Federer at 25 FAR superior than Murray now

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by McEnborg, Jan 25, 2013.

  1. Federer20042006

    Federer20042006 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,175
    What's interesting is Djokovic and Murray are aging better than Federer did. I've always thought Federer's physical decline in 2007 onward was more noticeable than it should have been at his age, and this is reinforcing that belief. Djokovic and Murray are moving as well as they ever have...while Federer in 2007 was already a little more sluggish than before. And in 2008, it was night and day.

    Unless Djokovic/Murray age rapidly in the next year or so, they're going to be better players at 26-30 than Federer was at the same age, which is bizarre.

    People thinking Federer's a better player now than in his prime just make me laugh. I mean, really? Do you think if today's Federer entered the scene back then, the commentators would be ooing and ahing all over the place, as if they'd seen the Messiah of tennis?

    "Wow! OK, so he can't hit a running forehand to save his life, he's below average for a Top 10 player in the return game, he gets overpowered by the big hitters and frustrated by defensive players, and there are numerous guys quicker and who hit bigger than him...but he might be the greatest player ever?"

    All you have to do is take one look at his shot selection now and realize the guy's just not the same player. "Open court? Nah, I'll just hit it right back at him and let him pass me instead."

    I'm not even particularly entertained by Federer matches anymore. He looks so stiff. There's no fluidity at all to his game anymore. He's a smart server with solid enough ground strokes to bother most.
     
  2. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    its just a bunch of cr*p said for 'promoting' the game of tennis - the game always improves and players get better and better , LOL .......

    fact is tennis doesn't always get better, it evolves .... gets better in some aspects, get worse in some aspects ......

    most players decline with age, so has federer ....
     
  3. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,686
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    We don't know that yet, and I would lean towards saying no anyway. Djokovic and Murray's primes started 2 years later than Federer's did age wise, and after Fed turned 26 he has since won 6 slams. There's absolutely nothing suggesting to me yet that Djokovic and Murray are aging better than Federer did, and I doubt there will be with their styles of play.
     
  4. ctoth666

    ctoth666 Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    827
    Location:
    Woodstock, CT
    This post is a joke. Guess what? In 2006, Federer lost 2/3 HC matches to Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic. He played each of them once, and only beat Djokovic in the World Group.
     
  5. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,189
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Guess what, he won 6 majors that year. They didn't. Therefore, he was better than them in 2006
     
  6. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,280
    Adding to that, if this "McEborg" was even remotely correct, then his false god Federer would have swept the year's majors--the Grand Slam during this so-called "prime," yet the false god could not. He--like others of his ilk--have no explanation for that.
     
  7. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,038
    Yep ******* logic at it's finest...
     
  8. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,038
    How does him saying he felt he was a better player at 33 than 25 promote tennis?

    How does him saying Fed now would beat Fed at 25 promote tennis?

    WHY would Agassi go about promoting tennis today, what does he get out of it? The guy is giving his honest opinion and you can't handle the fact that it goes against all the tripe you yap on about.
     
  9. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    by saying players are always improving, they want to make it make it look like present day tennis is the best ...

    hell, even, yesterday Vijay Amritraj and Alan Wilkins were yapping about how "exciting" the final was ... blah blah blah ...*yawn*

    agassi said he "felt" he was better at 33, i.e in 2003, 04 around that time ... than at 25, around 95, when he had arguably his best year level wise ....

    according to him, he was better during the start of fed's domination period than during the 90s, go figure :roll:
     
  10. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,038
    Again, what does Agassi get out of it?

    Hewitt is saying the same thing. Why would these guys just talk up tennis now as if it needed any further promoting, the AO had record attendences this year.

    Agassi and Hewitt gain NOTHING out of promoting the game, especially by admitting that they weren't as much of a challenge for Federer.
     
  11. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    That is what tennis players who want to be good ambassadors of the sport do. Its a very common phenomenon ....

    But given your poor observation skills, you wouldn't know .....
     
  12. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    687
    If you truly believe that Agassi was better when he was 34-35 you should have no problem accepting that Fed's competition during 2003-2004 was as good as it was today. Agassi should be better than Murray/Nadal and perhaps even Djokovic on HC, no ?
     
  13. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,038
    Nope Agassi was 33 when he was #1. Try again.
     
  14. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    687
    so? Agassi said he was better at 33 than at 25. You should really listen to Agassi again.
     
  15. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,038
    So now you can read their minds and somehow KNOW they want to be good ambassadors? Yeah, it would be farfetched to think they are being honest, they're such liars.
     
  16. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,038
    Listen to what again? You're making a complete fool of yourself. Agassi said he felt he was better when he was #1 in 2003 than when he was 25. The Fed era began in 2004. By then Agassi was not ranked #1 anymore. LOL.
     
  17. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    687
    No jackass. You have made a fool of yourself trolling in multiple accounts the same poo over and over again.

    Agassi said he was playing at his best post the age of 33 -- that was the time he went 0-8 against baby Fed. He wasn't no 1 because Fed spanked him 8 times in a row. Since Agassi is better than all the current players on hard, it goes without saying that Fed's competition was better then, than it is now. Of course, this is only if you agree with Agassi.

    Oh, and Agassi also said that Fed is one of the greatest across all sport, not merely tennis, comparable to MJ. Do you agree with that as well ?
     
  18. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,038
    I don't have multiple accounts pal, there is only one The_Order.

    LOL wut? ... Agassi wasn't number 1 because Fed beat him? Fwhahahaha, no **** Agassi lost #1 because he didn't defend his AO title in 04 losing to SAFIN, not Federer. He then got knocked out in the first round of RG (again not losing to Fed) where he made the QF the year before. He was then absent at Wimbledon IIRC and in the USO, old crippled Agassi pushed peak indestructable Fed to the limit.

    And Agassi did not say post 33 read the damn interview, he said when he was #1 at 33 he felt he was better player than when he was #1 at 25. When he lost to Fed at USO 04 he was 34 and a half and his body was on it's last legs.

    This is different. Agassi has no idea who the greatest across all sports is, he is not involved in the world's most popular sport - soccer/football, nor is he involved in basketball or any other popular sport apart from tennis obviously. He DOES however have knowledge over his own level of play and tennis in general so his opinions regarding tennis have added value to them, whereas his opinions regarding across all other sports is most likely biased towards tennis.
     
  19. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,280

    True; he feels the only way to support present day tennis is by claiming Federer is "the best," (despite evidence to the contrary) otherwise he believes it suggests tennis is in some sort of slump--a danger to sponsor interest, et al. If he had an honest bone in his skull, he would be able to admit popularity wise, Federer's era is not even a whisper in the scream that was the "tennis boom" which predeated his own era. As many majors as Federer's won, he's not the exciting part of the popular culture as that "tennis boom" generation, who were known to people who had no interest in pro tennis, and marketed as household names.

    The average person (meaning outside of certain tennis fans and sports media) would struggle to name the top male players today.

    One cannot simply place a crown on an undeserving head, because he believes that will keep the sport alive.

    Strong personalities have to go along with great games, as that is what entertains audiences.
     
  20. edmondsm

    edmondsm Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    6,902
    Location:
    In an in between place.
    Agreed. I always figured Fed would outlast Nadal, but the way Novak and Andy are playing, beating up their bodies, I wouldn't be all that shocked if he outlasted them as well.
     
  21. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    lol, cluelessness at its finest ...

    agassi was ranked #5 at the TMC in 2003 ... (behind roddick, ferrero, federer & coria ) ...he went back to #4 after the TMC

    he lost his #1 ranking because ferrero beat him convincingly in USO 2003 in the semis ( from final in 2002 to semi in 2003 ), coria beat him @ RG and scud beat him @ wimbledon ...

    yes , the very same ferrero whom you have near zero clue about how good he was becoming on HC

    agassi played a good match but was thoroughly outplayed by ferrero ...

    even if he had won the AO in 2004, he wouldn't have been #1, so the safin loss had nothing to do with it ...

    here's the same post I made about ferrero in another thread :

     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
  22. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,038
    What you on about? I was right, Agassi didn't lose #1 because Fed beat him 8 times in a row like that other guy said.

    As for Ferrero, he played nothing like his 03USO form when he beat Agassi compared to AO04.

    You're flogging a dead horse trying desperately to prove Fed had it tougher than Novak to win his AO titles but you along with the other die hard *******s are the only ones who think this.

    Every neutral tennis fan will tell you Novak had it tougher and still won 4 titles and will no doubt win at least one more.
     
  23. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    you said

    "Agassi wasn't number 1 because Fed beat him? Fwhahahaha, no **** Agassi lost #1 because he didn't defend his AO title in 04 losing to SAFIN, not Federer. He then got knocked out in the first round of RG (again not losing to Fed) where he made the QF the year before. He was then absent at Wimbledon IIRC and in the USO, old crippled Agassi pushed peak indestructable Fed to the limit. "

    which is plain BS ...agassi didn't lose #1 because of anything what you stated , which is what I said ...

    the guy who said agassi lost #1 because fed beat him 8 times in a row was also obviously wrong ...... what is funny is you contradicted that post of his with another bunch of clueless statements

    again, you have absolutely no clue of what you're talking about regarding ferrero ....

    ferrero was playing well @ the AO match vs fed as well ... only in the 2nd set, his form dipped a bit, but nowhere close to what the score of 6-1 indicates ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013

Share This Page