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
  2. Frying Pan Forehand

    Frying Pan Forehand Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    297
  3. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Just joking . :)
     
  4. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    Okay we'll leave it at that.
     
  5. aceX

    aceX Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    2,906
    Location:
    In position
  6. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    "age doesn't matter "
     
  7. BullDogTennis

    BullDogTennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Location:
    Big Orange Nation
    pwnd!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  8. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    No doesn't mean anything till 2008.

    Nadal was still developing in 2005. He was merely 18 years old....Federer was getting his butt kicked at 20 to rafter on every surface at the same age (3-0 rafter).....

    The fact that baby Rafa the clay court specialist was the #2 player in the world just shows how pathetically weak that era was.
     
  9. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Nadal developing is a reason yet Fed's decline is an excuse. Double standards.

    If the era was so weak, why couldn't Nadal win any slams other than the French? At least Federer got to the finals of the French despite being a fast court player (By your reasoning that make the clay field weak.)
     
  10. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    You want a double standard ...... I'll give you one ....

    Nadal was 14 when he beat pat cash ...

    He was 17 when he beat Federer in his so called "peak"

    He was 20 when he was #2 .

    No player has ever done so much so quick and yet that's still not enough ...

    Now hered the double standard .... Why was fed completely dominated by rafter ?? Well of course not he was only 20 ...

    So for fed you see it's ok to be young but not nadal.... He should have been numer 1 at 14.
     
  11. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    948
    Should have been... but WAS NOT.
    Still try to rewrite the timeline.
    Absolutely pathetic.
    Read this: WAS NOT.
    End of the story.
     
  12. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    When did I say it was ok for Fed to be young?
    Everybody has their different paths so it's not surprising that their career achievement are distributed differently or is that too hard for your one-dimensional brain to interpret?
     
  13. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    No it's too hard for Federer to understand because he agrees with me.

    Or rather I agree with him.
     
  14. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    LOL. He doesn't understand but agrees with you. hmm lol
     
  15. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Yeah ....thats what you guys are actually saying.

    Thanks for helping me out .
     
  16. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Ok then I'll ask you .....

    Rafter beat Federer on fast grass , fast hard court and clay

    Why? Was it because Rafter is just better than Federer ? Or is there another reason? Hmmmmmm?
     
  17. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Because he was better than Federer back then.

    Federer beat Sampras on fast grass in 2001 when he was 19. Does this make Federer better than Sampras on grass? No. But according to you the age Sampras was back then was "prime".
     
  18. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Why was rafter better than federer " back then" and not later on?
     
  19. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Combination of Rafter getting old and worse and Federer getting better. It's part of the career. You start off bad, you get better and then you decline.
     
  20. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Why was federer getting better?
     
  21. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Like everyone else. Just like Rafter got old like everyone else.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2012
  22. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    "like everyone else "

    So then it's fair to say that people get better the more they play?

    Isn't what your saying is that Feder was not as good at age 20 as he was at age 25 because like "everyone else " at 25 as a " seasoned Pro" rather than a " rookie" at 17?

    Well couldnt you say the same about Rafa ? Maybe at 17 he was also a "rookie" and as you say "like everyone else " he got better and became a season pro at 25?

    Or when you say "everyone else" do you mean everyone else except Rafa ? The rules don't apply to him ?

    It's a double standard .

    I think you see the double standard.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2012
  23. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,781
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    speaking of double standard, because Fed won everything( before and during rafa's presence) it was a weak era and fed is a clown.

    however this is a strong era because it features nadal, djoker and fed.

    how can it be a strong era if fed is a weak era clown?
     
  24. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    You see that's the problem ....your hearing something that I'm not saying.

    Federer is a goat and will always be a goat . I never even hinted that he was a clown.

    However I don't think he is the goat jut because he win 16 slams. He woul have won less slams of a 21 year old Nadal were there from the beginning ....even a 20 year old Nadal possibly....

    But Nadal ages 14-19 is being a bit harsh ......I mean clearly "like everyone else" he got better . Even Federer acknowledged that.
     
  25. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    I think tennis like other sports is more about what you do, than at what age you do it.
     
  26. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Your one-dimensional brain has missed the whole point. When I said "everyone else" it includes Rafa so it's not double standard (what part of 'everyone else' do you not understand). My point is that Rafa getting better is not the ONLY reason. My point is that Fed getting old declining, slower surfaces are ALSO reasons and because you think Rafa can get better and Fed can't get worse, it is a double standard.

    I.E Fed getting better than Rafter is the combination of both Fed becoming better and Rafter getting old. However, being a rookie and gettin old, injuries etc are part of the game so you can't use it was as an excuse to justsfy losses and say they don't count.

    Otherwise why would Sampras lose to Hewitt, Safin in the US Open finals (a slam Sampras was good at) and a 19 yr old Federer at Wimbledon as the defending champion? Because part of the reason is that he got old and declined. Sampras claimed that he was better in 2002 than 1996 as well, which was clearly not the case.

    Put it simply, there are more than one reason for everything not just the reason that suits your argument. Simple enough? or is it too much for your one-dimensional brain?
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2012
  27. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Chang won his first and only slam at 17 making him the youngest ever to win a slam. Turns out it's his only slam so age is not that relevant and as I said before "everyone's path is different so it's no surprise that the achievements are distributed differently." Is that too much for your one-dimensional brain?
     
  28. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Ok then Rafter is better than Federer . Rafter is 3-0 against Federer on clay hard and grass ....by the way that's fast grass and fast hard.
     
  29. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    Does that make Hrbaty better than Nadal? No. Does that make Federer better than Sampras on grass? No. Again there's more than 1 factor involved, not just the one that supports your argument. Can your one dimensional mind understand that?
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2012
  30. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Record breaking stupidity congrats.
     
  31. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Btw both Nadal and Federer started playing tennis around 1989, so Nadal had quite a lot more tennis under his belt when they turned seniors. Since then Federer has made up for the advantage though.
     
  32. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,781
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    how can he be goat if he won in a weak era? The two are mutually exclusive...either he is goat, or he is overrated by competition but he cant be both at the same time.

    by downplaying his opposition you are by default undermining his claim to GOAThood.

    cant you even keep your various bs straight?

    So let me see if I get the gist of your argument

    Fed played in a weak era, but he is still a goat( or rather you still need him to be goat) to prop up Rafa's wins against him, that about right?
     
  33. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,400
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    When Roger Federer wins, the era is weak. When Rafa beats Roger, he has beaten the greatest player of all time :) This is the logic of some Rafa fans
     
  34. Emet74

    Emet74 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    873
    Fed's been playing tennis since he was 2 or 3 years old. 1989 (age eight) is just when he had his first formal lessons, but before that he was playing for years for fun at his parents' club and hitting balls for hours against the garage doors or even closets at home. Unlike Nadal, Fed played tennis as a kid just because he enjoyed it.
     
  35. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ok, I read he started at 8, I stand corrected I guess...
     
  36. Emet74

    Emet74 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    873
    No problem; it's been widely mis-reported that way, but you can see him on the Letterman show tell Dave he started at 2 or 3 and there are even photos of him playing clearly way younger than eight -
     
  37. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ok, I thought it was a fun point to make that they have played more or less equally long. I guess one could argue that they have had formal training equally long. But to me sports is not about what age you do things at, but what you do. If anything I would be more impressed if a guy in his forties came along and broke Federers records.
     
  38. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Actually it's Rogers logic .

    He says this is a golden era .

    Therefore the old era was weaker .
     
  39. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,781
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    trolls know no shame.
     
  40. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,301
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Federer is lucky there were never any players like Lukas Rosol when he was mopping up slam after slam.
     
  41. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Look here's the proof ....

    Nadal lost today.... In the past that meant Federer wins yet another grand slam ...

    But in the golden era he still had to deal with joker and possibly Murray .

    3 > 1
     
  42. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,409
    Tough era superstar Lukas Rosol confirms Federer just had it easy all those year.s
     
  43. TigerTim

    TigerTim Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    234
    This result today, as the above poster states, shows Fedmug has bad it so easy and the past decade of players wouldn't have even beaten William Renshaw with Willy only being allowed to underarm serve. The fact that Rosol showed the grade A mug Nadal (who owns Fedgimp bad) for what is truly is proves this. Frankly if Roscoe Tanner played between 1998 and now he would be called the GOAT.
     
  44. augustobt

    augustobt Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,844
    Location:
    Salvador, Bahia - Brazil
    If Rosol reaches the final (I know he will get knocked out next round) and Federer manage to Beat him, this will be a "weak slam".
     
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    It's a testament that Federer is a superior player because he never lost to a 2nd round. Even old Fed only loses to a top ranked players, not a #100 player in the world like prime Nadal.
     
  46. TigerTim

    TigerTim Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    234
    Agreed. Fedgimp, ****** and ******** needed easy players to win their first slam proving how lucky they are and how weak this era is. Fed beat that Mark Phillithingbob (can't be any good if I can't spell his name!) and he was ranked low, wasn't even seeded. ****** beat drug cheat Puerta and he was crap, even when taking drugs! and Faker beat french nobody Tsonga. Luck Luck Luck. Roscoe Tanner and Ille Nastasie would have cruised to 15 slams each in this era.

    Let us compare Federer opponents;
    Agassi - very old
    Safin - injured/headcase
    Hewitt - injured/semi retired
    Duck - plain useless
    Nadal - lost to Rosol
    Djokovic - gluten untill 2010 (then started winning)
    Murray - CHOKER
    Fatbandian - more time eating and injuring
    Blake - need i say more?!

    Luck. Luck. Luck.
     
  47. TigerTim

    TigerTim Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    234
    This is merely a testiment to Federer's bank balance and the fact that he can bribe players and officals to give him a easy draw/match.
     
  48. msc886

    msc886 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    961
    "a" golden era doesn't mean old era is weaker or that is wasn't a golden era. For all we know Fed's era could be a platinum era.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2012
  49. SLD76

    SLD76 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    9,781
    Location:
    Minneapolis, North of the Wall
    i know that and you know that, but he doesnt...he can only think in terms of extreme myopism and black and white.
     
  50. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Feds definitely a goat .....

    But the prior era was weaker.

    Without Nadal there was no one in his way but now he has to deal with Joker and Murray.

    Do you seriously think that's not tougher ??
     

Share This Page