abmk
Bionic Poster
3 of the 4 YECs as well. 2 to Hewitt and 1 to Federer.
3 of the 4 YECs as well. 2 to Hewitt and 1 to Federer.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
No I mean Djokovic's main rival is more Nadal than Federer, not that Federer isn't Nadal's rival.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
Depends on your standards for greatness. I don't expect young stars to completely shut down previous era but to challenge them and get their share of the wins on the biggest stage. 2000-2003 had a mix of old, new and somewhere in-between which to me is a natural order of things (iregardless of my personal preference).
Also people tend to judge young players from that period using hindsight of them not building upon that initial success for various reasons (peak Fed, injuries, sickness etc.). Think about much hype Zverev gets today because he won 2 masters (whilte not getting past 4th round in slams), Safin at the same age burst on to the scene winning 2000 USO in a very impressive fashion by toppling Pete in the final.
Let's not even talk about the whole lost gen of Dimitrov, Raonic and Nishikori. While they had a significant roadblock (4 very consistent baseliners in homogenized conditions) it's still depressing to see them without a single big title to their name. They never even had a breakthrough.
Of course, the best match-up is serve and volleyer/all-courter vs baseliner, Agassi-Rafter matches against Wimbledon were some amazing stuff (in addition to obviously Agassi-Pete).
I'm not saying Ivanisevic-Rafter was a high quality match, they were both nervous as hell. However, the atmosphere in that match was something still unmatched to this day IMO and the whole story was like a Holywood movie script.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Not to mention that 90s gen is a broad term. Guga arrived at the tail-end of Sampras' peak (he was 5-6 younger than Sampras or Agassi) and played some of his best tennis in 2000-2001, I'm sure you remember the impressive fashion in which he ended 2000 as #1 and broke their stranglehold on tennis in that regard.
It was a turbulent period though and did suffer from not having consistent top performers, all of them had tremendous ups and downs. I know you don't hold Murray's top level in high regard for example but he's always there, only at USO did he show a lack of consistency (despite that being his breakthrough slam of sorts). It helps give stability to the tour.
Or even Stan who people consider (very wrongly IMO) to be inconsistent, the guy has been a near lock for 2nd week of slams (aside from WImbledon) ever since 2014.
frinton
Professional
Yeah, but Mr. Consistency (Fed) is doing it almost all the time and on any surface, Slam or not. See also:
What amazes me every time again is, when the weak area claim comes up, how people here have no credit for old-man Agassi! It’s easy to say Fed had to only beat Agassi who was at the end of his career and could barely walk! But have you guys actually seen those (big) matches? That was an amazing level of tennis in my opinion! Or Baghdatis? Yes, sure he did not do too many great things later, but have you seen that match against Agassi at the Open? He played some seriously great tennis for a while!
...fail better!
aditya123
Hall of Fame
He lost 13 times??? Thrice to Rafa, Five times to Djokovic, once to Murray, once to Safin, once to Cilic, raonic . Who's the other player who beat Fed in a semi?Federer is 29 out of 42 semi finals played
42 semis....
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Djokovic beat Federer in six semis - 3 AO, 1RG, 2 USO
aditya123
Hall of Fame
Yeah 2016 So semis I forgot
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
I suspect it will. When it does come to pass that his level drops again, he will sooner lose before the QF than make it there and be beat.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Those are some of my favorite matches ever. The ball striking was insane.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
Federer himself seems keen to get away from the idea that he should retire on a big moment
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...sopen-federer-nadal-backhand-wonder-year.html
I wonder if Nadal had never existed if Fed would have retired about the time you suggest. By then he would (possibly) have had three French Opens , 2 CYGS and 19 Grand Slams so when Djoko came into peak form the obvious thing to do would have been to hand over the crown and spend more time with the kiddies. However when Nadal hit full stride in 2008 Fed still had things he wanted to achieve so needed to carry on. And having been through 2008/beg of 2009 I guess he realised that you can survive being dethroned and still enjoy the game. So why not carry on?
clout
Hall of Fame
Compared to other gens that group was probably not as tough. I mean they're still better than today's young players by a mile, but compared to other gens I don't think they were nearly as talented as guys from the late 70s/early80s like Borg, McEnroe, Connors Lendl, or the late 80s/early 90s like Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Chang and Courier or this gen with the big four and Stan. 2000-2003 was a transitional period which allowed certain players a window of opportunity to rack up some slams in a league that was more wide open than usual. The moment a legit superstar player like federer came, none of those guys got a sniff at another major, and had they been born a few years earlier the sampras gen would've done the same to them. Again I'm not saying they're bad players, I mean anytime you win a slam you deserve it and life is all about seizing certain opportunities anyways, but it's pretty clear, the absence of a dominant player during that transitional period allowed some names that would've found it a lot tougher in any other periods to rack up some slams.
Spencer Gore
Legend
Of course he has been right to carry on after slipping from top spot . The fact he has remained a #2-3 player for so much time during an era containing Nadal and Djokovic is extraordinary.
clout
Hall of Fame
Yea true. I always wonder how much federer would've accomplished had he not ran into nadal all those years. He'd undoubtedly be number one from 2004 all the way through to 2011 when djoker came into form. He likely wins a few more French Opens, an extra wimbledon and a couple more AO's. And he'd be the undisputed GOAT cuz he would've been the only player in history to dominate on all surfaces, while also winning like 25 ish majors in the process. Overall, I'm glad nadal came around, not only did we get to see another legend play, but federer would've turned tennis into the globetrotters vs generals; instead we were blessed with one of sports' greatest rivalries.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Becker and Edberg aren't from the same generation as Sampras and Agassi man, let's not conflate two different era's of players. The age gap between those guys is basically the same as Nadal and Federer. Likewise Connors was about 8 years older than Lendl, and 4 years old than Borg - he has 7 years on McEnroe.
I absolutely think those players are up to scratch with guys like Chang, Wawrinka and even Courier/Murray overall. Federer's generation had a deep pool of great players, a lot of those guys have hung around the top 20 into their 30's. What Federer's generation lacked was another ATG talent, Safin was the closest but couldn't stay fit, however Nadal was so precocious that he was in the picture from 2005. Considering Murray and Wawrinka are triple slam champions in this era I wouldn't put it past the guys from Federer's era to win some majors. That generation was unfortunately decimated by injuries so it gets less respect than it deserves.
Spencer Gore
Legend
Murray and Wawrinka are immeasurably better and more successful players than the vast majority of the top 10 from the weak era. In fact, from the entire top 10s from 2003-2006, only Hewitt, (and the ageing Agassi) can even be mentioned in the same breath.
clout
Hall of Fame
You make a good point with the age gap from earlier generations, but their primes in some way all overlapped with one another even if it was very brief. However, I might have to disagree with the fact that those players are on par with Murray, Courier and wawrinka, however I do think guys like Hewitt, Safin and roddick surpassed Chang. Murray clearly accomplished way more than all those players, and he did it in an era with three of the games greatest players in it. Same can be said with wawrinka, even though he's hella streaky, he's demonstrated an extremely high peak by beating guys like nadal, federer and djokovic to win his major titles. I feel like wawrinka would win in any era (not a lot) but his ability to reach such high peaks, and also having the clutch gene, which doesn't grow on trees; you either have it or you don't, makes me believe he'll get slams in any era due to those attributes which that group of early 2000s players simply lacked of. I also feel like Courier reached a higher level too since his play from 91-93 far exceeds anything produced by that group of players. Remember, I'm not calling out federer (like others do) for playing in a weak era since these claims simply don't apply to players of that calibre , and these group of players only lasted for a certain period in his career. Although I'll have to agree that Fed did lack a fellow ATG to compete with, as Nadal was really nothing special Outside of clay until 2008 ish.
Spencer Gore
Legend
Good post. Well argued.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
The only part you liked was the last sentence.
Mugu
Rookie
i did not know that. amazing. the loss is rather surprising as well, since it was on clay. 1975 USO to Connors, who then went on to lose the final.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Nothing special outside of clay? Nadal played two Wimbledon finals, with the second one going five sets. Take Federer out of the picture, and Nadal could have been a two time Wimbledon champion heading into 2008. His grass pedigree was clearly obviou at that time, and was in his grass prime from 2006.
Dilexson
Hall of Fame
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer's prime certainly overlapped with Nadal and Djokovic's. It was their peaks that didn't overlap. I'd argue that Federer briefly overlapped with Agassi's prime as well.
I think Hewitt, Roddick and Safin are all easily the equal of those guys I mentioned at the USO. Safin is definitely on the level of Murray and Wawrinka at the AO. I'd put Roddick and Hewitt roughly on the same level as Murray on grass too. Remember Roddick was undefeated on grass besides his losses to Federer in 03-05, Hewitt is also very accomplished on grass. Murray has much better longevity but I don't think his top level is much higher considering he's only been able to register one slam win against Federer - and that one in 2013 after Fed had played another 5 setter.
Ferrero had a really high peak level on clay and could definitely mix it up with Wawrinka there. Coria is another talented clay player from that era.
Courier certainly had the best peak of all the players mentioned, he also made it to all 4 slam finals. I do think he'd be at a disadvantage at Wimbledon and the USO against Roddick /Hewitt atleast.
IMO Murray essentially has ATG consistency but his top game is lacking a bit which is why he's lost his Slam finals pretty easily for the most part. Federer's generation competed about as well as he did in slam match ups.
Murray is unquestionably greater than all of them though.
As far as Nadal goes he made back to back Wimbledon finals and won multiple HC Masters in 05-06. He was certainly not just clay court player from at least 2006.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
YE top 10 in 2017 had combined 35 slams. Still you mentioned in another post it to be a weak year?
zagor
Bionic Poster
2017 is probably the weakest year I've ever seen,yes. It felt like Champions tour.
Slam count is not my methodology of measuring the strength of a season, but it is to a poster I responded to. I just pointed out the contradiction.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yeah, at least in 2006 Fed and Rafa were younger so their dominance was understood.
I think 2017 Fed would have lost to Blake at the USO.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yup, Fed was at his peak and Nadal was in his clay and grass prime in 2006.
This year, Nadal lost to yet another journeyman at Wimbledon while Fed skipped the whole CC season (and still managed to sustain an injury and look depleted at WTF).
Fed had to go 5 in the first two rounds, flip a coin on who'd beat him from the 2006 USO field (could be anyone).
That said, Blake was in great form that USO and is a good choice. Very fun match against Fed in QF who was firing on all cylinders.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I think you mean Federer started playing tennis at the end of Agassi's prime and not that their primes overlapped?
I think it's a stretch to say that their primes overlapped. Agassi was done winning majors before Federer won his first and without Federer Agassi probably would have won one more, but that's not a given considering Agassi had played three 5 setters in a row to reach the final of US Open in 2005. That's a tough spot to be for a 35 year old.
zagor
Bionic Poster
They came in the same year actually, 2003 AO and 2003 Wimbledon. Agassi also reached USO SF same year but lost to JCF (who was in great form). I think 2003 could be argued to have been the start of Fed's prime given his great performances at WImbledon and TMC that year, his losses at both AO and USO were to early career nemesis Nalbo.
Hard to say about Agassi, don't think the guy ever really had a prime. His top level was in 1995 but he only had the neccesary dedication, mental toughness and fitness from 1999-2003 (which is why he won 5 out of 8 slams in that period).
ATGs are usually fully comitted during their physical peak (early to mid 20s), Agassi wasn't.
Yeah, it possible but I don't personally think he would have. 2004 USO I'd bet on Hewitt (who reached final without losing a set), 2005 AO Marat and 2005 USO I'd pick Hewitt again (who gave Fed a tough match in SF).
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think 2003 was the last year of Agassi's prime and the first year of Federer's. Roughly speaking. I think Agassi was playing close to prime tennis at times during 2004 on HC as well - particularly at Cincy and the USO. It took good performances to beat him in several events on HC that year. But overall the overlap was very small, which is why I said it was brief.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Agassi was 33 in 2003 and I don't believe that was his prime, yet I think he was playing really high quality tennis. He had lost too much athletically to still be in his prime during that time but was still a great striker of the ball. I think Agassi's prime was from 1990-2001. To argue that he was still in his prime in 2003 is like someone arguing Federer was in his prime in 2014, which most Federer fans have a problem with.
abmk
Bionic Poster
even AO in 2004.
That match vs Safin -- amazing level and brilliant ballstriking. ! (and had not lost a set before the SF)
IIRC, Agassi had SPs in both set 1 and 2, but Safin saved them all. And Agassi took sets 3 and 4.
So the only set in which he did not have SP was the 5th set !
I don't think Agassi's ground game declined as badly as Federer's did in 2014-2015.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The match in Madrid against Safin was incredible as well, such a high level of ball striking. The Stockholm final against Johansson was great too.
A lot of great ones from him that year really.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
Well put. Federer's line over the past few years has been consistently that he would have won more without Nadal but that because of him he became a "tougher, better player". I don't think everyone would agree with that but a tougher person, certainly. I think too he's genuinely proud of Fedal and what it means to people - he's been happy to promote it heavily this year. Well, as a fan I think he's genuine, I suppose the uncharitable view is that he's made even the rivalry with Nadal all about himself!!
zagor
Bionic Poster
It didn't but that's because Andre's a better ballstriker (not just compared to Fed, compared to anyone). He was one of a kind in that regard, it's the main reason why could still hang from the baseline against a decade younger, very talented players like Fed and Safin.
However Fed still had that fantastic serve and great movement, even dusted off his underused all-court skills under Edberg. Not to mention that could still boss you from the baseline if you were passive against him, you still had to take it to him to beat him.
I'd be lying if I say I wasn't impressed with some tennis Fed displayed in 2015 like Wimbledon, Cinci and USO.
Shank Volley
Hall of Fame
Agreed. The only difference between your red hot Gonzaleses, Roddicks, Hewitts and Nalbandians and players like Murray and especially Wawrinka is that Djokovic wasn't good enough to deny them majors every time they got close.
clout
Hall of Fame
I think initially Fed didn't want to buy into the hype regarding a rivalry between himself and someone who is five years younger than him as well, especially since rafa was mostly just his rival on clay at the time. But I think it when Nadal got better on other surfaces and eventually overtook him as world number one that's when Fed began to cherish this rivalry, even though he seemed to come in second in their rivalry more times than not (other than this year ofc)
Additionally, I'm sure most would agree that if Nadal wasn't around Fed would've retired several years ago, since his records would be so far ahead of everyone else in tennis history that he doesn't need to worry about anyone even breathing on his records. But with Nadal and Djokovic rapidly winning slams and climbing up the all time leaderboards since 2008 and 2011, respectively, it's given Fed more incentive to hang around and try to extend and preserve his records, while also attempting to stop "Djokodal" himself. With Fed still being so competitive over the years, along with the rise of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Stan, etc. last 10 years plus surely has to be greatest era tennis history.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
That's not true. Past results don't determine future probabilities. What is true is that Federer and Djokovic have done significantly better in beating Nadal in GS finals than in GS semis. But much of that is due to coincidence: for example, that three of the four GS semis between Nadal and Djokovic were at Roland Garros and the other was in 2007. Had the draw pitted Nadal against Djokovic in the semis at RG 2015 or Wimbledon/US Open 2011, it's rather unlikely that playing in a different round would have altered the outcome.
clout
Hall of Fame
He was a good player but nonetheless, he was still slamless outside of RG, and never even made a HC semi until 2008. He was basically relying on 2 months of the year to maintain his number two ranking back then. Also, his game was not as technical yet, I mean he was a freak athlete who could run around for hours and hours, but that type of style only suited him for clay, hence making him more vulnerable on other surfaces. Since 2008/09 ish, his serve has seen MAJOR improvements (his serve in his earlier years was a joke) which allowed him to win shorter points more often, his backhand is also considerably better as he no longer had to constantly try to run around and hit a forehand, since faster courts won't buy him the time to do so. Overall, I think his tennis game in general has improved drastically since around 2008.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
LMAO Nadal also played 5 days straight, Fed was the one with thew weak draw, Haas forfeit the 4R before it even started then he had JC Ferrero and Gasquet on grass. Rigged to perfection there.
clout
Hall of Fame
Personally, I don't think Djokovic and Fed ever played each other prime for prime since Fed's prime ended around late 2009/early 2010, while djoko didn't officially hit his prime until late 2010/early 2011. Nadal and Federer did play each other prime for prime but it was only between 2008-09 (maybe 2007 as well). As for Andre, his career is a weird case. Most of his achievements cam between 1999-2003, but unquestionably Agassi in the early/mid 90's (94-95 in particular) were his golden years in terms of level of play. Fed and Agassi are 11 years apart, so it's hard to argue that they were ever playing one another prime for prime. Although Agassi challenged Fed as much as his mid thirties body could possibly manage (a little bit similar to 2014-15 Federer vs prime nole), that clearly wasn't Agassi at his best/prime.
If you separate them by venue/surfaces than you have a point, but in the general scheme of things, Wawrinka, Murray, and Courier are all superior in overall level of play and achievements since none of those players won more than 2 slams. As for Ferrero, he had a small window of contention, but I think he could keep a steady h2h with Stan since Stan can get quite streaky at times, however if they both play their best, Stan wins every time.
I 100% agree with your statement on Murray though. He definitely had the game and consistency to rack up more majors, but his mental game, fighting ability, and overall killer instinct has frequently held him back from doing so. As for guys like Hewitt and Roddick, as you said did a great job of fighting and hanging tough, but that's as far as they'll ever go, as both simply lacked the talent to actually win more majors. If you ask me both of them overachieved since they both made the most of their abilities, which was clearly inferior to Safin (who was simply a head case), Wawrinka, and even Murray.
As for Nadal, he failed to win outside RG prior to '08, and no one really saw Rafa as a legitimately dangerous threat to Fed (or anyone really) outside of the red clay.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
lack of talent = playing the most talented player ever at his peak? So they are good enough to win majors but somehow not good enough to win one extra one? How many majors does Stan(or Murray) have if peak Fed is the ATG in his era and not Djokovic who, in all his generosity, likes to make the little people feel better by periodically not showing up for slam finals.
clout
Hall of Fame
Fed at his peak wasn't human, I agree, but Stan is simply a better player than guys like Hewitt and roddick IMO. Not sure how much he would've won had he played in Fed's era but I think he'd push Fed more than some of those other guys did since Stan at his best can blow anyone off the court including the big three.
TheAssassin
Legend
Interesting, impressive stat.
By the way, couldn't resist - Over half of those semifinals were at Roland Garros. At this rate I'll open a fridge and the clay skew will jump right out of it.
Fedovic ended up in the same half of the draw so often when one of them wasn't a top 2 seed it's insane.
By the way, couldn't resist - Over half of those semifinals were at Roland Garros. At this rate I'll open a fridge and the clay skew will jump right out of it.
TheAssassin
Legend
Murray is a bit better than those guys but Wawrinka isn't IMO (apart from clay obviously). Anyway Federer matches up well against them too and regularly plays well at the big stages so it's tough to see any of these guys beating him at his peak in a Major. My guess is that Djokovic would have gotten another 2-3 Majors if he regularly competed with Hewitt and Roddick instead though.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
He can't even blow a 35 year old Federer off the court most of the time, and needs to be on clay to do it(and really it was only 1 match, Federer semi-choked the 14 MC final). A 25 year old Federer would be more likely to blow him off the court with his FH than the other way around. No way in hell I see Wawrinka pushing Federer at Wimby/USO more than Roddick/Hewitt did in some of those matches.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
And which majors would those be? In terms of Wimby/USO he'd likely gift them the same majors he gifted Wawrinka and Murray at those slams.
Similar threads
