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. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Ok - most of TW does not agree with your theories. But if you created 20 more user names, and kept posting on this thread till 2015 you might have a chance.

    Beat Joker ? What of it ? Joker isn't even in the top-20 on clay. It's more proof of the ****-poor Clay era.
     
  2. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    Also, niether Nadal or Nole are at peak right now. Either in form (2008 for both IMO) or as far as results (2010 Nadal or 2011 Nole)...

    So Federer is not alone in declining...

    Although I will admit that age has more to do with it as far as Federer is concerned. But if we talk about tennis miles; it could be argued that Nadal has more or as much as Federer due to his style of play and history of injuries...
     
  3. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Federer beat Nadal on clay. Federer has beaten everyone on clay.

    Do you know how many articles and pros think that fed is the second greatest clay courter of all time?

    He even beat nadal 6-0 in the first set if the FO .....I think a string argument can be made that fed is the second greatest clay courter of all time. He is definitely In the top 5.

    Fed was just unfortunate that he had to play against the goat of cc.
     
  4. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Actually, I would rate him outside the top-5 on both counts. There is no question of Borg or Nadal, i would also put Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander ahead of him. We can agree to disagree :)
     
  5. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,485
    Location:
    Australia
    So you think Nadal will slip back in the rankings in a Hewitt style fashion?
     
  6. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Far more stronger arguments can be made for Fed outside of Clay, but of course you chose not to make them :) And, likewise everyone else from 2003-2008 was unlucky to play Fed. He was the GOAT on all other surfaces. Djoker and Rafa are caching in on an equally ****-poor era, and an old Fed to improve their GS records.
     
  7. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Oh ? So, both are declining at their physical peak. Interesting.. we must be in an worse era than I imagined.
     
  8. analysis_king

    analysis_king Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Messages:
    247
    i definitely agree Federer is one of the best clay court tennis players in history. its testament to his game -- a consistent and powerful baseline game centered on his heavy and explosive forehand.

    yes dear federer fans, he is a baseliner. live with it.
     
  9. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    I am saying that none are playing peak tennis right now...
     
  10. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Nope. It can be argued that the HC era is at least somewhat more balanced. For instance, Ferrer (whom you qualify as the Clay giant of this era) has actually beaten Rafa twice on HC slams, but capitulated meekly in the recent FO. Delpo actually beat Fed, and he came mighty close to losing several other HC matches. Verdasco, Robredo, you got to be kidding me..

    Which era is worse than this Clay era ?
     
  11. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Oh, I agree with you. Since they all played peak tennis at some point in the past, clearly the 2012 era must be worse than the 2008-2011 era ?
     
  12. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    No (unless Nadal suffers some major injury)...

    Hewitt was the definition of a transitional champion!

    He had just enough defense (taken to a new level) to nullify the offense of his time (which was pegged down by the waning of Sampras/Agassi). Once he lost even an ounce of that defense (due to declining footspeed) and a new level of offense came into style (established by Roddick, Safin, and finally stamped and fortified by Federer with his power spin and versatility by 2004); Hewitt had no hope!
     
  13. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    Cali, why are you using the word era so often :confused:

    I consider 2004 to present the current era (Federer's era so to speak)...

    There are certain time periods in this era that we all are discussing; 2004 to 2007, 2008 to present for example...

    If and when Federer retires, i assume will be the start of a new era.

    My objectivity and respect for Federer (even though i'm called a Fed-hater) allows me to call this era his era...
     
  14. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Really? When?
     
  15. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Federers clay court play Second to one

    Rafael Nadal has been so dominant on the surface the past few years that we tend to forget just how good Roger Federer is on red clay. In his first outing at the Monte Carlo Rolex Masters, Federer offered a quick reminder of his prowess on this most demanding of surfaces by sweeping Philipp Kohlschreiber off court 6-2, 6-1 on Tuesday. And "quick" was the operative word. It took him precisely 50 minutes. It was a devastating performance that frequently brought gasps from the Centre Court crowd here at the Monte Carlo Country Club, where players are conscious that the beauty of their play is unlikely to match that of the spectacular surroundings. Federer had no problems with that Tuesday. He glided around the court, hitting the ball with a smooth, majestic authority that allowed him to dominate his opponent from the start. "I found I could finish the point almost whenever I wanted to," said Federer, who never allowed Kohlschreiber to settle as he came in behind deep approach shots to kill the ball with precise volleys. "I was quite surprised because I know how good Philipp is and how heavy his ball actually is." Andy Murray found out about Kohlschreiber here 12 months ago when the Scot was destroyed by exactly the same score as Kohlschreiber lost to Federer on Tuesday. The 32nd-ranked German searched in vain for a way into the match as Federer continued to offer a classic demonstration of aggressive clay-court tennis. That the Swiss can play like this on what the French call "terre battue" (literally "beaten earth") should come as no surprise. Federer's record has established him as one of the great clay-court players of the Open era. Nadal may have a huge winning margin over him on this surface, but Federer has been the second best clay-courter in the world by some distance. His record speaks for itself. He has won the French Open once and has been a losing finalist three times. He won Hamburg -- where the clay is the heaviest and slowest in Europe -- four times before the German Open was demoted from Masters Series status. He has won Madrid once and has been a finalist once in the two years that the Spanish event has been played on clay and has also won lower-ranked clay events at Gstaad and Estoril. Here in Monte Carlo, he has been a finalist three times. He also has been a finalist in Rome twice. How Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe and Boris Becker must envy that record. Those great champions never won a European clay-court singles title. Gilles Simon became the fourth Frenchman to reach the second round when he defeated the Brazilian left-hander Thomaz Bellucci 6-3, 6-2. However, playing a round ahead, fellow Frenchman Jo-Wilfried Tsonga was ousted. Tsonga could not handle the big serving and delicate drop shots offered up by Ivan Ljubicic and went down 7-6, 6-4 despite leading 3-1 in the second set. Ljubicic, who won the Masters Series title in Indian Wells last year, lives and trains in Monaco, but the Croat has rarely played as well on his home court as he did Tuesday. The two best young players on the tour, 22-year-old Ernests Gulbis of Latvia and 20-year-old Milos Raonic of Canada staged a fascinating match on Centre Court later in the day, which confirmed a suspicion that has been growing over the past few months: Gulbis has loads of talent, but Raonic has just as much and augments it with a far better temperament. Raonic, who was ranked 409th this time last year and is now at 34 and rising, beat Gulbis 6-4, 7-5 and looked the better player throughout. Only when faced with three match points at 5-4 on the Roanic serve did Gulbis put a good string of points together. He came up with a daring drop shot and a great forehand winner to win five in a row and break back. It was a temporary reprieve. Raonic, changing the pace on his ground strokes, forced Gulbis into more errors, broke again and served it out with an ace. The Latvian had got all hot and bothered when the umpire insisted he had reached a Raonic drop shot on the second bounce midway through the first set and promptly dropped serve as his concentration vanished out over the Mediterranean. Raonic, who has looked like a seasoned campaigner ever since reaching the fourth round of the Australian Open and winning San Jose, is making his first appearance in Monte Carlo -- his first clay-court event, in fact, on the ATP Tour. He will be in the top 20 very soon. Monday was Ladies Day at the Monte Carlo Country Club. To celebrate, tournament director Zeljko Franulovic put on a women's exhibition to augment the day's program. Reigning French Open champion Francesca Schiavone of Italy was an obvious choice because Italians always form a big percentage of the crowd here, but it was surprising that he could call on the services of world No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki. The young Dane had been holding up the winner's trophy at Charleston, SC, on Sunday afternoon. After weighing down a British Airways jet out of Heathrow with no less than eight huge tennis bags, the ever-smiling Caroline walked onto the Monte Carlo court 24 hours after leaving Charleston. "I have a home in Monaco, so I was happy to do it," said Wozniacki, who will spend the rest of the week unpacking and trying to find a practice court. It should get easier when the men move on to Barcelona.
     
  16. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    It was 6-1...
     
  17. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    Why do you keep over-exaggerating???

    I specifically said 'decent' clay courters'!!!
     
  18. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    You should do a post count and a word count for discussions related to era. I think you'd be the GOAT on this forum in that regard, but perhaps TDK and his various avatars may have beaten you to it :)

    You've got to be kidding. It's ok to say you hate Federer :) You deliberately try to undermine Fed's achievements proffering the excuse of "eras". I hardly see you make 100's of threads proclaiming why "Federer's Clay Era" is the worst Clay era of all time, or a relatively ****-poor Clay Era -- because of course that would mean that there might be question marks over Rafa's clay GOATness. Of course, the reality is that it matters not a whit if eras are relatively weaker or stronger. Objectively, both of them dominated their favorite surfaces like no one before them, and so both have a claim to being the best on those surfaces. All this carping about one being luckier than the other or relatively weaker or stronger eras, are just lame-duck attempts to prop up your favorite player. There is nothing remotely objective about this exercise.
     
  19. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Ferrero has nothing since 2003.
    Verdasco the decent clay courter has 4 1/8.
    Robredo 4 1/4.
    Ferrer 2 1/4 and 1 1/2. He is the only decent clay courter on your list.

    Davydenko, Nalbandian, Soderling used to be far better clay courter.
     
  20. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,485
    Location:
    Australia
    Hewitt was owning Roddick and Safin in 2004.
     
  21. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Ferrer is more than a decent HC player as opposed to a decent CC'er. His best Slam results have been on HC's. But decent CC'ers do not make a strong clay Era. My point is that the difference between the two best or in this case the best on Clay is far more than the difference between the best on HC's. Ergo, this is a far worse Clay Era than a HC era.

    And, you did not list down which era was worse than this Clay era. Why am i not surprised ?
     
  22. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,309
    Suddenly this argument has decided to take to turn into clay era, grass era and HC era?

    You can only have era of group of players an not an era based on surface. That would also mean that when Borg played, his era was so weak in clay, but actually it was not. it just takes that extra little bit to win on clay compared to other surfaces and Nadal is truly a king on that! Also you can look at it this way...... for federer to win a point in clay he has to hit 3-4 winners as opposed to 1 winner on HC. Its for the same reason Djoker lost yesterday and also it gets a bit boring to see winners on clay being chosen purely on the ability to defend and winning from high % UE from opponents.
     
  23. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    Fine...

    well add them to the list of decent clay court challengers to Nadal...
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  24. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    You are the one trying to make this rather curious (and imo weak) distinction.

    This entire era (Federer's era) lacks depth; on every surface -- partciualrly between 2004-07!

    You're just bolstering my original premise!
     
  25. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Agreed that we're lacking overall depth from 2000-present.

    I argue though, that the depth of the top 30 was better in 2004-2007, but was weaker at the top (#3 and #4), whereas today it's better 1-4, but weaker 5-30.

    I think that's where the issue comes in with this discussion. Some feel that if the top 3 guys are some of the best ever, that it makes an era stronger, others feel that if the overall depth is better (potential upsets along the way in a Major, a dangerous player ranked outside the top 10, etc.) that it makes an era strong.

    It's a difference of opinion, and neither (imo) is right or wrong. It's just a discussion that will (unfortunately) continue forever without anyone changing their opinion or being convinced otherwise.
     
  26. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Ha ha -- It's curious that you don't find your original premise completely bogus and subjective, but you find the weak Clay era hypothesis "weak" - never mind, that there are far better arguments for this being a ****-poor clay era. Ya, right -- try and convince your other 20 aliases about your objectivity and love for Fed. I am outta here.
     
  27. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    The argument about eras is bogus and untenable to begin with. You can call it what you like -- i don't have a better word for it. There are fewer "decent" CC'ers than HC'ers. To me it is clear that we are in the weakest clay "era" in the open era. You don't have to agree.
     
  28. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    Yea, I'm sure you've had enough, arguing against logic can do that to you...

    BTW, I never said this era was weak (again you need to go back and read my posts), any era that includes Federer, Nadal, and Nole is not weak! However during certain time periods in this era, specifically 2004-07, Federer's competiton has been relatively weak; because there was the lack of depth and no fully formed Nadal and Nole competing...

    and yes this extends to clay as it does to every surface...
     
  29. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Oh ya this era is weak. But..

    Nadal's clay competition between 2004-2012 has been **** poor, because there was lack of depth and no fully formed anyone competing. (It kills me that all you could find was Robredo - ha ha)

    And yes this extends to HC's and grass as it does to every surface.

    I think we are in complete agreement. You should find the logic impeccable, no :)
     
  30. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Rafa won Madrid (beat Ljubicic in the final), Beijing (beat Ferrero and Coria) and Canada (beat Agassi in the final) in 2005, Dubai (beat Fed in the final) in 2006, and Indian Wells (didn't lose a set, beat Roddick and Djokovic) in 2007.

    Those are pretty damn good HC results for Nadal. He has had success on HCs, even when he was 20-22. Not to mention making 2 Wimby finals in 06 and 07. His prowess off clay in those years is underrated, imo.
     
  31. *Val*

    *Val* Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    629
    The argument that Federer thrived against a 'weak field' is stupid, since the current 'golden era' has been largely shaped by Federer. Federer was completely dominant in 2004-07 because he was simply the best player out there. He raised the bar and forced all other players to improve their game, and so came along Djokovic and Nadal, who in turn forced Federer to improve his.

    Trying to compare now seems silly, since the current field has not only been shaped by Federer's game, but also because Federer is past his best (going on 31) and there is no way of telling how he would fare against today's best players were he the same player of 2004-7.

    The fact is that Federer is unquestionable the GOAT both in terms of his actual concrete achievements but also his complete game, his elegance and grace, and because of the way he raised the bar like no other. Obviously the bar continues to be raised by players like Djokovic and Nadal now, but to say Federer dominated a 'weak field' is sterile, since the strength of the field is rather subjective and dependent on the time and place anyway, and the game is constantly evolving.

    How do we really determine whether a particular field is 'weak' or not? Just because there were fewer dominant players vying for supremacy during Federer's peak automatically means Federer was up against a bunch of incompetents? Isn't it more likely he was just the best at that time in a field of other great players? Just because those at the top are dominant automatically means the rest are 'weak' or 'bad' players? The same can be said of this era: just because the top 3 are utterly dominant right now doesn't mean there is no competition; it just means the top 3 are seriously, seriously good, just like Federer was in his prime.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  32. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Roger Federer dominated tennis when Nadal was just getting started (and before he started) and Djokovic has dominated the last year, but Nadal was the one player who could stand up to both. Three times now, Nadal has stopped another player from matching Laver's 43-year-old feat of winning four majors in a row, twice stopping Federer from doing so and Monday stopping Djokovic.
     
  33. rafan

    rafan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,212

    One of the commentators at the French Open the other day said that 95% of the players can't even think about being number one because it is something they feel they could never achieve. I can only suggest that many of them are content to coast along with their few million dollars and keep up their place on the tour without digging deep to get to the top. I don't think they are weak but I do think that many of them during that period when Fed was at his best could have changed a gear and stopped the dominance.
     
  34. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Federer got an extra year of greatness when Nadal battled injuries, but can't keep up with Nadal or Djokovic when they are healthy. (In the meantime, he still whips everyone else, which argues more for the greatness of Nadal and Djokovic than for himself, because it makes it seem as if the only difference between Federer now and Federer seven and eight years ago is the addition of two all-time great players.
     
  35. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,309
    Here is the list of All time Greats that Federer managed to beat in Slam Finals:

    Winner 2003 Wimbledon (1) Grass Mark Philippoussis 7–6(7–5), 6–2, 7–6(7–3)
    Winner 2004 Australian Open (1) Hard Marat Safin 7–6(7–3), 6–4, 6–2
    Winner 2004 Wimbledon (2) Grass Andy Roddick 4–6, 7–5, 7–6(7–3), 6–4
    Winner 2004 US Open (1) Hard Lleyton Hewitt 6–0, 7–6(7–3), 6–0
    Winner 2005 Wimbledon (3) Grass Andy Roddick 6–2, 7–6(7–2), 6–4
    Winner 2005 US Open (2) Hard Andre Agassi 6–3, 2–6, 7–6(7–1), 6–1
    Winner 2006 Australian Open (2) Hard Marcos Baghdatis 5–7, 7–5, 6–0, 6–2
    Winner 2006 Wimbledon (4) Grass Rafael Nadal 6–0, 7–6(7–5), 6–7(2–7), 6–3
    Winner 2006 US Open (3) Hard Andy Roddick 6–2, 4–6, 7–5, 6–1
    Winner 2007 Australian Open (3) Hard Fernando González 7–6(7–2), 6–4, 6–4
    Winner 2007 Wimbledon (5) Grass Rafael Nadal 7–6(9–7), 4–6, 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 6–2
    Winner 2007 US Open (4) Hard Novak Djokovic 7–6(7–4), 7–6(7–2), 6–4
    Winner 2008 US Open (5) Hard Andy Murray 6–2, 7–5, 6–2
    Winner 2009 French Open (1) Clay Robin Söderling 6–1, 7–6(7–1), 6–4
    Winner 2009 Wimbledon (6) Grass Andy Roddick 5–7, 7–6(8–6), 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 16–14
    Winner 2010 Australian Open (4) Hard Andy Murray 6–3, 6–4, 7–6(13–11)

    The only time he defeated Nadal & Djoker was when they were really during the formative years. Talk about standing up against your opponents when they start to fight back.

    Fed basically could not even fight back Nadal at the peak of his physical abilities which was 2008 when he was 26 years old(exactly same age as Rafa is now and 1 year older than Djoker is). if you ask Fed fans, they would say Nadal was in Prime@ 2008 (when he was just 22 years) and Fed was getting older :D

    GOAT, yeah very well, if his worshipers think so!
     
  36. Emet74

    Emet74 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    873
    Yeah Roddick and Isner are still smarting from the beatings Fed gave them this year . . . oh wait . . .

    Seriously, as I've posted before, look at total points scored by Fed in his career and you will see a very clear gradual rise, peak, and slow decline. From his first year on tour he scored more points each year than the one before it, reaching a peak in 2006 and after that scored fewer points each year. Even in 2009 he did not have more total points than 2008 despite the 2 GS's.

    Fed was utterly dominant for 4 years, and the fact that he has the longest consecutive time as #1 and almost the most total time shows that historically it's been very difficult to dominate for a longer period than he did.

    Neither Nadal nor Djoko has come close to that long a period of domination yet.
     
  37. *Val*

    *Val* Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    629
    Yeah, well look at Nadal's.

    French Open 2005 - Mariano Puerta
    French Open 2006 - Roger Federer
    French Open 2007 - Roger Federer
    French Open 2008 - Roger Federer
    Wimbledon 2008 - Roger Federer
    Australian Open 2009 - Roger Federer
    French Open 2010 - Robin Soderling
    Wimbledon 2010 - Tomas Berdych
    US Open 2010 - Novak Djokovic
    French Open 2011 - Roger Federer
    French Open 2012 - Novak Djokovic

    Over half of his slams have been won against Federer. Obviously this appears to be strongly in favour of the Nadal superiority argument, but aside from finals against Roger you could easily dismiss his other opponents as slam-less nobodies, aside from Djokovic, who obviously only really came good in the past couple of years. In other words this tells us more about head-to-head and matchup than anything - we all know Federer-Nadal is a bad matchup for Fed. What's more, only two of those finals victories against Fed were on surfaces other than clay. 7 out of Rafa's 11 slams are on clay, whereas Fed has a much greater spread over all surfaces. And Fed did beat Rafa twice at Wimbledon.

    What's more, Safin, Roddick, and Hewitt were all slam winners when Federer beat them (I believe Hewitt already had his two?), and Agassi multiple slam winner. So the fact is that Rafa did not beat a grand slam winner in a grand slam final aside from Roger Federer until USO 2010 (Novak Djokovic), and that was just before Djokovic's breakthrough when he only had one (AO2008 )!

    Basically, Rafa's own record reveals a clay court specialist with a particularly strong H2H against Roger. And personally I don't see Rafa winning the AO or USO again so long as others in the field are in good form. The fact is that for any player to reach a grand slam final is a tremendous achievement and there are very rarely any 'nobodies' or 'flukes' in a grand slam final. According to your questionable font colouring of the finalists, only Rafa and Novak are 'worthy' adversaries in a slam final. To win a grand slam is an amazing achievement, so trying to devalue Federer's slams by implicitly criticizing his opponents is rather silly. Players like Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Gonzalez, Agassi, and so on were all top players, and other victories over top players like Novak or Murray in other slam finals are nothing to be scoffed at. Also, none of this takes into account players defeated in the course of the tournament, either by Roger or by his opponents...

    EDIT: those two finals Rafa won against Roger on surfaces other than clay (AO, Wimbledon) were also ridiculously close, both going to 5 sets, and could have gone either way. If Fed hadn't semi-choked how different would the record look now, if Rafa only had slam finals victories over him on clay, where he is completely unbeatable except for Robin Soderling? If Rafa had never existed Fed would also appear to be one of the best clay court players in all of history - who else would have stopped him winning all those FO titles?
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  38. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341

    You see what I mean ? Quality vs quantity .....

    ROGER FEDERER......


    Nuff said
     
  39. SystemicAnomaly

    SystemicAnomaly G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    11,180
    Location:
    Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
    These players are nothing to sneeze at. All of them were worthy, highly-skilled opponents that played at a very high level to get there. Most of them were top 10 players or better at the time when they reached these finals.

    Just because there was not 3 dominant players at the top does not mean that the rest of the field was chopped liver.
    .
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  40. SystemicAnomaly

    SystemicAnomaly G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    11,180
    Location:
    Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
    You can suggest it but that doesn't make it true. I would hardly think that most players who makes it to the top 20 are coasting. Even making it to the top 200 in the world is no picnic. Most need to work very hard to maintain that level. Even if they put in a supreme effort, 98% or so of those top 200 will still not make it to #1 -- it takes uber-human skills that most do not posses.
     
  41. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,309
    Not as skilled or ruthless as Nadal or Djoker. Got it? Quality of opposition was so weak. He basically had cakewalk and the final result was a foregone conclusion. You think Fernando gonzalez had a chance against Fed in AO final? I think not.This is the purpose of this God Damn thread!!

    Whereas Nadal Beat the Real Federer whom many considered as having set the bar so high and was at the height of his powers. Why do you think this board has started rating Djokovic??? Its because he has proven that he can beat Nadal when he was at the height of his powers. As far as I can remember Djoker was the only guy who was able to see of Fed(equally) and Nadal 100:0 (until recent clay clashes)

    But I still rate Nadal Pretty high coz he seems to be hanging in there and ain't given up like Fed who basically never fought back when provided with a challenge.

    GOAT, what GOAT??
     
  42. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,309
    If Federer was not the Man to beat, then who else is? If Djoker is not the man to beat right now, then who is? do you get it?

    Yes Berdych & Siderling were obviously cakewalk for him, but my point is Federer had so much of this cakewalk from 2003-2007 and that wwas the reason why raked up his slam count. Genuine competition.....Fed=Fail!
     
  43. *Val*

    *Val* Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    629
    In your analysis the only 'genuine competition' comes from multiple slam winners. That's not right. True, until Rafa came along and challenged Roger's supremacy there was nobody who could match his level. But that doesn't make the previous field 'weak', Roger just set the bar - and until Djokovic came good in the last couple of years, people thought it was all about Roger and Rafa. Was Rafa's success all down to a weak field, with exception of Federer's presence? -Except that Federer was losing consistently on his worst surface and Nadal's best (with exception to Wimby 08 and AO09)? Basically, the game evolves (and it is evolving in favour of Rafa and Novak). And let's remember that the majority of Rafa's slams are on clay. Fed could have also had more slams if he had beaten Del Potro and Djokovic at the USO like he should have done, and how different would the record look if Fed had won Wimby08 and AO09...

    In the final analysis the decider is likely to rest on H2H record and final number of slams, not whether one or the other profited from a 'weak field'. And surely Roger will end up with a better record on HC/grass than Rafa...
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  44. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,309
    There is no Should have could have in tennis. He didn't. Yes Fed set the bar high, no denying it, but the greatness of athlete comes from the fact of how he handles his lows and not his highs. Fed could not handle when he was challenged, can you accept? 2008 Fed started to fall off when faced with Nadal Puzzle and recently with Novak Puzzle

    Also I don't entirely agree that Fed had degraded. He was might close in USO 2011 and can easily easily see off guys like Tsonga, Berdych, Murray, delpo, much younger to his age, which means he can physically play toe to toe with young guns(including Joker) . Just goes on to say that Fed cannot handle the challenge when presented with one. Not a sign of greatness! Agree?
     
  45. Atherton2003

    Atherton2003 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,326
    I think if Federer played his entire career facing Nadal and Djokovic - he'd only have about 4-5 grand slams.
     
  46. *Val*

    *Val* Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    629
    We have no way of knowing how peak Roger would fare against peak Nadal/Novak - Federer did begin his decline around 09...
     
  47. Atherton2003

    Atherton2003 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,326
    True, it's all speculation...but I think had Fed had to play Nadal and Djokovic throughout his entire career - he'd have won only about 5 grand slams....because at the peak of his career, I still don't think he could beat Nadal and Djokovic consistently.....he would have had to change his strategy - something he never had to do cause he was able to beat all the weaker opponents using the same strategy, game after game, year after year.
     
  48. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,309
    Yes there is no way to know that. that is not the point of this thread. All his opponents from 2003-2007 presented him a cake every time they met him. Do you agree?

    Its not his fault, he can only play what was in front of him, but this thread is all about the the weak players he faced between 2003-2007. That's all! Essentially Federer Thrived in "Weak field". Everyone knows how he fared/is faring in "Strong Field"
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  49. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,540
    Peak Fed probably would have been fine vs. either Djoker or Nadal if they kept the older faster surfaces. Fed next to sampras are the two best fast court players ever. But even in his hey days under slower conditions today I wouldn't give him more then a handful of slams probably if he had to deal with these two Peak for Peak
     
  50. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,309
    No Faster Surfaces, slower surface BS. Play with what is given to you. the playing field is the same for everyone. If you cannot, retire! As simple as that. I don't see Djoker or Tsonga or Murray or other player fans complaining about slow surface. Infact Djokovic changed his game style to win in demanding conditions (even beyond his physical capabilities). Why Fed fans cannot accept he played "weak players" ?

    How is same Fed able to beat Murray or tsonga or Delpo or Berdych on slow surfaces?
     

Share This Page