If only every top player was alloted such ridiculous perimeters, or have things manipulated so perfectly to fit making them look perfect everytime.
Oh but the thing is every top player does get the same treatment from his fans that Fed gets in that regard, fans of say Sampras or Nadal are really no different.
Let's look at Nadal, he was a baby(basically meaning not even in his prime) all the way up until 2008, then got injured in 2009(so we can throw out any wins anyone had against him that whole season), had his best year ever in 2010 and suddenly now he's too old in 2011, I mean just lol.
So basically a number of Nadal fans argue that we should squeeze both Nadal's prime
and peak (two terms which should be separately defined not lumped together) into middle of 2008, beginning of 2009 and 2010 middle to the end(only that's the "real" non baby-non old- non injured Nadal), honestly that's the shortest prime I've ever seen(even Hewitt and Courier lasted longer). I mean in another thread you said Fed's decline was overblown but honestly the amount of whining Clarky,Nameless,TennisFan3,MN etc. did about Nadal's game this year one would really get the feeling reading their posts that Nadal didn't string 3 match wins in a row this year while in reality the guy reached 3 slam finals for only the 2nd time in his career and had overall a far better year than Fed's 2008 or 2010(not to mention 2011).
And don't get me even started on Sampras fans and their complete dismissal of the USO F beatings he took at the hand of weak era clowns like Hewitt and Safin (due to the old age of course) but using Fed's losses this year(and last) as the undenuiable proof that Fed can't handle new era tough players and that he's "overrated".
And while I consider their(Fed-Sampras) 2001 Wimbledon encounter overrated for various reasons, Petey fans always seem to somehow neglect the fact that Fed was even further off his prime than Pete was at that point, not to mention that they like to hail 1990 USO Pete's victory over Lendl as as some monumental achievement.
If Federer is at such a disadvantage on clay that the results can be thrown out to get a real perspective then ****s should stop with their BS that he is a top 3 clay courter all time (which in reality he isnt even close to, and any tennis expert in the real World would laugh out loud at the idea of Federer on clay ranking that high; while in reality he is still more than good enough on clay for the results to stand in the overall H2H, especial if indoor results count, making the ****s wrong on both counts).
Honestly I don't know how many Fed fans claim that but while it is hilarious I wouldn't put it past tennis experts to make that (or similar) claim in the future, I just don't hold them in high regard due to their tendency to act like hype jobs and make some big loud statements without properly thinking about the topic.
Here's an expert panel last year for example :
http://www.lequipe.fr/Tennis/breves2010/20100523_205342_le-jury-de-l-equipe-vote-nadal.html
Notice that Fed is about 6-7th overall when you compile the results from individual lists, and that for example Vilas is ahead of Laver, Muster, Rosewall and Bruguera even though the guy was Borg's plaything on clay to a higher degree than Fed was Nadal's.
I wouldn't use tennis experts as any sort of standard personally. I think Fed is around the same level on clay as say Agassi (though Fed was more consistent), I'd probably put him at the bottom of top 10 or early mid top 20.
