Let's disspel the myth that Federer thrived against a "weak field"

W

World Beater

Hall of Fame
funny stuff.

Federer is #1 in this strong era.

Federer is the only one in the top10 from his generation...pretty amazing..everyone else retired or slumping in the rankings.

Federer's game and legacy is standing the test of time.
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
World Beater said:
funny stuff.

Federer is #1 in this strong era.

Federer is the only one in the top10 from his generation...pretty amazing..everyone else retired or slumping in the rankings.

Federer's game and legacy is standing the test of time.
Click to expand...

It is amazing . His game is so beautiful so effortless that he never gets injured .

His body at 30 is in better shape than Nadals at 25.

( by the way from your quote you agre that this is the strongest era).
 
Last edited:
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
NadalAgassi said:
Becker is regarded by all as the real #1 of 1989. He also owned Lendl in big matches. That said yes Lendl is the greater and more achieved player in every way- slams, dominance, consistency, versatility, years at #1, everything except popularity and arguably talent (Lendl used all his, Becker did not).
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point.

You say the "real" number #1. Then you are not going by the numbers. We all know that in reality that Becker is a GOAT even though he was NEVER the year end #1.

By the way am argument can even be made that Becker was the better player. Numbers are not everything.

Lendl could never win Wimbledon. Not all grand slams are created equal. Wimbledon is the most important slam . Therefore an argument can be made that Becker was the greater player.

But if you go by the numbers on paper robotically then yes Lendl is the greater player.

By the way not even Wimbledon goes by the numbers. They choose who the #1 seed for a tournament by a commitee an vote on it. They do not use the ranking system ( unless that's changed? But they used to just use opinion ).
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
Evan77 said:
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 sh!tting 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.
Click to expand...

I agree with 99% of everything you said.

Except for the "bad matchup" thing.

A bad matchup is something like Nadal Vs Davydenko or Blake on hard courts .
Davydenko an Blake are good players but they rarely made it to a slam final and never won a slam or were ranked #1.

Nadal wasn't some weird bad matchup . Nadal beat everyone. His style of play was difficult for everyone across the board. That's why Nadal won 11 slams was ranked #1 in the world and I don't know how many finals he has made.
 
edberg505

edberg505

Legend
The Dark Knight said:
I agree with 99% of everything you said.

Except for the "bad matchup" thing.

A bad matchup is something like Nadal Vs Davydenko or Blake on hard courts .
Davydenko an Blake are good players but they rarely made it to a slam final and never won a slam or were ranked #1.

Nadal wasn't some weird bad matchup . Nadal beat everyone. His style of play was difficult for everyone across the board. That's why Nadal won 11 slams was ranked #1 in the world and I don't know how many finals he has made.
Click to expand...

Everyone except the great Lukas Rosol! Bazinga!!!!!!!!
 
DRII

DRII

G.O.A.T.
The Dark Knight said:
I agree with 99% of everything you said.

Except for the "bad matchup" thing.

A bad matchup is something like Nadal Vs Davydenko or Blake on hard courts .
Davydenko an Blake are good players but they rarely made it to a slam final and never won a slam or were ranked #1.

Nadal wasn't some weird bad matchup . Nadal beat everyone. His style of play was difficult for everyone across the board. That's why Nadal won 11 slams was ranked #1 in the world and I don't know how many finals he has made.
Click to expand...

speaking the truth....
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
edberg505 said:
Wait a sec. Remind me who the #1 player in the world is now at the ripe old age of 31 in this era of 20 something giants?
Click to expand...

Nadal is a bit injured though. I'm not even sure he will ever return to tennis.

The amazing thing is that Nadal at 17 was told he could never play tennis again.

The injury is sort of a secret and Nadal won't really talk about it . It is rumored however that it's a stress fracture in his foot and that is the reason he wears a sneaker a few sizes small.

In any event if I had to choose I would take Feds body at 31 over Nadals at 26 any day of the week.

Federer is in clearly better shape than Nadal.
 
V

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
this thread will veer into the "bad matchup/not bad matchup" stuff, starting from post #2010. Everyone ready? Set, go...
FYI, there was another so much older thread already on this matchup. You guys can find it, copy and paste when arguing w/ TDK. Save your fingers some work, would you?
 
edberg505

edberg505

Legend
The Dark Knight said:
Nadal is a bit injured though. I'm not even sure he will ever return to tennis.

The amazing thing is that Nadal at 17 was told he could never play tennis again.

The injury is sort of a secret and Nadal won't really talk about it . It is rumored however that it's a stress fracture in his foot and that is the reason he wears a sneaker a few sizes small.

In any event if I had to choose I would take Feds body at 31 over Nadals at 26 any day of the week.

Federer is in clearly better shape than Nadal.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I see. So, if Nadal wasn't injured he'd be number 1 this year just like he was beyond the shadow of a doubt, right? Just like last year?
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
edberg505 said:
Ahh, I see. So, if Nadal wasn't injured he'd be number 1 this year just like he was beyond the shadow of a doubt, right? Just like last year?
Click to expand...

The man skipped the open....he probably won't even play the Australian.....I'm afraid actually that he won't ever return much less than being #1.

But #1 is just b.s anyway. I think Serena has proven that over and over again. Pete Sampras proved it as well. So did Becker before him....the list just goes on and on.

Even Roger Federer said its b.s.....when Jankovic was number one in the world he said she didn't deserve it. He was right.....I agree with Fed ....you can't just go by the paper.

You guys try and place a robotic formula on something that is a personal opinion.
 
Last edited:
RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon

Legend
The Dark Knight said:
The man skipped the open....he probably won't even play the Australian.....I'm afraid actually that he won't ever return much less than being #1.

But #1 is just b.s anyway. I think Serena has proven that over and over again. Pete Sampras proved it as well. So did Becker before him....the list just goes on and on.

You guys try and place a robotic formula on something that is a personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Nah he said he'd be back in Abu Dhabi but why is #1 BS??
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
RF20Lennon said:
Nah he said he'd be back in Abu Dhabi but why is #1 BS??
Click to expand...

I hope so !

#1 is bs because on paper it says who the best in the world is but in reality it's not true.

The entire ranking system tries to put a scientific ranking system on something that is not scientific .

That's why Serena and Venus continually beat the number 1 ranked player. That's why Sampras ranked like number 30 or something won the USO....that's why Becker beat Lendl back to back at wimby and then the USO and still was not the #1 player.

It's bs.
 
SoBad

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
The Dark Knight said:
And she's not from Yugoslavia either .....

In fact there is no more Yugoslavia.....so now I know how old you are . :).
Click to expand...

I was already unwell when I had lunch with Ivonne Goolagong and Prince Ferdinand in Belgrade, and that was before year 1920, if I recall correctly.
 
SoBad

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
b_05-27-Kuznetsova-Svetlana-01.jpg

6a00d83423e30253ef0120a6ac264f970b-400wi

6a00d83423e30253ef015433b819c3970c-pi


Something against Kuznetsova??:confused:
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
SoBad said:
I am going to take a bath with aromatic salts. Guess who's not invited to join me?:neutral::???:
Click to expand...

LOL.....Vphuc is upset at my analogy.....

I said that for me quality is more important than quantity.

11> 17 to me.....

For example....I personally would take Brooklyn Decker over Mirka even though there is much more of Mirka. :)


Just a joke guys.....come on!
 
SoBad

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
The Dark Knight said:
LOL.....Vphuc is upset at my analogy.....

I said that for me quality is more important than quantity.

11> 17 to me.....

For example....I personally would take Brooklyn Decker over Mirka even though there is much more of Mirka. :)


Just a joke guys.....come on!
Click to expand...

11+^17

Maybe he is a bitter man who is obsessed with size (for some unknown reason).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Myth : Federer thrived in a "weak era"
Replies
28
Views
4K
TMF
T
tennisaddict
Weak Era Myth
2
Replies
84
Views
10K
kandamrgam
kandamrgam
O
Weak clay field? No way
2 3 4
Replies
182
Views
8K
jg153040
J
M
Let's explode a tennis myth about Roger vs Hewitt
Replies
37
Views
4K
not_federer
N
C
The Myth of Federer's Weak Competition
2
Replies
92
Views
6K
aceX
aceX
Top