infinitely more penetrating and accurate forehand. Current Nadal on clay doesn't stand a chance.

Unfortunately, when federer peaked on clay, Nadal too was at his peak on clay. But, peak federer on clay would absolutely destroy current Nadal.

Evan77
05-31-2012, 03:22 PM
Don't get me wrong, Evan, you're one of my favorite posters here. And I sincerely mean that. :)

But why did he need a consistent rival? If he had one player who met him everywhere and still lost to him, could we still say Roger ruled a weak era? He had someone meeting him consistently, but they weren't good enough. See, it makes no sense. Roger is being punished for not losing so often to other players. If Roger lost more often, then would his wins be more legitimate?

Again, not taking a dig at you, just asking a general question.
Flash, I get your point. Roger earned everything. I'm not saying he should be punished by all means. you see what I ask myself very often, was Roger that great or everybody else sucked? to be honest not sure ... well, sure Rog is great

now, I truly believe that Fed is the best tennis player ever ... it's just that I tend to maybe over-analyze things sometimes. both you and I are speculating ... was the field so weak or was Fed so good ... :)

I also, really don't worship any players (well, I'm weak when it comes to Borg)

FlashFlare11
05-31-2012, 06:58 PM
Flash, I get your point. Roger earned everything. I'm not saying he should be punished by all means. you see what I ask myself very often, was Roger that great or everybody else sucked? to be honest not sure ... well, sure Rog is great

now, I truly believe that Fed is the best tennis player ever ... it's just that I tend to maybe over-analyze things sometimes. both you and I are speculating ... was the field so weak or was Fed so good ... :)

I also, really don't worship any players (well, I'm weak when it comes to Borg)

I get what you mean, and I'm kind of the same way. Then I watch Federer's matches from the time of his domination and then it's all too clear. Even watching Sampras I never got the same feeling of domination, and I love Pete. I firmly believe that the players in Federer's era would have been highly competitive in any era, but Roger was just too good. :)

Evan77
05-31-2012, 07:28 PM
I get what you mean, and I'm kind of the same way. Then I watch Federer's matches from the time of his domination and then it's all too clear. Even watching Sampras I never got the same feeling of domination, and I love Pete. I firmly believe that the players in Federer's era would have been highly competitive in any era, but Roger was just too good. :)
Roger IS still good. as being a tennis freak I am, yeah, I loved Sampras, never really enjoyed that young flashy Agassi (I appreciate Agassi as a player, don't get me wrong)...

I actually didn't like any of that fashion ***** of Agassi or (whoever sponsored him atm) came up with ... just not my thing ... the hair colour, then no hair and being embarrassed about it, wearing a wig, all those silly jeans outfits (God help me)

sorry, didn't want to turn this thread about Agassi and Pete

Fed is special, the most beautiful game ever. if anybody wants to argue, I will post, like a thousands of videos of his matches

sbengte
05-31-2012, 09:08 PM
1)Safin hurt his knee in 2005, never the same again = GONE

2)Roddick started pushing in 2005= GONE

3) Hewitt has not had 6 months injury free tennis in 7 years (2005) = GONE

4) Guillermo Coria had a mental breakdown after 2005 = GONE

5) Gaston Gaudio (42-8 on clay 2005) had a mental breakdown in 2005 = GONE

6) Gustavo Kuerten retired with an injured hip shortly after beating Federer in the French Open in 2004 = GONE

7) Nalbandian got fat and his nephew was crushed in an elevator shaft = GONE (except for a few months towards the end of 2007)

8 ) Ferrero got the chicken pox and somehow (no one really understands this) couldn't hit his forehand hard anymore when he came back = GONE

9 ) Philipoussis hurt his knee and had to retire = GONE

10) Tommy Haas has been constantly injured for the last ten years, whenever he gets close to reaching Federer's level he gets injured (AO 2006, FO 2009) = GONE

So in 2005, basically, overnight, players like Tommy Robredo were in the top 10.

The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

I listed every single rival that Federer had and they all became non factors after 2005.

Why do I get a sneaky feeling that you are essentially trying to prove that Nadal won his slams in a weak era ? Because 2005 is when Nadal started winning slams. Besides all the great points you have listed above, if you consider Federer as an additional factor (though insignifcant, as he beat Nadal in a slam only a couple of times some 5 years ago), he became a non-factor after 2008.

Flash O'Groove
06-01-2012, 01:39 AM
This discussion is so boring, so I'm entering it. There is two thinks I wonder:

1. Peolpe often thinks that exept in case of injuries, a player improve steadily. Thus if a top 5 players in 2006 has fallen back in 2012, it mean that he was not good at all and profited from a very weak era. It seems to me that this is not true. All athlete have trouble to sustain their best level and sometimes decline (i can think of a lot of soccer players). Was Ivan Ljubicic of 2006 (N°5 at the year end, N°3 during the year) less good than David Ferrer or Tsonga of today? Same as Roddick. The guy obviously lost his game. So, if he is weak now, it doesn't mean he was always weak, no?

2. What exactly is the opposition today to see this era as a stronger one? Headcase Murray, Berdych in the top 10. Still good and threatening but one notch below Federer. Consistent but armless Ferrer? Or is John Isner who make the era so though?
So, doesn't Djokovic and Nadal benefit of a quiet weak era to split the titles between the two, one year the flow going to one, the over to the over?

IvanisevicServe
06-01-2012, 04:38 AM
What is with BeHappy's obsession with Tommy Robredo? He rarely factored into anything prime-Federer did...they didn't play once at a slam between 2004 and 2006.

And what's the difference between Robredo and...Almagro? Almagro has more talent, but they're both essentially clay court specialists who briefly reached the Top 10.

IvanisevicServe
06-01-2012, 04:43 AM
This discussion is so boring, so I'm entering it. There is two thinks I wonder:

1. Peolpe often thinks that exept in case of injuries, a player improve steadily. Thus if a top 5 players in 2006 has fallen back in 2012, it mean that he was not good at all and profited from a very weak era. It seems to me that this is not true. All athlete have trouble to sustain their best level and sometimes decline (i can think of a lot of soccer players). Was Ivan Ljubicic of 2006 (N°5 at the year end, N°3 during the year) less good than David Ferrer or Tsonga of today? Same as Roddick. The guy obviously lost his game. So, if he is weak now, it doesn't mean he was always weak, no?

2. What exactly is the opposition today to see this era as a stronger one? Headcase Murray, Berdych in the top 10. Still good and threatening but one notch below Federer. Consistent but armless Ferrer? Or is John Isner who make the era so though?
So, doesn't Djokovic and Nadal benefit of a quiet weak era to split the titles between the two, one year the flow going to one, the over to the over?

The funny thing is, Ferrer was there in 2006, finishing 14th in the world, and he was no baby (24). He had limited upside. Now he's 6th in the world and he's been in the Top 10 for a long time.

1HBH Rocks
06-01-2012, 05:26 AM
The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

That's why Murray lost two slam finals to Federer and why Djokovic is being led by Federer 14 to 10 -- and, beware, Djokovic has 3 victories which occurred in a row during his best season (2011) --, it's because they arrive and beat him.

Like Sampras or Laver never left a match to a rising star! We're talking about statistics and you cherry pick two matches. Talk about an idiot.

fps
06-01-2012, 05:28 AM
Only flaw with the argument is that Fed admitted in an interview a couple of days back that his shoulders are stronger and his backhand is better than ever before, so we are actually seeing a prime Federer now. This argument is offset to some extent because he is older and so his eyesight and quickness could have degraded to some extent.

Whatever other *evidence* (and I use that term VERY loosely) can be pointed to, you cannot trust what a professional sportsman thinks of their conditioning and their body. Look at comebacks from people like Ian Thorpe, who has just resoundingly failed to qualify for the Olympics despite being one of the greatest swimmers ever, they feel the same, the brain is telling them they're as good as ever, the body has deteriorated, unavoidable.

1HBH Rocks
06-01-2012, 05:32 AM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=424180

tennis_pro
06-01-2012, 05:49 AM
Ok so do we have an agreement when the strong era started?

Is it 2007 when both Nadal and Djokovic finished in the top 3? No, cause Federer won 3 majors that year. Let's go on.

Is it 2008 when Djokovic won AO and Nadal the Channel Slam? No, cause Federer still managed to win 3 out of the next 4 majors, 4 out of the next 6 and as many of them as Djokovic and Nadal put together as well as making every GS final possible. It had to be later than that.

Surely it's after the 2010 AO, Federer's last major so far. But how on earth does he keep making at least the quarters/semis in every major? How on earth did he make another major final in 2011 beating the then unbeatable Djokovic?

If anything, Nadal and Djokovic are taking full advantage of a weak field these days, apart from almost 31-year old way past his prime Fed who can spoil the party when he's on from time to time, there's nobody who can stop them from reaching finals. Would Tipsarevic, Almagro, Berdych, Fish or whoever is there in the top 10 would make it that far in, say, 2004?

tennis_pro
06-01-2012, 05:52 AM
After a second thought, I think I figured it out!

So when Federer and Nadal dominated in 2005-2007 the field was weak.
When Nadal and Djokovic dominate since 2010 the field is strong.

I get the picture.

dominikk1985
06-01-2012, 05:59 AM
tennis was not "weak" back then. it was weaker than now but those were still good players.

of course of novak and nadal played in 03 he would not have won 16 slams and they would have devided the titles more but I do think that roger would have won more than those two.

I think it would have been like roger 12-13 titles and novak and rafa 10 each.

tennis_pro
06-01-2012, 06:01 AM
tennis was not "weak" back then. it was weaker than now but those were still good players.

of course of novak and nadal played in 03 he would not have won 16 slams and they would have devided the titles more but I do think that roger would have won more than those two.

I think it would have been like roger 12-13 titles and novak and rafa 10 each.

Federer would've won less majors if they were all the same age but at 27+ he would beat the crap out of them so either way Fed gets to 16 majors (if not more looking at the current field). Let's see what happens when these kiddos get older.

ace_pace
06-01-2012, 06:03 AM
LOLOLOLOL...

Maybe, just maybe, Federer was just that good :) why cant you people accept that.

I have a feeling that they changed all the surfaces to different variations of clay in order for the rest of world to be able to beat Federer. See, we now have blue hard clay (AO), red clay (FO), green clay (W) and for the lulz 'fast' clay (USO).

augustobt
06-01-2012, 06:19 AM
The Miami Masters is a hard clay court. I'm sure of that.

jm1980
06-01-2012, 06:23 AM
That's why Murray lost two slam finals to Federer and why Djokovic is being led by Federer 14 to 10 -- and, beware, Djokovic has 3 victories which occurred in a row during his best season (2011) --, it's because they arrive and beat him.

Like Sampras or Laver never left a match to a rising star! We're talking about statistics and you cherry pick two matches. Talk about an idiot.

14-11. It will probably be even by the end of the year.

And Murray leads Fed 8-7

tennis_pro
06-01-2012, 06:30 AM
14-11. It will probably be even by the end of the year.

And Murray leads Fed 8-7

What if Djokovic and Murray were 31 and Federer was 25? Ever thought that might just make a difference in the end?

tudwell
06-01-2012, 06:38 AM
The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

How crappy was Sampras, then? The SECOND Safin and Hewitt arrived on tour, they beat him in grand slam finals. Pretty embarrassing. :oops:

Federer also beat him at Wimbledon while he was four-time defending champion. Talk about being unable to adapt to the new generation. Instead, he just hung up his racquet.

ramos77
06-01-2012, 06:46 AM
What if Djokovic and Murray were 31 and Federer was 25? Ever thought that might just make a difference in the end?

Please don't use logic in this thread! :shock:

SystemicAnomaly
06-01-2012, 07:10 AM
14-11. It will probably be even by the end of the year.

And Murray leads Fed 8-7

We'll have to see about those Roger/Novak numbers later this year. Most of the matches where Novak beat Roger in the past 2 years have been close. It is conceivable that some to come can go the other way. Novak has not been quite as dominant as he was in 2011. Roger actually has a better overall record since the last US Open than Novak -- Roger has more match wins and only 4 losses, I believe. (I think that Rafa's record is also a bit better than Novak of late).

Yes, Murray has a 1 match lead over Federer. However, most of those wins by Andy came in 2008 and early 2009. In their last 7 meetings, Roger has a 5-2 lead.

merlinpinpin
06-01-2012, 07:38 AM
What if Djokovic and Murray were 31 and Federer was 25? Ever thought that might just make a difference in the end?

Of course it doesn't. That why I think everybody will agree that Hewitt and Safin are better players than Sampras, especially with Sampras peaking at 30, according to our great tennis philosopher (aka TDK). :roll:

Swissv2
06-01-2012, 07:51 AM
There is another way to look at this issue. Federer is much older and has lost speed, endurance, and a bit of his "aura" (where people would be intimidated to play him even before they went on court). But...he is still staying very strong in the top 3 in the world after all these years, regularly beating anyone ranked 4 and above. If he truly was a "has-been" that only can thrive in a "weak-era" then he would have fallen hard to a ranking of top 20 like all the rest of the top 10 players in his era.

Here's the facts: the TT forums is filled with posts that are 10% logical and 90% emotional by individuals who would prefer to be on a bandwagon and trash any other player then their favorite player.

SystemicAnomaly
06-01-2012, 12:02 PM
^ Excellent point. Roger is a strong #3, very close to #2, even tho he is past his prime. He has got great staying power. Everyone else that was in the top 10 when he rose to the top has dropped off (Roddick was the last of the old top 10 from 7-10 yrs ago).

mattennis
06-01-2012, 12:19 PM
It is so funny. It is the fourth or fifth time I see this (basically every generation).

And we will see it again with Nadal and Djokovic in five years.

Some ******** people think that the current top-2 players are the best players ever and the cycle repeats on and on and on every generation.

First of all: Federer is one of the best players ever.

Second: Federer's prime was better (and lasted longer) than Nadal's or Djokovic's.

Third: in the last 30 years only Connors, Lendl, Agassi and Federer have been top-3 Year End in their 30s.

Let us wait and see where are Nadal and Djokovic in five years in the rankings.

sureshs
06-01-2012, 12:37 PM
How crappy was Sampras, then? The SECOND Safin and Hewitt arrived on tour, they beat him in grand slam finals. Pretty embarrassing. :oops:

Federer also beat him at Wimbledon while he was four-time defending champion. Talk about being unable to adapt to the new generation. Instead, he just hung up his racquet.

Sampras was so crappy that he could not win RG

10is
06-01-2012, 12:43 PM
Sampras was so crappy that he could not win RG

LOL! I like you suresh! You employ subtlety, intelligence and veneer of humor in your non-malignant trolling shenanigans. ;)

Agassifan
06-01-2012, 02:14 PM
2006 Federer would still own anyone expect maybe for Nadal on clay today.

Pretty much.. though the Aussie open has become very slow. 2006 Fed would still make all 4 finals now and win 2 or 3 slams / year.

NadalAgassi
06-01-2012, 02:51 PM
1)Safin hurt his knee in 2005, never the same again = GONE

2)Roddick started pushing in 2005= GONE

3) Hewitt has not had 6 months injury free tennis in 7 years (2005) = GONE

4) Guillermo Coria had a mental breakdown after 2005 = GONE

5) Gaston Gaudio (42-8 on clay 2005) had a mental breakdown in 2005 = GONE

6) Gustavo Kuerten retired with an injured hip shortly after beating Federer in the French Open in 2004 = GONE

7) Nalbandian got fat and his nephew was crushed in an elevator shaft = GONE (except for a few months towards the end of 2007)

8 ) Ferrero got the chicken pox and somehow (no one really understands this) couldn't hit his forehand hard anymore when he came back = GONE

9 ) Philipoussis hurt his knee and had to retire = GONE

10) Tommy Haas has been constantly injured for the last ten years, whenever he gets close to reaching Federer's level he gets injured (AO 2006, FO 2009) = GONE

So in 2005, basically, overnight, players like Tommy Robredo were in the top 10.

The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

Lets be real here. Hardly any of those players were ever big threats to Federer. Philippoussis was destroyed by 2003 Federer in the Wimbledon final, it would have only gotten worse from there. Coria was only a threat on clay, and Federer was even 2-0 vs 04/05 Coria there. Haas has not beaten Federer since January 2002 where at his career peak he beat a weakish Federer in 5 sets after saving a match point for his last ever win. Ferrero is not a contender off clay, and Federer was winning their clay meeting in 2003 before retirement too. Gaudio, Robredo, ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only legit threats of that list are Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, and Kuerten. Federer owned even prime Safin from 2001-2005 though. Same goes for Roddick. Nalbandian's prime was 2003-2007, just like Federer's, and he remained the same the entire time, often overweight, often uncommited, inconsistent, but still dangerous. Nothing ever changed, until he started his real decline in 2008 at the same time Federer started his, and when was he better, 2002 due to his fluke Wimbledon final? Please.

lendledbergfan
06-01-2012, 02:56 PM
Fourth of all, the fact that Nadal and Djokovic, both of whom originally had trouble against Federer, were eventually able to crack him (when he reached age 28+), does not mean they are better players. But suppose it does mean that.

Discuss.

When has Nadal EVER had trouble against Federer? If I remember correctly, he has a winning record against Fed from day1 :D

lendledbergfan
06-01-2012, 03:02 PM
When has Nadal EVER had trouble against Federer? If I remember correctly, he has a winning record against Fed from day1 :D

Oh, by the way, even though I am a notion that 2004-2007 was a relatively weak era, I do think Fed has legitimately earned the GOAT title, simply 'coz he is still #3 at 30+ years old, raking up titles after titles at every level except GS (and even then, consistently reaching semis/finals).

The Dark Knight
06-01-2012, 04:07 PM
Oh, by the way, even though I am a notion that 2004-2007 was a relatively weak era, I do think Fed has legitimately earned the GOAT title, simply 'coz he is still #3 at 30+ years old, raking up titles after titles at every level except GS (and even then, consistently reaching semis/finals).

Nah.....the rest of the field is still pretty weak.

FlashFlare11
06-01-2012, 04:49 PM
Nah.....the rest of the field is still pretty weak.

Nah, it's only your (highly unbacked and uneducated) opinion.

ramos77
06-01-2012, 05:18 PM
For those who agree Federer was at his prime during a weak era, can you please tell me out of the current crop of players playing today, who is actually capable of winning a slam, other than Nadal and Nole?

The Dark Knight
06-01-2012, 05:45 PM
For those who agree Federer was at his prime during a weak era, can you please tell me out of the current crop of players playing today, who is actually capable of winning a slam, other than Nadal and Nole?

Murray.....

But the point is Fed did notbhave Nadal and Joker around in the form they are now.

In nadals first Wimbledon final for example he was known as a clay court specialist.....everyone was shocked that he made it to the finals and said the field was so weak that Nadal could make it there.

Nole was not the player he is today either....the "pre-gluten" era . :-).

For much of Feds career he had virtually no competition.

helloworld
06-01-2012, 06:02 PM
When has Nadal EVER had trouble against Federer? If I remember correctly, he has a winning record against Fed from day1 :D

Yep. A 16 year old Nadal Whooping Fed in his absolute prime was a gem. :lol:

FlashFlare11
06-01-2012, 06:11 PM
Murray.....

But the point is Fed did notbhave Nadal and Joker around in the form they are now.

In nadals first Wimbledon final for example he was known as a clay court specialist.....everyone was shocked that he made it to the finals and said the field was so weak that Nadal could make it there.

Nole was not the player he is today either....the "pre-gluten" era . :-).

For much of Feds career he had virtually no competition.

Murray who has still not won a slam in only three tries. Is that your best shot?

Fact: Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Safin, Agassi, Nadal, Gaudio were are in contention for slams when Federer was in his prime and they were all slam winners themselves.

We may as well discount every single slam winner before Djokovic and Nadal arrived since they didn't have to deal with him. That's the ridiculous logic you are using.

Unlike you, we use facts. You use your opinions and try to present them as facts when in actuality, they're not even commonly shared opinions.

ramos77
06-01-2012, 06:20 PM
Murray.....

But the point is Fed did notbhave Nadal and Joker around in the form they are now.

In nadals first Wimbledon final for example he was known as a clay court specialist.....everyone was shocked that he made it to the finals and said the field was so weak that Nadal could make it there.

Nole was not the player he is today either....the "pre-gluten" era . :-).

For much of Feds career he had virtually no competition.

Murray is the ultimate choker, he wont win anything while Nole/Nadal and Fed are around. Scots are mentally weak in sport IMO (no offence to any scots here, you're good people)

You say Federer didn't have Nadal and Novak around, the same can be said about the opposite. Neither of them had to contend with Fed during his peak either.

It's a silly argument anyway. Wait and see what Nadal and Novak will be doing at Federer's age now. They will most likely already be playing on the masters circuit because their bodies will give up on them.

The Safin's/Hewitt's of Fed's error are better players than the Murray/Tsonga/Berdich's of this era.

BeHappy
06-01-2012, 06:54 PM
Lets be real here. Hardly any of those players were ever big threats to Federer. Philippoussis was destroyed by 2003 Federer in the Wimbledon final, it would have only gotten worse from there. Coria was only a threat on clay, and Federer was even 2-0 vs 04/05 Coria there. Haas has not beaten Federer since January 2002 where at his career peak he beat a weakish Federer in 5 sets after saving a match point for his last ever win. Ferrero is not a contender off clay, and Federer was winning their clay meeting in 2003 before retirement too. Gaudio, Robredo, ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only legit threats of that list are Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, and Kuerten. Federer owned even prime Safin from 2001-2005 though. Same goes for Roddick. Nalbandian's prime was 2003-2007, just like Federer's, and he remained the same the entire time, often overweight, often uncommited, inconsistent, but still dangerous. Nothing ever changed, until he started his real decline in 2008 at the same time Federer started his, and when was he better, 2002 due to his fluke Wimbledon final? Please.

There were periods where, in my subjective opinion, Federer really wasn't playing very well at all, and was still winning almost by default. For 3-4 tournaments leading up to his defeat by Murray in 2006 for example I remember thinking he was playing pretty badly. I think if all those guys were still around he would have been beaten when he wasn't at his best.

Of course, Federer is still better than all those guys (hence 3 slams in 2004 and and 2 in 2005), but I definitely don't think he would have won 3 slams in 2009 for example if he had competition, or 2007 possibly. And on clay if Coria and Gaudio and Kuerten were still around I don't think he would have gotten to all all those RG finals.

The Dark Knight
06-01-2012, 07:12 PM
Murray is the ultimate choker, he wont win anything while Nole/Nadal and Fed are around. Scots are mentally weak in sport IMO (no offence to any scots here, you're good people)

You say Federer didn't have Nadal and Novak around, the same can be said about the opposite. Neither of them had to contend with Fed during his peak either.

It's a silly argument anyway. Wait and see what Nadal and Novak will be doing at Federer's age now. They will most likely already be playing on the masters circuit because their bodies will give up on them.

The Safin's/Hewitt's of Fed's error are better players than the Murray/Tsonga/Berdich's of this era.

First of all you can't say something really offensive and then simply take it away by saying "no offense ". You can't say "your mother is an idiot....no offense". What you said about the Scots was really horrible.

The silly argument is that Murray won't make it because he is a Scott. How do I even debate with you?

FlashFlare11
06-01-2012, 07:20 PM
There were periods where, in my subjective opinion, Federer really wasn't playing very well at all, and was still winning almost by default. For 3-4 tournaments leading up to his defeat by Murray in 2006 for example I remember thinking he was playing pretty badly. I think if all those guys were still around he would have been beaten when he wasn't at his best.

Of course, Federer is still better than all those guys (hence 3 slams in 2004 and and 2 in 2005), but I definitely don't think he would have won 3 slams in 2009 for example if he had competition, or 2007 possibly. And on clay if Coria and Gaudio and Kuerten were still around I don't think he would have gotten to all all those RG finals.
The same can be said about Nadal and Roland Garros. A lot of Nadal fans maintain that Nadal wasn't playing well last year, but he still won it. Nadal has won RG while not playing well and has not encountered very much trouble racking up titles there. Going by what you say, Nadal faced a weak era on clay starting from 2005 and it continues on to today.

abmk
06-01-2012, 07:28 PM
Of course, Federer is still better than all those guys (hence 3 slams in 2004 and and 2 in 2005), but I definitely don't think he would have won 3 slams in 2009 for example if he had competition, or 2007 possibly. And on clay if Coria and Gaudio and Kuerten were still around I don't think he would have gotten to all all those RG finals.

firstly, he won 2 slams in 2009

secondly, he won both of his CC matches vs coria and both of his CC matches vs gaudio in the 2003-05 period (their peaks)

thirdly, in 2007, he faced an on-fire gonzo in the AO finals and straight-setted him ...no one was beating fed in that form

he faced nadal playing his best tennis in wimbledon

he faced roddick playing his best tennis in USO and an on-fire djokovic

if that's weak competition, all I can say is LOL !!

you fail as usual ...

mcenroefan
06-01-2012, 09:24 PM
When has Nadal EVER had trouble against Federer? If I remember correctly, he has a winning record against Fed from day1 :D......on clay (corrected for accuracy).

He also was the #2 ranked player in the world during virtually that entire span.

Still, as I said earlier, I think they have both played against a shallow field. Of course, I thill think Fed is the most graceful player I have ever seen.

BeHappy
06-01-2012, 09:40 PM
firstly, he won 2 slams in 2009

ok but he still played the worst tennis of his career in my opinion and only won because Djokovic and Murray who had been beating him like a drum all year suddenly seemed to choke for the whole slam season, and more importantly because Nadal was either injured or taking time off because of his parents divorce depending on who you believe.

secondly, he won both of his CC matches vs coria and both of his CC matches vs gaudio in the 2003-05 period (their peaks)

And Nadal used to beat Djokovic like a drum so I don't really care that Federer has a 2-0 record against Coria, and I don't think he played GAudio on clay in 2005. Before 2005 Gaudio was a journeyman. He fluked that RG in 2004 and in 2005 he suddenly played incredibly, going 42-8 or something on clay, bagelling Nadal etc.

thirdly, in 2007, he faced an on-fire gonzo in the AO finals and straight-setted him ...no one was beating fed in that form

Yeah the end of 2006 up to that Australian is his best tennis ever in my opinion, but he was terrible by his standards) the rest of the year. Losses to Canas and Volandri and losses to Djokovic and Murray.

he faced nadal playing his best tennis in wimbledon

I strongly disagree. Nadal shouldn't have even played that final! Nadal didn't play a top 50 player till Youzhny in the QF, Youzhny was destroying Nadal and then injured his back, then Djokovic was up a set in th semi final and retired.


he faced roddick playing his best tennis in USO and an on-fire djokovic


He played pusher Roddick, and a Djokovic who, apart from that great match in Montreal, was years off his best.


if that's weak competition, all I can say is LOL !!

you fail as usual ...

It is incredibly weak competition. And actually it's really unfortunate for him because he would still have achieved incredible things, maybe not quite what he has achieved but pretty close. Probably 12-14 slams instead of 16 (I think Federer still has more slams left in him). Ultimately Federer wasn't able to prove himself against top opposition which is pretty unfortunate for him as a champion and for us as viewers.

TopFH
06-01-2012, 09:46 PM
^06 Roddick wasn't a pusher.

BeHappy
06-01-2012, 09:48 PM
^06 Roddick wasn't a pusher.

From the baseline he was, that cross-court- approach shot/net rushing game was never going to cut it with his terrible pusher volleys. Seriously, have you ever seen someone hit softer volleys than Roddick?

abmk
06-01-2012, 09:56 PM
ok but he still played the worst tennis of his career in my opinion and only won because Djokovic and Murray who had been beating him like a drum all year suddenly seemed to choke for the whole slam season, and more importantly because Nadal was either injured or taking time off because of his parents divorce depending on who you believe.


2008 was easily his worst year from 2003-2009... footwork and forehand was all over the place for majority of the year and yet in 2008 he beat both murray and djoker at the USO ...

so murray losing 2-5,5-7,2-6 in USO 2008 final is beating federer like a drum ? LOL !! in 2009, murray/djoker beat a lackluster federer in the non slam events, but when federer turned it up a notch in cincy, they were no match for him ( djoker had just destroyed nadal in the semis , mind you ) ..

and beat djoker at the USO ...

in RG 2009, he faced an absolutely monstrous hitting delpo in the SF ( & soderling in the finals, although soderling wasn't playing that well as he did in R4 and QF ) and in 2009 wimbledon, he faced roddick playing arguably his best grass court tennis , and a slew of big serving guys before that - soderling, karlovic and haas ( yes, he was serving real big )

and as mentioned above, of course he beat djoker who was playing well in the USO semis and on-fire soderling in the QFs... only lost to an on-fire delpo ( and delpo needed help from fed in that one )

And Nadal used to beat Djokovic like a drum so I don't really care that Federer has a 2-0 record against Coria, and I don't think he played GAudio on clay in 2005. Before 2005 Gaudio was a journeyman. He fluked that RG in 2004 and in 2005 he suddenly played incredibly, going 42-8 or something on clay, bagelling Nadal etc.

nadal always had problems with djoker on HC ...

you don't care that fed has a 2-0 record vs coria on clay smack in the middle of his prime ? LOL ..... then why bother stating coria as that big a threat to federer on clay ???? that's one of the most insane pieces of reasoning I've seen ..

Yeah the end of 2006 up to that Australian is his best tennis ever in my opinion, but he was terrible by his standards) the rest of the year. Losses to Canas and Volandri and losses to Djokovic and Murray.

not in the slams , in the smaller events, he regressed ..

I strongly disagree. Nadal shouldn't have even played that final! Nadal didn't play a top 50 player till Youzhny in the QF, Youzhny was [B]destroying [/]Nadal and then injured his back, then Djokovic was up a set in th semi final and retired.

I was referring to his level of play in the final only , not before that...he played his very best in the finals ...

He played pusher Roddick, and a Djokovic who, apart from that great match in Montreal, was years off his best.



pusher roddick in USO 2007 ??? are you crazy ? wait, that was rhetorical ..:)

did you even watch that USO match ? roddick was hitting the cr*p out of the ball.

Here, some highlights from the match:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7D3iQxlUo

you can get the full match yourself ...

djoker was playing very well in that USO ..

BeHappy
06-01-2012, 10:12 PM
2008 was easily his worst year from 2003-2009... footwork and forehand was all over the place for majority of the year and yet in 2008 he beat both murray and djoker at the USO ...

I thought 2009 was way worse. Couldn't hit his backhand in the court.

so murray losing 2-5,5-7,2-6 is beating federer like a drum ? LOL !! in 2009, murray/djoker beat a lacklusure federer in the non slam events, but when federer turned it up a notch in cincy, they were no match for him ( djoker had just destroyed nadal in the semis , mind you ) ..

and beat djoker at the USO ...

in RG 2009, he faced an absolutely monstrous hitting delpo in the SF ( & soderling in the finals, although soderling wasn't playing that well as he did in R4 and QF ) and in 2009 wimbledon, he faced roddick playing arguably his best grass court tennis , and a slew of big serving guys before that - soderling, karlovic and haas ( yes, he was serving real big )

Delpo is Federer's pigeon in slams apart from that one great win. We've seen it at multiple AO including this years. Soderling really choked in that final, it was very disappointing. His consistency disappeared. Djokovic wasn't that good back then.

I thought that Roddick/Federer 2009 Wimbledon was the worst Wimbledon final I had seen in a long long time, I even made a thread about it:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=272489

Haas coming back from injuries as always, Karlovic has a 48% record in tie breaks.

and as mentioned above, of course he beat djoker who was playing well in the USO semis ... only lost to an on-fire delpo ( and delpo needed help from fed in that one )


Djoker wasn't playing well, Federer did play well against Del Potro and Soderling though.



not in the slams , in the smaller events, he regressed ..

I'd say the opposite. Murray really could have won a slam that year.


pusher roddick ??? are you crazy ? wait, that was rhetorical ..:)

did you even watch that USO match ? roddick was hitting the cr*p out of the ball.

djoker was playing very well in that USO ..

oh I thought you meant 2006 final, not their 2007 match. Problem was Roddick was hitting the ball hard, but he didn't have Gilbert so he wasn't constructing points, he played mindless ball bashing tennis.

Disagree that Djokovic played well.

Murrayfan31
06-01-2012, 10:17 PM
Federer won against a weak field. Nothing wrong with that.

10is
06-01-2012, 10:22 PM
Every known GOATer in any sport only became one because they had the luxury of competing against weak opposition. Every player should be an undisputed GOATer in a TRULY strong era. Quad erat demonstrandum.

abmk
06-01-2012, 10:23 PM
I thought 2009 was way worse. Couldn't hit his backhand in the court.

LOL,LOL and LOL ..... movement, serve and forehand were there ... that's what mattered much more than BH ... in 2008, he was only hanging in by his serve for so much of the year ...


Delpo is Federer's pigeon in slams apart from that one great win. We've seen it at multiple AO including this years. Soderling really choked in that final, it was very disappointing. His consistency disappeared. Djokovic wasn't that good back then.

LOL, you don't watch much, do you ?

delpo played very well in that FO semi, better than the USO final by some distance in fact ... just that fed's determination was more in the FO semi-final

soderling didn't play his best in that final, but it wasn't a choke at all , just a nervous start... How can you choke when the opponent ( in this case federer ) hits 4 aces on 4 serves in the TB ? fed took all the time away from him by taking it early on the rise and plain outhit him ..

I thought that Roddick/Federer 2009 Wimbledon was the worst Wimbledon final I had seen in a long long time, I even made a thread about it:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=272489

what a joke .. that was a pretty good final ... 2005 and 2002 finals were much worse ...

Haas coming back from injuries as always, Karlovic has a 48% record in tie breaks.

fed broke karlovic twice, that match had only one TB IIRC ...karlovic wasn't broken even once that grass season before ...

haas was playing some real good tennis in that stretch ... pushed fed to 5 at RG ( was helped by fed's errors no doubt, but haas still played some smart tennis ), then won halle beating djoker and then again beat djoker in the QF ... easily his best wimbledon and was playing real well ...

again, go and actually watch his matches in that time-frame ..

and of course soderling was fresh off from a great RG ...


Djoker wasn't playing well, Federer did play well against Del Potro and Soderling though.

fed played very well vs soderling ..... not so vs delpo ... his serve in particular was pathetic

djoker was playing very well in that semi vs federer ... go watch that match ...


I'd say the opposite. Murray really could have won a slam that year.

I was talking about federer in slams vs non-slams in 2007 there ...

oh I thought you meant 2006 final, not their 2007 match. Problem was Roddick was hitting the ball hard, but he didn't have Gilbert so he wasn't constructing points, he played mindless ball bashing tennis.

Disagree that Djokovic played well.

I was very clearly mentioning 2007 ... roddick didn't face a single BP vs his nemesis , federer , who himself was playing well in the first 2 sets , that should tell you how well he was playing ... he wasn't playing mindless tennis at all ... just that federer edged him out on the crucial points in the breakers ..

djoker of course was playing real well that summer HC season .....

BeHappy
06-01-2012, 10:43 PM
Well look:

In my opinion Federer played his worst tennis in 2009, he had a bunch of losses to Djokovic and Murray where was hitting 20 unforced errors off his backhand a match.

I think Djokovic choked in that 2007 final, and that was the consensus of the posters in my thread from after the match:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=156365

I thought the Federer Del Potro match was great and Del Potro put in the performance of his life. Really enjoyable tournament, great matches with Soderling and Del Potro in a year where Federer played terribly.

Actually it's ironic that it was the slam that Federer played great in that he lost in 2009.

And yeah Roddick was playing mindless tennis, that's why he didn't beat an out of form Federer in 2007 when Roddick himself in terms of pure ball striking was playing fantastic. If he had Gilbert's point construction he would definitely have won.

And the "go watch some matches from that time frame" comment is weird. I talked about them on this forum after watching them for goodness sake!

abmk
06-01-2012, 10:58 PM
Well look:

In my opinion Federer played his worst tennis in 2009, he had a bunch of losses to Djokovic and Murray where was hitting 20 unforced errors off his backhand a match.

yes, those losses were in the period till about madrid 2009 ( when he had health problems and he couldn't serve well) , I was referring to the period after that ..from madrid to USO 2009 .... he thrashed both djoker and murray in cincy and beat djoker convincingly at the USO ...

in 2008, he was losing to stepanek, roddick, blake, karlovic, simon ( twice ) etc etc ... and got ripped by rafa in the 2008 RG final , playing craptastic tennis ( granted rafa was perfect, but no ways does fed lose 1,3,0 to anyone on any surface unless he plays absolute sh*t )

I think Djokovic choked in that 2007 final, and that was the consensus of the posters in my thread from after the match:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=156365

the first set was a choke, no doubt, but that's it... still djoker played well

I thought the Federer Del Potro match was great and Del Potro put in the performance of his life. Really enjoyable tournament, great matches with Soderling and Del Potro in a year where Federer played terribly.

Actually it's ironic that it was the slam that Federer played great in that he lost in 2009.

both, fed and delpo had a negative winner to UE ratio and fed's serve % was only around 50 ... delpo did play well after a set and half ... fed-roddick in wimbledon was a better match ...

till the finals, fed did play great in the USO ... certainly better than the FO, but not better than wimbledon ...

And yeah Roddick was playing mindless tennis, that's why he didn't beat an out of form Federer in 2007 when Roddick himself in terms of pure ball striking was playing fantastic. If he had Gilbert's point construction he would definitely have won.

jeez, that's the dumbest post I've read from you and that's saying something ... federer played brilliantly in that match vs roddick ..... out of form ????? LOL !!!!!!!

roddick's coach was connors at that time, you know, one of the smartest players ever ..... bah !!

give me 5-10 points of mindless tennis from roddick in that match .....

And the "go watch some matches from that time frame" comment is weird. I talked about them on this forum after watching them for goodness sake!

then , you have zero or near zero idea of how to analyze a tennis match ...

abmk
06-01-2012, 11:11 PM
btw here are some of the reports from after that USO match in 2007 , including interview from roddick himself ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/sports/tennis/06federer.html

http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2007-09-05/m.phphttp://

http://voices.yahoo.com/roger-federer-frustrates-andy-roddicks-best-efforts-532294.html

sureshs
06-02-2012, 04:20 AM
Rennae Stubbs said yesterday that Federer always became despondent when faced by Nadal and had no answers. She also said he has no chance of winning this RG. It is refreshing to see someone, and that too a woman, not being afraid to say it as it is on TV.

tennis_pro
06-02-2012, 04:40 AM
Rennae Stubbs said yesterday that Federer always became despondent when faced by Nadal and had no answers. She also said he has no chance of winning this RG. It is refreshing to see someone, and that too a woman, not being afraid to say it as it is on TV.

Don't know about Federer but as sure as hell Stubbs ain't winning s***.

10is
06-02-2012, 04:46 AM
Rennae Stubbs said yesterday that Federer always became despondent when faced by Nadal and had no answers. She also said he has no chance of winning this RG. It is refreshing to see someone, and that too a woman, not being afraid to say it as it is on TV.

Considering I don't even have a remote idea who this Stubbs character is its obvious she's trying to "get her name out" by delberately fanning the flames of controversy.

BeHappy
06-02-2012, 12:32 PM
btw here are some of the reports from after that USO match in 2007 , including interview from roddick himself ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/sports/tennis/06federer.html

http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2007-09-05/m.phphttp://

http://voices.yahoo.com/roger-federer-frustrates-andy-roddicks-best-efforts-532294.html

Who cares what reporters say? We actually watch tennis, we know more about tennis than 95% of reporters.

Roddick doesn't have a clue when it comes to the strategic side of tennis.

Steffi-forever
06-02-2012, 12:55 PM
Considering I don't even have a remote idea who this Stubbs character is its obvious she's trying to "get her name out" by delberately fanning the flames of controversy.

She has won 6 Grand Slams double titles and around 60 titles overall I think.

abmk
06-02-2012, 10:18 PM
Who cares what reporters say? We actually watch tennis, we know more about tennis than 95% of reporters.

I don't know about we, but you sure as hell don't ...

when someone says federer was out of form in that match vs roddick in USO 2007 , I have to say he/she is outright clueless about that match ....

Roddick doesn't have a clue when it comes to the strategic side of tennis.

yeah, right .... even with connors , considered as one of smartest players of all time ..

still waiting for 5-10 points of dumb shots from roddick in that USO QF ...

Sentinel
06-02-2012, 10:26 PM
Don't know about Federer but as sure as hell Stubbs ain't winning s***.
Did you guys hear what Stubbs had to say about Nole vs Rafa? That was hilarious.

tennis_pro
06-03-2012, 03:56 AM
Did you guys hear what Stubbs had to say about Nole vs Rafa? That was hilarious.

Waaaaaaaaaat?

BeHappy
06-03-2012, 10:07 AM
I don't know about we, but you sure as hell don't ...

when someone says federer was out of form in that match vs roddick in USO 2007 , I have to say he/she is outright clueless about that match ....



yeah, right .... even with connors , considered as one of smartest players of all time ..

still waiting for 5-10 points of dumb shots from roddick in that USO QF ...

Connors couldn't make Roddick play the way he wanted him to. Under Gilbert Roddick was paying 1-2 tennis, in that match he was playing more like James Blake. There was no point construction, he was just hitting the ball as hard as he could into space.

IvanisevicServe
06-03-2012, 12:27 PM
For 3-4 tournaments leading up to his defeat by Murray in 2006 for example I remember thinking he was playing pretty badly.

He only played 1 tournament after Wimbledon (possibly the greatest tournament he played of his career) before that loss to Murray in Cincinnati 2006...Toronto. And he was a bit patchy in that one, sure, but he still pulled it out.

DRII
06-03-2012, 12:38 PM
Well look:

In my opinion Federer played his worst tennis in 2009, he had a bunch of losses to Djokovic and Murray where was hitting 20 unforced errors off his backhand a match.

You're absolutely right.

Federer did not play that well for much of 2009, its just that Nadal, Nole, and others played even worse (or not at all) for various reasons overall.

Federer's hardcourt slam performances were at least good, particularly in Australia; although he did not serve his best in the USO final...

bjsnider
06-03-2012, 01:27 PM
Before I get into this, I want to address one thing from the first post: tennis, as in any sport, the level of play is always improving (I guess "level of play" would have to be measured by average speed of groundstrokes and serves, physical fitness of players, and a few other metrics). The game gets more competitive at every level, every year.

That is irrelevant. We are not comparing the eras relative to each other, as in 'the players from such-and-such era would beat the players from an earlier era', we are comparing players within each era, as in 'so-and-so would beat his contemporaries'. Doing the former would be impossible, because tennis is always changing. Techniques in training, new equipment, changes in playing surfaces, the additional money leading to more players being trained for the sport, etc. make it totally impossible, and criminally unfair, to compare the eras to each other. It is also irrelevant because Federer and his contemporaries were trained in the same era and had the same advantages and disadvantages. It's therefore not more impressive that Federer beat his contemporaries because they were somehow better than earlier tennis players, since Federer also benefitted from those improvements in the training process.

Anyway, here's how I see it.

Tennis Channel's top 100 players features 3 of Federer's contemporaries (within approximately 3 years of Federer's age either way). They are Hewitt at #61, Safin at #80, and Roddick at #94. Federer is obviously at the top of the list.

Lendl was the #1 player through the latter half of the 1980s and Sampras was the dominant player in the 90s.

Lendl's contemporaries: McEnroe at #13, Yannick Noah at #85. Looking at Lendl, he started dominating at a relatively late age, 25, and a new generation came along, including Pat Cash, Mats Wilander, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg et al. All of whom appear on the top 100, and all of whom won majors while Lendl was the #1 player. With the advent of the younger players combined with McEnroe, Lendl faced very tough competition.

Sampras's contemporaries: Agassi at #12, Courier at #42, Rafter at #70, Kafelnikov at #82, Muster at #95, and Chang at #100. Not to mention players who won majors while Sampras was at his best, including Sergi Bruguera with 2 RG titles, and Richard Krajicek with one Wimbledon. Sampras also crossed over, as a youth, with the end of the Lendl era and had to face some of the players listed above while they were in their primes. He crossed over, as an aging vet, to Kuerten and Carlos Moya, who were 5 years younger, and Hewitt.

Federer's contemporaries include Fererro, Malisse, Coria, Gonzalez, Davydenko, Nalbandian, et al. Underwhelming. Federer crossed over to Agassi as a youngster, and obviously to much better players in Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga et al, as an aging vet.

Federer's most dominant years were 2004-07. His ages were between 22-26. I have spent time researching what an athlete's physical, athletic prime years are. The prime occurs between ages 16-26. Prior to 16, the body is too frail, after 26, there is a loss of youthful quickness and endurance that leads to less explosion and power and more stretches of middling play. This is true in any sport. The mental side of the game is something different. Every player is somewhat different. Lendl was a late bloomer. Borg was an early bloomer. Lendl maintained the mental dominance well past the point where his body was cooperating. Borg lost the mental edge long before his body broke down. Sampras lost the mental edge many years before Agassi. Injuries can play into this, as with Hewitt and many others.

All of this in mind, it appears Federer's best years were played in the absence of any great competition, and that somewhat accounts for his winning of 3 majors per year in those years. He did not have a contemporary rival that was near him in greatness, unlike Lendl/McEnroe and Sampras/Agassi. His career arc resembles Connors, who was not as dominant in his prime, but had the longevity. Connors, however, had a contemporary who is an all-time great, in Vilas. Federer lost a slam to a contemporary only once between 2004-07 (prime years), the 2005 Australian Open Semi, to Safin. Connors and Federer both have great rivals who are of a younger generation (McEnroe/Borg - Djokovic/Nadal). Both men stayed mentally and physically competitive past their athletic primes. Both resisted serious injuries (which probably accounts for the longevity).

There is one other thing to consider. Federer plays an attacking style of tennis that works much better on surfaces past generations got to play on. In his era, Federer has had to play on slow hard courts and a slowed-down Wimbledon. So, compared to many of the former players discussed, Federer can be considered somewhat hobbled during his career. But, this issue also would afflict Federer's contemporaries, many of whom were attacking players too.

All of this presupposes some sort of objective truth in TC's list, which is obviously not the case. But other than win/loss records, there is no way of measuring an era.

The plain fact of the matter is this: with the exception of the 2005 Australian Open, Federer's contemporaries failed to make any dent in his career accomplishments. That means those players were not in the same league as Federer. And that is not true of Connors (Vilas), McEnroe (Borg/Lendl), Lendl (McEnroe), Sampras (Agassi et al.) or Nadal (Djokovic). That is beyond dispute. So unless the era vs. era issue is what's being argued, which I already explained is impossible, I don't see the argument. Federer faced inferior rivals. That's the end of it.

But is Federer still the GOAT? I don't care. It's a non-issue. I enjoy watching him play and will regret his retirement when it happens.

TopFH
06-03-2012, 02:17 PM
^So was it because they were weak or because Federer was so good he made them look weak?

above bored
06-03-2012, 02:18 PM
Before I get into this, I want to address one thing from the first post:

That is irrelevant. We are not comparing the eras relative to each other, as in 'the players from such-and-such era would beat the players from an earlier era', we are comparing players within each era, as in 'so-and-so would beat his contemporaries'. Doing the former would be impossible, because tennis is always changing. Techniques in training, new equipment, changes in playing surfaces, the additional money leading to more players being trained for the sport, etc. make it totally impossible, and criminally unfair, to compare the eras to each other. It is also irrelevant because Federer and his contemporaries were trained in the same era and had the same advantages and disadvantages. It's therefore not more impressive that Federer beat his contemporaries because they were somehow better than earlier tennis players, since Federer also benefitted from those improvements in the training process.

Anyway, here's how I see it.

Tennis Channel's top 100 players features 3 of Federer's contemporaries (within approximately 3 years of Federer's age either way). They are Hewitt at #61, Safin at #80, and Roddick at #94. Federer is obviously at the top of the list.

Lendl was the #1 player through the latter half of the 1980s and Sampras was the dominant player in the 90s.

Lendl's contemporaries: McEnroe at #13, Yannick Noah at #85. Looking at Lendl, he started dominating at a relatively late age, 25, and a new generation came along, including Pat Cash, Mats Wilander, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg et al. All of whom appear on the top 100, and all of whom won majors while Lendl was the #1 player. With the advent of the younger players combined with McEnroe, Lendl faced very tough competition.

Sampras's contemporaries: Agassi at #12, Courier at #42, Rafter at #70, Kafelnikov at #82, Muster at #95, and Chang at #100. Not to mention players who won majors while Sampras was at his best, including Sergi Bruguera with 2 RG titles, and Richard Krajicek with one Wimbledon. Sampras also crossed over, as a youth, with the end of the Lendl era and had to face some of the players listed above while they were in their primes. He crossed over, as an aging vet, to Kuerten and Carlos Moya, who were 5 years younger, and Hewitt.

Federer's contemporaries include Fererro, Malisse, Coria, Gonzalez, Davydenko, Nalbandian, et al. Underwhelming. Federer crossed over to Agassi as a youngster, and obviously to much better players in Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga et al, as an aging vet.

Federer's most dominant years were 2004-07. His ages were between 22-26. I have spent time researching what an athlete's physical, athletic prime years are. The prime occurs between ages 16-26. Prior to 16, the body is too frail, after 26, there is a loss of youthful quickness and endurance that leads to less explosion and power and more stretches of middling play. This is true in any sport. The mental side of the game is something different. Every player is somewhat different. Lendl was a late bloomer. Borg was an early bloomer. Lendl maintained the mental dominance well past the point where his body was cooperating. Borg lost the mental edge long before his body broke down. Sampras lost the mental edge many years before Agassi. Injuries can play into this, as with Hewitt and many others.

All of this in mind, it appears Federer's best years were played in the absence of any great competition, and that somewhat accounts for his winning of 3 majors per year in those years. He did not have a contemporary rival that was near him in greatness, unlike Lendl/McEnroe and Sampras/Agassi. His career arc resembles Connors, who was not as dominant in his prime, but had the longevity. Connors, however, had a contemporary who is an all-time great, in Vilas. Federer lost a slam to a contemporary only once between 2004-07 (prime years), the 2005 Australian Open Semi, to Safin. Connors and Federer both have great rivals who are of a younger generation (McEnroe/Borg - Djokovic/Nadal). Both men stayed mentally and physically competitive past their athletic primes. Both resisted serious injuries (which probably accounts for the longevity).

There is one other thing to consider. Federer plays an attacking style of tennis that works much better on surfaces past generations got to play on. In his era, Federer has had to play on slow hard courts and a slowed-down Wimbledon. So, compared to many of the former players discussed, Federer can be considered somewhat hobbled during his career. But, this issue also would afflict Federer's contemporaries, many of whom were attacking players too.

All of this presupposes some sort of objective truth in TC's list, which is obviously not the case. But other than win/loss records, there is no way of measuring an era.

The plain fact of the matter is this: with the exception of the 2005 Australian Open, Federer's contemporaries failed to make any dent in his career accomplishments. That means those players were not in the same league as Federer. And that is not true of Connors (Vilas), McEnroe (Borg/Lendl), Lendl (McEnroe), Sampras (Agassi et al.) or Nadal (Djokovic). That is beyond dispute. So unless the era vs. era issue is what's being argued, which I already explained is impossible, I don't see the argument. Federer faced inferior rivals. That's the end of it.

But is Federer still the GOAT? I don't care. It's a non-issue. I enjoy watching him play and will regret his retirement when it happens.
More nonsense and a lot of it. Such effort, but little in the way of intelligent argument.

So Federer is not such a great player because he did not lose enough. Makes perfect sense, not.

No that's not the end of it at all. The fact of the matter is Federer was better than everyone, that's to his credit. You don't penalise someone for accomplishing too much. For a long period he was in the shadow of the Hewitt's, Safin's, Roddick's and Ferrero's. It's to his credit that he was able to dominate them and prevent them from achieving higher on the all time list. They are where they are because of him, not because they were not great players, worthy of holding more Slams than they do.

big_bill
06-03-2012, 02:20 PM
1)Safin hurt his knee in 2005, never the same again = GONE

2)Roddick started pushing in 2005= GONE

3) Hewitt has not had 6 months injury free tennis in 7 years (2005) = GONE

4) Guillermo Coria had a mental breakdown after 2005 = GONE

5) Gaston Gaudio (42-8 on clay 2005) had a mental breakdown in 2005 = GONE

6) Gustavo Kuerten retired with an injured hip shortly after beating Federer in the French Open in 2004 = GONE

7) Nalbandian got fat and his nephew was crushed in an elevator shaft = GONE (except for a few months towards the end of 2007)

8 ) Ferrero got the chicken pox and somehow (no one really understands this) couldn't hit his forehand hard anymore when he came back = GONE

9 ) Philipoussis hurt his knee and had to retire = GONE

10) Tommy Haas has been constantly injured for the last ten years, whenever he gets close to reaching Federer's level he gets injured (AO 2006, FO 2009) = GONE

So in 2005, basically, overnight, players like Tommy Robredo were in the top 10.

The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

No question it was a very weak era, but credit Roger for defeating all the deadbeats that were put in front of him.

IvanisevicServe
06-03-2012, 02:21 PM
If Federer had just lost a few finals, his competition would be ranked higher.

That's why this is so silly.

DRII
06-03-2012, 02:27 PM
Before I get into this, I want to address one thing from the first post:

That is irrelevant. We are not comparing the eras relative to each other, as in 'the players from such-and-such era would beat the players from an earlier era', we are comparing players within each era, as in 'so-and-so would beat his contemporaries'. Doing the former would be impossible, because tennis is always changing. Techniques in training, new equipment, changes in playing surfaces, the additional money leading to more players being trained for the sport, etc. make it totally impossible, and criminally unfair, to compare the eras to each other. It is also irrelevant because Federer and his contemporaries were trained in the same era and had the same advantages and disadvantages. It's therefore not more impressive that Federer beat his contemporaries because they were somehow better than earlier tennis players, since Federer also benefitted from those improvements in the training process.

Anyway, here's how I see it.

Tennis Channel's top 100 players features 3 of Federer's contemporaries (within approximately 3 years of Federer's age either way). They are Hewitt at #61, Safin at #80, and Roddick at #94. Federer is obviously at the top of the list.

Lendl was the #1 player through the latter half of the 1980s and Sampras was the dominant player in the 90s.

Lendl's contemporaries: McEnroe at #13, Yannick Noah at #85. Looking at Lendl, he started dominating at a relatively late age, 25, and a new generation came along, including Pat Cash, Mats Wilander, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg et al. All of whom appear on the top 100, and all of whom won majors while Lendl was the #1 player. With the advent of the younger players combined with McEnroe, Lendl faced very tough competition.

Sampras's contemporaries: Agassi at #12, Courier at #42, Rafter at #70, Kafelnikov at #82, Muster at #95, and Chang at #100. Not to mention players who won majors while Sampras was at his best, including Sergi Bruguera with 2 RG titles, and Richard Krajicek with one Wimbledon. Sampras also crossed over, as a youth, with the end of the Lendl era and had to face some of the players listed above while they were in their primes. He crossed over, as an aging vet, to Kuerten and Carlos Moya, who were 5 years younger, and Hewitt.

Federer's contemporaries include Fererro, Malisse, Coria, Gonzalez, Davydenko, Nalbandian, et al. Underwhelming. Federer crossed over to Agassi as a youngster, and obviously to much better players in Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga et al, as an aging vet.

Federer's most dominant years were 2004-07. His ages were between 22-26. I have spent time researching what an athlete's physical, athletic prime years are. The prime occurs between ages 16-26. Prior to 16, the body is too frail, after 26, there is a loss of youthful quickness and endurance that leads to less explosion and power and more stretches of middling play. This is true in any sport. The mental side of the game is something different. Every player is somewhat different. Lendl was a late bloomer. Borg was an early bloomer. Lendl maintained the mental dominance well past the point where his body was cooperating. Borg lost the mental edge long before his body broke down. Sampras lost the mental edge many years before Agassi. Injuries can play into this, as with Hewitt and many others.

All of this in mind, it appears Federer's best years were played in the absence of any great competition, and that somewhat accounts for his winning of 3 majors per year in those years. He did not have a contemporary rival that was near him in greatness, unlike Lendl/McEnroe and Sampras/Agassi. His career arc resembles Connors, who was not as dominant in his prime, but had the longevity. Connors, however, had a contemporary who is an all-time great, in Vilas. Federer lost a slam to a contemporary only once between 2004-07 (prime years), the 2005 Australian Open Semi, to Safin. Connors and Federer both have great rivals who are of a younger generation (McEnroe/Borg - Djokovic/Nadal). Both men stayed mentally and physically competitive past their athletic primes. Both resisted serious injuries (which probably accounts for the longevity).

There is one other thing to consider. Federer plays an attacking style of tennis that works much better on surfaces past generations got to play on. In his era, Federer has had to play on slow hard courts and a slowed-down Wimbledon. So, compared to many of the former players discussed, Federer can be considered somewhat hobbled during his career. But, this issue also would afflict Federer's contemporaries, many of whom were attacking players too.

All of this presupposes some sort of objective truth in TC's list, which is obviously not the case. But other than win/loss records, there is no way of measuring an era.

The plain fact of the matter is this: with the exception of the 2005 Australian Open, Federer's contemporaries failed to make any dent in his career accomplishments. That means those players were not in the same league as Federer. And that is not true of Connors (Vilas), McEnroe (Borg/Lendl), Lendl (McEnroe), Sampras (Agassi et al.) or Nadal (Djokovic). That is beyond dispute. So unless the era vs. era issue is what's being argued, which I already explained is impossible, I don't see the argument. Federer faced inferior rivals. That's the end of it.

But is Federer still the GOAT? I don't care. It's a non-issue. I enjoy watching him play and will regret his retirement when it happens.


Spot on post! Logical and dispassionate, yet also quite revealing. Probably as close to a slam dunk as is possible in this discussion, given the caveat that we are speaking relatively... as in -- much of Federer's competition consisted of 'relatively' inferior rivals from 2004-07.

I still contend that there is no weak era in a world class and competitive, established sport where tons of money and fame can be had and earned by those who are good enough to take advantage; just weaker eras as compared to others...

dh003i
06-03-2012, 02:29 PM
If Federer had just lost a few finals, his competition would be ranked higher.

That's why this is so silly.

Right.

What is indisputable is that Federer was just in a different league than anyone else during his prime, including Nadal (look at GS wins).

Those who wish to discredit him say it is because he faced inferior competition compared to players of different eras. An alternative hypothesis is that the competition was just as good or perhaps better (evolution of the game), but that Federer was just that good.

tennis_pro
06-03-2012, 02:33 PM
If Federer had just lost a few finals, his competition would be ranked higher.

That's why this is so silly.

This is hilarious, Federer is getting critisized for being super consistent at the top.

I'm sure that a lot of the former greatst would match Federer at his best if they played at their max abilities but because they weren't that consistent it made their competition look tougher. Just take Sampras. How often did he lose IN HIS PRIME in grass/hard court majors in the early rounds? Just because he didn't feel like competing/playing his best that day?1994 US, 1996 AO, 1996 Wimbledon, 1996 US (barely beat Corretja a clay court specialist), 1997 US, 1998 AO, 1998 US - that's just his prime years.

Do you think that Kafelnikov, Rafter, Krajicek would win majors these days? LAWL. That's the major difference between 00's/10's and other eras. We have 2-3 guys who bring their best each time they are forced to do so. And that is why there is such a huge gap between the top 3/4 and the rest.

big_bill
06-03-2012, 02:41 PM
The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

And a 17 y.o. Nadal cleaned Fed's clock 6-3, 6-3 in their very first encounter (on a hard court no less) way back in 2004 and went on to win 7 of their first 8 meetings between 2004-2006.

tennis_pro
06-03-2012, 02:46 PM
And a 17 y.o. Nadal cleaned Fed's clock 6-3, 6-3 in their very first encounter (on a hard court no less) way back in 2004 and went on to win 7 of their first 8 meetings between 2004-2006.

First of all it's 6 out of 7 you liar, then it was with a huge help on matches on clay (4 consecutive matches on clay 2005 FO, 2006 MC, Rome, FO)

But then miraculously Nadal after taking out Fed in March 2006 in Dubai failed to beat him on a non-clay surface for another 2,5 years. How's that possible?
Also, Fed won 5 of the next 7 matches after Nadal's serie.

TopFH
06-03-2012, 02:48 PM
Federer's Titles Finals: 74/30
Adjusted: 54/50

I guess if this had happened then Federer's competition would be tough.

Steffi-forever
06-03-2012, 02:57 PM
And a 17 y.o. Nadal cleaned Fed's clock 6-3, 6-3....

Federer had the gastroenteritis during that match. I remember it very well!

big_bill
06-03-2012, 03:00 PM
First of all it's 6 out of 7 you liar, then it was with a huge help on matches on clay (4 consecutive matches on clay 2005 FO, 2006 MC, Rome, FO)

But then miraculously Nadal after taking out Fed in March 2006 in Dubai failed to beat him on a non-clay surface for another 2,5 years. How's that possible?
Also, Fed won 5 of the next 7 matches after Nadal's serie.

*groan*

My point was that during Fed's so called "God" years, there simply weren't any players who stepped up to the plate to challenge him. Most of his so called "rivals" lost the match before they even stepped on the court, and therefore Federer was able to dominate over a relatively weak era filled with MENTAL midgets. When viewed OBJECTIVELY, Federer thrived and dominated over a relatively weak era (esp. with regard to MENTAL toughness), pure and simple.

TopFH
06-03-2012, 03:01 PM
First of all it's 6 out of 7 you liar, then it was with a huge help on matches on clay (4 consecutive matches on clay 2005 FO, 2006 MC, Rome, FO)

But then miraculously Nadal after taking out Fed in March 2006 in Dubai failed to beat him on a non-clay surface for another 2,5 years. How's that possible?
Also, Fed won 5 of the next 7 matches after Nadal's serie.

This. Before 2008, the head-to-head was 8-6 in Nadal's favor. Out of those 14 matches, 7 were contested on clay, 5 on hard, and 2 on grass.

Clay: 6:1 Nadal
Hard: 3:2 Federer
Grass: 2:0 Federer

This makes Nadal's record heavily skewered toward clay, as he won 75% of his match on clay. However on 2008, they played four times, with Nadal winning all of them. At the end of the year, the record was 12-6 in favor of Nadal. Although Nadal won on grass that year, the record was still very skewed towards clay. Even if Federer had won Wimbledon, the record would be 11-7.

So now:

Clay: 9:1 Nadal
Grass: 2:1 Nadal
Hard: 3:2 Federer

It was the fact that they did not play on hard and Federer lost Wimbledon that the record is this way.

Too long to read, Nadal's mental advantage was built on clay, with 10 out of 18 matches being on clay. He won 9, skewing the record.

big_bill
06-03-2012, 03:04 PM
Federer had the gastroenteritis during that match. I remember it very well!

:lol:...........................

TopFH
06-03-2012, 03:09 PM
^The Federer-Nadal rivalry would be actually quite competitive had 2008 not happened.

2004-2007: 8:6 Nadal
2009-today: 6-4 Nadal

H-to-H would be: 14:10 Nadal

Clay: 9-2 Nadal
Grass: 2:0 Federer
Hard: 6:4 Federer

As you can see, clay skew plus the reality of 2008 being an off year, Nadal and Federer would be really tight.

tennis_pro
06-03-2012, 03:09 PM
Federer had the gastroenteritis during that match. I remember it very well!

If Federer knew that Nadal was about to become his biggest rival in the future, I'm sure he'd found a way to win and "protect" the h2h. He didn't seem too bothered when he shook hands with Nadal as if to say "well played kid"

tennis_pro
06-03-2012, 03:11 PM
*groan*

My point was that during Fed's so called "God" years, there simply weren't any players who stepped up to the plate to challenge him. Most of his so called "rivals" lost the match before they even stepped on the court, and therefore Federer was able to dominate over a relatively weak era filled with MENTAL midgets. When viewed OBJECTIVELY, Federer thrived and dominated over a relatively weak era (esp. with regard to MENTAL toughness), pure and simple.

It's not like Federer is losing left and right these days, he's losing to the very same players who challenged him in some of his prime years - Nadal since 2005 and Djokovic since 2007. Where's the current tough field?

I guess the "tough opposition" wasn't strong enough to stop Federer when he was on a roll in 2011-2012 winning like 95 % of matches he played in a 6-month span

Steffi-forever
06-03-2012, 03:20 PM
:lol:...........................

Why smiling?

Tennis Magazine (in french) of may 2004 page 41:

....Federer, affaibli physiquement par les conséquences d'une inflamation et d'une gastro-enterite...

big_bill
06-03-2012, 03:20 PM
It's not like Federer is losing left and right these days, he's losing to the very same players who challenged him in some of his prime years - Nadal since 2005 and Djokovic since 2007. Where's the current tough field?

I guess the "tough opposition" wasn't strong enough to stop Federer when he was on a roll in 2011-2012 winning like 95 % of matches he played in a 6-month span

Fed dominated during a transitional era and beat all the mental midgets that were put in front of him, which is all he could do. He won his Slams fair and square but to suggest that he did it during a challenging, competitive era is simply untrue. The facts speak for themselves.

TopFH
06-03-2012, 03:25 PM
Fed dominated during a transitional era and beat all the mental midgets that were put in front of him, which is all he could do. He won his Slams fair and square but to suggest that he did it during a challenging, competitive era is simply untrue. The facts speak for themselves.

So if you think an era is weak, it is a fact?

Also, Federer has won all but four of his matches since the USO to this "tough era". The guys that beat are: Nadal, Isner, Roddick and Djokovic. All players from 2007 and before.

big_bill
06-03-2012, 03:39 PM
So if you think an era is weak, it is a fact?

Also, Federer has won all but four of his matches since the USO to this "tough era". The guys that beat are: Nadal, Isner, Roddick and Djokovic. All players from 2007 and before.

If you grew up idolizing Federer and are emotionally invested in him, there is nothing I can say that will make you change your mind. All I can say is that I've witnessed many generations of tennis players come and go and am giving you my unbiased thoughts. I'm an admirer of Roger and his game but I'm not blinded by the circumstances during his years of total domination.

TopFH
06-03-2012, 04:39 PM
^So, in your opinion, is the Nadal-Djokovic era weak?

DRII
06-03-2012, 05:28 PM
^So, in your opinion, is the Nadal-Djokovic era weak?

Let's not pretend that Nadal, Novak from 2004-07 are the same players post 2008 till now...

obsessedtennisfandisorder
06-03-2012, 05:34 PM
Players born within 2 years of Pete>
GS slams + finals
agassi
courier
martin
---
krajicek
ferreira
goran
chang
bruguera
rafter

if we go out to 4 years...we get too>

korda
becker
stich
pioline
___
kafelnikov
enqvist
rusedski
henman
corretja

ok..with Fed..within 2 years

safin
ferrero
roddick
hewitt
nalbandian
coria
davydenko
gonzo


OK..good group there..but where things get really interesting is within 4 years

haas
grosjean
lubijic
blake
kiefer
___

ancic
soderling
tsonga
baggy

There is distinct lack of class in the 4 yr contemporary list IMHO.

Kuerten and scud were heavily interupted by injury to challenge fed.

Haas and grosjean...talented for sure..but same class as pete's competition?

The point is...due to injury..a big hole found..in the the 76-79 period..although I agree carlos moya great player is primarily clay first...

put another way..check out how many slams were in 2003 wimby QF's = 0

Sid_Vicious
06-03-2012, 05:36 PM
This thread is now destined for 20 additional pages worth of posts.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
06-03-2012, 05:39 PM
This thread is now destined for 20 additional pages worth of posts.

OOps sorry..LOL..great reply..yes this has been done adnauseum.

nadal's competition btw ha been very tough and he has ten slams and counting

I forgot to do and age comparison for him

bjsnider
06-03-2012, 06:20 PM
OOps sorry..LOL..great reply..yes this has been done adnauseum.

nadal's competition btw ha been very tough and he has ten slams and counting

I forgot to do and age comparison for him

Agreed. Nadal has faced terribly tough competition, not only from his two peers Murray and Djokovic, but from Jo Tsonga, Soddy, Berdych, and the tail end of the Federer prime years.

The one area where Nadal has been lucky is that there aren't any other clay greats at the moment. Guga Kuerten retired just as Nadal made his run at RG. Nadal would have competed in RG 2003,04 except he was injured both times. He'd been beating Moya on clay since he was around 12, so I think it's reasonable to think he would have ended up against Kuerten at both tournaments. That would have been fun.

But in the 1990s there was Muster, Bruguera (who owns a winning record against Pistol Pete), Agassi, Courier, Moya, and Kuerten. That's a logjam at the top if there ever was one.

tlm
06-03-2012, 06:23 PM
*groan*

My point was that during Fed's so called "God" years, there simply weren't any players who stepped up to the plate to challenge him. Most of his so called "rivals" lost the match before they even stepped on the court, and therefore Federer was able to dominate over a relatively weak era filled with MENTAL midgets. When viewed OBJECTIVELY, Federer thrived and dominated over a relatively weak era (esp. with regard to MENTAL toughness), pure and simple.

This post is fact not fiction like you fed lovers are dreaming about.

Sid_Vicious
06-03-2012, 06:30 PM
This post is fact not fiction like you fed lovers are dreaming about.

Wow, dude. You put up a hell of an argument. Quoting another Nadal lovers quote and claiming it contains facts?


We are totally convinced.

SoBad
06-03-2012, 06:33 PM
Getting ripped by hip-busted Kuerten and grass-green Nadal in slams tells you the story right there.

big_bill
06-03-2012, 06:53 PM
^So, in your opinion, is the Nadal-Djokovic era weak?

They're both only 25 yo so it's too early to say. The story is still unfolding and we don't have enough information. In 5-7 years we'll be able to look back and examine their careers (and that of their rivals and contemporaries) with a much better perspective and see how things stack up --without all the emotion.

TopFH
06-03-2012, 06:58 PM
They're both only 25 yo so it's too early to say. The story is still unfolding and we don't have enough information. In 5-7 years we'll be able to look back and examine their careers (and that of their rivals and contemporaries) with a much better perspective and see how things stack up --without all the emotion.

Although I may not agree with you, I grant you that you are one of the most objective and reasonable posters this forum has. Cheers!

TopFH
06-03-2012, 06:59 PM
Let's not pretend that Nadal, Novak from 2004-07 are the same players post 2008 till now...

Nadal-Djokovic era is from 2008 onwards...

mandy01
06-03-2012, 07:05 PM
Nadal-Djokovic era is from 2008 onwards...

LOL, not even then. Roger was still #2 by the end of 2008 and got back the #1 ranking in 2009. Roger was also #2 in 2010. More like from 2011 till now with Roger at 30. Yeah, groundbreaking stuff :lol:

big_bill
06-03-2012, 07:47 PM
Although I may not agree with you, I grant you that you are one of the most objective and reasonable posters this forum has. Cheers!

Thanks and cheers to you as well. Let's hope ALL the contenders raise and sustain their level with the Olympics right around the corner. That way we don't have to debate whether 2012 was a "weak field" or not :).

TopFH
06-03-2012, 07:50 PM
LOL, not even then. Roger was still #2 by the end of 2008 and got back the #1 ranking in 2009. Roger was also #2 in 2010. More like from 2011 till now with Roger at 30. Yeah, groundbreaking stuff :lol:

LOL, my bad. Yeah, Nadalovic has just started.

NadalAgassi
06-03-2012, 09:04 PM
Do you think that Kafelnikov, Rafter, Krajicek would win majors these days? LAWL.

Gaudio won a major in the Federer/Nadal era. So did Del Potro, a player who hasnt even been able to win a Masters title. Soderling reached 2 slam finals at the same event in back to back years, a marginal player compared to even those you mentioned. Berdych reached a Wimbledon final. So dont be so sure on your claim.

NadalAgassi
06-03-2012, 09:08 PM
LOL, not even then. Roger was still #2 by the end of 2008 and got back the #1 ranking in 2009. Roger was also #2 in 2010. More like from 2011 till now with Roger at 30. Yeah, groundbreaking stuff :lol:

Nadal accomplished way more in the 2008-2010 period than Federer did (26-29 year old Federer, not 30 year old Federer). That period was much more the Nadal era than it ever was the Federer era. Nadal was light years better in 2010, way better in 2008, and only marginally worse (due to injuries alone) in 2009. Also being better than a 17-20 year old Nadal is no stupendous feat, the only Nadal which Federer was ever better than for any substained period.

NadalAgassi
06-03-2012, 09:14 PM
It was the fact that they did not play on hard and Federer lost Wimbledon that the record is this way.

Too long to read, Nadal's mental advantage was built on clay, with 10 out of 18 matches being on clay. He won 9, skewing the record.

Actually Federer losing at Wimbledon in recent years has helped his H2H with Nadal. Had they played at Wimbledon 2010 and 2011 as most expected them to, Federer would likely have a 2-3 and losing record vs Nadal on grass now, but was able to preserve his winning record by losing earlier than expected at Wimbledon both years. It will be interesting to see if Federer can avoid playing Nadal on grass ever again to keep this advantage preserved.

As for hard courts, Federer trails Nadal on outdoor hard courts 5-2 and has always trailed on outdoor hard courts. He owns Nadal indoors since Nadal is pretty much useles indoors thus far in his career, no other reason really. Of course it detracts from Nadal somewhat that he is a very bad player indoors, but it also shows the only places Federer has been able to overcome Nadal apart from holding back a very good Nadal in the 2007 Wimbledon final despite being badly crushed from the baseline all day long, is a 19 year old Nadal in his fluke early appearance in a Wimbledon final, and Nadal indoors where he basically sucks. Never on clay obviously, never on outdoor hard courts in any real way, never on grass when Nadal was any good on the surface apart from that lone occasion in the 07 final where Federer had to pull off one of his most determined efforts ever to win.

tennis_pro
06-03-2012, 09:24 PM
Gaudio won a major in the Federer/Nadal era. So did Del Potro, a player who hasnt even been able to win a Masters title. Soderling reached 2 slam finals at the same event in back to back years, a marginal player compared to even those you mentioned. Berdych reached a Wimbledon final. So dont be so sure on your claim.

The 2004 FO is the last really "open" major, Gaudio took his chance and won, good for him.

Del Potro had to go through both Nadal and Federer to win the 2009 US Open. Who from the 90's would you pick to do so, other than maybe Sampras?

The rest are finalists which I don't care about, there have been fluky finalists in every era and that won't change, heck Berdych played in a Wimbledon final not more than 2 years ago.

tennis_pro
06-03-2012, 09:27 PM
Fed dominated during a transitional era and beat all the mental midgets that were put in front of him, which is all he could do. He won his Slams fair and square but to suggest that he did it during a challenging, competitive era is simply untrue. The facts speak for themselves.

You assume that domination is impossible cause it means that the era was weak.

Also the "tough competition" as you call it hasn't really change that much in the last 5 years or so, only Djokovic was added at the top but players ranked 5th and lower are pretty much useless compared to the same group of 2004.

tennis_pro
06-03-2012, 09:29 PM
Actually Federer losing at Wimbledon in recent years has helped his H2H with Nadal. Had they played at Wimbledon 2010 and 2011 as most expected them to, Federer would likely have a 2-3 and losing record vs Nadal on grass now, but was able to preserve his winning record by losing earlier than expected at Wimbledon both years. It will be interesting to see if Federer can avoid playing Nadal on grass ever again to keep this advantage preserved.

As for hard courts, Federer trails Nadal on outdoor hard courts 5-2 and has always trailed on outdoor hard courts. He owns Nadal indoors since Nadal is pretty much useles indoors thus far in his career, no other reason really.

Once again, it's all Federer's fault that the h2h is still "in his favor". Let's just dismiss the fact that Nadal during all those years was good enough to only meet him on clay and only occasionally on other surfaces.

Why won't you use the arguement that Federer is skewing the h2h because he hasn't faced Nadal on clay this year yet?

NadalAgassi
06-03-2012, 09:33 PM
Once again, it's all Federer's fault that the h2h is still "in his favor". Let's just dismiss the fact that Nadal during all those years was good enough to only meet him on clay and only occasionally on other surfaces.

Why won't you use the arguement that Federer is skewing the h2h because he hasn't faced Nadal on clay this year yet?

A 18-21 year old Federer, the so called hard court GOAT according to ****s, wasnt even able to make it past the round of 16 of a single hard court slam. He couldnt even make it past the round of 16 at the U.S Open until age 23 (lol). Yet lets now blame 18-21 year old Nadal, the so called hard court mug, luckiest U.S Open, Australian Open, Olympic, Indian Wells multiple times over, etc...winner in history, for not making hard court slam finals and semis at that age. Great stuff. Also lets blame Nadal for not making the Wimbledon final until something like his 4th grass tournament ever. He should have made it at age 16 and 17.

Swissv2
06-03-2012, 09:36 PM
This thread is now officially dead. The arguments I see getting thrown back and forth is like the old time scientists passionately arguing that the sun revolved around the earth. It's kinda like the majority of posters have been reduced to the "girls" rooting for "Team Fed" and the other "girls" rooting for "Team Nadal".


Well let me tell you kids something...their skin does not sparkle in the sun.

merlinpinpin
06-03-2012, 11:34 PM
Agreed. Nadal has faced terribly tough competition, not only from his two peers Murray and Djokovic, but from Jo Tsonga, Soddy, Berdych, and the tail end of the Federer prime years.

You really have to make up your mind here. Federer has faced subpar competition and Nadal has faced terribly tough competition... in the same players?!? :confused:

So either you mean "Federer has faced subpar competition *for him*" and "Nadal has faced terribly tough competition *for him*", ie "Federer is so much better than Nadal that we should use different yardsticks to measure their respective achievements", or this makes no sense at all.

But in the 1990s there was Muster, Bruguera (who owns a winning record against Pistol Pete), Agassi, Courier, Moya, and Kuerten. That's a logjam at the top if there ever was one.

Have to disagree on that one, too. Not going back to your (previous) long post, but you said in this one, basically, that the 90's were much more competitive because Sampras had Agassi as a rival. Truth is, though, that Agassi wasn't there for most of Sampras' era, and you could argue that Pistol Pete thrived because he had absolutely no rival (Agassi was basically there in 94/95, then came back in 99 to overtake Sampras). The rest of the time, you could argue that Sampras was alone at the top, against guys who made a good run for a few months, got to the #1 spot (because he wasn't good enough to stop them/couldn't be bothered to put in the effort) and then faded. I mean, just look at your shortlist above. Courier just disappeared when he lost the #1 spot, and the others were claycourters, with Sampras being a total non-factor on clay anyway. So their being there or not had no bearing at all on his career (Muster, Bruguera, Moya, and Kuerten took a combined 0 slam out of him off clay). And you're basically left with Agassi, who won a grand total of 2 slams to Sampras' 10 during the years when Pete was #1 (plus 2 to 1 in 99). So not much of a challenge, all things considered.

Using the argument that "Federer didn't lose enough" to show that his competition was subpar is circular reasoning, and the smallest amount of logic shows that it is hopelessly flawed. The only thing that Federer's results show is that, during his prime, he was so much better than the rest of the field (except Nadal on clay). Not necessarily that the field was weak, mind you. This is just a *possibility*. Just like it is possible that Federer was just so much better and would have won several calendar grand slams had he played in an era without any rival, like Sampras in the 90's. Either or both are just as likely, there's just no way of knowing.

mandy01
06-03-2012, 11:46 PM
]Nadal accomplished way more in the 2008-2010 period than Federer did (26-29 year old Federer, not 30 year old Federer). Nadal won 6 slams in that period. Roger won four. That isn't way more. At some point, Roger was going to drop. You were saying?

That period was much more the Nadal era than it ever was the Federer era. The point is Djokovic was nowhere in the equation during the period. Federer era or not is irrelevant. If people are going to slight Roger for not winning majors in a period Djokovic wasn't giant, the same is easily applicable to Nadal who, infact, and unlike Roger, didn't win a single match against Djokovic in a major, in his peak year.

Nadal was light years better in 2010, way better in 2008, and only marginally worse (due to injuries alone) in 2009. Yeah, cool. Nadal got better in the year Roger got worse due to mono. Happens :). Then he had a drop the very next year and was back up again in 2010 when all his rivals, including Roger were slumping big time. See what I did there? :)


Also being better than a 17-20 year old Nadal is no stupendous feat, the only Nadal which Federer was ever better than for any substained period.Being better than a favourable match-up (Roger) having mono for a while, slumping, and also having back problems in a two year period isn't something stupendous either. Two can play that game.

mandy01
06-03-2012, 11:51 PM
A 18-21 year old Federer, the so called hard court GOAT according to ****s, wasnt even able to make it past the round of 16 of a single hard court slam. He couldnt even make it past the round of 16 at the U.S Open until age 23 (lol). Yet lets now blame 18-21 year old Nadal, the so called hard court mug, luckiest U.S Open, Australian Open, Olympic, Indian Wells multiple times over, etc...winner in history, for not making hard court slam finals and semis at that age. Great stuff. Also lets blame Nadal for not making the Wimbledon final until something like his 4th grass tournament ever. He should have made it at age 16 and 17.

Yes, and? If Nadal is so good according to you '*****, he should be able to match or better Roger at 30 since you seem so keen on bringing up Roger's early years. Nadal was already a major champion by 19. If it took him FOUR years after his first major to muster up a Hard Court major final, that will be held against him if you're going to hold Roger not making the 2010/2011 finals at Wimbledon, at 29/30 and carrying injuries both times, particularly in 2010, against him. Now go back to your cave.

And what's with the constant dismissal of indoors from fans who get their knickers in a twist if somebody brings up clay, which infact skews the H2H far more than indoors ever has. Not to mention, nearly all of the Roger-Nadal outdoor HC meetings have been on terribly slow, high-bouncing courts in the first half of the year. Yeah, earth-shattering stuff again :lol:

Flash O'Groove
06-03-2012, 11:57 PM
Using the argument that "Federer didn't lose enough" to show that his competition was subpar is circular reasoning, and the smallest amount of logic shows that it is hopelessly flawed. The only thing that Federer's results show is that, during his prime, he was so much better than the rest of the field (except Nadal on clay). Not necessarily that the field was weak, mind you. This is just a *possibility*. Just like it is possible that Federer was just so much better and would have won several calendar grand slams had he played in an era without any rival, like Sampras in the 90's. Either or both are just as likely, there's just no way of knowing.

It is useless to continue an arguing if the argument you pointed is not listened. As you said, we only know that Federer was better thant his opponents, and we can't know if it was because they were weak, or if he was great. And it is the same for ALL champion. Nadal dominated 2008 and 2010, but we have no idea if it was because he is so good or if the opposition just wasn't there.

Personnaly I prefer to congratulate the winner and I acknowledge the domination of each players: Federer, then Nadal, then Djokovic, even if I agree that we could argue endlessy about the valor of the opponents. Was Nadal at his "true" level last year? Is Murray, a very consistent player, a more difficult opponent in slam final than Andy Roddick?

DRII
06-04-2012, 04:10 AM
You assume that domination is impossible cause it means that the era was weak.

Also the "tough competition" as you call it hasn't really change that much in the last 5 years or so, only Djokovic was added at the top but players ranked 5th and lower are pretty much useless compared to the same group of 2004.

So you think a player who announces himself with one of the best years in tennis history is not that big a deal :confused:

And you also think that Nadal is the same player he was in 2004 :confused:

Nice try, but your rebuttal is weak.

Point is; the competition level is higher post 2008 than between 2004-07. Post 2008 we have 3 open era greats competing, 2004-07 there was only one.

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 04:32 AM
So you think a player who announces himself with one of the best years in tennis history is not that big a deal :confused:

And you also think that Nadal is the same player he was in 2004 :confused:

Nice try, but your rebuttal is weak.

Point is; the competition level is higher post 2008 than between 2004-07. Post 2008 we have 3 open era greats competing (1), 2004-07 there was only one(2).

Bolded part: you're not making one point, but two, that is:

(1) Post 2008 we have 3 open era greats competing
(2) 2004-07 there was only one

However, this doesn't mean that competition is higher in (1) than in (2). You *may* have a point if you were consistent in your reasoning and started by stating the fact that the weakest era in the Open Era was the 90's (which is consistent with the arguments you're bringing forward). Unfortunately, that's not what you are saying, so I'm afraid you come across as someone with an agenda.

As to the part in blue, you seem to have no trouble thinking that Federer is the same player he was in 2004, so yet again, double standards = poster with an agenda. As long as you stay away from fair thinking, there's no way you can get around this.

Flash O'Groove
06-04-2012, 04:45 AM
Point is; the competition level is higher post 2008 than between 2004-07. Post 2008 we have 3 open era greats competing (1), 2004-07 there was only one(2).

Open era greats do not have the same level of plays each year, so it doesn't mean anything. Djokovic was already here but he wasn't a great until 2011, while Federer wasn't good too in 2008 and 2010.

Otherwise, why do you discount Nadal and Agassi of your count of Open era greats? Agassi was there until 2005, Nadal since 2005.

And you don't take into account that some players may have become open era greats had they not met Federer in 3 slam final and two semi-final? Of course players from 2004-2005 have a poor palmares because of Federer, just like Fed has a "poor" one at RG because of Nadal.

DRII
06-04-2012, 04:50 AM
Bolded part: you're not making one point, but two, that is:

(1) Post 2008 we have 3 open era greats competing
(2) 2004-07 there was only one

However, this doesn't mean that competition is higher in (1) than in (2). You *may* have a point if you were consistent in your reasoning and started by stating the fact that the weakest era in the Open Era was the 90's (which is consistent with the arguments you're bringing forward). Unfortunately, that's not what you are saying, so I'm afraid you come across as someone with an agenda.

As to the part in blue, you seem to have no trouble thinking that Federer is the same player he was in 2004, so yet again, double standards = poster with an agenda. As long as you stay away from fair thinking, there's no way you can get around this.


What you’re saying makes little sense and is just another way of devolving to the default that eras are just too different to compare and therefore are all the same -- which is ridiculous and oxymoronic.

In your mind it seems that the only way to think fairly is too assume that Federer faced competition that was just as strong in 2004-07 as it is now or ever; which again is ridiculous.

Also, you bringing up the 90's is a stretch. It is certainly easier to compare 2004-07 with 2008 to present, than either of these time periods with the 90's. With the former we have constants or relative constants: mainly Federer himself, the homogenization of surfaces, and the introduction of the new poly strings. With the latter comparison (the 90's vs Federer's time) we have none of these constants which makes the comparison much more difficult, yet not impossible.

DRII
06-04-2012, 05:05 AM
Open era greats do not have the same level of plays each year, so it doesn't mean anything. Djokovic was already here but he wasn't a great until 2011, while Federer wasn't good too in 2008 and 2010.

Otherwise, why do you discount Nadal and Agassi of your count of Open era greats? Agassi was there until 2005, Nadal since 2005.

And you don't take into account that some players may have become open era greats had they not met Federer in 3 slam final and two semi-final? Of course players from 2004-2005 have a poor palmares because of Federer, just like Fed has a "poor" one at RG because of Nadal.

Nadal was not an open era great in 2004-2007; he was a great clay courter only with good grass court potential. Agassi was far post prime in 2005, and Nole was certainly great in 2008.

Its true that no player maintains peak form every year; however prime form consists of a player's aggregate average playing level that is high enough to contend for multiple slams and other big titles on multiple surfaces (at least when it concerns an open era great candidate).

If Federer was meeting the same one or two players in slam finals from 2004-07 on multiple surfaces then you might have a point; but he was not until post 2008...( the closest was Nadal on clay and grass from 2004-07)

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 05:13 AM
A 18-21 year old Federer, the so called hard court GOAT according to ****s, wasnt even able to make it past the round of 16 of a single hard court slam. He couldnt even make it past the round of 16 at the U.S Open until age 23 (lol). Yet lets now blame 18-21 year old Nadal, the so called hard court mug, luckiest U.S Open, Australian Open, Olympic, Indian Wells multiple times over, etc...winner in history, for not making hard court slam finals and semis at that age. Great stuff. Also lets blame Nadal for not making the Wimbledon final until something like his 4th grass tournament ever. He should have made it at age 16 and 17.

We'll talk when Nadal hits 30. I guess you will be surprised when he doesn't reach major finals on hard courts, LOLZ.

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 05:18 AM
Nadal was not an open era great in 2004-2007; he was a great clay courter only with good grass court potential. Agassi was far post prime in 2005, and Nole was certainly great in 2008.

Its true that no player maintains peak form every year; however prime form consists of a player's aggregate average playing level that is high enough to contend for multiple slams and other big titles on multiple surfaces (at least when it concerns an open era great candidate).

If Federer was meeting the same one or two players in slam finals from 2004-07 on multiple surfaces then you might have a point; but he was not until post 2008...( the closest was Nadal on clay and grass from 2004-07)

As much as Federer benefitted in 2004-2007 for avoiding Nadal and Djokovic at their career best, so did Nadal and ESPECIALLY Djokovic these days when they're facing a 30 year old Federer while they are in their prime. Of course you fail to notice that, only taking the first part into consideration while insolently omitting that Djokovic and Nadal have the priviledge of facing an older Federer these days.

When Federer owned Djokovic at the 2007 AO and US Opens in straight sets Novak was too young but when Novak is beating a 30-year old Fed at the US it's a huge win. LISTEN TO YOURSELF.

helloworld
06-04-2012, 05:18 AM
Federer had it easy in 2004-2006 where he won almost half of his majors. From 2007 onwards, I wouldn't call it a weak field. However, the fact that Nadal and Djokovic had troubled Federer over the years is a sign that he really took advantage of the weak field, and would not have won 16 majors had he played against Nadal and Djoko from the start.

mandy01
06-04-2012, 05:26 AM
Federer had it easy in 2004-2006 where he won almost half of his majors. From 2007 onwards, I wouldn't call it a weak field. However, the fact that Nadal and Djokovic had troubled Federer over the years is a sign that he really took advantage of the weak field, and would not have won 16 majors had he played against Nadal and Djoko from the start.Djokovic "troubled" Roger only once up until USO '10, and that was in the AO '08 SF. Groundbreaking stuff again. NOT. On the other hand, at 30, Roger has still given Djokovic fits at two of the three majors they played in 2011 despite being nearly 6 years older and having played twice as many matches.

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 05:27 AM
Federer had it easy in 2004-2006 where he won almost half of his majors. From 2007 onwards, I wouldn't call it a weak field. However, the fact that Nadal and Djokovic had troubled Federer over the years is a sign that he really took advantage of the weak field, and would not have won 16 majors had he played against Nadal and Djoko from the start.

How you're so sure if Djokovic and Nadal troubled Federer since 2004 (by saying troubled I mean actually beating him in big matches) they would still be at the top these days? We'll talk when Nadal and Djokovic hit 30 and the new "tough opposition" will be too hard for them to handle.

DRII
06-04-2012, 05:46 AM
How you're so sure if Djokovic and Nadal troubled Federer since 2004 (by saying troubled I mean actually beating him in big matches) they would still be at the top these days? We'll talk when Nadal and Djokovic hit 30 and the new "tough opposition" will be too hard for them to handle.

You can't have it both ways.

Federer is still contending for multiple slams on multiple surfaces. He is still in prime form, although not peak. His decline has not been that substantial, he's even said so himself -- one of the main reasons he's in for GOAT contention is his amazing consistency...

Also, Nadal was beating Federer in 04-07 in big matches, just not in slams other than the French.

DRII
06-04-2012, 05:50 AM
As much as Federer benefitted in 2004-2007 for avoiding Nadal and Djokovic at their career best, so did Nadal and ESPECIALLY Djokovic these days when they're facing a 30 year old Federer while they are in their prime. Of course you fail to notice that, only taking the first part into consideration while insolently omitting that Djokovic and Nadal have the priviledge of facing an older Federer these days.

When Federer owned Djokovic at the 2007 AO and US Opens in straight sets Novak was too young but when Novak is beating a 30-year old Fed at the US it's a huge win. LISTEN TO YOURSELF.

Even if we take your position that 30 year old Federer is substantially off his best (which I strongly disagree)...

At least Nadal and Nole have each other to worry about (and a Murray that can contend for multiple majors).

Federer had no one that was consistently contesting him on multiple surfaces in all the majors from 2004-07.

Flash O'Groove
06-04-2012, 05:58 AM
Nadal was not an open era great in 2004-2007; he was a great clay courter only with good grass court potential. Agassi was far post prime in 2005, and Nole was certainly great in 2008.

2005-2007, Nadal had already 3 slams, two finals, 9 masters, 3 of them being on hard court, and two hard-court final in Paris and Shanghaï. However, I agree that he wasn't the best hard-court player.

In 2008, Nole was already a top player, but he wasn't either at his "open era great" level of 2011. And Federer had a very bad year.

What I mean is that the strenght of the opposition since 2008 is not as clear as you say. Federer is not the player he was, Djoker is not the player he will be.

Its true that no player maintains peak form every year; however prime form consists of a player's aggregate average playing level that is high enough to contend for multiple slams and other big titles on multiple surfaces (at least when it concerns an open era great candidate).

First, nobody never play the aggregate average playing level of an opponent. In 2008, Nadal played Tsonga at his best, not at his average form, just like Federer did in 2006 and 2007.

Second, I don't see why being a treat on multiple surfaces is related to the peak form af any given player? Maybe all the clay-courters of the past never peaked?

DRII
06-04-2012, 06:27 AM
Second, I don't see why being a treat on multiple surfaces is related to the peak form af any given player? Maybe all the clay-courters of the past never peaked?

When we're talking about open era greats (such as Federer, Nadal, and Nole), being in contention to win slams on all surfaces is a prerequisite in my book... Hence 2004-07 there was one open era great (Federer), and in 2008 to present (or 2011 to make it equal number of years) there were 3 open era greats (Nadal, Federer, Nole)...

Flash O'Groove
06-04-2012, 06:27 AM
If Federer was meeting the same one or two players in slam finals from 2004-07 on multiple surfaces then you might have a point; but he was not until post 2008...( the closest was Nadal on clay and grass from 2004-07)

I have made some counting of the number of different opponent some open era great have met in slams finals:

Borg played 16 finals and met 8 different opponents.
Connors, 15 finals, 9 different opponents.
McEnroe, 11 finales, 5 different opponents.
Lendl, 19 finals, 9 opponents.
Agassi, 15 finals, 11 opponents.
Sampra, 18 finals, 12 opponents.
Federer, 23 finals, 12 opponents.
Nadal, 15 finals, 5 opponents.

So, except Rafa, each player met a different opponents each two slam final (ratio 2:1). It shows that the difference you point is not only between "2008-..." and "2004-2007", but between "2008-..." and all era.

I guess you would conclude that it means that the current era is the thoughest of all, and it could, but it could also mean that the current era is weak:

For years, nobody in the field was able to beat Federer before the finals in RG, and nobody in the field was able to beat a touched Nadal during 2010. --> competition is not tough enough to prevent out of form top players to reach the final/semi-final of each tornament they enter.

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 06:48 AM
When we're talking about open era greats (such as Federer, Nadal, and Nole), being in contention to win slams on all surfaces is a prerequisite in my book... Hence 2004-07 there was one open era great (Federer), and in 2008 to present (or 2011 to make it equal number of years) there were 3 open era greats (Nadal, Federer, Nole)...

So, would you say that there were *no* open-era greats during the majority of the 90's, and are you taking Sampras totally out of the "open-era greats" discussion?

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 06:52 AM
Even if we take your position that 30 year old Federer is substantially off his best (which I strongly disagree)...

At least Nadal and Nole have each other to worry about (and a Murray that can contend for multiple majors).

Federer had no one that was consistently contesting him on multiple surfaces in all the majors from 2004-07.

This is dumb. Go on and critisize Federer that in 2004-2007 he didn't have to face himself, that's why he had no competition. He had no competition cause he was flat out the best player out there, he had no weaknesses but of course such a wise guy like yourself knows better.

And to start with, if there was no Federer, both Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't be half as good as they are these days. Federer's sky high level forced them to go beyond their limits. Look what Nadal had to do to overcome Federer at the top of the rankings (and a declining, mono-ridden low on confidence 2008 Fed) in 2008, win the Channel slam, 32 consecutive matches in a row, the guy was dead tired mid season cause he had nothing left in the tank.
Then look what Djokovic had to do to reach no 1. The guy didn't lose a match in the first 6 months of 2011 and still wasn't ranked first. All of them are pushing each other these days but Nadal, Djokovic CAN keep it up at least for now when they're in their mid 20's while Federer can sustain that level only partially as he's 30 years old+ Also you have to be completely ret**** to think that Federer is in his prime in 2012 but I'll leave it to your lack of basic knowledge.

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 06:54 AM
When we're talking about open era greats (such as Federer, Nadal, and Nole), being in contention to win slams on all surfaces is a prerequisite in my book... Hence 2004-07 there was one open era great (Federer), and in 2008 to present (or 2011 to make it equal number of years) there were 3 open era greats (Nadal, Federer, Nole)...

Maybe Federer is still so good in reaching slam semis because there's actually no competition other than Nadal and Djokovic? Ever thought about it? If it's so tough, why Old man Fed keeps going deep in every big tournament he plays hardly losing any sets. I thought that the fierce opposition was good enough to take him out earlier:)

DRII
06-04-2012, 07:23 AM
I have made some counting of the number of different opponent some open era great have met in slams finals:

Borg played 16 finals and met 8 different opponents.
Connors, 15 finals, 9 different opponents.
McEnroe, 11 finales, 5 different opponents.
Lendl, 19 finals, 9 opponents.
Agassi, 15 finals, 11 opponents.
Sampra, 18 finals, 12 opponents.
Federer, 23 finals, 12 opponents.
Nadal, 15 finals, 5 opponents.

So, except Rafa, each player met a different opponents each two slam final (ratio 2:1). It shows that the difference you point is not only between "2008-..." and "2004-2007", but between "2008-..." and all era.

I guess you would conclude that it means that the current era is the thoughest of all, and it could, but it could also mean that the current era is weak:
For years, nobody in the field was able to beat Federer before the finals in RG, and nobody in the field was able to beat a touched Nadal during 2010. --> competition is not tough enough to prevent out of form top players to reach the final/semi-final of each tornament they enter.


Not at all, the fewer the amount of real contenders to win slams the less competitive the time period is...

I only raised the idea of slam finalists to refute your contention that there may have been other open era greats between 2004-07 except for Federer. If Federer was meeting the same player over and over again in slam finals between 2004-07 at every slam, then that hypothetical finalists perhaps could be considered a open era great. However, that was not the case...

DRII
06-04-2012, 07:26 AM
So, would you say that there were *no* open-era greats during the majority of the 90's, and are you taking Sampras totally out of the "open-era greats" discussion?

Sampras was in contention to win the French. He made it to at least one French semi, so Sampras certainly qualifies...

DRII
06-04-2012, 07:36 AM
This is dumb. Go on and critisize Federer that in 2004-2007 he didn't have to face himself, that's why he had no competition. He had no competition cause he was flat out the best player out there, he had no weaknesses but of course such a wise guy like yourself knows better.

And to start with, if there was no Federer, both Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't be half as good as they are these days. Federer's sky high level forced them to go beyond their limits. Look what Nadal had to do to overcome Federer at the top of the rankings (and a declining, mono-ridden low on confidence 2008 Fed) in 2008, win the Channel slam, 32 consecutive matches in a row, the guy was dead tired mid season cause he had nothing left in the tank.
Then look what Djokovic had to do to reach no 1. The guy didn't lose a match in the first 6 months of 2011 and still wasn't ranked first. All of them are pushing each other these days but Nadal, Djokovic CAN keep it up at least for now when they're in their mid 20's while Federer can sustain that level only partially as he's 30 years old+ Also you have to be completely ret**** to think that Federer is in his prime in 2012 but I'll leave it to your lack of basic knowledge.

Again, all of your conjecturing is based on your premise that Federer has substantially declined since turning 30. That is just plain false IMO. Federer is a half step slower and slightly less explosive in his movement than at his absolute peak; however is also a smarter and less stubborn player now and more aggressive in his returning.

mandy01
06-04-2012, 07:43 AM
Sampras was in contention to win the French. He made it to at least one French semi, so Sampras certainly qualifies...
How does making one semi-final make Sampras a contender? You're grasping at straws.

BigServer1
06-04-2012, 07:55 AM
Sampras was in contention to win the French. He made it to at least one French semi, so Sampras certainly qualifies...

One semi-final appearance and a number of early round losses doesn't qualify as a contender at the French Open.

By that logic, Gael Monfils is a contender at the French, since he made the semis in 2008.

DRII
06-04-2012, 08:06 AM
One semi-final appearance and a number of early round losses doesn't qualify as a contender at the French Open.

By that logic, Gael Monfils is a contender at the French, since he made the semis in 2008.

Considering the vast disparity in surfaces in the 90's, not to mention the clay court specialists... I do consider Sampras' semi appearance as proof he was a contender.

As a matter of fact any semifinalists is a contender to win that partciualr slam for that year...

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 08:06 AM
Sampras was in contention to win the French. He made it to at least one French semi, so Sampras certainly qualifies...

This is a joke, right? He got to the semis once, and promptly got straight-setted (and bagelled in the process) by a player who had never played a grand slam semi before. Can you see how desperate you're getting?

Either your theories work for everyone (or every era), or they don't hold water. You can't change them to suit your fancy. If playing a semi in a slam automatically turns you into a contender and playing one of each turns you into an all-time great, then Rafter is one, too. And even Krajicek may qualify (he didn't get to the semis of the US Open, but played three quarters--is that enough?). Same for Chang. It just never ends.

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 08:07 AM
Again, all of your conjecturing is based on your premise that Federer has substantially declined since turning 30. That is just plain false IMO. Federer is a half step slower and slightly less explosive in his movement than at his absolute peak; however is also a smarter and less stubborn player now and more aggressive in his returning.

Of course not. He started declining *before* 30.

Flash O'Groove
06-04-2012, 08:16 AM
Not at all, the fewer the amount of real contenders to win slams the less competitive the time period is...

How do you assess a real contender? Because you think someone is?

At RG 2010, who was the real contender? Fed, Nole? Was Söderling a real contender to Nadal?
At Wimby 2010, was Berdych, a one time finalist just like Gonzo, a real contender (he ousted both Fed and Nole)

Every slam finalist is a real contender at the moment.

DRII
06-04-2012, 08:16 AM
This is a joke, right? He got to the semis once, and promptly got straight-setted (and bagelled in the process) by a player who had never played a grand slam semi before. Can you see how desperate you're getting?

Either your theories work for everyone (or every era), or they don't hold water. You can't change them to suit your fancy. If playing a semi in a slam automatically turns you into a contender and playing one of each turns you into an all-time great, then Rafter is one, too. And even Krajicek may qualify (he didn't get to the semis of the US Open, but played three quarters--is that enough?). Same for Chang. It just never ends.

To disqualify Sampras as an open era great just because he only made the semis at the French is what i would call desperate... Before Federer came along, most considered him GOAT :confused:

Like i said before; it is easier to compare 2004-07 vs 2008 to present, than with either time period with the 90's or earlier eras due to obvious similarities and constants from 2004 to now -- so your every era criteria is lacking.

DRII
06-04-2012, 08:18 AM
Of course not. He started declining *before* 30.

I said substantially declining...

Nadal has declined from his peak and so has Nole; so whats your point?

DRII
06-04-2012, 08:19 AM
How do you assess a real contender? Because you think someone is?

At RG 2010, who was the real contender? Fed, Nole? Was Söderling a real contender to Nadal?
At Wimby 2010, was Berdych, a one time finalist just like Gonzo, a real contender (he ousted both Fed and Nole)

Every slam finalist is a real contender at the moment.

I agree, I also would include semi-finalists...

BigServer1
06-04-2012, 08:19 AM
Considering the vast disparity in surfaces in the 90's, not to mention the clay court specialists... I do consider Sampras' semi appearance as proof he was a contender.

As a matter of fact any semifinalists is a contender to win that partciualr slam for that year...

K, I'll play along...

Sampras in his career at the French Open:

Three losses in the first round
Five losses in the second round
One loss in the third round
Three losses in the Quarterfinals (winning a total of two sets)
One loss in the Semifinals (Straight set loss, including a bagel)

Keep in mind, a majority of those early round losses came when he was in the top 5 in the world. 1997 and 1998, losses in the second and third round respectively, he was #1 in the world.

Tell me again how Sampras was a contender at the French Open.

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 08:21 AM
To disqualify Sampras as an open era great just because he only made the semis at the French is what i would call desperate...

I agree with you, it would be totally desperate. Now, who did disqualify him?

When we're talking about open era greats (such as Federer, Nadal, and Nole), being in contention to win slams on all surfaces is a prerequisite in my book...

Oh. Guess it was you... :oops:

DRII
06-04-2012, 08:25 AM
I agree with you, it would be totally desperate. Now, who did disqualify him?



Oh. Guess it was you... :oops:

I think a semi-finalist is a contender...

How about you quote that.

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 08:25 AM
Again, all of your conjecturing is based on your premise that Federer has substantially declined since turning 30. That is just plain false IMO. Federer is a half step slower and slightly less explosive in his movement than at his absolute peak; however is also a smarter and less stubborn player now and more aggressive in his returning.

The same way I can make a case for 34-year old Agassi being better than his 25-year old self. His endurance was better, his groundies where more penetrating and barely broke down, he volleyed better, was also mentally tougher and more determined to win. From the "negatives" he was only slower but Andre never relied on pure speed so it didn't affect his game much.

Yet nobody with a little common would pick 2004 Agassi over 1995 Agassi. Get it now, cowboy?

DRII
06-04-2012, 08:27 AM
K, I'll play along...

Sampras in his career at the French Open:

Three losses in the first round
Five losses in the second round
One loss in the third round
Three losses in the Quarterfinals (winning a total of two sets)
One loss in the Semifinals (Straight set loss, including a bagel)

Keep in mind, a majority of those early round losses came when he was in the top 5 in the world. 1997 and 1998, losses in the second and third round respectively, he was #1 in the world.

Tell me again how Sampras was a contender at the French Open.

Because he was a semi-finalist.

Next...

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 08:28 AM
I think a semi-finalist is a contender...

How about you quote that.

Okay, then, Rafter is an all-time great, and so is Murray. Agreed?

TMF
06-04-2012, 08:30 AM
Sampras was in contention to win the French. He made it to at least one French semi, so Sampras certainly qualifies...

Disagree. A player reach just one semifinal in his entire career is NOT a slam contention. That would mean Davydenko is a contention at the FO and USO because he made the semi twice at the FO and one time at the USO.

Silly you. You're beginning to reach Nadal Slam King level, who I've put him on my ignor list.

BigServer1
06-04-2012, 08:30 AM
I think a semi-finalist is a contender...

How about you quote that.

A semi-finalist may be a contender that year, but it hardly makes someone a contender overall. There's a difference between regularly going deep in a specific event, or being an incredible player on one specific surface, and making one deep run at an event and forever being labeled a contender.

If we say "a semi-finalist" is a contender, then Monfils is a contender at the French (2008 SF), Ljubicic was a contender at the French (2006 SF), Baghdatis is a contender at the AO (2006 RU), Haas was a contender at Wimbledon (2009 SF)...The list could go on forever.

See how stupid that sounds?

BigServer1
06-04-2012, 08:32 AM
Because he was a semi-finalist.

Next...

You're saying, because he reached the final four once out of 13 tries, where he was soundly beaten in that match, he's a contender.

OK. Clearly you and I have different ideas of what constitutes a contender.

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 08:33 AM
A semi-finalist may be a contender that year, but it hardly makes someone a contender overall. There's a difference between regularly going deep in a specific event, or being an incredible player on one specific surface, and making one deep run at an event and forever being labeled a contender.

If we say "a semi-finalist" is a contender, then Monfils is a contender at the French (2008 SF), Ljubicic was a contender at the French (2006 SF), Baghdatis is a contender at the AO (2006 RU), Haas was a contender at Wimbledon (2009 SF)...The list could go on forever.

See how stupid that sounds?

You forgot Bjorkman, who obviously was a huge contender at Wimbledon, as he also won it several times in doubles, in addition to reaching the semis in 2006...

TMF
06-04-2012, 08:37 AM
Not only that, DRII once said Fed's 23 straight semifinals doesn't mean much, but now all the sudden a player only managed to reach the semi one time is a contender. Haha!

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 08:38 AM
You forgot Bjorkman, who obviously was a huge contender at Wimbledon, as he also won it several times in doubles, in addition to reaching the semis in 2006...

But wait, there's also Schuttler who reached the 2008 Wimbledon semis.

DRII
06-04-2012, 08:38 AM
The same way I can make a case for 34-year old Agassi being better than his 25-year old self. His endurance was better, his groundies where more penetrating and barely broke down, he volleyed better, was also mentally tougher and more determined to win. From the "negatives" he was only slower but Andre never relied on pure speed so it didn't affect his game much.

Yet nobody with a little common would pick 2004 Agassi over 1995 Agassi. Get it now, cowboy?

You could make a case that the ocean is green and the grass is blue; doesn't make it valid!

Federer not substantially declining since 2007 is demonstrated by him consistently being in contention to win slams, including now...

Do you get it now, compadre???

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 08:39 AM
DRII we get the picture - you hate Fed. Is there anything else you wanna tell us?

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 08:41 AM
But wait, there's also Schuttler who reached the 2008 Wimbledon semis.

Schuttler is actually a semi-all-time great, as he also was a contender at the AO. Pretty impressive resume.

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 08:41 AM
You could make a case that the ocean is green and the grass is blue; doesn't make it valid!

Federer not substantially declining since 2007 is demonstrated by him consistently being in contention to win slams, including now...

Do you get it now, compadre???

And the fact that Sampras was soundly beaten left and right in 2001-2002 on all surfaces (including a 2nd round loss to a lucky loser at Wimbledon) doesn't mean that he was in decline, the competition just got fiercer.:)

It all depends how tall you stood in your peak years. Federer went from dominating the tour to simply being a regular slam semi-finalist, that's HIS decline, it means that Fed at 30+ despite playing visibly worse than in his mid 20's is still good enough to beat pretty much everyone bar the top 2.

DRII
06-04-2012, 08:42 AM
Not only that, DRII once said Fed's 23 straight semifinals doesn't mean much, but now all the sudden a player only managed to reach the semi one time is a contender. Haha!

Now you decide to join the discussion :confused:

Lying should disqualify you from participation.

I have constantly praised Federer for his consistency!

Go back into your hole!

DRII
06-04-2012, 08:44 AM
You're saying, because he reached the final four once out of 13 tries, where he was soundly beaten in that match, he's a contender.

OK. Clearly you and I have different ideas of what constitutes a contender.

Yes, we clearly do...

Sampras was a contender to win the French the year he made it to the semis; period point blank.

I think any semifinalist is a contender to win that slam, that year.

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 08:45 AM
You could make a case that the ocean is green and the grass is blue; doesn't make it valid!

Federer not substantially declining since 2007 is demonstrated by him consistently being in contention to win slams, including now...

Do you get it now, compadre???

No. Because your basic premise is totally wrong, or at least heavily skewed by your perception of the situation (aka what you want the "truth" to be).

Here's another take at this situation:

1) Federer was so much better than the field in 2004-2006 that he made everyone (except Nadal on clay) look like journeymen.

2) He was so much better than the field then that, despite declining substantially since 2007, he is still in contention to win slams at 31.

Do 1 and 2 fit the facts? They sure do. So who's to say that this theory doesn't have at least as much merit as yours?

BigServer1
06-04-2012, 08:48 AM
You forgot Bjorkman, who obviously was a huge contender at Wimbledon, as he also won it several times in doubles, in addition to reaching the semis in 2006...

Of course. I forgot about Bjorkman. I also forgot about Youhzny, who made the Semis at the US Open in 2006, and of course Schuttler and Ferriera who both made the AO Semis in 2003.

Using this critera to discern "contenders", there is no weak era. Even the highly criticized 2003, look at all the AO contenders...Such a strong year.

BigServer1
06-04-2012, 08:51 AM
Yes, we clearly do...

Sampras was a contender to win the French the year he made it to the semis; period point blank.

I think any semifinalist is a contender to win that slam, that year.

Agreed. Sampras was in contention for one French Open, once. He lost his semifinal match in straight sets, getting bageled in the process.

He never reached another Semi at the French, so I'd say only being in contention 1/13 years means, more often than not (AKA 92% of the time), Sampras wasn't contending for the French Open. In my book, that isn't being looked at, year in, year out as a contender to do something big at an event.

TMF
06-04-2012, 08:54 AM
Now you decide to join the discussion :confused:

Lying should disqualify you from participation.

I have constantly praised Federer for his consistency!

Go back into your hole!

To much posters are taking you to the woodshed so it doesn't hurt to include me to join, capiche?

No, you don't praise Fed. Every Fed's streaks you always said he had "NO COMPETITION".

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 08:56 AM
Of course. I forgot about Bjorkman. I also forgot about Youhzny, who made the Semis at the US Open in 2006, and of course Schuttler and Ferriera who both made the AO Semis in 2003.

Using this critera to discern "contenders", there is no weak era. Even the highly criticized 2003, look at all the AO contenders...Such a strong year.

It's even worse in this case, of course. The strongest possible era would obviously be one with four different semi-finalist at each slam, ie, 16 slam contenders. Of course, you'd get a #1 who would be struggling to reach the 5,000-point mark, but hey, wouldn't that be huge?

Of course, that would mean that *this* era, with the same four players reaching the semis in most slams, is the absolute weakest you can imagine, as you only have four contenders in slams instead of 16. Oh-hum, nice demonstration...

mandy01
06-04-2012, 08:58 AM
Because he was a semi-finalist.

Next...yes, now why don't you tell us the reasoning behind making a semi-finalist a contender? According to you, every player who makes a semi becomes a contender at the same. Ergo, there is no question of a weak era. :)

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 08:58 AM
Yes, we clearly do...

Sampras was a contender to win the French the year he made it to the semis; period point blank.

I think any semifinalist is a contender to win that slam, that year.

Hey, don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because you got owned.

DRII
06-04-2012, 08:59 AM
Of course. I forgot about Bjorkman. I also forgot about Youhzny, who made the Semis at the US Open in 2006, and of course Schuttler and Ferriera who both made the AO Semis in 2003.

Using this critera to discern "contenders", there is no weak era. Even the highly criticized 2003, look at all the AO contenders...Such a strong year.

First off this criteria you are referring to is just one aspect that I think an open era great needs to have to be considered such; it is not everything (obviously one would have to be a multiple slam winner).

It was mainly a response to a poster about the comparisons between Federer, Nadal, and Nole in the time periods of 2004-07 vs 2008 to present...

So please stop trying to extrapolate this one premise as some reason to disqualify obvious open era greats (such as Sampras) or qualify obvious non-open era greats such as Schuttler or Ferriera (I'm not sure about Rafter)!

You all are getting a little ridiculous.

DRII
06-04-2012, 09:03 AM
Hey, don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because you got owned.

Go back and read my posts...

and then try to ascertain context...

then get back to me.

mandy01
06-04-2012, 09:03 AM
]First off this criteria[/B] you are referring to is just one aspect that I think an open era great needs to have to be considered such; it is not everything (obviously one would have to be a multiple slam winner).

It was mainly a response to a poster about the comparisons between Federer, Nadal, and Nole in the time periods of 2004-07 vs 2008 to present...

So please stop trying to extrapolate this one premise as some reason to disqualify obvious open era greats (such as Sampras) or qualify obvious non-open era greats such as Schuttler or Ferriera (I'm not sure about Rafter)!

You all are getting a little ridiculous.You mean a criterion. I thought you were a native English speaker? :)

Nevermind, why don't you give us a set of criterions upon which to judge? And why don't you give a sound reasoning for the claims you're making? So far, I haven't seen you give any constructive. Most of your logic has been thoroughly debunked.

abmk
06-04-2012, 09:04 AM
It's even worse in this case, of course. The strongest possible era would obviously be one with four different semi-finalist at each slam, ie, 16 slam contenders. Of course, you'd get a #1 who would be struggling to reach the 5,000-point mark, but hey, wouldn't that be huge?

Of course, that would mean that *this* era, with the same four players reaching the semis in most slams, is the absolute weakest you can imagine, as you only have four contenders in slams instead of 16. Oh-hum, nice demonstration...

LOL, indeed. Major ownage ......:)

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 09:07 AM
You all are getting a little ridiculous.

But we're not. We're just showing you something that I told you about a couple of pages ago: for your theory to work, it must work for everyone. The moment you start making allowances for such and such, you've got yourself a sinking ship.

At the moment, we're just throwing your own arguments back at you with stupid examples, and the question, "Does it work now?" The answer, of course, is no, so that means the reasoning/theory behing all of this must be flawed, at least in part.

I personnally have nothing against a kind of "unified theory of weak-Federer-era-ship", but it has to hold water when you use the same arguments to judge the other eras against, and I don't think you're ever going to manage that one... ;)

DRII
06-04-2012, 09:09 AM
Agreed. Sampras was in contention for one French Open, once. He lost his semifinal match in straight sets, getting bageled in the process.

He never reached another Semi at the French, so I'd say only being in contention 1/13 years means, more often than not (AKA 92% of the time), Sampras wasn't contending for the French Open. In my book, that isn't being looked at, year in, year out as a contender to do something big at an event.

When did i say year end and year out.

Given Sampras' substantial resume, that fact that he was a contender to win the French even one year certainly qualifies him as an open era great by my definition.

BigServer1
06-04-2012, 09:09 AM
First off this criteria you are referring to is just one aspect that I think an open era great needs to have to be considered such; it is not everything (obviously one would have to be a multiple slam winner).

It was mainly a response to a poster about the comparisons between Federer, Nadal, and Nole in the time periods of 2004-07 vs 2008 to present...

So please stop trying to extrapolate this one premise as some reason to disqualify obvious open era greats (such as Sampras) or qualify obvious non-open era greats such as Schuttler or Ferriera (I'm not sure about Rafter)!

You all are getting a little ridiculous.

No, we're exposing your hollow arguments to try and illustrate your point.

I don't think Schuttler, Ferriera, Bjorkman or Youhzny were ever big contenders at the events I mentioned, I was simply stating how simple it is to make a long list of "contenders" based on your criteria (made a Semifinal appearance).

No one takes anything away from Sampras, he was my favorite player until he retired, and he should be on everyone's GOAT short list. But to call him a contender at the French Open is just plain dumb. It doesn't take away from the fact that he was an incredible champion at the other three slams, but he made one Semi, and got blitzed.

You are so hell bent on proving your point about 2004-2007 being weaker than today that you can't see the forest for the trees. You refuse to acknowledge that Federer is quite a bit worse than he was 5 years ago, or that Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Nalby were good players once upon a time.

You refuse to accept or acknowledge anyone else's point(s), while simultaneously expecting everyone to take your word as fact. You are the classic internet instigator and troll, and you're good at it. People (myself included) still engage in discussions and debate with you, even though it's like talking to a wall.

These discussions are like playing chess against a pigeon. Regardless of my level of skill, the pigeon will knock all the pieces off, crap on the board and walk around like it won.

IvanisevicServe
06-04-2012, 09:09 AM
In another era, Federer probably would've won more French Open titles. Talk about Kuerten 2004 FO if you wish, but Federer had beaten Kuerten on clay before, and that was pre-prime Federer.

Of course, if we're talking about the Borg era, his odds go back down...though Borg probably wouldn't have been the matchup nightmare for him Rafa has been.

But with Nadal destroying everyone in his path once again, with FO #7 all but a foregone conclusion, it really underscores just how unfortunate Federer is to play in the era of the probable clay court GOAT...and one who also happens to be just about the most difficult matchup possible for him.

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 09:11 AM
Go back and read my posts...

and then try to ascertain context...

then get back to me.

yea whatever im done with you

DRII
06-04-2012, 09:13 AM
But we're not. We're just showing you something that I told you about a couple of pages ago: for your theory to work, it must work for everyone. The moment you start making allowances for such and such, you've got yourself a sinking ship.

At the moment, we're just throwing your own arguments back at you with stupid examples, and the question, "Does it work now?" The answer, of course, is no, so that means the reasoning/theory behing all of this must be flawed, at least in part.

I personnally have nothing against a kind of "unified theory of weak-Federer-era-ship", but it has to hold water when you use the same arguments to judge the other eras against, and I don't think you're ever going to manage that one... ;)

Actually it does work and does hold water. Not that this arbitrary exercise you all are attempting really means anything.

Sampras was a contender to win the French (even if it was only for one year), so therefore he qualifies as an open era great under my original definition...

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 09:16 AM
Actually it does work and does hold water. Not that this arbitrary exercise you all are attempting really means anything.

Sampras was a contender to win the French (even if it was only for one year), so therefore he qualifies as an open era great under my original definition...

And so, Murray is one, too, isn't he? And Nalbandian?

DRII
06-04-2012, 09:27 AM
No, we're exposing your hollow arguments to try and illustrate your point.

I don't think Schuttler, Ferriera, Bjorkman or Youhzny were ever big contenders at the events I mentioned, I was simply stating how simple it is to make a long list of "contenders" based on your criteria (made a Semifinal appearance).

No one takes anything away from Sampras, he was my favorite player until he retired, and he should be on everyone's GOAT short list. But to call him a contender at the French Open is just plain dumb. It doesn't take away from the fact that he was an incredible champion at the other three slams, but he made one Semi, and got blitzed.

You are so hell bent on proving your point about 2004-2007 being weaker than today that you can't see the forest for the trees. You refuse to acknowledge that Federer is quite a bit worse than he was 5 years ago, or that Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Nalby were good players once upon a time.

You refuse to accept or acknowledge anyone else's point(s), while simultaneously expecting everyone to take your word as fact. You are the classic internet instigator and troll, and you're good at it. People (myself included) still engage in discussions and debate with you, even though it's like talking to a wall.

These discussions are like playing chess against a pigeon. Regardless of my level of skill, the pigeon will knock all the pieces off, crap on the board and walk around like it won.


I'm not responsible for your or other Fedephants insecurities regarding Federer and a qualitative analysis of his record. Obviously you and others realize there is at least some truth to the premise that 2004-07 consisted of relatively weak competition otherwise you would not be so utterly consumed by the discussion and so vigorously retort; let alone attack...

And btw, me responding is acknowledging your point of view, nor do i expect you to necessarily agree with me. My opinion is my opinion, and when it comes to a qualitative analysis; everything is opinion. However given you and others' responses; this line of discussion is a sore spot. Perhaps you should ask yourself why...

DRII
06-04-2012, 09:29 AM
And so, Murray is one, too, isn't he? And Nalbandian?

No, because they have not won a slam...

and again your only focussing on one aspect and avoiding the others.

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 09:30 AM
No, because they have not won a slam...

and again your only focussing on one aspect and avoiding the others.

Ah so now you have to win a major as well in your criteria. Anything else you'd like to add before we throw in some random names to prove that you're wrong yet again?

DRII
06-04-2012, 09:41 AM
Ah so now you have to win a major as well in your criteria. Anything else you'd like to add before we throw in some random names to prove that you're wrong yet again?

Again...

try and discern context.

How desperate can you get?

An open era great IMO is a multiple-slam winner that is or has been a contender to win slams on every slam surface.

If you had read my posts, and not so focused on proving someone wrong, you could have deciphered this yourself!

BigServer1
06-04-2012, 09:42 AM
I'm not responsible for your or other Fedephants insecurities regarding Federer and a qualitative analysis of his record. Obviously you and others realize there is at least some truth to the premise that 2004-07 consisted of relatively weak competition otherwise you would not be so utterly consumed by the discussion and so vigorously retort; let alone attack...

And btw, me responding is acknowledging your point of view, nor do i expect you to necessarily agree with me. My opinion is my opinion, and when it comes to a qualitative analysis; everything is opinion. However given you and others' responses; this line of discussion is a sore spot. Perhaps you should ask yourself why...

Nice try grouping me in with "Fedephants" (an attack in itself) and people who are full of vitriol and love to attack. I'm generally pretty calm, though I don't mind arguing my point.

I don't accept that there is truth to the idea that 2004-2007 was weak competition when compared to 2008-today.

I think if you want to make the case that 2000-2012 is weaker when compared with 1970-1999 (with some clear gaps in the 30 year time frame listed prior), I'll be on board with that, 100%. The combination of surface disparity, and depth of the top 10-20 being littered with Major champions to me, means that dominating then was a lot harder than dominating now. It's what makes Borg's FO/Wimby doubles so impressive, as well as Connor's longevity, or Sampras winning 7 Wimbledon titles on fast grass and facing some big serves and grass specialists.

That's an argument I'll have, but I think that people disparaging Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Nalby, Nadal (2005 and 2006), etc. is misguided and it's something that I'll always argue against. It's not rooted in fear of Federer being exposed as a weak era champion, it's the fact that people are giving Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga etc. WAY too much credit when discussing them as "serious threats" to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic.

That's not to mention that Djokovic spent most of 2009 and 2010 floundering (until the 2010 US Open, where even still he lost in the final), Federer was garbage for much of 2008 and 2010-2011, and Nadal hasn't won a title off clay since the 2010 US Open. The 2008-2012 era doesn't look quite as strong when that stuff is brought to light.

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 09:50 AM
Again...

try and discern context.

How desperate can you get?


Am I? So I'm the one adding new criteria to support my claims, right:)?

First you said a contender in a major should reach the semis, then do it several times and finally win a major. So I'm asking you now:

Was Thomas Johansson a contender at Wimbledon? He did manage to win a major (2002 AO) and reached the Wimbledon semis in 2005.

Was Patrick Rafter a contender at the French Open? He's a 2-time US champion and played in 1 FO semi in 1997.

Was Yannick Noah a contender at the AO? Was Mark Edmondson a contender at Wimbledon? Petr Kodra at the French?



An open era great IMO is a multiple-slam winner that is or has been a contender to win slams on every slam surface.

If you had read my posts, and not so focused on proving someone wrong, you could have deciphered this yourself!

Do you have some serious reading disability or what? What does that have to do with my question?

fed_rulz
06-04-2012, 09:50 AM
Of course. I forgot about Bjorkman. I also forgot about Youhzny, who made the Semis at the US Open in 2006, and of course Schuttler and Ferriera who both made the AO Semis in 2003.

Using this critera to discern "contenders", there is no weak era. Even the highly criticized 2003, look at all the AO contenders...Such a strong year.


ROFL!! this is epic. DRII is getting torn a new one, and sounds desperate for a way out. guys, please go easy on him...

TMF
06-04-2012, 09:53 AM
No, because they have not won a slam...

and again your only focussing on one aspect and avoiding the others.And so, Murray is one, too, isn't he? And Nalbandian?Actually it does work and does hold water. Not that this arbitrary exercise you all are attempting really means anything.

Sampras was a contender to win the French (even if it was only for one year), so therefore he qualifies as an open era great under my original definition...


WHAT??:confused:

Sampras made one semi and he's a contender. However David made the semi twice and Murray made one semi losing to the clay goat(Nadal) are not a contender???

You're a joke...I suggest you quit while you're behind because you'll continue to embarrass yourself.

fed_rulz
06-04-2012, 09:55 AM
Go back and read my posts...

and then try to ascertain context...

then get back to me.

i've gone back and read my posts, and I completely can ascertain the context. I can only conclude that

you got royally pwned!!!!!

fed_rulz
06-04-2012, 09:58 AM
And so, Murray is one, too, isn't he? And Nalbandian?

what rank would murray have in the list of open era greats? he's been a contender at all slams, so i'm sure we can find a place for him in the top 10?

DRII
06-04-2012, 09:59 AM
Nice try grouping me in with "Fedephants" (an attack in itself) and people who are full of vitriol and love to attack. I'm generally pretty calm, though I don't mind arguing my point.

I don't accept that there is truth to the idea that 2004-2007 was weak competition when compared to 2008-today.

I think if you want to make the case that 2000-2012 is weaker when compared with 1970-1999 (with some clear gaps in the 30 year time frame listed prior), I'll be on board with that, 100%. The combination of surface disparity, and depth of the top 10-20 being littered with Major champions to me, means that dominating then was a lot harder than dominating now. It's what makes Borg's FO/Wimby doubles so impressive, as well as Connor's longevity, or Sampras winning 7 Wimbledon titles on fast grass and facing some big serves and grass specialists.

That's an argument I'll have, but I think that people disparaging Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Nalby, Nadal (2005 and 2006), etc. is misguided and it's something that I'll always argue against. It's not rooted in fear of Federer being exposed as a weak era champion, it's the fact that people are giving Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga etc. WAY too much credit when discussing them as "serious threats" to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic.

That's not to mention that Djokovic spent most of 2009 and 2010 floundering (until the 2010 US Open, where even still he lost in the final), Federer was garbage for much of 2008 and 2010-2011, and Nadal hasn't won a title off clay since the 2010 US Open. The 2008-2012 era doesn't look quite as strong when that stuff is brought to light.

Well we just disagree; its simple as that.

BTW, I'm not disparaging anyone; I simply making a comparison. I don't know how many times i have to say: that no era in a world class, competitive, established sport-- was, is, or will be weak. There is simply too much money and potential fame at stake. However there are certainly weaker or stronger eras or time periods as compared to others.

If Hewitt had not lost his only weapon (footspeed); Safin not been injured so many times or not mentally focused; or Roddick wasn't so one dimensional -- then I probably would not rate 04-07 as 'weaker' than 08 to present...

I also agree with you comparing the 2000's to pervious eras and have previously made the very same points you have regarding such...

fed_rulz
06-04-2012, 10:01 AM
No, because they have not won a slam...

and again your only focussing on one aspect and avoiding the others.

ok then Michael stich and Safin are open era greats. what's their rank in your list?

DRII
06-04-2012, 10:02 AM
WHAT??:confused:

Sampras made one semi and he's a contender. However David made the semi twice and Murray made one semi losing to the clay goat(Nadal) are not a contender???

You're a joke...I suggest you quit while you're behind because you'll continue to embarrass yourself.



Beeoch, could you please switch to the semi-coherrent personality that has at least some cognitive ability!

Nalby nor Murray has won a slam! How thick are you?

DRII
06-04-2012, 10:04 AM
i've gone back and read my posts, and I completely can ascertain the context. I can only conclude that

you got royally pwned!!!!!


Oh so you've "gone back and read your posts"

You were suppose to read mine!

Try again...

TMF
06-04-2012, 10:11 AM
Beeoch, could you please switch to the semi-coherrent personality that has at least some cognitive ability!

Nalby nor Murray has won a slam! How thick are you?

(SIGH)Playing by your own rule(s) just to suit your biased agenda. Fact is Murray and David had the same run if not better than Sampras at the FO. So if Sampras is a contender(which no one agree with you), then Murray/David should be included !

Flash O'Groove
06-04-2012, 10:13 AM
Federer not substantially declining since 2007 is demonstrated by him consistently being in contention to win slams, including now...

We will never know, because it could also mean that he was so good in his primer that he can still compete with the new generation even despite a mental and physical decline.

I think any semifinalist is a contender to win that slam, that year.

So as I suggested, a player able to go to the final of the slam at the moment is a treat, even if he is generally inconsistent or a non factor. Therefore, saying that Fed era is a weak era because he had to face Hewitt, Gonzo and Baghdatis is incoherent.

No. Because your basic premise is totally wrong, or at least heavily skewed by your perception of the situation (aka what you want the "truth" to be).

Here's another take at this situation:

1) Federer was so much better than the field in 2004-2006 that he made everyone (except Nadal on clay) look like journeymen.

2) He was so much better than the field then that, despite declining substantially since 2007, he is still in contention to win slams at 31.

Do 1 and 2 fit the facts? They sure do. So who's to say that this theory doesn't have at least as much merit as yours?

Well said, sir.

Obviously you and others realize there is at least some truth to the premise that 2004-07 consisted of relatively weak competition otherwise you would not be so utterly consumed by the discussion and so vigorously retort; let alone attack..

Obviously you realize that you faith the weak competition of 2004-07 isn't convincing, otherwise you would not be so utterly consumed by the discussion and so vigorously retort; let alone attack..


BTW, I'm not disparaging anyone; I simply making a comparison. I don't know how many times i have to say: that no era in a world class, competitive, established sport-- was, is, or will be weak. There is simply too much money and potential fame at stake. However there are certainly weaker or stronger eras or time periods as compared to others.

There may be stonger or weaker era, but we don't know to distinguish one from the other, because all argument car be used in one way or another (see above)

BigServer1
06-04-2012, 10:14 AM
Well we just disagree; its simple as that.

BTW, I'm not disparaging anyone; I simply making a comparison. I don't know how many times i have to say: that no era in a world class, competitive, established sport-- was, is, or will be weak. There is simply too much money and potential fame at stake. However there are certainly weaker or stronger eras or time periods as compared to others.

If Hewitt had not lost his only weapon (footspeed); Safin not been injured so many times or not mentally focused; or Roddick wasn't so one dimensional -- then I probably would not rate 04-07 as 'weaker' than 08 to present...

I also agree with you comparing the 2000's to pervious eras and have previously made the very same points you have regarding such...

Sure...I get where the argument comes from. I do. Like you said, we simply disagree (which is fine).

My point with the guys you mentioned...Hewitt continues to trouble Nadal and Djokovic. He doesn't beat them, but he still troubles them. The same can be said for Nalbandian. Rewind 5-10 years to their primes, and imagine how tough they would have been then.

The same can be said for Roddick, who has a 5-3 h2h against Djokovic, and he's troubled Nadal in the past as well (most notably beating him in Miami 2010). The guy is so far out of his prime it's not even funny, but he still manages to trouble some guys at the top. He's wildly inconsistent now, but in his prime he could beat anyone (except Federer, who has always been an awful matchup for Andy).

Tommy Haas beat Djokovic twice in two weeks in 2009 on the grass courts. Nalbandian always gives Nadal and other top players fits, and he's proven himself to be one of the more talented players of the last 10-15 years. Safin beat Djokovic in 2008 at Wimbledon also.

There are even more examples, but for me, looking at "washed up, old, past their prime" guys like I mentioned above continuing to trouble and beat the current top 5 guys says something to me about the quality of that era. It also says to me how incredible Federer was from 2004-2007, because he was able to dominate most of those guys.

I've said it before, give me the top 3 from today (ideally Fed from a few years ago), but the top 30 from 2004 any day of the week.

DRII
06-04-2012, 10:30 AM
There may be stonger or weaker era, but we don't know to distinguish one from the other, because all argument car be used in one way or another (see above)

Riigghhtt...

so therefore we must devolve to the default position that eras or time periods are so different form one another that they are all actually the same :confused::confused::confused:

Do you realize how literally insane that premise is???

Yet, none of you would dare say the same thing about the women's game. We all know the WTA is weaker than 10 or 15 years ago! (although things are beginning to look better)...

merlinpinpin
06-04-2012, 10:32 AM
No, because they have not won a slam...

and again your only focussing on one aspect and avoiding the others.

This is becoming really confusing, so let's just try and make it clearer, right?

Now, your new rule is that, to be a contender in a slam, you have to reach the semis (at least) and have won at least another slam previously.

Fine.

Then, you 'll agree with me that Federer wasn't a contender at Wimbledon 2003, Nadal wasn't a contender at RG 2005, Djokovic wasn't a contender at AO 2008, Sampras wasn't a contender at USO 1990, etc., etc.

Yet they all won. Amazing, isn't it? So, can we reasonably say that a player who won a tournament wasn't a contender?

fed_rulz
06-04-2012, 10:37 AM
Oh so you've "gone back and read your posts"

You were suppose to read mine!

Try again...

did try again, and the conclusion is the same:

you got royally pwned :)

DRII
06-04-2012, 10:46 AM
This is becoming really confusing, so let's just try and make it clearer, right?

Now, your new rule is that, to be a contender in a slam, you have to reach the semis (at least) and have won at least another slam previously.

Fine.

Then, you 'll agree with me that Federer wasn't a contender at Wimbledon 2003, Nadal wasn't a contender at RG 2005, Djokovic wasn't a contender at AO 2008, Sampras wasn't a contender at USO 1990, etc., etc.

Yet they all won. Amazing, isn't it? So, can we reasonably say that a player who won a tournament wasn't a contender?

Now you're just being stupid...

and you know it.

Don't fall to the level of TMF, mandy, ambk etc...


There is no new rule. I said that IMO to be an open era great a player has to be a multiple slam winner and contender to win or have won slams on every slam surface...

Its pretty simple, i don't understand the confusion...

DRII
06-04-2012, 10:47 AM
did try again, and the conclusion is the same:

you got royally pwned :)

tried but obviously did not succeed!

Gorecki
06-04-2012, 10:50 AM
let me guess : DRII getting owned once more, denying in face of the facts and kicking and screaming while being sucked in the sands of pawnage?

BeHappy
06-04-2012, 10:57 AM
This thread has consolidated the reality that Federer thrived against a weak field.

DRII
06-04-2012, 11:02 AM
let me guess : DRII getting owned once more, denying in face of the facts and kicking and screaming while being sucked in the sands of pawnage?

Get back to your Bravo shows...

DRII
06-04-2012, 11:03 AM
This thread has consolidated the reality that Federer thrived against a weak field.

Essentially so...

but not weak, just weaker. No matter how 'they' try to take my words out of context.

Rationalization at its best (or worst)...

billnepill
06-04-2012, 11:08 AM
This thread has consolidated the reality that Federer thrived against a weak field.

How can reality be consolidated? If it is reality, it doesn't need consolidating. Reality is that Federer won 11 slams between 2004 and 2007. Anything else is angry people trying to cope with the reality (look up cognitive dissonance)

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 11:09 AM
Now you're just being stupid...

and you know it.

Don't fall to the level of TMF, mandy, ambk etc...


There is no new rule. I said that IMO to be an open era great a player has to be a multiple slam winner and contender to win or have won slams on every slam surface...

Its pretty simple, i don't understand the confusion...

maybe because you keep adding new stuff to your criteria when someone proves you wrong?

btw cant you answer simple questions? If Sampras was a contender at the French Open, why not Davydenko, Murray, Nalbandian? Not sure about Murray but Davydenko and Nalbandian seem to look like bigger threats on clay than Sampras

billnepill
06-04-2012, 11:11 AM
Essentially so...

but not weak, just weaker. No matter how 'they' try to take my words out of context.

Rationalization at its best (or worst)...

Why don't you respond to Bigserver1 and explain why Roddick has positive H2H against Djokovic instead of wasting time on nonsensical statements?

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 11:12 AM
Essentially so...

but not weak, just weaker. No matter how 'they' try to take my words out of context.

Rationalization at its best (or worst)...

lolwut, you repteadly make a fool of yourself and get angry when someone dares to use simple arguements which doesnt suit your thesis

do you take into consideration that you might be wrong?

DRII
06-04-2012, 11:17 AM
Sure...I get where the argument comes from. I do. Like you said, we simply disagree (which is fine).

My point with the guys you mentioned...Hewitt continues to trouble Nadal and Djokovic. He doesn't beat them, but he still troubles them. The same can be said for Nalbandian. Rewind 5-10 years to their primes, and imagine how tough they would have been then.

The same can be said for Roddick, who has a 5-3 h2h against Djokovic, and he's troubled Nadal in the past as well (most notably beating him in Miami 2010). The guy is so far out of his prime it's not even funny, but he still manages to trouble some guys at the top. He's wildly inconsistent now, but in his prime he could beat anyone (except Federer, who has always been an awful matchup for Andy).

Tommy Haas beat Djokovic twice in two weeks in 2009 on the grass courts. Nalbandian always gives Nadal and other top players fits, and he's proven himself to be one of the more talented players of the last 10-15 years. Safin beat Djokovic in 2008 at Wimbledon also.

There are even more examples, but for me, looking at "washed up, old, past their prime" guys like I mentioned above continuing to trouble and beat the current top 5 guys says something to me about the quality of that era. It also says to me how incredible Federer was from 2004-2007, because he was able to dominate most of those guys.

I've said it before, give me the top 3 from today (ideally Fed from a few years ago), but the top 30 from 2004 any day of the week.

Problem is -- 10 or 15 years ago is not 2004-2007.

Hewitt began to falter after 2002 when he lost some of his foot speed. Nalbadian although extremely talented, never got his fitness level up to where he could consistently challenge the top players. The only player who was consistently in their prime when Federer started to dominate is Roddick. And I'm sorry but Roddick's prime form is too one dimensional and just does not compare. Roddick never developed a decent transition game. Roddick's ascendency to #1 and perennial presence in the top 8 speaks even more to the relatively transitional time period of 2004-2007.

Again, not weak just weaker than now...

DRII
06-04-2012, 11:21 AM
maybe because you keep adding new stuff to your criteria when someone proves you wrong?

btw cant you answer simple questions? If Sampras was a contender at the French Open, why not Davydenko, Murray, Nalbandian? Not sure about Murray but Davydenko and Nalbandian seem to look like bigger threats on clay than Sampras

Like i said (I don't know why i have to keep repeating myself)

A semifinalist is a contender to win a slam (IMO) of whatever particular year.

So therefore if Davey or Nalby or Murray or whomever made it to the semis; they were contenders!

If you disagree then fine, but do not try and miscontrue my words...

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 11:22 AM
Problem is -- 10 or 15 years ago is not 2004-2007.

Hewitt began to falter after 2002 when he lost some of his foot speed. Nalbadian although extremely talented, never got his fitness level up to where he could consistently challenge the top players. The only player who was consistently in their prime when Federer started to dominate is Roddick. And I'm sorry but Roddick's prime form is too one dimensional and just does not compare. Roddick never developed a decent transition game. Roddick's ascendency to #1 and perennial presence in the top 8 speaks even more to the relatively transitional time period of 2004-2007.

Again, not weak just weaker than now...

Whaaaaaat you smokin high again?:)

Hewitt has never been as consistent as in 2004-2005. He lost to the eventual champion (Federer 5 times! Gaudio and Safin once each) in all of the majors he participated in. I'd say that his best level from 2001-2002 beats his best level from 2004-2005 but overall if not for Federer he would have better results later on.

Nalbandian's fitness? His peak years were 2003-2006 which occured almost at the exact same time as Fed's.

DRII
06-04-2012, 11:23 AM
lolwut, you repteadly make a fool of yourself and get angry when someone dares to use simple arguements which doesnt suit your thesis

do you take into consideration that you might be wrong?

How can an opinion be wrong :confused:

Try and think about what you type before you type it, otherwise you look ignorant!

tennis_pro
06-04-2012, 11:26 AM
Like i said (I don't know why i have to keep repeating myself)

A semifinalist is a contender to win a slam (IMO) of whatever particular year.

So therefore if Davey or Nalby or Murray or whomever made it to the semis; they were contenders!

If you disagree then fine, but do not try and miscontrue my words...

There you go:

And so, Murray is one, too, isn't he? And Nalbandian?.

No, because they have not won a slam...

and again your only focussing on one aspect and avoiding the others.

Woooops! Busted.

DRII
06-04-2012, 11:26 AM
Why don't you respond to Bigserver1 and explain why Roddick has positive H2H against Djokovic instead of wasting time on nonsensical statements?

Roddick has never played Nole 2.0.

If he had, he would be demolished i'm sure...

billnepill
06-04-2012, 11:27 AM
DRII, you don't manage your fail well and you need to stop. That is my opinion and an opinion can't be wrong. Therefore I am right. Thanks