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

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Jamin2112, May 31, 2012.

  1. jm1980

    jm1980 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,387
    One "good" season? 3 slams in a season is just "good"? As if the greats Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal won CYGS all around.

    And just "one" season? We're talking about a guy who's reached at least the semis 8 slams in a row. Who else but all time greats can claim that?
     
  2. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,552
    So, you're actually arguing that what you're calling the "golden era" is in fact a very weak era, is that right?
     
  3. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,035
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    To you. You clearly favor breadth over depth. I'd ideally like to see a bit of both.

    What's more interesting - Three players with 30 combined Majors, or 10 players with 30 combined Majors? My vote is for the latter, because it means that there are challengers at many stages in events, and there's variety.
     
  4. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,552
    Seriously? You started watching tennis in 2010, too, didn't you?
     
  5. jm1980

    jm1980 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,387
    Read my edited post.
     
  6. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    Murray's gotten to the last 7 semi finals, do you believe he's a great player? Djokovic has merely hit his peak, from now on he will be in a slow decline. I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal picked up the #1 ranking by year's end, with Federer at #2, Murray at #3 and Djokovic at #4. He's been in terrible form lately.
     
  7. jm1980

    jm1980 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,387
    I do. He's unfortunate to be playing in the same era as the other 3, or he would have several slams already.

    And Murray's got a streak (just broken) of 5 consecutive semis, not 7.

    LOL :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  8. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,276
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Nadal and Djokovic's best level is higher than the likes of Roddick and Hewitt, but the main thing is they're consistantly a huge cut above the rest. That doesn't mean that peak Roddick when on fire couldn't give the likes of Nadal and Djokovic hard times. Hell Roddick has a winning head to head versus Djokovic...

    The finals and semi's may be harder now but the rest of the top 10 aren't the best that's ever been. If the guys from 5-10 of 2003 - 2007 could the present lot a good kicking then I can't see how this era is really so much better.

    It's only better when you look at the very top, the rest of the guys who you'd play in the other 4- 5 slam matches aren't any better.
     
  9. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    And an era with three extremely talented players and the rest of the field being moderately talented is apprently a strong one.
     
  10. 10is

    10is Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,451
    No question! As much as I adore Roger, that 2005 Aus Open semifinal is without doubt the best match (both quality and drama wise) I have ever seen (or indeed will ever hope to see).

    Is it any surprise that both Safin & Nalbandian are Federer contemporaries, from the MOST TALENTED ERA OF ALL TIME.
     
  11. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Let's say we switched places .....

    Let's say Nadal came first . I bet he would be the one with 16 slams and you guys would be loving Nadal and hating Federer for beating him.

    Or let's say Joker came first am there was no Federer or Nadal.....

    Joker would have 16 slams and you guys would be hating the other two.

    I truly believe that all three players are equal on any given day......to be able to see all three competing at the same time is really special.

    I personally Believe that these three players are the greatest players of all time.....

    Better than laver, better than Mcenore, better than Lendl and even dare I say ......and I will be killed for this better than Sampras.

    These three players are the GOATS on all surfaces . Sampras was only great on fast courts , Laver played on three grand slams which were all grass and no hard courts, ........

    We are truly watching the greatest of the greats and watching them battle it out is a treasure.

    The one left standing at the end will be the GOAT......what happened before these three competed will mean nothing .
     
  12. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,035
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    I disagree that these are the three greatest of all time. Completely disagree. I think Fed fits the bill for now, but I get the feeling that Nadal might have something to say about it in the end.

    To the bolded point: I would agree, if they were ever all at their best, but throughout the last four years, there haven't been too many times when they're all at the top of their game. Now is close, but Fed is almost 31, he's far from where he was at his best.
     
  13. SAFINATORZ

    SAFINATORZ Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,966
    Location:
    N.Y.C
    if it wasn't for federer, none of the other two players could've upped their level of play.
     
  14. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    I understand what you are saying ....but I'm not sure that I agree.....

    You say Fed has slowed down. I realize that he is 30, and I do also grant you that players slow down as a general rule after 30.....however like everything else with Federer I think that he may be the exception to the general rule.

    But I'll listen.....what evidence do you have other than he is 30 that he has slowed down?

    He is not doing any worse against Nadal. I'm fact he is doing better as he beat Nadal both on hard and clay and has been the better player. He was actually ranked #2 like a week ago.

    Federer lost to Djokovic at the AO in his "prime" but beat Joker just last year at the FO and Fed really should have beaten Joker this past USO .....Fed squandered three match points.

    Feds contemporaries and all the prior greats don't think Fed has slowed down .
    The man never gets injured and never misses a grand slam like nadal has. In fact I would say that Nadal at 25 or whatever he is , is actually older with aches and pains than Federer is.

    So why do you think that Fed has slowed?

    As far as the all time greats.....please throw put what's on paper because that means sheet. Laver was an amateur for so many years and there wasn't even opens . How many more slams would he have won ?

    Or take Emerson ......he actually won more slams than Laver.....but everyone knows Laver is the better player.

    Nadal , Federer and Joker are the greatest of all time. There has never been this much competition before on ALL surfaces . NEVER.

    Who wouldn't these guys beat? You take anyone of them....each one would destroy laver or Borg or McEnroe.

    Sampras? Close but on clay they would all make mincemeat of Pete . Fast grass? Well Fed already beat him .....and Joker and Nadal would beat him too.


    There's no one ......these three are the GOATS on all surfaces .

    Look let's even go by surface....

    Grass....probably fed is the Goat there. He beat Sampras and has the world record for most consecutive wins on grass.

    Clay.....Nadal.....it's not even worth discussing at this point . He is by far and away the GOAT on clay.

    Hard: Fed or Joker .....take your freaking pick. No one has ever been better.


    There you have it .....the three GOATS of all time.

    Come to think of it has there ever been a period where you have had two players who both have won career grandslams ? And right now you practically have three players with career slams....hell.....nadal even has the golden slam. When has this ever occurred ? Do you realize what you are witnessing?

    It's a battle Royale.....May the best man win.

    It's gonna be a blast to watch!
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  15. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    So True!


    ...
     
  16. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Sorry i thought TDK worte it and I assume he would have been serious.
     
  17. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    If you don't even know who Verkerk is, then anything you say about him doesn't have any credibility.
    Secondly the way you talk about Ferrero, you obviously don't know him well. He WAS actually that good and so was Roddick. Remember that surfaces were faster back then too giving Roddick a huge advantage.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  18. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,035
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    NBD, happens on TTW all the time.
     
  19. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    The players were pretty good back then.
     
  20. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    I know that Vekerks only claim to fame is getting slaughtered in the FO and then never making it past the third round again. He is a star of the weak vacuum era.

    And fast shmast ...Federer was killing them on a fast court ......Roddick and Ferrero are nothing next to Federer , Nadal and Djokovic the three musketeers.....the three greatest players of all time.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  21. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    They were pretty good but Federer Nadal and Joker are great.
     
  22. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    And that's all the current field has to offer. The rest of the top 10, apart from an inform Murray, are about as bad if not worse than the top 10 from 2004-2007.
     
  23. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    That's all they need my friend......
     
  24. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    Explain to me how having a weak field makes this era stronger than the last.
     
  25. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Three words : Nadal , Djokovic Federer

    This field is stronger but that's not the issue......focus....

    Only the three great ones are of importance .

    During the vacuum era there was only one during the golden era there are three.

    It's that simple......it's the holy trinity .....the chosen ones have arrived.

    Wake up and convert . :)
     
  26. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,410
    No...

    he's arguing that both 2004-07 and 2008 to present lack depth.

    The difference is 2008 to present has 3 open era greats while 2004-07 had only one open era great; ergo 2008 to present is a 'stronger' time span.

    The entire 'era' from about 2004 till now (lets call it Federer's era) has to be considered pretty strong, since it includes 3 open era greats (Federer, Nadal, Nole) and flashes of brilliance from some really good players who won a slam (Safin, Delpo), and great potential by others who did not or have not broken through (Murray, Tsonga, maybe Berdych and Nalby)...
     
  27. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    Hewitt and Roddick in their peak are on a higher level than Tsonga, Berdych and Nalbandian. And they were in it in 2004-2007. Yes, they aren't as good as Federer, Nadal or Djokovic but they're still excellent players from a moderately strong era which also included an inform Agassi, Moya, Coria and Safin.
     
  28. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,410
    who is that in your screen pic?
     
  29. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    You complete me:

    A very smart man once said :


    "it's really quite simple : 3 Goats > 1 Goat. "



    .
     
  30. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    Nadal is also from the 2004-2007 era, partially anyway.
     
  31. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    That is all that matters.....everything else is irrelevant. Just about Every grandslam
    Comes down to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic .

    3 Goats > 1 Goat.


    .
     
  32. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    1 full Goat > 1/2 a Goat....and ....

    3 goats > 2 Goats
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  33. ace_pace

    ace_pace Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    329
    You know guys, it could be possible that those 3 are so good, that it makes the others look weak? :)

    The only way to say if an era is weaker or stronger is if you get the entire list of players from their respective eras, and get them to play against everyone from another era then get the average amount winners and losers. They must also be all in their prime. Obviously this isnt possible and dont even get started in how you decide which court these guys should play on. The court makes a huge difference.

    Maybe you guys are confusing yourselves because of the each eras court variety and people who could take advantage of it. For example, say Pete Sampras in prime was to play in this era of slow courts. Although you can never know whether or not he 'll still be effective in this era, one things for sure, he wont be AS effective as in his era.

    What Im saying is that the court types are what define that 'field' of players. The ones that can use the court to the advantage are usually the best of the players.

    Also in defence of Federer, he has played on both the fast and slow surfaces. Shows that hes able to adapt to any court situation. Proven again by Madrid 2012. While Nadal and Djoker failed to adapt to the court, Federer showed that hes still got it.
     
  34. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Nadal Djokovic and Federer have won 31 out of the last 33 slams I think? ( Safin & Delpotro only interruptions ? ).

    When has that ever happened before??....it's utter domination. The rest of the field just doesn't matter.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  35. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    I believe Agassi, in his prime, could give Djokovic a run for his money. Don't underestimate the "weak" era.
     
  36. ace_pace

    ace_pace Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    329
    Is what I said really hard to swallow? Anyways, the open era of tennis isn't that old, so this may be the 'first' occurance. If your judging the strength of an era by the variety of GS winners then there are some flaws in that.

    Take a look WTA. Due to variety of slam winners then the field of players must be tougher than the ATP's. Sarcasm and exaggeration aside, its very hard to compare fields of players. However I can say that the conditions of today are much harder and faster (racket technology) than 50 years ago as well as the world gradually increasing the overall amount of players.

    They says its much harder and takes more time to get into the top 100 nowadays than ever before. Surely that means something doesnt it? and because there's more people theres a higher probability of getting really good players.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  37. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Agassi could barely walk in the weak era.

    He limped out of the French, skipped Wimbledon and was shot up with so much cortisone for the USO that even a heroin addict would be shocked.

    That he made it even to the final much less the top ten while on a wheelchair just shows how truly weak that era was.
     
  38. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Could be but its even harder to get into to the top three....more like impossible because you are facing te three GOATS of all time.
     
  39. ace_pace

    ace_pace Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    329
    At least theres 3 :) before Novak there was only Fedal. I see it as a positive thing, we get to see so much more matches that defy the laws of physics.
     
  40. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Thank you my child !!!! Finally you have seen the light! Welcome to the fold! :)
     
  41. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    Agassi is a bit like Federer, they're both potential GOATs and they both managed to hold on longer than expected. The only difference is Agassi had inconsistent periods whereas Federer didn't, thus why he had a high level of play later in his career. He also got a lot fitter and agile as he aged, his peak form did not come until later.
     
  42. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Federers game is so fluid that he was barely ever injured or ever lived with any pain. This is why he has yet to slow down.

    Agassi was tortured.....that USO final against Fed was the most pathetic final
    I have ever seen in my life. I felt so bad for Andre ....I was praying for the match to be over so the poor man could be put out of his misery.

    Read his book and you will understand the pain this man was in.

    That year at the FO....and I believe he was 35 years old....he literally was helped off the court because he could not walk....literally.

    Right after that he had to skip Wimbledon because he was in so much pain.

    For the USO he was still limping and was shotvup with cortisone epidural injections just so he could getvout on the court.

    That this 35 year old man who probably needed a wheel chair was ranked in the top 10 and even made it to the finals of the USO is testament to how weak that era actually was.

    A 35 year old cripple was Federers rival at the USO that year. Are you really surprised that Federer beat him that match? Do you call that poor man competition?

    How can you compare that poor old man to Nadal or Djokovic ?
     
  43. DolgoSantoro

    DolgoSantoro Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    838
    Location:
    Far away
    One could argue that old andre was much stronger mentally than young andre and the fact that he still gave federer-- who you have stated that you believe is one of the greatest of all time-- a fight could indicate that his run in the tourney was more due to his superhuman will to win and his talent. Are you saying that an extremely talented, inspired, flat hitting all time great with a Djokovic level backhand couldn't concievably upset Nadal at the USO?
     
  44. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Federer struggled with them in 2003 (except Roddick although he did take Federer out en route to his Montreal, Cinci, US Open win streak). He also struggled with Hewitt and Nalbandian. It was only in 2004 that he started to reverse the trend.
    Federer is 5 yrs older than Nadal and Djokovic, how can he be part of the musketeers? He's past his prime b4 Nadal and Djokovic reached thier prime.
    Did you ignore my point about surprise finalists?
     
  45. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    You could argue that Andre was mentally stronger and that he possibly could show flashes of his brilliance for a set .....but at 35 and the oldest man to play a grandslam final in the past 30 years his body just gave up on him .

    The fact that he made it to that final and was ranked I'm the top 10 proves how weak that period was. Take a look at a USA today article right after that match:

    "An 8-1 underdog, Agassi was just a few months removed from a career-threatening back injury that shot crippling pain down his right leg, led to his loss in the first round of the French Open and caused him to skip Wimbledon. He was playing a man who doesn't lose in finals, who is at the peak of his game and health, and who is coming off his third straight Wimbledon championship."

    That was a pathetic final and what I'm saying is that was not competition.....no way in hell. Instead it was a pathetic grand slam final and Djokovic would prove as a far greater rival .....and so would Nadal.




    *** the 2005 FO:

    PARIS — Andre Agassi, the oldest player at the French Open, felt his age Tuesday. Hobbled by an inflamed nerve in his back that dates back months, Agassi lost in the opening round for the second year in a row. He didn't request treatment from a trainer but rarely ran after shots in the final two sets and lost to Finnish qualifier Jarkko Nieminen 7-5, 4-6, 6-7 , 6-1, 6-0.

    "The nerve in my back started getting inflamed and sending pain all the way down my leg, and it was getting worse by the minute," he said. "To serve was painful, to move, to stand and even to sit. It was getting worse and worse."
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2012
  46. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    No I never saw it. I asked you to please restate it so I could respond.
     
  47. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,752
    Today's semifinal will settle this issue once and for all.
     
  48. Federererer

    Federererer Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    695
    How so????
     
  49. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Whetehr Federer is past his prime is completely subjective.

    As I have said before he is in fact 30 and I grant you that over 30 as a general rule players begin to decline.

    However as with everything else Federer may be the exception to the general rule.

    Federers game is so fluid so pure that he has never siffered a real injury other than mono. Coversely Nadals knees are so banged up that he was the first defending champion in history to have ever skipped wimbledon.

    I submit that Nadals body at 25 is more banged up than Rogers at 30 and I highly doubt that he will last until 30.

    Other than Feds age I have seen no evidence whatsoever of him slowing down.,...in fact somehow he seems better now than ever before.

    He lost the AO to Joker in his alleged "prime" yet he beat Joker just last year at the FO.

    Federer is 2-6 in slams against Nadal and yet he has just beaten Nadal both on clay and hards.

    Everyone on the tour sees no evidence of Federer slowing down whatsoeve and neither do any experts.

    Im not saying he has or has not slown down but rather I see no indication of it other than the fact he is 30 years old.

    and again.....what is your statement about surprise finalists?
     
  50. Bassus

    Bassus Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Messages:
    249
    Federer dominated Djokovich until 2011. And that's really no surprise since Federer was in his prime while Djokovich was not.

    But when the tide turned, it was the opposite; Djokovich entering his prime last year, while Federer was past his.

    There is a 5-6 year age difference between them, so unfortunately there wasn't much overlap (if any) with them both at their peak. Djokovich's domination of Federer now has to be seen in the same light as Federer's domination of Djokovich a up through the end of 2010.

    As for Murray; that's hardly worth discussing. Yeah, Murray enjoyed a winning record against Federer in tournaments that great players aren't judged by. They played twice in a GS final, and Federer won both easily.
     

Share This Page