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. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Federer has 16 slams to Nadals 11

    Do you think that all 16 of Feds slams are equal to Nadals?

    Is baghdatis as good of a player as Roger? No

    Is Philopusis as good of a player as Roger ? no

    Is Gonzalez as good of a player as roger? No

    Is Roddick as good of a player as Roger ? No

    Is 35 yo crippled Agassi as good of a player as roger? No

    On the other hand Nadal had to go through Roger almost every time . I could list other questionable slams but these I think are self evident .....

    You can take 8 slams away from Roger because he basically won then when Nadal was not there or it was the start of his career.

    Now add Joker into the mix .....it just got a whole lot harder.
     
  2. Armwood

    Armwood New User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Nadal best ever on clay only if you're able to be objective....

    Game's just not as complete as others on multiple surfaces.....

    Djokovic owns him everywhere else in primetime matches (big ones and both in their prime)

    Federer better all-around in prime which granted has passed...

    Anyone really think Nadal will be making semis of majors @ 32...

    Fed takes the shots I guess cuz he's alone at top and with Slams and some just can't handle that for whatever reason.....
     
  3. Hitman

    Hitman G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    11,924
    Yup, Roger beat a bunch of losers for his titles. So, we can't really say that he is good either.

    Nadal beat Roger in six finals. But since Roger himself isn't that good, because he can only beat other players that are not good, we should take those six finals win away from Nadal also. Since Roger is no way near the caliber of Rafa. We should also take away the three in wins in 2010, since he beat Slam final midgets Soderling, Berdych in the final, and Djokovic before he became a wrecking machine.

    What is the tally now then?
     
  4. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    No that's not it at all.

    The point rather is if Nadal and Joker were there instead of say Baghdatis & Philopusis would he still have 16 slams ?

    I think if your honest.....even though it's painful ....you have to admit that the chances are that Federer would not have won as many slams with those guys in the mix.
     
  5. Hitman

    Hitman G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    11,924
    No, the truth is, he sux. And it is actually pretty bad, he isn't that good really. And yes, Nadal and Djokovic have been beating a guy who is not in their league. That is obvious.

    I am being honest here, the guy is weak, it is painful to see, but it is there. This in turn does take away from Nadal in particular, and more recently Djokovic's wins. They didn't really beat anyone who is very good to win their slams.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2012
  6. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    Oh ok so to not hate Fed, I must complement everyone of his lapdogs. Got it.

    Ok so Fed has no weaknesses, his game is peRFect right? Has anybody EVER beaten him? I must've dreamt watching Nadal and Djoker expose some areas he lacks in his game...

    Since AO09? lol That is FAR too late to start calling on his bh attack and even though he has it is still not as damaging as Djokovic or Nadal's. It is weak because when put under pressure it does NOT hold up. This has happened time and time again. I know, you must've stopped watching Fed vs Rafa and Nole matches because you can't bear the outcome.

    I brang up something he is capable of doing and to say he can't smash it dtl is just wrong. It is not as effective as Novak because Novak's bh is the best in the world, but Fed, well let's just say this if I were given the choice of Fed's bh or Rafa's, I'd be taking Rafa's.

    And yeah I might start watching some tennis now, I joined this forum because I don't watch it, I just read the results from newspapers but that gives me enough knowledge to comment on playstyles.

    That's why Djoker's the only one who can beat him in majors these days. But you're wrong again anyway. Before Rafa developed his game he was constantly getting beat by guys with heavy groundstrokes. YOu had guys like Berdych, Blake, Gonzalez, Youzhny all beating Rafa or pushing him to the limit. They did this by attacking his fh, taking time away from him and forcing him to give short replies or errors. They did NOT beat him by attacking his bh side.

    BUt Fed's such a graceful champion isn't he?

    Let's go back in time a bit, 2009 AO final, Rafa has a 5hr semi and still finds a way to beat Fed in a 4hr+ final less than 2 days later. What does Fed do? He cries like a little baby, sooking because he lost the match. Now look at AO12, eerily similar circumstances except this time Nadal was on the losing end. Novak wins in almost 6hrs after a 5hr+ semi. What does Nadal do? He cracks a joke in his speech and congratulates the champion and does NOT spoil his victory by being an attention seeker.

    That is how to be graceful in defeat, something Fed is most certainly NOT.

    Just stop staring at Federer posters and watch his matches and you'll see for yourself. His bh constantly breaks down against Rafa and Djoker.

    The mental aspect of his game is not as good as theirs either. He has lost matches from being mathc point up, 2 sets to love up and 5 set record against quality opponents is not that good. When's the last time he beat a quality opponent in a slam in one his 5 setter? Roddick WIM09? He lost to Safin AO05, Nadal WIM08, AO09, JMDP USO09, Novak USO10, USO 11, Tsonga Wim 11. That's a lot of 5 set losses in slams to a variety of players...

    And by a lot of *******s on admission he has choked plenty of matches. They say Rafa only won RG11 because Fed choked, hmmm not the signs of a mentally strong player...
     
  7. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Come on that's silly .

    Fed is one of the GOATS.

    Regardless of how good nadal and Joker is ....fed would beat them sometimes .....he may even beat them more than the other way around.

    All I'm saying is that he would NOT have 16 slams.

    By the way Fed has a really GREAT chance to win Wimbledon .
     
  8. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Right on. You also forgot Puerta, though. That's more quality for you. So I guess that's ten out of eleven that should be asterisked, or rather discounted according to TDK's logic. Not too shabby.

    Hey, so Nadal is a one-slam wonder after all. Like Roddick, Del Potro, and, ahem, Johansson. Got it. Hewitt was so much better, then (but then, I guess everyone knew that, as *he* won the WTF...) :twisted:
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2012
  9. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    This is so asinine. When did anyone say this stuff? By the way, that FO poll was mostly a lot of people trolling. On no planet was he the favorite to win the FO.

    If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean that they are taking everyone to the extreme.

    The argument that people are making is that 2004-2007 isn't really any weaker than 2008-present when you look at the overall field.

    You've mentioned (countless times) that your opinion, is that all that matters is the top 3 players, and you don't care about the rest of the field. Others disagree. It can really be as simple as a disagreement. I don't understand why you keep posting the same stuff over and over again.
     
  10. Hitman

    Hitman G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    11,924
    I don't know. I don't agree. Sorry. He is not that good, evident by the players he beat. I think your comprehensive list says it all regarding the caliber of the players he was beating. The standard was very very very low, but it doesn't mean that he was really good...he was just not as bad as those stinkers.

    This is why I think Nadal mostly, and now Djokovic are thriving from the fact that not only is Federer not a worthy opponent, but really neither is anyone else. Lets face it, these two have won the last nine slams, and played the last four finals.

    You have to take away from Nadal's wins as a result, especially at RG, since not only is Roger bad overall, but he is at his worst on clay. So he is no challenge whatsoever. This is obvious.

    If Nadal and Djokovic wanted REAL competition, then they should have been born a few years earlier. Not their fault they weren't, Federer and everyone else apart from these two are terrible overall.
     
  11. Hitman

    Hitman G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    11,924
    Yes, I forgot about Peurta. But since Nadal did go through Federer there also, I just counted it as part of the Nadal count that needs to be looked at for quality.

    Federer was a player who lost his final 11 matches on clay, and he is supposed to be Nadal's rival back in those days? Really?!
     
  12. augustobt

    augustobt Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,845
    Location:
    Salvador, Bahia - Brazil
    The Order is a fake of Nadal Slam King or The Dark Knight?
     
  13. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Not me . Sorry.
     
  14. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Federer beat Djokovic on clay just last year.

    And even if you don't count Feds win over nadal in 2006 wimby, Feds did beat Nadal at Wimbledon in 2007. Furthermore even in 2008 Nadal BARELY won Wimbledon ....in the dark.

    So I think you are way underestimating Federer.

    Is Roger one of the goats ? YES!

    Would he have 16 slams with nadal and joker in the mix ? NO
     
  15. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,293
    Dark Knight has compelling argument here.

    Fed would simply not have won 16 slams if he were to play plays as good as Nadal or Djoker (He sure would have won HC slams coz he can fight tooth and nail with both)

    I'm not sure why Fed fans have a hard time accepting this.
     
  16. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Because it's an argument that is entirely based on selective facts and opinions?

    It's been discussed, numerous times, that since Rafa won his first Major (FO 2005), Fed has won 12 of his 16 Major titles. Djokovic only started beating Fed regularly in 2011 and 2012...I think most would agree after Fed's prime.

    On the other hand, you could argue that Nadal and Djokovic's recent dominance has only been due to Federer's decline. It doesn't make it true, but it's an opinion, and one that's just as valid as the blanket statements made by TDK and others.

    It's a circular argument, and since we'll never see all three of these players at their peaks at the same time, we'll never really know.
     
  17. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916
    On HCs Federer faces much more stiffer competition than even in the 90s really. Everyone being a HC specialist means even the "weakest" of players can upset you.


    On grass and clay though, the field is so incredibly weak that Federer and Nadal are capable of holding complete strangleholds on these two surfaces without much trouble.
     
  18. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,293

    I actually I told this before..... If Fed can consistently see off all younger guys except Djoker (recently only for past 1&1/2 years) and Nadal(consistently), what does that tell you?

    It tells me, Fed is still a great player and apart from that fact, Nadal & Djoker have been able to raise their game to beat Fed. Nadal did it early as 2008 (when Fed was 26 years old and in real prime winning slams left and right). It simply means that WHEN Fed had to play against someone with such high level, he could not hold up. The argument really here is IF Fed had this kind of competition before he would not have won 16 slams. That's about it

    There are IF and WOULD in my argument, they are not facts!

    Do you agree with me?
     
  19. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    I fully agree about Nadal, he's always been a bad matchup for Federer. With that said, I think peak/prime Fed would have held his own at the US Open, and the AO (on rebound ace, anyway), as well as on grass most of the time. We all know how that matchup plays out on clay. I just think that people say "well if Nadal had been around" as a cop out, knowing full well that after Nadal won his first Major and was #2 in the world, Federer went on to win 12 more Majors. For the record, I agree that Rafa was only primed at that time on clay, but Fed did his part in proving that he was competitive with Rafa on other surfaces (winning all their indoor meetings, 5 sets at Wimby and AO). I think Fed from 2004 and Rafa from 2008/early 2009 would be a good example of peak vs. peak, but we never saw that matchup, unfortunately.

    I disagree somewhat about Djoker, simply because he didn't start beating him regularly in Majors until late 2010, after Fed already won his 16th. Even Djokovic "2.0" lost to Fed at the 2011 FO and was 2 sets down, 5-3 down and double MP down at the 2011 USO to a 30 year old Fed.
     
  20. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    So you have to make up arguments to be right. And boy some people who have a problem with Federer are really obsessed. It is actually pathetic. The time and effort some people use to denigrate him is a credit to Federer.
     
  21. Emet74

    Emet74 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    873
    Well if McEnroe had been in his prime at the same time as Borg I guess Borg wouldn't have won 5 straight wimby, right? And if Borg and JMac had been the same age as Connors then Connors wouldn't have won as much as he did.

    What's the point? You can "take away" anyone's majors by stacking them up against hypothetic opponants. I'd like to see Rafa against Sampras at wimby on the faster grass.

    Fed's generation of himself, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalby Ferrero is ok even tho' only Fed and Roddick were really consistant top-notch players. Certainly better than the lame Rios Kafelnikov generation preceding them.

    Why should we think that Nadal and Djoko should be transported in time to be part of this group??

    As for Roger, yes Nadal has been a nightmare for him but still outside of clay he held his own in those last 2 years of his peak 2006 - 2007, winning both important non-clay meeting w/ Nadal at Wimby and TMC.

    Fed was already starting to decline slightly in 2007 and no surprise Nadal had taken over by 2008. Fed had a good run of 4 consecutive years as #1, which is a record so hardly a short amount of time to peak.

    Give the guy the respect he's due.

    No I don't say he's the GOAT and never did. As for Nadal and Djoko, the jury's still out, let's say how things look when everyone retires.
     
  22. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    because roddick/hewitt were more consistent than him and federer of course was better. IIRC, he was ranked 4 or 5 at the start of AO in 2005.

    hewitt's better on the faster surfaces, fast HC and grass , his best surface is NOT rebound ace.... duh ! and past his prime hewitt in 2007 ran rafa close at hamburg in 2007 ....so ?


    only serve ? LOL !!! did you even watch that match ?

    roddick was playing brilliantly off the ground and his BH in particular was excellent , better than it has looked at any stage in his career

    roddick was absolutely pathetic in that match ....LOL ..


    actually its the very opposite. you make it look like rafa is invincible even off clay and djoker on fast HC/grass, when that isn't anywhere close to the truth. Roddick has a MUCH better chance of beating them there than he has against federer

    lulz, federer faced davydenko who was playing brilliantly in QF, then baghdatis on a hot run in the finals, haas wasn't playing badly either ....



    so if federer keeps on beating players when he is older, that means the field sucks, not that federer is that good and when he plays well, he can defeat almost everyone ?

    yes, agassi from 33-35 would still be a threat at slams (HC+grass), especially if the top 3 showed any signs of weakness .......

    I was not talking about the other matches of berdych vs rafa. He was holding serve ok until the business end of the sets and then lost serve tamely all the 3 sets


    yes, explains why he trails him H2H even now ..... LOL, with most of their meetings coming after Novak had won his first slam ...that was against "pusher" version of roddick ( apart from dubai 2008 )

    Novak is brilliant at returning serves on the slower to medium paced courts, probably the best in those conditions, but I'd take connors/agassi/hewitt/federer/murray on a fast court ....

    coming to rafa, he handles federer's serve very well, more than most think/give him credit for. But he's much weaker at handling the more powerful serves ....


    I mentioned the dubai 2008 match as well, which you conveniently chose to ignore ......

    Coming back to the miami 2010 match, for first set and half, rafa was struggling with returning roddick's serve, but otherwise he was totally dominating him off the ground. It was rafa who had all the confidence at that stage and not roddick. Then roddick decided to hit his FH and come forward more and rafa lost it ....


    yes, federer is by some distance better offensively... his combo of serve+FH is by some distance better than anything these 2 can do offensively ...

    Offensively nole's BH is by some distance better than rafa 's ... if someone puts them in the same category offensively, all I can say is LOL !

    rafa hits his BH DTL for winners consistently ? LOL, in which universe ?

    @ the bold part , really ? federer outduelled novak on the BH side in their USO 2008 and 2009 encounters. hit quite a few more BH winners than rafa in the FO 2011 final.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2012
  23. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Funny how you don't talk this language for Nadal. Nevermind. I haven't seen you compliment Federer is any real sense till now nor did I suggest you have to compliment other players in particular. But feel free to add strawmen.


    Federer has weaknesses. But if you're going to claim an elite professional has a weakness, better learn to back your claims. Don't argue like a child.



    Federer was beating Djokovic comfortably more often than not till 2010. Anyway, late or not, he has made the change and it is prompting them to go after FH more often. They simply cannot prepper his BH like they once did. Of course, Federer's approach versus Djokovic is different. He mixes up a bit more there by either using the BH DTL or using the short slice that gives Novak's fits. He can't get into BH CC rallies with him.

    You obviously don't watch tennis.

    I watch most of their matches.



    If I'm wrong then back up your statement. Forcing Nadal to go DTL on his backhand is a strategy players have used time and again because it puts him in an awkward position and he cannot use his heavy FH to attack their BH in turn. Nadal also focuses more on just keeping the ball in play when forced to go DTL. If you think this is wrong you should be able to tell me how. So far, I've seen you make "I am wright you are wrong" type of statements. Won't work. Argue rationally or give up.

    Nadal's is only a more stable shot than Federer's. Only in some tournaments does he really use it as a weapon. Infact he was getting killed on his BH side last year, constantly cuffing up short balls. Djokovic is definitely better than both in terms of using it as a weapon. Federer of course has by far the better slice.

    Good. You need to do that :mrgreen:
    You mean in the past year. But that's not the primary option anyhow.
    Why? No reason.

    That is because Nadal is a relatively defensive player compared to those guys even now. If they're zoning it's tough for anyone to beat them. Anyone less offensive, that is.

    They did both as any big hitter or a power hitter would. You're a fool if you haven't seen them go after Nadal's BH. Most of the big hitters tend to go for Roger's FH as well. But they can only do it when they're extremely confident of it. Also, most of these losses you're talking about have come on low-bouncing surfaces. Even Federer uses the angled BH CC on indoors for instance. No way will he do it on a high-bouncing surface though.



    Yes, he's a fairer player imo.

    As a typical ******* would, you bring up that final. Yes, he cried. So? Crying doesn't amount to gamesmanship, sorry.

    Yes, Nadal is very graceful in defeat. So graceful infact that he has an injury excuse up his sleeve all the time. So graceful that he needs coaching from his uncle during matches.



    boo-hoo. No. You need to watch tennis.
    He's NOT the one losing seven straight finals to one guy :wink:

    Roger lost only two matches from being up two sets to love and that was last year, at age 30. Get a clue.

    So?

    Most of his chokes have come in last two years. Honestly, Nadal and Djokovic being nearly six years younger ought to be beating him easier than that. Instead he's giving them fits. Djokovic especially.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2012
  24. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    I'd really like to see the list of matches where "Rafa" is dazzling everyone by constantly hitting BH DTL winners. Now that would be something :lol:
     
  25. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,448
    That tells everyone what they need to now.
     
  26. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    umm, forgot the most significant of them all ? wimbledon 2007 final ????? LOL, typical nadal fan !

    he's beaten JMDP twice in 5 setters now ( both at RG ) ....

    beat agassi at USO 2004 as well in a 5-setter ...

    it was mainly his mental strength that mainly bailed him out vs simon at AO 2011, tipsarevic in AO 2008, andreev in USO 2008 - all 5 setters ...and it required mental strength to go for the FH which had been failing him until then in that match - vs haas in 2009 RG. if he'd lost that point, haas would be serving for the match .....

    federer has lost 2 matches after being up two sets to love in slams - both coming last year ... with decline due to age ...

    since when did only 5 setters become the benchmark of mental toughness anyways ?

    if you can get it done in 3 or 4 sets, why go to 5 ?

    yes, fed's mental toughness is not as much as rafa's or djoker since 2011, but that doesn't mean he isn't mentally tough ..
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2012
  27. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,417
    roddick was not federers main rival. roddick did not reach a single GS final against fed outside wimbledon where he was a kind of a specialist.
     
  28. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    2006 US Open, Fed won in 4 sets.
     
  29. Emet74

    Emet74 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    873
    OMG.

    Fed's first important GS win was over Roddick in 2003 wimby semi where the winner of that semi was favored to win the tournament. Roddick then got revenge in Montreal semi, denying Fed the #1 ranking until around 6 months later. Fed hit back against a jaded but world #1 Roddick at 2003 TMC.

    In 2004 Fed and Roddick played back to back finals at wimby followed by toronto then again in Thailand. That Fed won all three matches was a huge blow to Roddick.

    After that they faced off again in 2005 at Wimby followed by Cinci final, 2006 USO final and 2006 TMC where Roddick lost despite having matchpoint, followed by Roddick's win at the Kooyong exo begining of 2007 and then the famous AO semifinal of 2007.

    That semi was probably the last time anyone had any serious expectation of Roddick against Fed, but they did play again in 2007 USO QF, 2009 AO semi and 2009 Wimby final of course.
     
  30. start the lawnmower

    start the lawnmower New User

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    11
    feds immense mental strength was demonstrated by his asking for hawkeye to be switched off as he couldn't handle an injured nadal.
    They refused his ludicrous request but he squeezed through in the end as nadals knee injury proved too much.

    Next years final. A healthy nadal.... You know the test
     
  31. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    No. Federer's immense mental strength helped him save 4 break points early in the 5th set, then break to lead 4-2. You know the rest.
     
  32. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,253
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Fail. Federer won 5th set 6-2. And pushed Nadal to a 9-7 fifth set in Wimbledon 2008, putting enough pressure on Nadal that many former pros said they wouldn't have been able to handle themselves.
     
  33. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Feds mental game is probably his biggest weakness ....

    He ja never had a great record when pushed to five sets....but I think the USP Djokovic match proved it....

    Fed was up 40-15 and had match point. Joker made a blistering return .

    Fed made an unforced error, a double fault and the proceeded to lose the next 17 out of 22 points . It was the biggest meltdown I Jane seem in the history of the sport .

    The second biggest meltdown is also held by Federer at the AO where not only did fed fold to Nadal but just started crying .
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2012
  34. Hitman

    Hitman G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    11,924
    What? :shock: No way! So what if he beat Djoko on clay and Nadal on grass? He still isn't a very good player overall. I think you are giving him too much credit. He isn't a good player, never truly was.

    And yes, Nadal especially, and Novak more recently benefited from very very poor competition. In fact until the start of 2011, there wasn't any real depth at all. I mean, really who did they beat? Federer, who only beat weak players himself, and is one himself also? Come on! Now you have a toss up at the top, right?

    Sorry, but it was a weak era ever since the 90s came to an end. Roger isn't in the league of decent players. Stop giving him so much credit. Hopefully real strong era will emerge some day.
     
  35. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,253
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Why do tards always bring up the crying thing? is it some challenge of your masculinity that a guy cried in a public place? Are you so butthurt that he's won 16 majors that you have to make a personal attack?

    Grow up, recognize that, yes, we're allowed to have emotions, and that there isn't anything wrong with that. You seem more and more like an uneducated teenager who thinks he knows everything but actually knows nothing... and trust me, I know what I'm talking about with that statement.
     
  36. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    I just stumbled on this forum. Boy, oh boy! what a mess, and what a ridiculous thread. Come on, hitman. Let me ask you this: do you choose who to play when you enter a tournament? Do you choose which side of the draw to be so that you avoid your most serious opponent until the final? Do you choose to play only on sunny day, no wind, low humidity, etc. Do you get my point now? Fed as many other past greats just played whoever showed up in the finals on that day. Their opponents are weaker than... by your definition. Well, they made through their own half, no? They were stronger than their own opponents and now they lost to Fed. So what? Do you have to take away their merit? All the talk about this era and that era being weaker or stronger is just ridiculous! Do you YOURSELF choose when to be born, just so that you can boast "I was born in a strong era"? Come on, now! Give credit to whoever is due, Sampras, Fed, Djoker, Rafa, or your own favorite player without belittle all the others.
     
  37. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    ahem, ahem.. turn your sarcasm meter on!!
     
  38. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    You disagree?:confused:
     
  39. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    i'm pretty sure hitman was being sarcastic and trolling with TDK ...
     
  40. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    I don't think so. It's most likely NadalAgassi.
     
  41. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Hey VP,

    Its not really a ridiculous thread as this point is being debated among pros, magazines and everywhere over the Internet.

    No one here is blaming Fed. He is one of the Goats for sure but I the question is how much of goat?

    Would he have 16 slams with nadal and joker in the mix?

    I don't think so.
     
  42. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,253
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    How do you feel about the fact that Federer, nearly 31, could potentially be ranked number 1 at the close of Wimbledon? If he draws djokovic semifinal, and then wins the whole tournament, he will be.

    What does that say about this 'golden era' of yours, that a guy at nearly 31 can be number 1?
     
  43. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    Yes, it is. Your post just proved the ridicule of it. You talked about Fed's 16 GS titles, then implied that that number is somehow subpar because Nadal and Djoker 'weren't in the mix'. Is it like NSK put it, "because they haven't developped their game to the slam level"? Are you telling me that Fed had/has to worry about Rafa and Djoker's game beside his own? Damn, that's too much for anybody, don't you think? It was no fault of his that Nadal and Djoker didn't show up at each one of his GS titles. They showed up at some but at every single one of them, right? Now, if they didn't make out of their own draw, or lost to Fed in SF, then Fed's title somehow doesn't mean as much as if they were in the final? What a ridiculous reasoning!
    "You don't think so". Why? Because the current Rafa and Djoker (25 and 26 year old) could beat a 31-year old Fed with more consistency? Their victories and GS titles now mean more. Humm...But back then a 25-year old Fed beat up not only them 20-21 year old kiddies) but almost everyone else (from 03-07 or 08), but that's subpar victories, right? Humm... Is it something from philosophy 101 that I'm missing here?:confused:
     
  44. 10is

    10is Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,451
    Here's NSKs retort from another thread:

    Considering the subpar nature of the WTA tour and using the Wozniacki analogy to compare Federer's ascendancy to the number one spot in this era of men's tennis, NSK has therefore comprehensively refuted TDK and ended up proving how weak the Djokdal era really is.

    Quad erat demonstrandum.
     
  45. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,253
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Yeah, I believe I replied to that NSK post. It's absurd, his 'reasoning', and TDK's. Absurd.
     
  46. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    I say it's completely possible.

    Like I said Fed would be great during any era.....I just don't think he woul have 16 slams.

    These three goats are competing ....all fed needs to do is win just one slam and people will go nuts . It's completely possible.....in fact probable!!

    All I'm saying is 3> 1.......as to which of the three is the greatest is still
    Not answered.
     
  47. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    First of all Federer himself has Calle this a golden era....along with Andre Agassi, John McEnroe, pat cash , stefi Graf ,Bjor Borg just to name a few.

    What's the big deal ? The competition is tougher now .....so what . We are lucky to witness it.

    Enjoy it.
     
  48. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,458
    Thanks Oprah!
     
  49. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    The big deal is you don't give due where it's due. Like Phil Jackson once said,"the championship that San Antonio Spurs won in a lock-out shortened season should have an asterisk". Where were his Lakers then? Getting their butts kicked out, I take it? I digress...Back to the post, 16GS titles in my book are 16GS titles, no 'what-if', no "how-come', no bla, bla, bla. I enjoy watching tennis, do you? Or you only enjoy watching it only when Nadal and Djoker reached their full maturity (as now)?
     
  50. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,265
    Location:
    Chile
    No one is saying it's his fault.

    Yeah, this.
     

Share This Page