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. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    it's an opinion if you stick to it (not alter every 10 minutes because someone threw in a riddiculous example proving you wrong)
     
  2. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Wait, so when does the tough era start? Is it 2008 or 2011?
     
  3. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,445

    I'm not wasting any more time with you and your inability to discern context!

    One response was about a contender to win a slam; the other was about an open era great...

    You can continue to remain foolish if you wish.
     
  4. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,075
    Location:
    UK
    Good job in pwnage
     
  5. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Why would merlinpinpin mention Nalbandian and Murray in the same line as an "all time great"? He was asking if they were contenders for the FO as both reached the FO semis, you responded "no, because they don't have a major".

    2 pages later you claim that they were actually contenders. MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND.
     
  6. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,445
    Do you understand what an opinion is?

    particularly one dealing with qualitative comparisons :confused:

    An opinion by defintion is subjective; therefore it is neither right or wrong but one person's point of view.

    You could point out holes or weaknesses but not declare it wrong.

    If you don't understand this then you should not participate in discussions like these...
     
  7. Swissv2

    Swissv2 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,491
    Location:
    Tennis Courts!
    You kids need a timeout. Now go to your corners.
     
  8. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,445
    Thanks for proving that you can't follow a discussion and lack critical comprehension!

    The dialogue was as follows:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DRII
    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...
    Merlinpinpin response:

    And so, Murray is one, too, isn't he? And Nalbandian?


    Then my response:


    No, because they have not won a slam...

    and again your only focusing on one aspect and avoiding the others.



    Clearly he was asking if Murray and Nalby were all time greats (assuming he was logically follwing the discussion). However, it is clearly possible he is dyslexic like you... Either way, i was answering if Nalby and Murray were all time greats.

    Again you need to understand the context!

    Merlin and others were trying to say that under my definition of open era great; Sampras would not qualify because he was not ever a contender to win the French...
    to which i answered Sampras was a contender to win the French the year in which he was a semi-finalist...


    School is over, now go home!
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  9. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    OK, now I know why we disagree so much. It's um...Because you don't seem to remember this time frame very well.

    Hewitt 2004: R16 at AO, lost to Federer (eventual Champ), QF at French Open, lost to Gaudio (eventual Champ), QF at Wimbledon, lost to Federer (eventual champ), Finalist at USO, lost to Fed. Finalist at Tennis Masters Cup, won 4 tournaments that year, and made 3 finals.

    Hewitt 2005: Finalist at AO, lost to Safin, Semis at Wimbledon, lost to Federer (eventual Champ), Semis at USO, lost to Federer (eventual Champ).

    Just for Hewitt alone, he went 7 straight Majors where he lost to the eventual champion. Sure, he didn't win a slam in that time, but he made 2 slam finals, 2 semis and 2 quarters...

    Safin made the 2004 AO final, won 2 masters tournaments that year, and made the semis of the Masters cup. In 2005 he won the AO.

    Nalby in 2004: QF at AO (lost to Fed), Semis at the French (lost to Gaudio), he was a finalist in Madrid, Rome, and Basel.

    Nalby in 2005: QF at AO (lost to Hewitt 10-8 in the 5th), QF at Wimbledon (lost to Thomas Johannson), QF at US Open, won 2 titles including the Tennis Masters Cup.

    I mean...I can go on. Roddick obviously has a great resume in those two years as well, not to mention at Agassi was still making deep runs and Nadal burst on the scene in 2005. People tend to seriously underestimate that time frame, even going to the lengths to say Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, Roddick etc. didn't do anything or were wildly inconsistent.

    Clearly that's not the case, and again, I just mentioned four guys above, that doesn't include other great players in that time frame (like Federer, Gaudio, Ferrero, Agassi).

    Also, you seem to act like Roddick was #1 from 2004-2007, or that his presence in the top 10 was unwarranted. Roddick was #1 at the end of 2003 and for the first bit of 2004, until Federer went on a tear. In 2004 Roddick was #2-#3, and in 2005, Nadal took over as a permanent #2, and stayed there well through 2007-2008. You also seriously underestimate Roddick's abilities, and I think that's backed up by the fact that a past prime Roddick has a 5-3 h2h with Djokovic, and even beat Murray at Wimby 2009 in the semis, when most thought that was Murray's best chance at a slam. Roddick was also in the top 10 for 10 consecutive years, up until 2011, THREE full years into what you're calling the stronger era. Yet there was Roddick, past his prime, and still in the top 10.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  10. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Yes, there goes the expected attack. What level are you talking about? And whose level?
    You have so far failed to explain how Sampras was remotely close to being a contender at the French Open. I asked you for your reasoning. You respond by making ad hominem attacks. You're awfully childish man, get a grip. You know you have a fundamental logical flaw and general lack of constructives. Accept it because otherwise you're opening yourself up to a barrage of destructives which you seem to have no reply to or stubbornly venture to parrot the same set of lines over and over.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  11. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Clearly NOT and if you assumed that he meant that Murray and Nalbandian are all-time greatst, well this discussion is pointless as you can't keep up.
     
  12. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,445
    I have continually explained how i thought Sampras was a contender to win the French (he was a semi finalist) I clearly stated that IMO any semi-finalist is a contender to win that particular slam of that year; if you disagree then fine. But considering that nearly all of this near arbitrary discussion was based on what my opinion and definition of an open era great or contender is -- your standing is weak.
     
  13. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,445
    Nice non-response...
     
  14. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Ask merlinpinpin what he meant and you'll have your answer.

    I can assure you that you're wrong, though. Again.
     
  15. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    No, merlinpinpin didn't clearly ask if Murray and Nalbandian were an all time great, you're putting words in his mouth. Anyone with a half of a brain can tell he was referring to them reaching the FO semifinal, and according to your logic, they must be a contender too.

    Also, it doesn't matter even if Sampras won 50 slams outside of the FO. If he managed to reach the FO semi only one time in his entire career does not make him a more(or less) of a contender than Murray/Nalbandian since these guys have managed to reach the semi too(Nalbandian twice).
     
  16. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Schuttler 2008 Wimbledon. Johansson 2005 Wimbledon. Youzhny 2006/2010 US Opens, Verdasco 2009 Australian Open, Safin 2008 Wimbledon. Were they all contenders as well?
     
  17. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Yeah of course those were Nalbandian's peak years. The main point being even peak Nalbandian was never any good apart from indoors. He had the talent to be alot better but always exhibited terrible fitness, questionable commitement, lack of consistency, and never more than a moderate forehand for todays standards. An indoor specialist (where there are exactly 0 slams) guy who couldnt even reach a slam final in his peak years and couldnt even beat Roddick from 2 sets to 0 up or Baghdatis to reach a slam final isnt much competition for one of the greats.

    As for Hewitt, even prime Hewitt would regularly be dominated by any of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic in their primes. He peaked in possibly the worst year in tennis history in 2002 and still made only 1 slam final and won only 1 Masters (outside the TMF).

    As DRII said Roddick ended a year at #1 in that era. That already says enough. Imagine peak Roddick ending a year ranked #1 today especialy with his terrible clay and even Nadal-like poor indoor results, LOL!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2012
  18. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,445
    You have some good points; i just disagree with you.

    The fact that Hewitt and Roddick still remained threats even in their reduced form for so long speaks even more to the transitional and relatively weak competition of the time periods we are discussing...

    BTW, i don't think 2008 to present is particualrly very strong, i just think its stronger than 2004-2007 because we have Nadal and Nole joining Federer as open era greats.
     
  19. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,075
    Location:
    UK
    When you disagree with someone, are you not implying that his/her opinion is wrong? If you are admitting that your opinion cannot be right by definition, who are you trying to convince?
     
  20. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    Obviously Murray/Nalbandian are not an all time great, of if anyone who assumed merlinpinpin was relating to them as an all time great is clueless beyond words.
     
  21. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,445
    Yes, of course tinkerbell!

    Any player that reaches the semis is a contender to win that particular slam. Thats my opinion...

    How many times do i have to repeat it???
     
  22. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    I asked you why you thought a slam semi-finalist should be a contender. Or specifically, why Pete's one semi made him a contender. You did not answer that nor did you address the obvious flaw in your argument; that which applies the logic you used for Sampras to all players and defeats your original "weak era" premise.
    You later went on to state that there were other "criteria"..lol..and summarily failed to provide any stepping stones upon which you have been basing your not-so-unbiased judgement. And yet you turn around and talk of others' 'level.' That's daft.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  23. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    INCORRECT.

    In 2005 WB, Ted Robinsons mentioned that Hewitt and Roddick have stated they are playing better than tennis than in the past. The reason they weren't able to win the big one because one guy[Fed] was too "bloody good".
     
  24. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Well in that case: IT'S JUST STUPID. Why not go further - say the quarters? or the 4th round? or the 1st?

    Here's the definition of the word contender (there's even 1 about tennis):

    contender

    Acontender is a person or team that is competing and has a chance at winning. (noun)

    Someone who is skilled in tennis and is participating in a tournament is an example of acontender.


    Now tell me with a straight face - did Schuttler have any chance of beating Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon semis? Did Youzhny have any chance against Nadal a the 2010 US Open?
     
  25. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    DRII you can go 2 ways:

    A contender could be anyone in the draw, he's competing and has a chance of winning against anyone, even if it's 0,00001%.

    Or, a contender could be a player who really has a good chance of winning a major, these days it's either Djokovic, Nadal or to a lesser degree Federer and the rest.

    So don't get your "opinion" why it has to be EXACTLY a semi-finalist.
     
  26. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    This is all just laughable.

    Nalby made the finals of Wimby 2002, and he made multiple slam semis, and has won multiple titles, indoors and out.

    Hewitt won the 2001 US Open, thrashing Pete Sampras in the final. He won Wimbledon in 2002, and made multiple slam finals over the next few years.

    Roddick ended 2003 at #1, which is not the "era" we're talking about (we are talking about 2004-2007). Roddick got lucky with circumstance in 2003, with 4 different men winning the 4 majors, but Roddick won the US Open, made the Semis of Wimbledon and the AO, won Queens, Indy, Cincy and Canada. That's a hell of a year, regardless of what you think about him.
     
  27. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,445
    Finally, we get to what we're really talking about.

    Fine, so you think my opinion regarding a semifinalist being a contender is stupid.

    I have no problem with that, at least you stopped miscontruing my words and taking them out of context.

    We just disagree...

    See how easy that was! My bill is in the mail and I don't take checks!
     
  28. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    I was actually asking DRII if, according to the criteria he had given us, he also considered Nalbandian and Murray as all-time greats, as they qualified for contenders at all the slams according to him. ;)
     
  29. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Nalbandian's prime was 2003-2006 like tennis_pro said so Nalbandian did not reach a slam final in his prime. Yes not reaching a slam final in the same time period where Puerta, Baghdatis, and Verkerk did, and Ljubicic reached #3, is the sign of an amazing rival for the greats of the game.

    So beating a 30 year old Sampras is amazing but any win over Federer since he turned 26 is over old washed up Federer the so called late bloomer. A Sampras who was in the middle of a 25 month tournament losing streak, and was serving about 40 mph below normal and 2 steps slower in the final. ROTFL!!!!!

    Roddick was the best player in 2003 I agree. Good luck on a Roddick like player being the best player for a year in this era, even if he were at his all time best.
     
  30. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Okay, so now we see what you consider a contender.

    Fine.

    Now, would you say that an era if weaker when there are more or less possible slam winners?
     
  31. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka

    The fact that your opinion is ret**** has nothing to do with taking your words out of context which I clearly didn't do. You stated 2 seperate things and then you get angry when I pointed out your flawed logic, seriously get a grip.

    Understanding the word "contender" is not a matter of opinion btw. Either everyone in the draw (128 players) is a contender or the very few 2-3 players that actually have a realistic chance of winning. It has nothing to do with reaching a certain stage in a major.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  32. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,445
    My gosh...

    I just think that any player who has made it to the semis is a legitimate contender to win the title. We have all seen finals where one of the finalsit inexpilacably has an injury or just puts in a hapless performance. There are instances where one player just barely wins the semis yet easily wins the final (i think Roddick's USO title happened this way).

    Often times i find the semis to be more telling than the final. i would have to put last years French into this category. The semis between Nole and Federer was far more determinitive IMO than the final as far as who was going to win the whole thing...

    Just my opinion.
     
  33. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Djokovic was the best player in 2011 I agree. Good luck on a Djokovic-like player being the best player for a year in 2004-2006, even if he were at his all-time best.

    Nadal was the best player in 2010 I agree. Good luck on a Nadal-like player being the best player for a year in 2004-2006, even if he were at his all-time best.

    See? These work just as well as yours. :)
     
  34. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    I'll ask once again. Was Schuttler a contender for Wimbledon 2008 just because he reached the semis?
     
  35. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    I'd argue that Nalby was in his prime in 2002.

    Beating Sampras in a Major is impressive regardless. Sampras made the Final of the 2001 US Open, didn't he? He was good enough to win 6 matches, beating Rafter, Agassi and Safin (who beat Pete in the 2000 final) in that order...It's not like Pete was beating guys ranked #200 en route.

    Again, you're just saying stuff to make your point seem right. Sampras had 11 aces in the final, 20 against Safin in the semis, 25 against Agassi and 20 against Rafter. But you must be right, he was serving 40MPH slower (which must have been 80-90MPH)...

    As for Roddick, the guy gets maligned so much...BTW, let's just pretend that Nadal wins the FO and Fed wins Wimby, and someone repeats Roddick's 2003 results. He'd have a GREAT shot at YE #1 this year. The issue is, we haven't had a year where 4 different guys win Majors since...(drum roll)...2003! If it were the same situation this year as 2003, someone who replicated Roddicks year (1 Major, 2 semis, multiple Masters shields) could be YE #1. We've just gotten so used to seeing someone win 2-3 Majors a year that we lack perspective.
     
  36. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    Let's extend this further:

    According to DoublyRe******II:

    All-time great = contender at all slams (never mind the fact that he added "must be a multiple slam winner" criterion later)

    ergo, All-time great on ONE surface = contender on that surface.

    Surely, Malivai Washington is an all-time great on grass?
     
  37. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Too much stupidity here to even decipher.

    1. Roddick played way better in 2003 and 2004 than 2005. Anyone who says 2005 was playing better than ever is already clueless. Yes Federer usually beat Roddick even in 2003-2004 but that is beside the point.

    2. Ted Robinson a tennis expert, LOL! Maybe in the same planet The Master of Fail is.

    3. Hewitt and Roddick may have played the best tennis they could play. However there are many players in the last 20 years who can play better tennis than Hewitt or Roddick have ever played. Nadal and Djokovic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hewitt and Roddick. NOBODY involved in tennis would deny this.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2012
  38. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,817
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Nobody is denying the fact that Nadal and Djokovic are better than Hewitt and Roddick but these guys are seriously underrated here. Roddick still has a 5-3 lead despite facing Djokovic only after his prime years. Roddick also has a couple of very good wins against Nadal on hard courts, in 2008 and 2010. Hewitt has a very respectable h2h against Nadal at 4-6, still leads on hard courts 3-1 and 1-0 on grass while he also took a set off Nadal on clay in 2 meetings in 2007 despite playing visibly worse than in 2004 or 2002. Roddick and Hewitt would have their share of wins against Djokovic and Nadal if all 4 were in their primes at the same time.
     
  39. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Dont get me wrong, I am not bashing Hewitt and Roddick. They are fine players and worthy 1 or 2 slam winners. However they are not the kind of rivals you want to see for an all time great, not even close. It would be like if Sampras's biggest rivals were Kafelnikov and Todd Martin.
     
  40. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    You are an idiot Davey25. It wasn't Robinson's opinion but he quoted Hewitt/Roddick had to say about their level in 2005.
     
  41. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Thank you.

    To me, the fact that players like Hewitt, Roddick, Haas, Nalbandian can even CHALLENGE guys like Rafa and Djoker when they're so far out of their primes make me think that they would have been competitive in their primes.

    Nadal hates big servers, and Roddick had the biggest serve, and one of the best forehands in the game for a few years. I think everywhere but clay, prime Roddick would have had a fighting chance, especially on grass and fast HCs. Hell, Roddick reverted back to 2004 for a minute in Miami 2010, and beat Rafa on a slow, high bouncing HC. Who's to say he couldn't have done that a few more times in his best years.
     
  42. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    But Hewitt and Roddick weren't Federer's only rivals.

    I also think Sampras' rivals are greatly exaggerated on these boards, almost as much as Roddick, Hewitt and Safin are marginalized.

    Yes, Agassi was a formidable opponent, when he was around, but he played some of his best tennis in his early 30s, and had big lapses in his career. He wasn't someone with great consistency. Pete started winning the lion's share of his Majors after Jim Courier was burning out. Michael Chang won one slam, Rafter won two, Todd Martin made one slam final. There were players like Becker, Rafter, etc that he dealt with, but it wasn't like all of his finals were contested against those guys.

    Sampras beat Pioline in two slam finals, Carlos Moya in one, Rafter in one, Chang in one, Goran in two, Todd Martin in one, Courier in one. Yeah, he beat Agassi in four, and he had a win over Becker as well. But the list above isn't so crazy. Agassi is by far the best opponent, but even the win over Courier came after he'd won what would be his last Major, and 1993 Wimbledon was his last Major final.
     
  43. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,445
    See beeoches! Straight from the horse's mouth!

    You all are just lacking in comprehension and therefore have made yourselves look foolish and ignorant! Except for BigServer, he actually made some salient points.

    Shows your complete desperation and insecurity to try and take something not only completely out of context but in the wrong context to falsely protect your demigod!

    School is over, there's humble pie waiting for you at home!
     
  44. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    But, let's be clear, NadalAgassi. Apart from when Agassi really was around (ie 94-95 during Sampras' era), guys like Kafelnikov and Todd Martin *were* Sampras' main rivals. From 96 to 98, all he had to contend with was a string of one-slam wonders, almost each of whom managed to grab the #1 spot from him before fading back into the woodwork. Anyway you look at it, Hewitt and Roddick had much better results than players like Chang, Muster, and Moya (Rafter may be the only one who can compare to them). And *they* were Sampras' main rivals, not Laver, a GOATing Borg, or Gonzales.
     
  45. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Okay, now that you've had your little rant, would you care to answer my question? Here it is again:

    Thank you.
     
  46. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Agree 100%, of course. 2004-2006 weren't just about Hewitt and Roddick, but still, although these boards seem to think these two are the dregs of the tennis world, they were flat-out better than anyone Sampras had to contend with from 1996 onwards (as I said, only Rafter can compare, and Hewitt clearly had a better career--debatable for Roddick). Courier was just done after 93, Agassi faded away after 95 and really came back in 99, and the others are anything but all-time greats. Muster could probably have been much more without that accident in 89 Key Biscayne, but he had to make do with that and it severely impacted his results.
     
  47. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,238
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Why is DRII acting like a child instead of making an argument?
     
  48. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    I think the problem is that devout Federer fans are hearing things that are not being said.

    No one here is saying that Federer is not one of the Goats and he may even possibly be the goat.....

    Rather the question is whether he would have 16 slams with the competition of the new Golden era today?

    I think the answer to that question has to be : NO.

    The fact is that Fededer is 2-6 against Nadal In grandslams . Federers only wins came on grass and that was only in the beginning as Nadal was still developing . Add to that Jokers new level you can't possibly say that Fed would have won those 16 slams.

    They are calling this era the new golden age of tennis. They are not saying that about Feds competition for at least 12 slams . Why?

    Obviously because it was weaker ......much weaker. Again would Fed still have won some slams ?...absolutely .....would he have won 16 in the new golden era ? No way in hell.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  49. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,238
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Federer's competition for 12 slams? What about the fact during the same period in which Federer won 12 slams, Nadal won 10? That's still 3/4ths of Federer's total haul, which pretty much dispels the notion that if Nadal were around for the whole time Federer wouldn't even be close to 16, since the fact he won 12 of 16 WITH Nadal around proves he could win even when Nadal was in the picture.

    Maybe the people who can't accept the truth are the ones arguing against the facts, which includes you and DRII.
     
  50. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,228
    Federer is 2-8 against Nadal in GS ( not 2-6 ) but, who cares?

    He won what he won and you can not compare different eras and pretend to be able to say what player X would have won or wouldn't have won in any other era, because it didn't happen and nobody can know it.
     

Share This Page