Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Jamin2112, May 31, 2012.
^Federer was in his prime in 2010 & 2011... really? LOL!
A Federer that is not is his prime is no way defeating Nadal, get real.
But what if Nadal is subpeak or flat or uninspired?
Then flick back a few pages. too busy to type it out again.
I've already responded to this point earlier and am too busy to type it out again.
Federer hasn't declined and is better than before? You need to work on your analytical skills.
Send me a check....my fee is 100 dollars per page.
By the way there's this new thing called "cut and paste"....it's really cool ...give it a try!
I'm not saying when his prime....was or is....I have no idea.....it's all opinion .
There is no exact date for "prime" ...... Everyone can have an opinion on that.
But personally.....I have not seen Feds level of play go down at all.....he still looks amazing against everyone else other than Nadal and Joker.
Nadal would still be in his prime, would he not? And we all know the match-up issue with Federer and Nadal. So for Federer to be able to defeat Nadal he certainly must still be in his prime.
"prime " is thrown around here as a catch all defense.
The word is so subjective and can be used at any time as a defense....
Except for Agassi who literally could not walk when he played Fed and retired for tennis. In that case it was clear he had long past his prime .
With Federer it's not quite as clear....he is #3 am the only thing stopping Jim from being #1 and winning ebery slam is nadal and joker.
players fed lost to in the last 6 out of 7 slams.....
2010 us open - djokovic
2011 aus open - djokovic
2011 french open - nadal
2011 us open - djokovic
2012 aus open - nadal
2012 french open - djokovic
concurred......what is nadal's prime? it's hard to define for me even being a nadal fan......i know he started hitting his stride on non-clay surfaces in 2007 but i can't fix a time frame like 2008 - 2010 or something else which suits my agenda......
According to more knowledgeable and astute Nadal fans, it is the 4 months of clay season in 2008. Ever since, he has been in decline.
According to *******s, old Fed isn't allow to decline(unlike Sampras, lendl...) as long as Nole/Nadal are still around. Nadal isn't allow to be in his prime in 2005 when he won 11 titles(most in his career). However, Fed won ZERO slam in 2011 and today he still is playing his best tennis.
Federer's not in his prime but except Nadal/Djokovic than Federer's 2004-2006 competition.
There are better things to spend $100 on so I'll pass. If you charge $100 per page then I'll charge more to fish out my statements.
That's like saying Nadal must be in his prime in order to beat Federer in 04-07. Can't have it both ways LOLville.
The check is in the mail .
Who the hell knows when anyone is In their "prime" ?
But you have to figure that when someone just starts their career that the beginning of their career. You don't begin in your prime .
Nadal started out as a dirtballer and developed his game.
In my personal opinion the beginning of Nadals prime started in his second Wimbledon final against fed ....2007.
Fed started I think when he beat Sampras.
Thats when both players started to believe
I don't think either player ever looked back and are both still in their prime .
I don't see How Federer has slowed down a bit .
30 is the new 20
Federer's comeback win against Del Potro saw him become the first man in his 30s to reach the last four at Roland Garros since Andres Gomez in 1990. Gomez went on to win the title. It was the seventh time that the Swiss had come back from 0-2 down in his career, but for Del Potro, it was the first grand slam match he had lost after winning the first two sets.
When a player's in their prime, that's usually the time they achieve the best results. There are a couple of exceptions though, as some players have their prime stunted by injury or another, better player's own prime. (Roddick, Hewitt, ect).
that's pretty much what i am saying as well......
Wrong, Turderer fans claim that the only way Nadal defeats Federer is simply because of a match up issue. Therefore, Nadal does not have to be prime to defeat Federer. However, it is clear that it would be near impossible for a past peak, and past prime Federer to defeat Nadal who he has match up issues with.
If there is an argument to be made against Weak-Era-Theorists, you certainly haven't made it. I mean your first of all argues that the game today would be stronger than the game then, so...
Your second of all makes more sense, but not at all that much. Yes, guys like Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Philippoussis had good tournaments, but certainly in the case of those first two, neither was used to competing at that level, and mentally playing in a Grand Slam final is a whole different thing to playing in any other match. Just because they played well to get there, doesn't mean they were any kind of competition on the day.
Point three is weeeeeak. Yes, they were lightweights. Roddick might have hit lots of aces, but he was incredibly one dimensional, you learn to read his serve, you deal with his forehand, he has nothing to trouble you with. Safin and Nalbandian were temperamental as all hell, and neither physically nor mentally able to maintain themselves at the highest level, both men gave him hell on their day. Hewitt is the only one of the major players of that era that could be considered a legit contender, but he too wasn't the most mentally tough. Federer had well and truly broken him by the end of 2005. As for bringing up Nadal's record in 2003-2005 on hard courts... I mean he clearly was not the player then that he would go on to be. The very fact that he competed on hard courts at all during that period without the game to really do so is testament to his class.
As for point four, I don't think the argument for the weak era has got as much to do with trying to argue Djokovic and Nadal are better than Federer, as it has with simply trying to disprove the idea that Federer is the greatest player to ever step foot on a tennis court.
Really well put.
Perhaps Andre Agassi can put this era thing into perspective for us:
Andre made this proclamation of Federer's unparalleled greatness late in 2005. At the time, Rafa Nadal was already #2 and Andre was still in the top 10 (6th or 7th, I believe). Granted, Novak had not yet broken the top 20 until the following year.
During his 20 year career, Andre had the opportunity to compete with some of the best players to ever grace a tennis court. Of course, he was there for the Sampras era. He also had the opportunity to play during much of the Lendl era. Also played during Edberg's and Becker's prime.
McEnroe and Connors were a little past their prime but were still significant threats after Andre turned pro. At the '89 US Open, Connors had beaten 3rd seed Edberg in straight sets. He took #6 seed Agassi to 5 sets in the QF. From '89 to '92, McEnroe was still going deep in the slams (QF 2x at the AO and SF at the USO and SF 2x at Wimbledon). In '89 JMac also reached the SF of the Master and won the WCT Finals.
The bottom line here is that Andre witnessed and mixed it up with some of the best players in the history of the game. He had an ongoing rivalry with another GOAT, Pete Sampras. I'm gonna go with Andre's insight/perpsective on this subject. If he claims that Roger Federer is the best that he has ever played and the best of all time, who are we to argue with him.
Forget about this strong era/weak era nonsense -- Andre has spoken.
Of course old man Andre with no legs and broken back would feel that Federer is the best. If Andre was still in his prime, he could have easily gone toe-to-toe with Federer even in his prime.
Irrelevant. Did you understand my post at all??? When Andre made his statement he was still in the top 7 in the world. But he was certainly well aware that he was past his prime. This does not diminish his perspective of Roger's ability & accomplishments.
Having heard Andre speak numerous times, he comes across as very insightful, intelligent, and articulate. I'm certain that he would have the perspective to know if "prime Andre" could go toe-to-toe with Federer.
But he has. *******s claim Fed only beats Nadal when he's tired or injured so Federer doesn't have to be in his prime to beat Nadal. Can't have it both ways LOLville.
That crippled Andre was in the top 7 in the world shows how weak that era was. But far more important ....
Agassi and McEnroe TODAY agree that this era is te Golden era.....which makes the weak era a piece of coal:
Wimbledon 2011. I was wondering if Tsonga was in the other side of the draw and then beats Nadal and Murray to reach the final. And then Federer beats him in the final.
Years later we would see people post his name on threads to say that Federer was in an "easy era".
Andre Agassi, John McEnroe Agree: Current Tennis Stars Are Golden
It did not take much for two tennis Hall of Famers to agree on the question of the day that the current hierarchy of men’s tennis—Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, as well as some of the sports other athletic rising stars—are part of a "Golden Era" of tennis depth and athleticism that the sport has maybe never seen before, and may not appreciate until well into the future.
"Those guys, their athleticism, their competitive nature, their skills, are something that fans may not truly appreciate until they are done, but what they have done for the sport is amazing," Agassi said on a conference call Monday.
The nature of the call was reflective of what is missing in the golden era of the sport today, something that was prevalent in the great times when McEnroe’s era morphed into the one Agassi played in. Those two time periods—the 1970s into the 1980s and the 1990s into the early part of the 21st century—also had their share of personalities, flair and style that helped redefine the game of tennis for the next group.
But the difference, save for a Borg here or an Ivanisevic or Rafter there, was that those eras were defined by a large group of American players.
McEnroe and Connors, Agassi with Sampras, Chang and Courier. In this new era, nary an American name is mentioned, save for an occasional Andy Roddick mention or a reference to John Isner’s size and style being a future model for stars.
Agassi and McEnroe were together to talk about a match they will play on July 19, as part of World TeamTennis—Agassi for the Boston Lobsters, McEnroe for the New York Sportimes, to raise money for the Johnny Mac Tennis Project, a foundation which will raise both money for scholarships and awareness for the John McEnroe Tennis Academy, which has already outgrown its capacity at the sleek Sportime Randall’s Island Facility in the shadow of Manhattan and will be adding more young people to the program now in Long Island and Westchester.
It is that Academy style where kids lead a well-rounded life of training, playing tennis and living at home and going to school which McEnroe feels will lead American tennis back to the next golden era, with a style of training that he was raised on.
"I think the future of the game will be more of the athletes like John Isner that we are seeing today, guys who have come from other sports who are great athletes and have a passion for the game," McEnroe added. "Guys like John will be the model for what we will see in the future, and hopefully we can help get them there."
The Academy started in 2010 and already has had over 600 kids come through their doors, according to Sportime CEO Claude Okin, a number that is well beyond the original growth plan. It is because of the quick growth, and the fact that kids were commuting from as far away as the Philadelphia suburbs and well out on Long Island, that the Academy decided to open to annexes, one at Sportime in Bethpage, Long Island and the other at a facility being built in Eastchester, New York.
Both annexes, cautioned McEnroe, will have his hand-picked coaches (he also announced Lawrence Kleger, the coach of elite American and McEnroe Academy pupil Noah Rubin as the new Director of Tennis for the Academy), his style and his presence to make sure that things are being done with the vision he has portrayed to all involved and worked to develop with his brother Mark.
"I am not here just to put my name on something, that is not the way I want to do this," he added. "I grew up playing in Port Washington and being tutored by legends like Harry Hopman, and I intend to spend time with these kids, because that’s the way I will teach and they will learn. I am committed to making this work."
It is that type of commitment which will bring Agassi, who has carved out an amazing legacy of his own in education and child development in his native Las Vegas to New York in July to support his fellow legend.
"John is helping change lives, and he is passionate about his system being the right way not just for tennis but to help young people, and if I can help further that drive, I will be here," he added.
That type of cross-generational support is what many feel is needed to move tennis back up the ladder on the professional side for the sport in the United States. While it is early in the process for the Johnny Mac Tennis Project, it looks like the signs and the numbers are already positive. And with that positive momentum could come a new era of stars when the current one’s lights dim, some of which will again done the stars and stripes, just like the pair who will take to the court in July and who hailed from another amazing era not that far in the past.
When did this "golden era" of yours start? 2011?
There is no weak/strong era. Only haters who want to downplay Federer's achievements and domination.
McEnroe & Agassi are not just "people"....are they to be lumped in as fed haters with wilander and pat cash?
This fed hater thing is becoming quite an elite group it seems.
The quality of eras and competition argument was in place LONG before Federer was a household name. It wasnt invented just for him. The fact his era of dominance is perceived to be a weak one with Roddick and Hewitt his main competion is said to be that since that is how it looks. Similar arguments in favor of or against past players has been made as well. Anyway Federer fans claim the current field is weak, most who are upset by NAdal and Djokovic dominating, so what is the difference. They are entitled their opinion, just as we are.
Boy you beat me to it . Everyone who holds the opinion is a fed hater...
McEnroe, Agassi, cash , wilander .....the entire media.
Boy a lot of great people hate Federer according to you.
It's not me who labeled ot the golden era . Why don't you ask McEnroe or Agassi or the entire free world outside of TW when it started?
^OK then. I must say that I believe that Nadal won everything on clay due to the lack of real claycourters besides him. I didn not think if this before today, but you're posts have changed me. I want to see how you reply to Nadal winning on a "weak" clay era.
Again it's not my posts it's Agassi McEnroe and the entire free world.
The "free world". Right.
I see you have not replied to my argument.
The Dark Knight, please, go grab a racket. You don't know what you're watching, you don't know what you're talking about, you don't know nothing at all but read read results.
It is a weak clay court era. Borgs era was also a weak clay court era. The stronger clay court eras were the ones Lendl, Muster, Courier, Laver, Kuerten, and some others had to play in, hence why they won alot less (along with Nadal being clay GOAT, and Borg being 2nd or 3rd behind Rosewall). Just like the grass era is super weak but it still doesnt stop Roger from being a top 3 or 4 grass courter of the Open Era based on his achievments.
Hmmm....just kinda curious about something...
After 28 pages of squabbling (which I certainly haven't read in it's entirety), has anybody here actually changed their opinion even one iota on strong eras/weak eras/golden eras/clay eras/grass eras/etc. etc. etc.?
I'll check back in when this thread hits the 100 page mark :shock:
I did .....I used to think that Federer was invincible and that there was no player that could ever touch him. Then I thought Nadal was just a bad match up. Bit with Joker around and threatening Nadal at the FO more than fed ever has I see that there's a higher level of tennis:
I agree with McEnroe:
McEnroe believes men's professional tennis is presently in a golden era, with the Top 4 in the South African Airways ATP Rankings - Djokovic, Nadal, Roger Federer and Andy Murray - all posting deep runs at the major championships.
"I think it's an incredible time, actually," said McEnroe. I think we [had] better enjoy it while it lasts. The shots that these guys can come up with ... is phenomenal. They've taken the baseline game to a whole new level.
"Roger is 30 now, and he's still playing pretty amazingly well. Murray played the best match I had ever seen him play even though he lost it [against Djokovic in the Australian Open semi-finals]. Those guys, sort of get into these war of wills, where they're just going to sort of break each other until one of them literally falls over."
You guys keep pointing out how Chang was so pathetic and proves how weak his era was.
Now you go around saying how Lendl was in a stronger clay court era....
Except one problem: Chang beat Lendl to win the FO.
My question was if anybody's changed their mind based on this ongoing thread...
I think I answered it .
Before this thread I thought Federer was unbeatable and then I started doing research and my eyes were opened.
When I started to examine the issue carefully I in fact did see that some of Feds competition was in fact weaker than today.
Lendl was what, 13 years older than Chang. I dont consider them of the same era even if they were on tour 5 years together and played one big match at Roland Garros. Changs RG title came in not even the main part of his career which is the ironic thing (wasnt the main part of Lendls career anymore either). Lendl crossed eras from Borg, McEnroe, Connors and then into Becker, Wilander, Edberg. By the time the Sampras, Courier, Agassi American era of Chang's was in full swing, he was well past his prime.
Anyway I never said the era Chang played in wasnt a strong clay era, I did mention the guys who were the dominant clay courters of the Chang prime years like Muster, Bruguera, and Courier, which would imply I am saying he was. I did not mention Chang himself since he was only a bit player on clay and in general of that whole era considering the number of guys better than him, so it was make no sense noting of a Chang era. Yet in the era he was part of he was a Roland Garros winner and 2 time finalist, and a many time Masters Champion and Slam finalist on hard courts, which only shows how strong things in general and on clay were back then.
Nadal beat Federer in Wimbledon , nadal beat Fed at the AO and Nadal beat Fed at the FO.....there are no other surfaces.....
In fact Fed is regarded as one of the greatest clay courters of all time.....his problem is that he had to face the greatest clay court player of all time....
And some would even argue the true GOAT.
I think many Federer fanatics (not normal fans) are coming to the realization (kicking and screaming) that many of his slams were won during a weaker era; particularly the time span of 2004-2007 of his era where there were no other open era greats consistently competing against him on every surface and the overall field lacked depth.
The overall field still lacks depth now (and from 2008 to present), but we also have at least 2 other open era greats competing against Federer and winning slams on every surface.
This is what makes the difference; if there were no Nadal or Nole (or perhaps Murray, maybe Delpo) no one could reasonably come to the conclusion that Federer's competition was relatively weak, it could be that he was just that much better. However, since there are 3 players that are now consistently in a position to win slams and otherwise destroying the rest of the field in every big tournament; one can reasonably reach the conclusion that the field lacks depth in this era compared to previous eras and that there are at least 3 players that are just that good enough to take advantage...
So it really wasn't the thread that changed your opinion but your own curiosity to research things more on your own because the thread raised the question, as opposed to it "answering" the question (and Djoker making the FO final, of course, as you mentioned earlier)?
Anyway, I think it's great that people are passionate about certain subjects and have a lot of great knowledge about the game, stats, and history. I find a lot of it very entertaining and enlightening, but nothing I've ever read on a forum has changed my opinion on a topic as subjective as this.
I guess I'm too set in my ways and trust my own gut feel/observations, so no matter the intricate arguments back and forth, I'm stuck in the mud
Separate names with a comma.