In retrospect, Federer's Wins at U.S. Open look better

[McEnroeisanartist]

Is it fair to assess the quality of a player's wins over an opponent several years later?

For example: it seems Federer losing one set in three matches to Djokovic at the U.S. Open from 2007-2009 in retrospect was very impressive when you consider that Djokovic is one of the greatest hard court players of the open era. Or defeating Murray in the 2008 U.S. Open final, who is now a 7 time Grand Slam finalist, and two Grand Slam Champion.

 

[dominikk1985]

like agassis wins against federer from 01-03.

fed was lucky to barely get by a mid 30s agassi in 04 when he was at his best and would have been owned by him in agassis prime.

seriously, your posts are crap. you are acting like novak and nadal have been in their prime from age 18-27 while with fed you won't even count his still near peak years from 08-10. that is BS.

fed is still the GOAT but still 03-06 was not a strong period no matter how you call it.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Is it fair to assess the quality of a player's wins over an opponent several years later?

For example: it seems Federer losing one set in three matches to Djokovic at the U.S. Open from 2007-2009 in retrospect was very impressive when you consider that Djokovic is one of the greatest hard court players of the open era. Or defeating Murray in the 2008 U.S. Open final, who is now a 7 time Grand Slam finalist, and two Grand Slam Champion.

Several years later? Well, if you're a fanboy, then yes it is fair.

 

[Finesse4sum]

Thats the problem because we call a person a true champion when they win on their first try like Chang or Becker but then we chew them up for doing poorly against other greats or not winning another major.

I think some users use the "Baby" argument a little too much. Other users represent the "Well this is him now so beating him before that time makes me great as well".

The Prime Djoker would have destroyed Federer if they grew up at the same argument has been dealt with. Federer beat supposed Baby Djoker and beat 2011 Djoker at a slam and beat 2012 Djoker on Grass and bageled him at Cinci as
*******. What more do fans want :twisted:

 

[dominikk1985]

Thats the problem because we call a person a true champion when they win on their first try like Chang or Becker but then we chew them up for doing poorly against other greats or not winning another major.

I think some users use the "Baby" argument a little too much. Other users represent the "Well this is him now so beating him before that time makes me great as well".

The Prime Djoker would have destroyed Federer if they grew up at the same argument has been dealt with. Federer beat supposed Baby Djoker and beat 2011 Djoker at a slam and beat 2012 Djoker on Grass and bageled him at Cinci as
*******. What more do fans want :twisted:

you can arguement like this but then you also need to step down from the past prime doesn't count arguement.

-peak federer beat baby nadal, nole murray
-peak federer lost to baby nadal (often) and even rarely against baby nole (07) and murray (06)
-past prime federer lost against prime nadal, muzz, nole
-past prime fed beat all 3 in their peaks

if you arguement like that at least be fair.

 

[fastgrass]

roger is GOAT candidate. he don't need to consider his wins
over mug to be considered as great!
also straight setted nole in 2009 with score 7-6 7-5 7-5.
he destroyed murra in 2008 final with score 6-2 7-5 6-2

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

I think these "in retrospect wins" happen a lot in the sport.

Many people say McEnroe's 1980 U.S. Open win over Lendl, Connors, and Borg was impressive.

Why include Lendl? At the time, he had never even reached a Grand Slam quarterfinal.

Or Borg beating Lendl in the 1981 French Open final. Yes, Lendl finished that year #2 in the world, but at that time, he had one Grand Slam quarterfinal appearance.

 

[Finesse4sum]

you can arguement like this but then you also need to step down from the past prime doesn't count arguement.

-peak federer beat baby nadal, nole murray
-peak federer lost to baby nadal (often) and even rarely against baby nole (07) and murray (06)
-past prime federer lost against prime nadal, muzz, nole
-past prime fed beat all 3 in their peaks

if you arguement like that at least be fair.

I was just giving an example.

Fans like putting down Federer by saying Djokovic and Murray would have chewed up Federer if all 4 grew up at the same time without even bringing Nadal into the conversation.

Federer's wins against Djoker after 2010 and Only losing to Murray at a slam in 2013 certainly makes a case in the other direction.

Nadal beat and pushed Federer around from their very first match as a young man. This is telling for the rest of their careers. Even with that said it doesnt reflect on Fed's rivalries with the other 2 adversaries in question.

And as much as I can I try to be fair even with my own bias.

 

[fednad]

And suddenly, all the Agaasshishi lover, Shampu lovers, Fed haters, ****** lovers, Joker lovers etc etc have jumped in this thread.

 

[Finesse4sum]

I think these "in retrospect wins" happen a lot in the sport.

Many people say McEnroe's 1980 U.S. Open win over Lendl, Connors, and Borg was impressive.

Why include Lendl? At the time, he had never even reached a Grand Slam quarterfinal.

Or Borg beating Lendl in the 1981 French Open final. Yes, Lendl finished that year #2 in the world, but at that time, he had one Grand Slam quarterfinal appearance.

And it ends up propping up Mcenroe even though in the long run Lendl handled his adversaries and aging overall much better (at least Jmac can say lots of his career mileage went into doubles)

Mcenroe was a great player and so was Lendl. That should be all there is to it.

 

[fastgrass]

And suddenly, all the Agaasshishi lover, Shampu lovers, Fed haters, ****** lovers, Joker lovers etc etc have jumped in this thread.

I am not of any category that u have mentioned

 

[Omega_7000]

like agassis wins against federer from 01-03.

fed was lucky to barely get by a mid 30s agassi in 04 when he was at his best and would have been owned by him in agassis prime.

seriously, your posts are crap. you are acting like novak and nadal have been in their prime from age 18-27 while with fed you won't even count his still near peak years from 08-10. that is BS.

fed is still the GOAT but still 03-06 was not a strong period no matter how you call it.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Past his prime 30 year old Fed beat peak Novak on his worst surface...The year Novak was handing Nadal his arse on every surface known to man
31 year old Fed beat Novak at Wimbly and was # 1

In addition Novak's game does not give Fed trouble...In his prime, Fed would lose a few to Novak, but during his peak Novak has no chance in hell!

Nadal is the only player who gives trouble during Fed's peak on clay.......and that's mainly because he has a matchup advantage over him...evident by his loss to a 17 year old Nadal who was losing to everyone other than Fed.

 

[dominikk1985]

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Past his prime 30 year old Fed beat peak Novak on his worst surface...The year Novak was handing Nadal his arse on every surface known to man
31 year old Fed beat Novak at Wimbly and was # 1

In addition Novak's game does not give Fed trouble...In his prime, Fed would lose a few to Novak, but during his peak Novak has no chance in hell!

Nadal is the only player who gives trouble during Fed's peak on clay.......and that's mainly because he has a matchup advantage over him...evident by his loss to a 17 year old Nadal who was losing to everyone other than Fed.

reading comprehension ist not your strength, right? that was an ironic post to point out how stupid that OP was.

 

[ollinger]

News Flash:

Dead horse seriously beaten again!

 

[fednad]

I am not of any category that u have mentioned

No, you are not.
You are the one those gangsters are after.