Those Who Say Roger Dominated Due To A Weak Era...

[duaneeo]

You're not impressed with Djokovic's dominant 2015, correct? Why would you be? You're not impressed with Roger's accomplishments because he faced weak players, so surely you're not impressed with Nole's 2015 accomplishments for the same reason. His main rival has been Federer. You know, that past-his-prime player whose greatness is highly exaggerated. Nadal, Nole's other main rival, has been missing-in-action all year. That leaves mental-midget-against-the-Big-4 Murray, stamina-midget Nishikori, physical midget Ferrer, sometimes on/mostly off Wawrinka, one-slam-wonder Cilic, schizo-playing Tsonga, lets-put-on-a-show Monfils, inconsistent Berdych, Raonic, Anderson,...(the list is countless), and a host of 'young guns' who compete like BB guns.

 

[jm1980]

Endless Era Debates, vol 3582

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Nooooo!! Haven't you heard? Everybody suddenly and miraculously raised their level in 2015 to stop Rafa from saying Vamos all the time.

 

[vanioMan]

Endless Era Debates, vol 3582

I suspect that number will reach the number of The bold and the beautiful episodes in a couple of years.

 

[BGod]

Prime Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin and Roddick were tomato cans. Worthless tin cans.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nooooo!! Haven't you heard? Everybody suddenly and miraculously raised their level in 2015 to stop Rafa from saying Vamos all the time.

Rafa is at his peak this year. His footspeed may have slightly declined but he's made up for it with a better forehand, better tactics, a higher tennis IQ, a better volley and being a more ferocious fighter.

The only problem is that the competition has improved a lot and it's left Rafa behind. 2015 is the year of evolution.

 

[Sreeram]

I think after witnessing the US Open final, I have come to the conclusion Federer benefited from a weak era. Fed played so good throughout the US Open till the final. He crushed every single player. Even Djoker did not have such a run till final. But against Djoker I feel Fed failed mentally. He cannot accept that another player dominating him and his game fell apart. If Fed was mentally tough, even if he lost the match, he should have lost it playing his rush to net game which won him all the matches so far. But he tried more baseline game and did not transition to net that well. He was mentally unfit to produce the same game that he did till Semi finals. I am more interested about the result, but the way Fed played in final. There is no way without mental weakness his game fell apart the way it happened in the final. Errors flowed freely from his FH. Net approach was bad and slow.

This proves that due to lack of competition in Feds dominant era, his mental weakness was not exposed. If at all a player like Djkoer or Old Nadal was playing at Fed's prime era, then they would have took him on and Fed's weak mental game would have been exposed.

Fed is clearly the most naturally talented player I have seen. But I just found how he mentally crumbled today, clearly shows he was over hype due to a weak era. I am not saying Fed wont win a slam in a strong era, but not 17. May be close to 10 somewhere. Probably he would have worked on his mental weakness if it was exposed during his prime age (pre 30s). Sadly they are getting exposed post 30s.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

But old Nadal did take him to five sets in the 2007 Wimbledon final. How was it that Fed's serve did not crumble under the pressure then? Oh, please don't say Nadal was still learning tennis in 2007. He had already been no.2 for a year or more by then. Have you watched Nadal lately? The way he failed to shut out Fognini from 2 sets to none up? So what happened to his clutchness? It will happen to Djoko too with time. The tentativeness that creeps in when a player is past their best eventually saps their mental strength too. I have other theories as well about Fed's problem with Nadal and Djoko. But he ONLY has a problem with these players; his level is still too good for everybody else. Nadal however already cannot beat the field. When Nole loses a step and cannot get to balls the way he can now, he too will have a problem, maybe not as big as Nadal's but bigger than Fed's.

 

[dh003i]

Didn't he come to the net 64 times? I think there were a few times were I was thinking he shouldn't be engaging in baseline rallies with Djokovic, but I feel like he came to the net a lot and was pretty aggressive.

It was just his execution -- forehand errors, serve -- wasn't great today...and of course BP conversion.

 

[Elektra]

He did benefit and Roddick was so weak he became his puppet and now he is going against specimens and elite players who are not afraid to go the distance.

 

[Sreeram]

Agreed. Fed does not have problem against rest of the field other than Nadal and Djoker. But it is only those 2 players who stood up to him. So this proves my theory that if any player stands up to Fed, he mentally crumbles. This happens with all perfectionists, they cannot accept others dominating them, they will crumble and cry. So if Djkoer and Nadal like player was available at Feds prime era, who stood tall to him face to face in the game, then Fed would have mentally crumbled as he did today. There is no way he would have heaped these many slams.

It is mental game that differentiates winning moments from losing. If Andy was mentally strong he would have had 5+ slams by now. So it is all mental strength that differentiates player at that highest level.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Agreed. Fed does not have problem against rest of the field other than Nadal and Djoker. But it is only those 2 players who stood up to him. So this proves my theory that if any player stands up to Fed, he mentally crumbles. This happens with all perfectionists, they cannot accept others dominating them, they will crumble and cry. So if Djkoer and Nadal like player was available at Feds prime era, who stood tall to him face to face in the game, then Fed would have mentally crumbled as he did today. There is no way he would have heaped these many slams.

It is mental game that differentiates winning moments from losing. If Andy was mentally strong he would have had 5+ slams by now. So it is all mental strength that differentiates player at that highest level.

Again, Nadal like player was very much available in his prime era. Nadal himself, basically. Nadal who at the time would lose to Blake or Youzhny and not be able to play Fed on the hard court slams. If those players were good enough to beat Nadal, you can't keep clinging to weak era. It was a match up issue. They were of an older generation and, like Fed, were more attacking. Their legs went much earlier and they slid pretty steeply. Meantime hard courts gained new found friction for the sake of entertainment because the organisers saw Nadal could stick it to Fed. Again, a match up issue, lefty defender targeting the one handed backhand of Federer. So you can't parcel out that part of Nadal's career where he dominated the field to say Fed did not have competition in the 2004-07 period. He had competition...of a sort that his game matches up well against. Now I have a question. Would you say Pete Sampras was a mental midget? If so, I will stop this discussion right here for I have better things to do. If no, then please be informed that Krajicek led the head to head against Sampras and was the only player to beat him at Wimbledon from 1993 onwards until Fed himself beat him in 2001. What if Krajicek had been consistent and stuck it to Sampras? Would you then have claimed Sampras was not mentally tough? And if Sampras was not mentally tough, we are gonna need Ali or Frazier to play tennis matches, I guess. You can't have it both ways. I noticed you said absolutely nothing about Nadal's inability to close out a match against a much less reputed opponent than the rest of the Big Four or even Wawrinka or Berd. Losing clutchness happens to everyone with age. If Fed was so mentally vulnerable, he would have surrendered the 2007 Wim final to Nadal. He didn't. At the 2008 final too, he came back from behind to manufacture a contest in a match that had been one sided until then.

 

[rossi46]

Prime Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin and Roddick were tomato cans. Worthless tin cans.

Come on that's harsh. Nalbandian's mental strength, Hewitt's big game, Safin's consistency and Roddick's variety (eg. legendary approach shots) cannot be undermined.

And you forgot the consistent shot selection maestro James Blake.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Come on that's harsh. Nalbandian's mental strength, Hewitt's big game, Safin's consistency and Roddick's variety (eg. legendary approach shots) cannot be undermined.

And you forgot the consistent shot selection maestro James Blake.

Presume said approach shots have something to do with Djokovic's unfavourable head to head against him? And too bad he only got to play GOAT-ing Safin whereas he played so ****ty against Fed at AO 2005, right?

 

[Sreeram]

I am not a Nadal fan or basher. It is those bashers who discuss about other players while the main discussion in on one player. Here the discussion is on Fed. Whether Nadal is good or not is not the question. We all agree that Nadal stood up to Fed for a consistent period and dominated him. Now Djoker is doing that consistently. My point is not how good Nadal or Djkoer are. My point is simple just like what Djoker is doing past few years, and Nadal did previously, no one challenged Fed in his prime era. If they had, he would have crumbled mentally. That is my point.

Now you agree that "He had competition...of a sort that his game matches up well against." That is my point. He had competition but not something that bothered his game. But with people who stood up to his game, his game is falling apart.

Regarding 2007 Wim final, your point is valid. Again it is grass court. Even now Fed is still great on grass, I give him very good chance to beat Djoker on grass with his current form in this US open. So we cannot count Grass which is Nadal's least favorite surface due to the way his game is designed. So that final is now removed from discussion.

I am not a Federer basher. In fact I wanted Fed to win this US open, I thought he deserved it based on the beauty of his game. What clearly disappointed me was that beautiful game was missing to a greater extent in final. I attribute it to his mental weakness, not his game or age. Fed should be more fresher and stronger based on how he crushed his opponents till final. Still he collapsed, we cannot blame just age. There is some other factor.

 

[rossi46]

Presume said approach shots have something to do with Djokovic's unfavourable head to head against him? And too bad he only got to play GOAT-ing Safin whereas he played so ****ty against Fed at AO 2005, right?

That was 1 match. Safin was another talented head case who could only put it together once in a blue moon.

Roddick only had a serve and early on a good forehand. The rest of his game was absurd in particular that approach slice backhand. He used to try that on Federer time and time again only to get passed almost everytime, so probably not much going on upstairs either.

 

[lulzprime]

Guess Sampras had a weak era too then....

 

[Cortana]

There are no weak eras, just outstanding players.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

My point is simple just like what Djoker is doing past few years, and Nadal did previously, no one challenged Fed in his prime era. If they had, he would have crumbled mentally. That is my point.

And my point is Nadal had the opportunity do so between 2004-07. What stopped him from beating the field to get to Fed and deflate his slams tally some? You can't go on hypothesizing the point. There is no need to invent some mythical player who would have exposed Fed in 2004-07. The players who 'exposed' him later on were in the mix back then too. Nole at least was too young and had more of a normal tennis player learning curve. Nadal was already winning slams between 2005-07. Even he couldn't beat Fed until Fed himself began to slow down.

Now you agree that "He had competition...of a sort that his game matches up well against." That is my point. He had competition but not something that bothered his game. But with people who stood up to his game, his game is falling apart.

And show me a player to whom that never happened? Borg beat Connors from two sets down at Wimbledon. But after losing to Mac, he didn't want to return to the tour. What about Nadal? Did he not lose to Djoko in three straight finals? He held tough at RG but lost there too this year. Do you play tennis? If you play somebody against whom you have a match up problem, do you think just gritting your teeth would somehow make the problem disappear? Fine, you can make the guy play one more ball, throw some bluff at him but if he is not fazed by all those things, you will end up losing. But what if you make more tournament finals than he? Is that then a mentality issue or a match up issue? A player who is mentally frail cannot win 17 slams.

Regarding 2007 Wim final, your point is valid. Again it is grass court. Even now Fed is still great on grass, I give him very good chance to beat Djoker on grass with his current form in this US open. So we cannot count Grass which is Nadal's least favorite surface due to the way his game is designed. So that final is now removed from discussion.

No, no, no, you have removed it, I haven't. I find it to be a valid counter argument. So why not remove all of Nadal's slam victories on his favourite surface and see where he stands?

I am not a Federer basher. In fact I wanted Fed to win this US open, I thought he deserved it based on the beauty of his game. What clearly disappointed me was that beautiful game was missing to a greater extent in final. I attribute it to his mental weakness, not his game or age. Fed should be more fresher and stronger based on how he crushed his opponents till final. Still he collapsed, we cannot blame just age. There is some other factor.

The other factor is the match up but you clearly don't seem to understand how critical that is in tennis. Fed likes to dominate, on serve and from the baseline. He likes to keep points short. He can defend if required, but he is not going to play long points for the sake of it. Nole runs down every ball hit to any part of the court and makes Fed play one more ball over and over. Nole has the best return of serve and makes Fed play more second shots than other guys. Conversely, the serve and Fed's attacking game are also the aces he has over Nole, which is why their head to head has remained dead even or slightly in favour of Fed. However Nole is not the greatest at making his own pace and he is not yet as confident as he needs to be at the net. Which is why on clay with all the time in the world for Wawrinka to set up his shot, he could beat Nole because Nole couldn't hit through him and also didn't take advantage of his court position to take the net away from him. Likewise in the Nadal-Nole rivalry, Nadal's favourite ploy is to attack the right hander's backhand, which is Nole's strongest shot. Nadal tries to hit deep topspin shots and Nole takes them on the rise and gives back with interest, pushing Nadal further back in the court. Match ups are crucial. In the 90s, the players who could have challenged Sampras did not win many slams so this aspect was overlooked. But I am sure it was a talking point in the 80s when we had more great players bunched together vying for the same trophies. It has become a talking point again now.

 

[FarFed]

Fed in his prime had an aura, and it's gone. Everyone was scared to compete with him mainly because of their fear and mental weakness. Nadal changed the fear factor dynamics, he made Fed fear him because of his superior physical skills and his more than superior mental skillks. The mental skills pushed Nadal ahead and it's the combination of mental and physical that does the trick. Nadal is probably the biggest mental giant the game might have seen.

Earlier, Fed had a decent amount of both, but his opponents always lacked the mental part (the aura effect ensured that).

So, yes, it was a combination of opponents fears and insecurities (which Fed has plenty of right now).

 

[Dolgopolov85]

That was 1 match. Safin was another talented head case who could only put it together once in a blue moon.

Roddick only had a serve and early on a good forehand. The rest of his game was absurd in particular that approach slice backhand. He used to try that on Federer time and time again only to get passed almost everytime, so probably not much going on upstairs either.

And up to 2010, that forehand was good enough to extract a weak response from Djoko, which Roddick would take on the volley and close the point. He needed to come up with that slice backhand because he couldn't hit through Federer. If you want to start making excuses, then don't play the weak era card. Roddick had a favourable head to head over Nole and he played a lot of slam matches against Fed, period.

 

[duaneeo]

Prime Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin and Roddick were tomato cans. Worthless tin cans.

If that's your opinion, fine. But at least Federer had truly great players waiting in the wings, and who challenged him. By the end of 2005 (just 2 years into Roger's prime), Nadal had won a slam, 5 Masters (two on hard court), and had become the #2 player in the game. By the end of 2007, Djokovic had won 2 Masters, made it to a slam final, and had become the #3 player in the game. Today's supposed "Golden Age of Tennis" has no such players.

 

[tennisaddict]

I am sure Fed would not have been put to so much scrutiny if he had lost to Isner or Gasquet.

Looks like he made a mistake by getting to the final at this age.

 

[RF20Lennon]

I am sure Fed would not have been put to so much scrutiny if he had lost to Isner or Gasquet.

Looks like he made a mistake by getting to the final at this age.

Yeap! That's the thing with this forum. It is better to lose to Gasquet than it is Djokovic.

 

[billboard]

Roddick with a brain would beat himself in the challenger circuit. Sadly, Novak destroyed him in 2010 (before THE PRETTY BALLETIC MAESTRO Novak ruled tennis).
Head to head records only count for Fred vs. Roddick and unhealthy novak, according to Roddick. Roddick didn't like mentioning Rafa and peak Novak.

Roddick even said the women's us open final was nothing great because Serena couldn't cash in. Poor pathetic dolt.