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_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    But still tougher than Fed's draws that I mentioned. Keep trying.

    OMG I refuse to believe you are that dumb! I just said WIM and RG 2010 were his EASY slam wins. In what universe can you possibly translate that to me saying it was a quality win? Maybe you should READ what you quote and comment on and if you did read it, then LEARN to READ properly.

    Yeah, you're right, I mean outside of the 5 time defending champion who did he beat? lol. Just stop you are making yourself look incredibly stupid.

    No, not a major winner that's not my argument. When did Fed beat those "major" winners? When they weren't ranked in the top 2 apart from a couple here and there.

    Well you're entitled to your opinion and I can see your point but I think the bench mark should not be top 10. IMO it should be top 3 because they are usually the slam contenders and they are for a reason. My point is if you can beat the best possible opponent that you could've faced, then it MUST be considered as a tough draw, but if you are beating guys that you are ranked 4-5+ places higher than, then it's not as impressive because it's easier.

    BTW I am NOT trying to say that beating multiple top 10 opponents is EASY that anybody could do, it certainly is very impressive BUT it is still EASIER than beating the #1 or #2 ranked player in the world.
     
  2. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    It's clear you and I just disagree. BTW, at Wimby 2010, Nadal played 2 5 set matches in early rounds. It was easy in terms of ranked opponents (even though you mentioned that going through a top 4 player makes a draw "hard", and he played #4 Murray in the semis, but I digress), but he was tested early.

    By the rubric you've created, of course Nadal and Djoker have had it harder than Fed. If the only thing that matters is beating a top 3-4 player, then sure. I couldn't disagree more with the premise since it A) automatically dismisses anyone ranked 5 or below and B) doesn't allow for anyone to say "that player got hot and was playing at an other worldly level". I think both of those things can matter greatly when assessing the strength of a draw or Major win.

    My issue with this is pretty simple: There is a growing sect of people on TTW that think that the only players that matter are the top 4. I disagree. I think overall strength of an era (or a draw, in this case), means more than just the top 3-4 guys. That's the basis for my opinion that running the table on 15, 6, 7, 9 is as impressive as 25, 8, 14, 3. In my opinion it is, in yours it's not.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2012
  3. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Your arguments go in line with the arguments of who had tougher competition between Evert, Navratilova, Court, and Graf. Nearly everyone says Graf had the easiest competition because Seles was stabbed. However the field she faced was overall much deeper than the ones those other 3 faced. However people say Martina had Chris, Margaret had Billie Jean, Chris had Billie Jean, Evonne, then Martina, and so on. The top 20 and even top 30 was way stronger in Graf's era though, but people value the main rival(s) more.
     
  4. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,265
    Location:
    Chile
    There's the quality of those 1 or 2 ranked players as well.
     
  5. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    I agree that people value the main rivals more. I understand where people are coming from, especially if all 3/4 guys were in primes at the same time.

    I just don't see it in today's game. Fed is going downhill, Murray has never entirely gotten it together on the big stages, and then you've obviously got Rafa and Djoker who are both playing very well. After that, there's not much going on.

    While many writers, pundits and players (former and current) feel this is a golden era, I disagree. It's not out of Fed worship, tardness, or anything else, it's just that I think it should be about more than the top 3 guys. Tennis would be ultimately more interesting, imo, if it were about more than just the top 3 (really the top 2) players.
     
  6. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    You play the hand you're dealt with. Not the hand you, or the fans wish to have". Simple English?

    The PAST canNOT be changed. Coulda, woulda, shoulda canNOT and will NEVER change the past. Simple?

    You look at a past accomplishment, and say "throw Rafa or Djoker in the mix" (your quote here), Fed would NOT have it"? You just BELITTLE Fed. That's armchair quaterbacking PAST results to your sick fantasy.

    How about "throw in the mix Laver, Lendl, Borg, Boris, Stefan, Sampras against Rafa" for each of his GS titles? He would have been CREAMED! And his # would be... 0 title. I have too much respect for Rafa to do it though. Just old, silly me.

    Enjoy your 'what-if' and belittle Fed. Have your laugh. Be warned though that someone else is also applying the same 'what-if and throw in the mix' against Rafa or Djoker or your favorite player.

    Many of you on this thread canNOT understand how humiliating, or condescending your message look when you "throw in the mix and this player now becomes NOBODY".
    English simple to understand?
     
  7. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I dont think this is a golden era. I just dont think Federer's was either. None of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic have had to experience a golden era by any stretch. The thing that makes me is not the Federer fans who argue that todays competition isnt that much stronger, which to some extent is true, but that they also thrash the Sampras era, the McEnroe era, the Laver era, any era past as well. They give the impression they actually think (I lol at the very thought of this) that the Federer era was the strongest competition ever, with Roddick and Hewitt as his main rivals, and that frankly is laughable. I am a Nadal fan but I dont try to argue something similarily stupid, like saying he had the toughest clay competition ever, or that his road to winning Wimbledon with the court conditions and grass field today is the toughest ever. If I took the mentality of a typical TW **** I probably would argue such stupid things though.
     
  8. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    I agree with you on this 100%. I think 04-07 and 08-present are of equitable strength, given the strength at the top today versus the stronger top 30 ish from 04-07. I think since the late 90s, tennis has been weaker in general, and we're far from a golden age.
     
  9. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340

    Both nadal and federer played at their prime in 2008 Wimbledon in the greatest match of all time in Feds house of grass.

    Nadal won.

    It's the equivalent of fed beating nadal at Roland garros in his prime.

    Game over.

    Nadal is a better grass and hard court player than fed is a clay court player.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2012
  10. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    what a load of cr*p..

    del potro FO 2009 >>>>>>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

    roddick wimbledon 2009 >>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

    etc etc

    Quality of play over reputations ........


    lol, how could federer beat the #1, #2 players that consistently, when he was the #1 player at his prime and the no #2 (nadal ) player was AWOL at the final stages of the HC slams ? ( he did beat nadal at wimbledon )

    baggy and gonzo played MUCH better than soderling in FO 2010 final or berdych in wim 2010 final

    2004 AO - federer beat hewitt, nalbandian, ferrero and safin in a row. Are you gonna cry because he didn't beat #1, roddick ? LOL !

    2004 USO - he beat agassi and hewitt, the best HC players at that time , roddick was eliminated in the QF by big hitting JJ

    2005 USO - he beat nalbandian, agassi and hewitt, the best HC players at that time, the #2 player nadal of course was eliminated by blake

    2007 USO - he beat roddick, davydenko and djoker in a row, the best HC players at that time ...

    2008 USO - he beat djoker and murray, the best HC players at that time ...

    etc etc ...

    Should I go on ?

    nadal is far far more luckier that the surfaces have been slowed down, otherwise he'd have at max have 2 slams outside of clay ...
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2012
  11. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,458


    Completely ridiculous post...
     
  12. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    This is silly.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012
  13. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,448
    Why, because he does not agree with you? He's correct by saying the finalists of Federer's slams were the best at that time, if not they could not have reached the final. Just like Rafa was the best at the 2010 USO or Federer was the best at the 2009 RG. Both beat the second best player of the tournament. Not the 2nd ranked, but the second best at that particular tournament, the one who rose to the challenge of reaching a Grand Slam final. Not Rafa's nor Roger's fault the finalist was not who you wanted to see. Case in point, both the slams I mentioned had no #1 or #2 finalists. The champions were the #1 and #2. In 2009, #2 Federer beat Soderling, who had just beaten #1 Nadal. In 2010, #1 Nadal beat Djokovic, who had just beaten #2 Federer. Does this diminish their slams? Of course not.
     
  14. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    As usual you grossly exagerrated the truth and think speaking in hysteria strengthens your argument when it doesnt. Del Potro at the 2009 French was not that great. He was great for him considering he isnt a great clay courter to begin with, probably as well as he will ever play on clay. He struggled vs clay mug Tsonga, and his draw to the semis was a cakewalk. He then wore himself out and lost to a pushing and tenative Federer who was playing mediocre until playing a great final at that years French. Djokovic has never lost to Del Potro, and I highly doubt he would lose to the 2009 French Open version of Del Potro at either the 2012 French or 2010 U.S Open either. The Del Potro of the 2009 French probably wouldnt have even won a set vs Nadal at this years French, no chance in hell he goes on an 8 game run at one point or goes to a almost a 4th set tiebreak, so already the idea he was way better than Djokovic at this years French is clearly false.

    Roddick played great at Wimbledon 2009 but still nearly went out to an old and injured Hewitt. He wasnt that much better, if at all, than Djokovic at the 2 slams you refer to. Djokovic wasnt playing that badly at those 2 slams, if he were he wouldnt have even been in the final and been competitive with a red hot Nadal.
     
  15. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Actually I misread the post....it is ridiculous.

    Nadal just keeps beating Fed at every stage in his career .

    Can we at least agree that the competition became tougher once Nadals game evolved to all surface play? Clearly it got tougher because Nadal kept beating him In slams.

    Now add to that Joker......the competition is now even tougher.

    Joker + Nadal + Federer + Murray > just Federer

    That's almost half of the entire top 10!!
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012
  16. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    Still not reading my post? A pointer: start with the 2 first paragraphs (post #1206). That's my beef against your armchair quarterbacking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer#Records. Section "Finals: 23 (16 titles, 7 runners-up)". Make the count of Fed wins WITHOUT Rafa and Djoker. How many? Hint: 13. 13 times when your beloved Rafa and Djoker were NOT in these finals.

    Where were they? 13 times that Rafa or Djoker got BOOTED OUT BEFORE the finals. They coulda, shoulda, woulda...don't you think? Yeah, I know, let throw them in the mix...Well, they got THROWN OUT 13 TIMES BEFORE they even had a sniff of Fed. Hint for keyword: BEFORE.

    Can Wikipedia be wrong on the count? Ohh, just the old, silly, senile me, right?
     
  17. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,448
    Yeah, super tough...Especially because Murray has never beaten Federer at a slam and Federer can't play himself. F*ck logic!
     
  18. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    Top FH,
    I kept the part of your quote here. It illustrates perfectly what I tried to tell to TKD and DRII, and many others. It just seems it couldn't get through.
    Their counter-agument: "silly, ridiculous, poetry(!)". Humm...

    Fed played these finals and WON. Regardless of the opponent identity.

    Their sick fantasy wants to pitch Rafa and Djoker against Fed in every SINGLE of these 16 GS titles. Well, it didn't, all right. Deal with it. Stop "throw them in the mix and Fed would lose". Apparently, TDK is the ONLY one who has a time machine to go back in time. Can I buy a ticket?:)
     
  19. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    Apparently, you do NOT like my own "throw them in the mix", don't you?

    My post #1206. My what-if "How about "throw in the mix Laver, Lendl, Borg, Boris, Stefan, Sampras against Rafa" for each of his GS titles? He would have been CREAMED! And his # would be... 0 title."

    What happened? Too tough an opposition now.

    Fed beat up a bunch of nobody players. So he's himself a lucky weak player. Rafa beat Fed easily, and because of that such weak opponent (Fed), Rafa is NOW the GREATEST, the STRONGEST, the ALL-TIME...

    Don't you have to beat a strong opponent first? In your opinion, Fed is just a lucky, weak, nobody, pretender, remember?

    Don't get caught pants down in your own convoluted logic. My 2 cents.
     
  20. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,227
    Location:
    Australia
    If Del Potro played at his 2009 US Open level at every slam, he'd be No. 1 now instead of Djokovic.
     
  21. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,458

    On paper, no it does not. However, when a broader, more discerning discussion is had with qualitative comparisons and contrasts -- of course it can and often does!
     
  22. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    Lol you're right Del Po was better than Djoker 2010... until he gassed out and was physically DONE like a dinner. It was so visible that JMDP barely had anything left and Fed was playing poorly enough to allow him chances. I'd say RG 09 along with '12 are his worst RG performances since 04. He even struggled past a what 31? yr old Haas.

    Delpo was not playing at a higher level than Novak this year, that's just complete crap from your part. It seems that if Nadal beats Novak, it's because he has played crap yeah? The only reason he pushed Fed to 5 sets was because Fed played well below his best too.

    Keep sooking but everyone knows for a FACT now that Fed has only beat the #1 or #2 (if you're ranked #1 you cannot face #1 lol) ranked player in 4 slams in his entire career.

    Sorry, I didn't realise one slam wonders were capable of more quality play than guys like Fed, Rafa and Novak. I suppose Rafa needs to beat a few more one slam wonders in order to prove himself yeah? Please you sound so ridiculous just stop for your sake.

    Oh so it's Rafa's fault that Fed couldn't beat the #2 player because the very early 20's Rafa's game wasn't up to scratch to make it to HC finals. LOL Fed is LUCKY Rafa didn't have the game back then to make it to HC finals because unfortunately for Fed, Rafa whipped his butt in HC finals even from age 18.

    Fed also had 3 chances to beat Rafa while he was at his peak at RG and couldn't get the job done. In fact not really close. Yet Rafa WAS able to knock Fed off his perch while still in his prime at his best slam WIM in 08 and even got really close in 07. What's your grand explanation for Fed's failure to accomlish this? :oops:

    Also, FYI Rafa made it to a HC slam final in 2009 age 22 against Fed and beat him and before you start with your "Oh Fed was past his prime" crap, he made ALL 4 SLAM FINALS in 2009. Sorry but you don't do that past your prime especially in what you yourself is calling a strong field (RG 09 and WIM 09).

    Why isn't post-prime Fed making it to Rafa in the HC finals now? It seems a bit convenient that he would lose to Novak after having MP 2 years in a row, I mean you seem content to blame pre-prime Rafa for not making HC finals, but I don't see you blaming post-prime Fed for not making it. But it's ok we all know ****s such as yourself have double standards for the guy.

    What makes it even more funny is you use a mid 30's Agassi as an example of an extremely tough opponent Fed had to deal with but beating an early 30's Fed doesn't count because "he's past his prime" LOL Double standards.

    See now it's quite obvious that you have a Fed poster on your bedroom cieling and dream about him all night long. Baggy was MUCH better than Sod and Berdych? For what the first 2 sets until he choked the second set? He got bagelled in the third and lost the 4th 6-2 . That means he won a total of JUST TWO GAMES after having the chance to serve for the 2nd set and choking, and you want to justify that as a tough final opponent? GTFO LOL.

    Gonzo was also pretty average after the first set. It's not really much to justify that Fed had it tough, was it tougher than Rafa's RG and WIM 2010? Well who cares seriously we're comparing crap finals performances here on both sides. I've already stated on 2 occasions but since you can't read I'll say it again, RG and WIM 2010 were EASY SLAM WINS for RAFA. However, they are the ONLY 2 really easy slams he picked up, Mr. Fed otoh has picked up quite a few more. I suppose you're going to say Phillipoussis was tough too lol.

    Ferrero? lol coming off his loss to CHRIS GUCCIONE in Sydney? The guy who beat a bunch of clowns to make it to that semi?

    Safin was clearly gassed out he played what about 3 5 setters before that final, 2 of which coming in the QF and SF stages.

    Hewitt was coming off a poor 2003 where his ranking dropped coinsiderably and didn't recapture his form until later in the year. I sooo wish Rafa was able to get those first 2 TBs against Hewitt the round before, he could've gone on with it and faced Fed in the 4th rd. THAT would've been interesting!

    So who's his tough opponent? an 8th ranked Nalbandian who played to his ranking. WOW. Much tougher than beating Novak in 2010 USO :oops:

    but but but Agassi was past his prime, so it doesn't count right? :oops: Lol he was 34.5 years old and still pushed Fed to 5 sets imagine what would've happened if he had to face Rafa or Novak, not a chance in hell he would've beat them.

    And here we go this is amazing, Hewitt who got bagelled in 2/3 sets in the final and you talk about quality play lol you're making a complete fool of yourself and contradicting yourself so bad now LOL.

    And how was Safin not the best HC player at the time, I mean he made the AO final which was the previous HC major? Oh that's right he lost in the FIRST ROUND. LOL only further highlights my previous points about how inconsistent he was.

    Oh how nice of you to bring up that a NINETEEN YEAR OLD Nadal lost to Blake. Here's one for you, a TWENTY ONE YEAR OLD Fed lost to Ancic in the first round at Wimbledon. Did that mean Fed was forever bound to suck at WIM? Obviously not, Nadal's game was only primed for clay at that stage, sure he was still capable of good HC results but not consistent enough and certianly not experienced enough to do it over 5 sets at the time. Your arguments are so weak this is FAR TOO EASY LOL.

    And here we go with the Agassi crap again, this time he's 35.5 getting better with age yeah? Oh and Nalby was a TOUGH opponent wasn't he because Fed beat him. LOL you keep telling me about quality of PLAY so tell me how you classify someone winning only 7 games in a slam QF as quality play? Please tell me this, you say Berdych and Soderling played crap (which I agree with) and use that as a basis to discount Rafa's slam wins but when Nalby plays crap you conveniently ignore that fact and insert him as a tough opponent along with a guy on the brink of retirement who struggled to get to the final even though he was given a cake walk draw.

    Again with Davydenko LOL you must have mini posters of this guy too. Seriously and for the last time, DAVYDENKO WAS NEVER A SLAM THREAT. EVER. and NEVER WILL BE LOL. Then you use Novak as a tough opponent. LOL so he was tough in 07 final but not in 10 final. Double standards again. The 07 USO was Novak's first final and he choked on opportunities to win the first 2 sets because of this. Fed has capitalised on guys making their first final and getting nervous when in a chance to put some real SB pressure on him.

    How were they the best HC players at the time? Rafa won Toronto and the Olympics leading into the USO. I think you enjoy making stuff up. Just because Murray beat him in that semi where Murray played really well and Rafa was below his best after playing so many more matches doesn't make him a better HC player at the time. Fed was lucky that Murray had the game at the time to take advantage of Rafa's fatigue and knock him out, just like he was lucky Soderling took Rafa out at 09RG.

    Nah, enough bs from you just save yourself from further embarrassment because it is sure to come with your gibberish.

    Tennis evolves, the ATP obviously wanted something more for the fans than stupis serve fests so they slowed the surfaces to allow for more different styled players to face each other.

    BTW the courts were slowed in 2001 or 2002 at WIM and Fed went out in the first round to Ancic, who coincidently played Rafa in the first round the very next year and LOST. I'd say the slower grass helped Fed's baseline game, if it was faster, there's no doubt Roddick's serve would've got him a win or two against Fed up there.
     
  23. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Not with rational people, actually. Thankfully, we don't have that many here, or this thread wouldn't still be alive and kicking after all this time. :lol:
     
  24. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    delpo in that semi final was absolutely brilliant. He was hitting nearly as hard and with as much precision as soderling.

    delpo struggled with tsonga ?

    really, 6-1,6-7,6-1,6-4 ..... handing two breadsticks, losing one set in a TB is struggling ??? ha ha ....


    federer was playing well in patches until the final .... he played well vs haas in the last 2 sets ( of course haas' form had come down as well ), vs PHM in the last 3 sets, vs monfils and played decently vs delpo as well .....

    delpo after come back , breadsticked nadal in davis cup on clay and was serving for the 5th set ..... nadal wasn't playing as well as he was in FO 2010, yes, but delpo wasn't playing as well as he was in FO 2009 ....

    the idea that djoker 2012 FO final ( apart from that stretch of 8 games ) coming even close to how delpo was playing in 2009 semi is laughable ...

    djoker was down 2 sets to love vs seppi and was down 4 MPs to tsonga at this year's FO .... yes, the same claycourt mug you referred to before ...

    weren't you also yapping again and again about how delpo was a grasscourt mug, but didn't he give nadal one hell of a fight at wimby 2011 ?

    duh !!!!

    hewitt was playing really well at that wimbledon because he finally was getting an injury free stretch ....

    and yes, roddick 2009 wimbledon final was much better than djoker USO 2010 final or FO 2012 final , its a no contest frankly

    USO 2010, he got lucky that federer was on an error-fest and even then he had to save MPs (granted that took courage ).... had a scare in 1R with troicki as well IIRC , going to 5 sets

    FO 2012 , already mentioned above .....
     
  25. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,458
    Rational people :confused:

    You and other Fedephants have no problem making qualitative judgements when it comes to Nadal or other players; yet dismiss any attempt to do so regarding Federer and his wins. Makes no sense!
     
  26. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    Jeez, learn to read. I was talking about delpo @ FO 2009 and not at this year ......

    Novak's form was wildly fluctuating this year. He was down 2 sets to love vs seppi and down 4 MPs to tsonga ..... he played well vs an error-prone federer in the semis and in that 8 game stretch in the finals that;s it ....Apart from that in the finals , his BH sucked outright , wasn't able to get a good first serve in when required .....

    RG 08 and RG 12 were easily worse than RG 2009 as far as federer's form is concerned ...

    I already debunked this cr*p ....Plus even though he didn't win it, fed also beat novak in FO 2011 ...
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012
  27. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    I was saying it isn't fed's fault that he couldn't beat the #2 player in slams, because the #2 player wasn't good enough to meet him there when he was at his peak, duh !!!!
     
  28. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Oh, did I? Could you please get a quote?
     
  29. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    it depends on the form, clueless.

    just because novak is a superior player to delpo and roddick, doesn't mean that when they are playing well, they can't play better than an average djoker ......
     
  30. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    So then Roddick played better than Nadal in 4 slam finals?
     
  31. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    Rational people would never say such thing like a healthy Haas is another Federer.
     
  32. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,873
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Strawman argument. But yes if Roddick made it through the draw and Nadal didn't then Roddick was playing better than Nadal. Nadal entered almost as many Grand Slam tournaments as Federer, if he couldn't even make it to the final then the chances are he wouldn't have been able to stop Federer anyway.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012
  33. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    Delpo played well in RG09 but do not make him sound like he was playing at Rafa's level up there. Almost unbeatable and only Fed could stop him. Seriously Fed was playing crap at RG09 by his standards and Delpo ran out of gas after the third set. Fed breadsticked him and wasn't playing really well after he got up a break in the fifth which is why Delpo was able to make a bit of a late charge, but once Fed was in danger all he had to do was turn it up a bit and Del Po couldn't go with him.

    All of those were easy opponents that Fed struggled to beat. it wasn't because they were playing really well, it was because Fed's form was not great.

    What 5th set? LOL talking crap again as usual. Rafa beat him in 4 and returned the breadstick favor back to him in the 3rd.

    It's laughable to say the Delpo's RG09 level was miles ahead of Novak 2012. THAT is what's laughable. Your completely biased opinion is what is laughable. At least Novak was fit enough to last on the court. He was also the ONLY guy to take a set off Rafa and there's no way Fed would've, had Fed somehow made it, Rafa would've beat him probably worse than the 08 final.

    But he beat Fed in straights. So his form was better heading into the final.

    Yep he sure did, Delpo played very well at WIM 11, better than any finalist Fed ever beat at a major. Oh wait, no Delpo lost to Rafa at WIM 11 so scratch that, Delpo played crap and was easy.

    Injury free stretch or not, Hewitt was well past it and Roddick still struggled past him.

    Why? Because he took Fed to 5 sets? Fed was not playing ANYWHERE NEAR as well as Rafa was at USO10 or RG12. Roddick pushed Fed for the first time ever at Wimbledon (well 2004 is probably another time but the 09 5 setter was the one where Fed was really in danger of losing to him) and it was mainly due to 2 factors: 1. Roddick was playing well that cannot be denied and 2. Fed was not playing as well as he had in the past.

    When those two factors work hand in hand it usually calls for a close match. BUT Rafa was not playing poorly in USO10 or RG12 in fact he produced some of his best tennis in those two tournaments played very sharp and was always going to win the finals in no more than 4 sets.

    Everyone gets lucky when they beat Fed. If Fed this and if Fed that. Fact is nobody pushes Fed's buttons like Novak and Rafa and the main reason for that is their defensive skills, forcing him into error. Fed knows when he plays these two, if he doesn't hit close to the lines they will send the ball back with interest. This puts pressure on his shots and forces him to go for more, hence the errors. He can't play as safely as he does against Hewitt and Roddick against these two.
     
  34. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    So was I, I said Delpo was not playing better than Novak this year. I meant 2009 Delpo was not playing better than Novak 2012. Sorry I forgot to put a number after Delpo's name.

    Those matches against Seppi and Tsonga allowed Novak to get into form for his semi vs Fed. They played him into form. And AGAIN with the Fed was error prone. LOL he ALWAYS SEEMS to be error prone when losing to Novak I wonder why this is the case... hmmm I mentioned it in a previous post Novak FORCES HIM into error. Fed is not STUPID he knows that he needs to hit as close to the lines as possible or with as much pace as he can to win rallies against him. It's not like against Del Potro or Roddick or Hewitt where he can play a bit safer and still win the rallies.

    Yeah 08 was another bad RG for Fed but not easily worse than 09 and neither was 12 easily worse. They probably could be considered worse but not easily, Fed struggled to find consistent form throughout the whole 09 RG until he played a choker in the final.

    No you did not debunk anything! Tell me WHY FED has FAILED to win more than 4 majors whilst having to beat the #1 or #2 ranked player? He sure as hell has played against them and LOST to them plenty of times.
     
  35. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    gonzo was pretty decent even after the first set ..... nowhere near a cr*p performance like berdych/soderling in 2010 finals .....

    baghdatis actually played well for 2 sets atleast. soderling only for patches here and there and berdych lost it whenever it got anywhere near close ...

    I'm not saying gonzo or baggy were super-tough, but they were by some distance better than sod/berdych in the 10 finals ...


    yes, 2004 rafa who beat a sick federer in miami and lost to hewitt in straights would make it interesting vs federer in excellent form ? LOL .....

    hewitt had just beaten federer in the Davis Cup in 2003 , coming back from being down 2 sets to love ...

    ferrero was rapidly improving on HC at that time ...

    nalby of course was playing well ....

    safin, though admittedly had some fatigue , still put in a performanc by some distance better soderling/berdych put in the 10 finals ...


    the wind was a big factor in that 2004 USO match . and clueless, federer actually beat novak at the USO in 2007,08 and 09 ...

    hewitt was playing well until the finals, then just taken totally out of his comfort zone by federer playing his best. Granted that wasn't hewitt's best or close to it, but federer's form was the overwhelming factor in that ...
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012
  36. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    He played the #2 many times at RG when in his prime. Why couldn't he win then? Afterall that #2 was still a teenager or in his very early 20's.
     
  37. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    Absolutely. Strawman argument and that's why NSK is on my ignore list.

    The very similar case for Gonzo in 2007 AO. He blew everyone including Nadal off the court. Of course he's not a star player like Nadal, so only irrational fans like *******s will say Fed wins wasn't that impressive, ignoring the fact that Gonzo was playing out of his mind except only judge him by his GS history(LOL !). We don't even know if a prime Nole/Nadal would have beaten 2007 Gonzo.
     
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    ha ha ha, LOL ...... delpo was playing much better than djoker in this year's final ...


    err what ? federer wasn't playing well even before he played Novak and that was evident ....

    didn't see that last year when he beat novak at RG last year, did you ? or the 3 times he beat him at the USO ?


    because the #2 player wasn't there to meet him majority of the times ....

    the no of times he has lost to #1 or #2 from 2004-10 - nadal RG 06, nadal RG 07, nadal RG 08, nadal wim 08, nadal AO 09 ... that's 5 times ....oh yeah, that's plenty of times

    big decline from AO 2010 onwards , though he's played well in patches ...
     
  39. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    because nadal was a better clay courter ( & not that easy a matchup for federer )
     
  40. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Not a good match up = Nadal > Federer
     
  41. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    But AGAIN WHO CARES? They were all easy slam victories. My point is Rafa has had to beat the #1 or #2 player on 7/11 of his slam wins and Novak has had to do it in all 5. BOTH HAVE been forced to play the best possible opponent to win the majority of their slams.

    There is no use saying, yeah Fed had it easy in this one or that one BUT Rafa had it slightly easier here and there. The topic is the amount of TOUGH slam wins and so far Rafa and Novak have had it tougher than Fed based on how many times they were forced to beat the best possible opponent to win their slams. How hard is that for you to understand?

    Yeah it would've been very interesting because the Hewitt straight sets win invovled 2 TB sets. It wasn't like he straighted him easily. And I don't care how well Fed is playing that match would've been very interesting. Fed would've won, but it's somthing I would've liked to have seen.

    Exactly. He was down 2 sets to love and a break, meaning Fed was crushing him until he lost his nerve and Hewitt capitalised. Fed had him figured he just lacked the composure to go on with it at the time.

    So what? You just completely ignored my points about Ferrero. Again he lost to CHRIS GUCCIONE IINM for the second time in a row at Sydney and he beat a bunch of clowns to get to that final.
    nalby of course was playing well ....

    Again so what it was still an EASY VICTORY. There is absolutely no use comparing EASY wins it proves NOTHING. What does prove something is the amount of times they CAN beat the best possible opponent. Something Fed has only done 4 times to win a major and he has lost WAY more than 4 times to the #1 or #2 so his ratio is not good at all.

    I was talking about Novak and Rafa of today, not the Novak and Rafa that didn't have a developed and ready game for all the majors. We are talking about the current era vs Fed 04-07 no?

    LOL but Rafa's form wasn't the overwhelming factor when he crushed his opponents in slam finals, no no they were playing crap.

    Hewitt was hopeless in that final, same old crap CC BH you know where it's going everytime Fed could just sit back and wait for the right moment to attack he was under no pressure at all. Hewitt played crap and that's because he was never anything special to begin with. He thrived in the (IMO) poorest period of tennis 01-02. He was a fighter and I loved that about him but he doesn't really have any weapons to trouble the likes of Fed or prime Rafa and Novak. He could earn a set here and there but he wouldn't actually be able to beat them.
     
  42. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    I said one slam wonders, Delpo and Roddick have proven themselves at a major more than once. l2read
     
  43. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    Rubbish, Nadal was in top flight at RG, there is not a player in the world that would put up a fight against him yet Novak still managed to win a set. Rafa would've SMASHED Delpo playing at RG09 form in straights.

    Yeah Fed wasn't error prone when he beat Novak yeah? The balls at RG11 had a major say in that, they made the play faster and therefore Fed didn't need to go for the lines as much to still hit winners or force Novak into error.

    No you cannot stop at AO10, I don't care about his decline, you're happy to mention Fed's victories over Novak and Rafa before they hit their prime so now we will also use matches after Fed's past his prime. Otherwise Fed has only won 2 slams beating the #1 or #2 ranked player because Rafa at WIM 06 and 07 doesn't count. You can't have it both ways. Double standards.
     
  44. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    delpo wasn't tired in the 4th set at all. There was a huge game at 1 all in the 4th and fed broke him and then ran away with the momentum. He was slightly tired in the 5th, but was still able to break back .....

    the first 3 sets , he was playing absolute top notch tennis


    I said serving for the 5th set ... learn to read ...


    so delpo wasn't fit to last on court, yet broke back in the 5th, hmm ... interesting logic there ...


    and went back to being average in the final, except for that eight game stretch ...


    clueless, I give credit where it is due ... delpo was actually playing well vs rafa.

    and no, roddick wim 04, rafa 07, roddick 09 ....were clearly better than delpo in that match


    of course injury free stretch matters , and of course hewitt on grass is way better than seppi, tsonga on clay ...


    he wasn't going to win USO 2010 surely in 4 sets if Novak was playing real well .....

    you were so sure it wouldn't go to 5, if play had not stopped on Sunday and djoker's momentum had not been stalled ? :twisted:
     
  45. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    LULZ, what ? I've seen people use that term for one slam winners derogatorily plenty of times ....
     
  46. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,448
    Here is a quantitative statement for you:
    -Prior to being #1, Federer won 2 slams (He became #1 after AO 04).
    -Prior to Nadal being #2, Federer had won 4 slams (W03,AO04,W04,USO04)
    -Using the reasoning of some posters, Federer did not beat either #1 or 2 for his slams. Funny that for out of 12 of his slams, he was #1 in 9 and #2 for 3. Guess who failed to reach the final for 10 slams?
     
  47. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Federer Roddick Ferrero was the true golden era!

    Now that was tennis!!!
    .
     
  48. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    ha ha ha .... delpo 2009 RG SF too would have easily, I repeat easily taken a set off rafa this year ...

    so now we have to have the conditions slow as mollasses and federer should not make errors then to prove himself ????????? bwahahaha


    rafa in wim 07 final was playing brilliant tennis. LOL @ discounting that ...

    if we're considering a 'better improved' novak, then only novak 2011-early 2012 counts, when nadal lost 7 times in a row to him and federer beat him at RG ......LOL ....

    novak @ USO 07, USO 08 and 09 was playing better than he was at USO 2010 ......

    and of course novak wasn't playing that well in the RG final this year ( except for that 8 game stretch ) , his BH was the worst I've seen from him in a long time and his serve was AWOL for large part as well ...
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012
  49. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,049
    Oh the old match up thing. Well Fed was just a bad match up for Roddick then. So let's excuse all of Fed's wins against Roddick they were just due to a bad match up.

    Let me tell you something Rafa is a bad match up for everyone tell me who has a leading h2h against him in majors? And don't tell me some guy that beat him when he was 15 and then retired since or some useless garbage like that. Let's say they have to have played 5 times. Now go find me a player that is a bad match up for Nadal to point of having a leading h2h in majors.

    Novak is the only one that can really trouble him lately but Rafa still leads that one 6-3. Almost 7-2 if he didn't miss that BH in the AO final.

    Davydenko has a leading h2h against him, but only by 1 or 2 it is nowhere near as lopsided as Rafa's h2h against Fed.

    And you want to use the clay court as an excuse for Fed, what about on grass then? Fed struggled in 07 Rafa had BP in 2 different service games in the fifth set and sent a relatively easy FH into the net on one of them. Then he beat him in 08. What's the excuse there? Tell me what's the problem now? Was Fed error prone again? I guess for the GOAT he is error prone quite often in important matches :oops:
     
  50. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    the first thing I mentioned was that rafa was a better clay courter , the matchup only compounds the issue ...

    its the same thing with federer-roddick as well ...federer is a better player as well as a tough matchup for roddick ...

    LOL, typical ... novak missed a far easier sitter at 5-3 in the 4th set TB ( IIRC ) ... could've easily been over in 4 .....

    let's see, have rafa play more than half of his slam matches vs the Djoker of 2011 on slow/fast HC and see how it goes ....:twisted:

    of course rafa leads him 6-3 in slams ......one of which was in 2006 when djoker wasn't a top player, one was via a retirement ( wimbledon 2007 ) , one was in FO 2007 , when Novak was still to hit anywhere close to his best ( especially on clay )


    in both matches, rafa was playing well ....

    rafa was coming with huge confidence after that RG crushing in 2008 and federer's confidence vs him was also shaken after that ...
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012

Share This Page