Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by tennissportsrog, Sep 2, 2012.
which experience did I lack?
The experience you gain from growing up and learning to deal with the highs and lows.
Hewitt really thrived in fast conditions against attackers, more so than in slow conditions against baseliners. He really would have done well against older generations of attacking players.
The opening post of this thread has Hewitt's record against attackers: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=383859.
djokovic didn't make a single slam final from FO 2008 to wimbledon 2010, that's 10 slams ....
forget about winning one or "dominating" ....
becker's competition was tougher, but it isn't that big a difference IMO ...
you could've really mentioned becker's davis cup heroics as well as a factor, but didn't. that's the problem with you being blindly clueless about/biased against the modern era & just hating federer ....
mac was really past his best at becker's prime ...only few flashes of brilliance at times ...
same for connors ...
nadal only long injury stretch was the previous year .... half the time injured , really ?
djokovic has also had to deal with murray, delpo, roddick, tsonga & others ....most importantly he's had to face off vs federer/nadal a lot of times in the majors ( & other events ), not occasionally ....
he's faced federer 11 times in majors, nadal 9 times in majors
in comparision, for instance, becker only faced edberg 4 times in majors, lendl 6 times ...
abmk, Can you something else or only insult posters?
most of my post was about hewitt's strengths/weaknesses, style of play etc ...
its hard not to say a poster is clueless when he makes posts like
"hewitt benefitted from slower courts"
"hewitt wouldn't be top 10 in a strong era "
could have a half-decent discussion if either of you knew what you were talking about .....
ever noticed I almost never say anything like that to posters like krosero, zagor, Moose etc ?
instead of "whining" again and again when I point out you are clueless, would be better if you actually know your stuff - atleast come somewhere close to reality .....watching some of the matches from 2000-2007 or so might help a tiny bit
I thought of but then you´d have come up with the argument that DC is not an individual competition..hahaha.Owned again.
hahaha.And you who are? you don´t know me and nothing of my life experience.And my highs and downs.
for once in a lifetime, your post makes any sense...of coruse, it is used to enhance your crush fed but you´re totally right about Djokovic.
I was talking about his level of play in the singles matches - vs wilander, edberg etc, the epic matches vs mac, agassi etc .....not necessarily about the no of times the player participated in a davis cup winning team ....
it has nothing to do with "enhancing" federer ... fact is federer was the #2 player in 2008,10 & the #1 player in 2009, djokovic was a distinct 3rd in 2009 , 2010 & close 3rd in 2008 ...
I post mainly based on facts/reality ... just that you don't know much .....
" reality or Perception"?
Yes, I agree here that those are great individual wins that had the effect to carry on the Bundesteam, where journeymen like Steeb or Jelen got hyped up and were dangerous...
I'm glad you feel that way. Think about it before you tell people about their own lives.
I never posted about other´s lives, i was just debating with newtards about why I like a given era or a given player, related to tennis and, in a
few posts, also some music.I think I have the right to express my opinion just like you have yours.Thisis a forum at elast IMo aimed at entertaining and discussion.I apologize if anybody feels I refeer to their lives, I don´t know them and they don´t know me so it is senseless and pointless.
But this is about debating tastes, eras, in a word, spectacles.
Remember your generalizing of Fed fans' private sexual orientations as opposed to Laver's? Ring a bell?
Me??? That is trolling, sorry, looks like you all federer fans need to attack me personally.I never cared the less about sexual orientations.Why don´t you call the moderator?
Actually many of us disagree with you. Calling you biased is not an attack, and being biased is not against the forum policies. Unlike NadalAgassi who personal insults many posters with foul language, that's an attack and warrant a ban.
Disagreement is the basis of the forum.If not, we better go to church where everybody shares the same faith.I agree with your post.Nadalagassi, IMo, is a knowledgeable poster who, sometimes, is too rigid and believes he is the only one right.
TMF, Those who put Federer at No. 1 should learn tennis history!
And you should take off your rose tinted glasses. Federer is a legitimate contender for the No. 1 spot.
Well being the greatest player on the most competitive era of tennis (Open era), should at least count for something. Perhaps you should learn some statistics too. There is a very interesting post made by Timnz i believe. It shows that is miles ahead of anyone in the open era from a objective point of view. It only counts the major events :Slams, Slams finals, Masters-WCT finals and Masters 1000.
Surprisingly, Federer is the player with most slams, most masters and second in masters 1000 (only one behind Lendl and tied with Nadal). Go figure....
Yes you are spot on, i don`t know how anyone would think of him as the GOAT.
A GOAT contender with a backhand and volley weakness, a GOAT candidate with only 17 majors (Rosewall 23, Laver 19), in some years realized with rather weak competition (compare Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman and Segura with Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis, F. Gonzalez)...
ARFED, It's a mistake to only count majors and masters. What about tournaments generally (Federer 78 I believe, Laver 200 at least), about percentages of tournaments won, of majors won and so on?
Yes you are right, he was lucky enough to not have to compete in a major with Jhon Alexander and Alex Metreveli as the number 3 and 4 seeds. The true GOAT is the one not having to compete during 4 of his major wins against 3 of the 5 best players in the world (Gonzalez, Sedgman, Segura).
Federer's volley's are good as is his backhand. Open era slams are worth more than pro majors and amateur majors. He also has 6 WTF's the fifth biggest event, so that could be your 23 Majors...
Djokovic, Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Murray, Agassi are all/were all great players. Roddick for example has one of the best serves in history...F.Gonzalez played great in the AO 07 and even now Baghdatis is capable of pushing Murray when playing well. All those guys would be on multiple slams if not for Federer (not Gonzalez or Baggy)...
How many of those Laver wins were during the amateurs?? 50 or so. Unless you wanna count amateur results as equal in which case certain player (Emerson) would go way up in the GOAT rankings.
I don`t have any problem with you or other people not placing Federer as number 1. In fact i am not even sure he is number 1, he is too close with Laver imo. The problem comes when someone discredits the greatest player in the last 45 years (and that is a fact wheter you like it or not) and being those 45 years the most competitive tennis has ever seen (fact also), as someone who is a tier below other greats from previous eras and doesn`t deserve to be called in the same sentence as them.
That my fellow poster shoul be labelled as trolling and nothing else, because i know that you know better that that. As pc1 often says to TMF , you don`t have to put down Federer in order to make look good Rosewall or other past greats. They don`t need that. It just makes you look stupid.
Even if you omit Rosewall's amateur majors and AO 1972 he still has 18...
This isn't science, Bobby. Only a fool would think that everyone who disagrees with him is automatically wrong.
As a stupid man I can take your offer and omit 50 tournament wins from Laver. So it's still 150....
Saying the truth does not mean to put down a player. I give Federer credit for what he has done. Not less but also NOT MORE than this.
Wrong are only those who neglect the facts and tennis history.
You neglect many facts, my friend. History includes more than the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Will do in the future.
BobbyOne, I recall we had a debate about this once, and you did not object to my argument that if Federer is disqualified for his volleys, then so are players like Borg or Tilden, for their volleys -- or Rosewall for his serve. Federer's backhand is a strong shot and is no more attackable -- and has broken down no more -- than Rosewall's forehand. And if Federer's backhand disqualifies him then so does Tilden's backhand, or Pancho Gonzalez's.
If completeness of one's game is a criteria for being GOAT then Laver is clearly ahead of Rosewall, Federer, Borg or Tilden. Actually Hoad would probably be put ahead of those men, too, if you're looking strictly for weaknesses among the basic strokes.
Steve Flink doesn't need to learn tennis history when he put Fed at #1, Sampras #2 and Laver #3
how about those who have little clue about tennis as recent as previous decade to now ?
federer's backhand and volleys are by no means weaknesses , at times they can be inconsistent/sloppy, but when in-form, they're very good .... when in the zone, they're brilliant ...
they're as much a "weakness" as rosewall's forehand ..
rosewall's serve on the other hand is a true weakness ..
its hilarious how you don't realize that you are shooting yourself in the foot with the stroke weakness argument
mentioning gonzalez/baghdatis and neglecting nadal, djokovic, agassi, murray, nalbandian,delpo etc . as part of fed's competition just goes to show your bias ........
Here are some excerpts of Laver and Federer conversation, the first time they met during an AO
RF:" Good morning Mr Laver.What an honour to meet the only man to have won three GS¡¡.I am afraid I won´t get any...can I ask you a suggestion?"
RL:" Oh, sure.How nice is to meet new fresh blood around .."
RF: " I know you enjoy swiss chocolate a lot.I came here loaded in case I met you...can you give me your worthless GS for a big tablet?"
RL:" Oh dude, certainly I love those tablets...let me check in my pocket...oh¡ here it is.If you that delicious looking red tablet, I´ll give you GS 1, that of 62"
RF:HE IS ALMOST BLISTERED.He just can´t believe the feeling of looking at, touching, smelling what a GS is..
RL: " geez, those chocolates from switzerland are great¡¡¡ will you give me naother tablet, that blue one, if I give you my GS nº 2, that of 67?"
RF: " ohhhh, I ne..ver... thou..ght..to see one sin...gle sl..am so close...I dónt kn..ow... if... I...can over..come 2¡¡¡"
RL: " Oh, no problem, you seem a nice fella...here it is"
RF: call a docotr please, I am fading¡¡¡
RL: " Not yet kid.You know, the biggest ever one is my third one, that of 69...But there is a special price for it.If I give it tou you, I may want in exchange that big 50 pieces black tablet"
RF: ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh don´t be so cruel with my heart Mr Laver
RL: " Here it is, GS nº 3.Take good care of it, son.Sinc eyou got those wonderful banks in Switzerland, will you da me a favou? keep it closed in one of them..."
Yes, Now Roger has three GS while Laver has become a chocolate adict who has to control every day his level of sugar...
RF: " One last question, Mr Laver...if I bought you a house in the alps, would you give me ANOTHER GS?"
RL:" oh, I wish I could.But you know, ever since the end of 1969, I never cared a damn about GS.So, i don´t have any.Isn´t three enough for ya?"
I think that Rosewall had only one weakness, his service which was only decent but still pretty good. You can't win 23 majors (or 25) with a weak service. Federer has several weaknesses: still his backhand which mosty is defensive and vulnerable (or would be vulnerable by strong volleyers), his volley (I think that Borg had a better one), his lack of versatility (he only has one match plan) and the lack of touch shots.
I'm not sure that Tilden had a weak volley.
Federer had several years without strong Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi, Murray, del Potro...
Yeah, you're wrong about all of that...
agassi was there from 2003-05, playing very well ..
nadal was brilliant on clay from 2005 onwards ... he was very good on grass from 2006 onwards
djokovic was there from 2007 onwards ..
2003-05 had agassi, hewitt, roddick, safin, ferrero, nalbandian, coria etc ....
only 2006 was relatively a bit weaker, but 2007 got stronger with nadal becoming better on grass & the rise of djokovic ...
rosewall also had several years without strong gonzalez or laver (61-63) ... gonzalez only played part-time in 61 and laver was still learning on the pro circuit in 63
Lack of touch shots? Fed?
federer has a clearly better volley than borg ... borg was just helped at a lot at wimbledon by the ball just dying on his stop volleys ...the same thing @ flushing got punished quite a bit ....
lack of touch shots ? lack of touch shots ??????????????????
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
ok, I can't stop laughing .......... will someone please help me ...........
lack of versatility ??????????????
yeah, right ???????? rod laver was an insane fellow to say federer could do anything on a tennis court ............. I mean what does he know about tennis
this is a guy you think has knowledge of tennis ?????? now, seriously ?
I know you are too polite and nice and all ....... but honestly, to me, BobbyOne seems a lost cause ......
Is this an example of why kids should stay off drugs?
You make it pretty clear that you know nothing about Federer.
Eh? I can't really understand your surprise, from what I've observed over the years I'd say pc1 agrees/shares the opinion with the vast majority of things BobbyOne (or other like Kiki) are saying about Fed, he just doesn't state them directly as they do.
I'm disappointed that the Federer fanatics not only dominate the General PP Discussion but partly also the Former PP Talk where one could have expected the posters do know about tennis history.....
A cursory youtube search would be enough to demonstrate that Federer has 'touch'. As for only one way to play a match, ignoring the fact that most surfaces reward baseline play above all else I've seen Federer serve an volley his way to victory when his ground strokes have been off..
Wah wah wah...I'm disappointed that you're still as ignorant as you were when I first read your posts.
Laver in 1963 was stronger than Agassi in 2003 to 2005! Gonzalez played virtually the whole 1961 season. Nothing learnt, fellow!
Separate names with a comma.