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. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    yes, now why don't you tell us the reasoning behind making a semi-finalist a contender? According to you, every player who makes a semi becomes a contender at the same. Ergo, there is no question of a weak era. :)
     
  2. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,524
    Hey, don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because you got owned.
     
  3. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    First off this criteria you are referring to is just one aspect that I think an open era great needs to have to be considered such; it is not everything (obviously one would have to be a multiple slam winner).

    It was mainly a response to a poster about the comparisons between Federer, Nadal, and Nole in the time periods of 2004-07 vs 2008 to present...

    So please stop trying to extrapolate this one premise as some reason to disqualify obvious open era greats (such as Sampras) or qualify obvious non-open era greats such as Schuttler or Ferriera (I'm not sure about Rafter)!

    You all are getting a little ridiculous.
     
  4. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    Go back and read my posts...

    and then try to ascertain context...

    then get back to me.
     
  5. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    You mean a criterion. I thought you were a native English speaker? :)

    Nevermind, why don't you give us a set of criterions upon which to judge? And why don't you give a sound reasoning for the claims you're making? So far, I haven't seen you give any constructive. Most of your logic has been thoroughly debunked.
     
  6. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    LOL, indeed. Major ownage ......:)
     
  7. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,575
    But we're not. We're just showing you something that I told you about a couple of pages ago: for your theory to work, it must work for everyone. The moment you start making allowances for such and such, you've got yourself a sinking ship.

    At the moment, we're just throwing your own arguments back at you with stupid examples, and the question, "Does it work now?" The answer, of course, is no, so that means the reasoning/theory behing all of this must be flawed, at least in part.

    I personnally have nothing against a kind of "unified theory of weak-Federer-era-ship", but it has to hold water when you use the same arguments to judge the other eras against, and I don't think you're ever going to manage that one... ;)
     
  8. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    When did i say year end and year out.

    Given Sampras' substantial resume, that fact that he was a contender to win the French even one year certainly qualifies him as an open era great by my definition.
     
  9. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    No, we're exposing your hollow arguments to try and illustrate your point.

    I don't think Schuttler, Ferriera, Bjorkman or Youhzny were ever big contenders at the events I mentioned, I was simply stating how simple it is to make a long list of "contenders" based on your criteria (made a Semifinal appearance).

    No one takes anything away from Sampras, he was my favorite player until he retired, and he should be on everyone's GOAT short list. But to call him a contender at the French Open is just plain dumb. It doesn't take away from the fact that he was an incredible champion at the other three slams, but he made one Semi, and got blitzed.

    You are so hell bent on proving your point about 2004-2007 being weaker than today that you can't see the forest for the trees. You refuse to acknowledge that Federer is quite a bit worse than he was 5 years ago, or that Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Nalby were good players once upon a time.

    You refuse to accept or acknowledge anyone else's point(s), while simultaneously expecting everyone to take your word as fact. You are the classic internet instigator and troll, and you're good at it. People (myself included) still engage in discussions and debate with you, even though it's like talking to a wall.

    These discussions are like playing chess against a pigeon. Regardless of my level of skill, the pigeon will knock all the pieces off, crap on the board and walk around like it won.
     
  10. IvanisevicServe

    IvanisevicServe Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    858
    In another era, Federer probably would've won more French Open titles. Talk about Kuerten 2004 FO if you wish, but Federer had beaten Kuerten on clay before, and that was pre-prime Federer.

    Of course, if we're talking about the Borg era, his odds go back down...though Borg probably wouldn't have been the matchup nightmare for him Rafa has been.

    But with Nadal destroying everyone in his path once again, with FO #7 all but a foregone conclusion, it really underscores just how unfortunate Federer is to play in the era of the probable clay court GOAT...and one who also happens to be just about the most difficult matchup possible for him.
     
  11. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,524
    yea whatever im done with you
     
  12. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    Actually it does work and does hold water. Not that this arbitrary exercise you all are attempting really means anything.

    Sampras was a contender to win the French (even if it was only for one year), so therefore he qualifies as an open era great under my original definition...
     
  13. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,575
    And so, Murray is one, too, isn't he? And Nalbandian?
     
  14. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576

    I'm not responsible for your or other Fedephants insecurities regarding Federer and a qualitative analysis of his record. Obviously you and others realize there is at least some truth to the premise that 2004-07 consisted of relatively weak competition otherwise you would not be so utterly consumed by the discussion and so vigorously retort; let alone attack...

    And btw, me responding is acknowledging your point of view, nor do i expect you to necessarily agree with me. My opinion is my opinion, and when it comes to a qualitative analysis; everything is opinion. However given you and others' responses; this line of discussion is a sore spot. Perhaps you should ask yourself why...
     
  15. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    No, because they have not won a slam...

    and again your only focussing on one aspect and avoiding the others.
     
  16. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,524
    Ah so now you have to win a major as well in your criteria. Anything else you'd like to add before we throw in some random names to prove that you're wrong yet again?
     
  17. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    Again...

    try and discern context.

    How desperate can you get?

    An open era great IMO is a multiple-slam winner that is or has been a contender to win slams on every slam surface.

    If you had read my posts, and not so focused on proving someone wrong, you could have deciphered this yourself!
     
  18. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Nice try grouping me in with "Fedephants" (an attack in itself) and people who are full of vitriol and love to attack. I'm generally pretty calm, though I don't mind arguing my point.

    I don't accept that there is truth to the idea that 2004-2007 was weak competition when compared to 2008-today.

    I think if you want to make the case that 2000-2012 is weaker when compared with 1970-1999 (with some clear gaps in the 30 year time frame listed prior), I'll be on board with that, 100%. The combination of surface disparity, and depth of the top 10-20 being littered with Major champions to me, means that dominating then was a lot harder than dominating now. It's what makes Borg's FO/Wimby doubles so impressive, as well as Connor's longevity, or Sampras winning 7 Wimbledon titles on fast grass and facing some big serves and grass specialists.

    That's an argument I'll have, but I think that people disparaging Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Nalby, Nadal (2005 and 2006), etc. is misguided and it's something that I'll always argue against. It's not rooted in fear of Federer being exposed as a weak era champion, it's the fact that people are giving Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga etc. WAY too much credit when discussing them as "serious threats" to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic.

    That's not to mention that Djokovic spent most of 2009 and 2010 floundering (until the 2010 US Open, where even still he lost in the final), Federer was garbage for much of 2008 and 2010-2011, and Nadal hasn't won a title off clay since the 2010 US Open. The 2008-2012 era doesn't look quite as strong when that stuff is brought to light.
     
  19. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,524
    Am I? So I'm the one adding new criteria to support my claims, right:)?

    First you said a contender in a major should reach the semis, then do it several times and finally win a major. So I'm asking you now:

    Was Thomas Johansson a contender at Wimbledon? He did manage to win a major (2002 AO) and reached the Wimbledon semis in 2005.

    Was Patrick Rafter a contender at the French Open? He's a 2-time US champion and played in 1 FO semi in 1997.

    Was Yannick Noah a contender at the AO? Was Mark Edmondson a contender at Wimbledon? Petr Kodra at the French?

    Do you have some serious reading disability or what? What does that have to do with my question?
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  20. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622

    ROFL!! this is epic. DRII is getting torn a new one, and sounds desperate for a way out. guys, please go easy on him...
     
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    WHAT??:confused:

    Sampras made one semi and he's a contender. However David made the semi twice and Murray made one semi losing to the clay goat(Nadal) are not a contender???

    You're a joke...I suggest you quit while you're behind because you'll continue to embarrass yourself.
     
  22. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    i've gone back and read my posts, and I completely can ascertain the context. I can only conclude that

    you got royally pwned!!!!!
     
  23. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    what rank would murray have in the list of open era greats? he's been a contender at all slams, so i'm sure we can find a place for him in the top 10?
     
  24. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    Well we just disagree; its simple as that.

    BTW, I'm not disparaging anyone; I simply making a comparison. I don't know how many times i have to say: that no era in a world class, competitive, established sport-- was, is, or will be weak. There is simply too much money and potential fame at stake. However there are certainly weaker or stronger eras or time periods as compared to others.

    If Hewitt had not lost his only weapon (footspeed); Safin not been injured so many times or not mentally focused; or Roddick wasn't so one dimensional -- then I probably would not rate 04-07 as 'weaker' than 08 to present...

    I also agree with you comparing the 2000's to pervious eras and have previously made the very same points you have regarding such...
     
  25. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    ok then Michael stich and Safin are open era greats. what's their rank in your list?
     
  26. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576


    Beeoch, could you please switch to the semi-coherrent personality that has at least some cognitive ability!

    Nalby nor Murray has won a slam! How thick are you?
     
  27. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576

    Oh so you've "gone back and read your posts"

    You were suppose to read mine!

    Try again...
     
  28. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    (SIGH)Playing by your own rule(s) just to suit your biased agenda. Fact is Murray and David had the same run if not better than Sampras at the FO. So if Sampras is a contender(which no one agree with you), then Murray/David should be included !
     
  29. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    We will never know, because it could also mean that he was so good in his primer that he can still compete with the new generation even despite a mental and physical decline.

    So as I suggested, a player able to go to the final of the slam at the moment is a treat, even if he is generally inconsistent or a non factor. Therefore, saying that Fed era is a weak era because he had to face Hewitt, Gonzo and Baghdatis is incoherent.

    Well said, sir.

    Obviously you realize that you faith the weak competition of 2004-07 isn't convincing, otherwise you would not be so utterly consumed by the discussion and so vigorously retort; let alone attack..

    There may be stonger or weaker era, but we don't know to distinguish one from the other, because all argument car be used in one way or another (see above)
     
  30. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Sure...I get where the argument comes from. I do. Like you said, we simply disagree (which is fine).

    My point with the guys you mentioned...Hewitt continues to trouble Nadal and Djokovic. He doesn't beat them, but he still troubles them. The same can be said for Nalbandian. Rewind 5-10 years to their primes, and imagine how tough they would have been then.

    The same can be said for Roddick, who has a 5-3 h2h against Djokovic, and he's troubled Nadal in the past as well (most notably beating him in Miami 2010). The guy is so far out of his prime it's not even funny, but he still manages to trouble some guys at the top. He's wildly inconsistent now, but in his prime he could beat anyone (except Federer, who has always been an awful matchup for Andy).

    Tommy Haas beat Djokovic twice in two weeks in 2009 on the grass courts. Nalbandian always gives Nadal and other top players fits, and he's proven himself to be one of the more talented players of the last 10-15 years. Safin beat Djokovic in 2008 at Wimbledon also.

    There are even more examples, but for me, looking at "washed up, old, past their prime" guys like I mentioned above continuing to trouble and beat the current top 5 guys says something to me about the quality of that era. It also says to me how incredible Federer was from 2004-2007, because he was able to dominate most of those guys.

    I've said it before, give me the top 3 from today (ideally Fed from a few years ago), but the top 30 from 2004 any day of the week.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  31. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    Riigghhtt...

    so therefore we must devolve to the default position that eras or time periods are so different form one another that they are all actually the same :confused::confused::confused:

    Do you realize how literally insane that premise is???

    Yet, none of you would dare say the same thing about the women's game. We all know the WTA is weaker than 10 or 15 years ago! (although things are beginning to look better)...
     
  32. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,575
    This is becoming really confusing, so let's just try and make it clearer, right?

    Now, your new rule is that, to be a contender in a slam, you have to reach the semis (at least) and have won at least another slam previously.

    Fine.

    Then, you 'll agree with me that Federer wasn't a contender at Wimbledon 2003, Nadal wasn't a contender at RG 2005, Djokovic wasn't a contender at AO 2008, Sampras wasn't a contender at USO 1990, etc., etc.

    Yet they all won. Amazing, isn't it? So, can we reasonably say that a player who won a tournament wasn't a contender?
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  33. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    did try again, and the conclusion is the same:

    you got royally pwned :)
     
  34. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    Now you're just being stupid...

    and you know it.

    Don't fall to the level of TMF, mandy, ambk etc...


    There is no new rule. I said that IMO to be an open era great a player has to be a multiple slam winner and contender to win or have won slams on every slam surface...

    Its pretty simple, i don't understand the confusion...
     
  35. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    tried but obviously did not succeed!
     
  36. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,287
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    let me guess : DRII getting owned once more, denying in face of the facts and kicking and screaming while being sucked in the sands of pawnage?
     
  37. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    This thread has consolidated the reality that Federer thrived against a weak field.
     
  38. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    Get back to your Bravo shows...
     
  39. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    Essentially so...

    but not weak, just weaker. No matter how 'they' try to take my words out of context.

    Rationalization at its best (or worst)...
     
  40. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,079
    Location:
    UK
    How can reality be consolidated? If it is reality, it doesn't need consolidating. Reality is that Federer won 11 slams between 2004 and 2007. Anything else is angry people trying to cope with the reality (look up cognitive dissonance)
     
  41. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,524
    maybe because you keep adding new stuff to your criteria when someone proves you wrong?

    btw cant you answer simple questions? If Sampras was a contender at the French Open, why not Davydenko, Murray, Nalbandian? Not sure about Murray but Davydenko and Nalbandian seem to look like bigger threats on clay than Sampras
     
  42. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,079
    Location:
    UK
    Why don't you respond to Bigserver1 and explain why Roddick has positive H2H against Djokovic instead of wasting time on nonsensical statements?
     
  43. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,524
    lolwut, you repteadly make a fool of yourself and get angry when someone dares to use simple arguements which doesnt suit your thesis

    do you take into consideration that you might be wrong?
     
  44. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    Problem is -- 10 or 15 years ago is not 2004-2007.

    Hewitt began to falter after 2002 when he lost some of his foot speed. Nalbadian although extremely talented, never got his fitness level up to where he could consistently challenge the top players. The only player who was consistently in their prime when Federer started to dominate is Roddick. And I'm sorry but Roddick's prime form is too one dimensional and just does not compare. Roddick never developed a decent transition game. Roddick's ascendency to #1 and perennial presence in the top 8 speaks even more to the relatively transitional time period of 2004-2007.

    Again, not weak just weaker than now...
     
  45. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    Like i said (I don't know why i have to keep repeating myself)

    A semifinalist is a contender to win a slam (IMO) of whatever particular year.

    So therefore if Davey or Nalby or Murray or whomever made it to the semis; they were contenders!

    If you disagree then fine, but do not try and miscontrue my words...
     
  46. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,524
    Whaaaaaat you smokin high again?:)

    Hewitt has never been as consistent as in 2004-2005. He lost to the eventual champion (Federer 5 times! Gaudio and Safin once each) in all of the majors he participated in. I'd say that his best level from 2001-2002 beats his best level from 2004-2005 but overall if not for Federer he would have better results later on.

    Nalbandian's fitness? His peak years were 2003-2006 which occured almost at the exact same time as Fed's.
     
  47. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    How can an opinion be wrong :confused:

    Try and think about what you type before you type it, otherwise you look ignorant!
     
  48. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,524
    There you go:

    Woooops! Busted.
     
  49. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,576
    Roddick has never played Nole 2.0.

    If he had, he would be demolished i'm sure...
     
  50. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,079
    Location:
    UK
    DRII, you don't manage your fail well and you need to stop. That is my opinion and an opinion can't be wrong. Therefore I am right. Thanks
     

Share This Page