Originally Posted by Jamin2112 (Post 6581939)

Discuss.

Originally Posted by Agassifan (Post 6582041)

This is a non-issue and only brought up by loser Rafa fans. Not worth discussing.

Originally Posted by Jamin2112 (Post 6581939)

I see it all the time on here:



What a ludicrous argument!

First of all, in tennis, as in any sport, the level of play is always improving (I guess "level of play" would have to be measured by average speed of groundstrokes and serves, physical fitness of players, and a few other metrics). The game gets more competitive at every level, every year.

Second of all, the fact that there was a greater variety of finalists to face Federer in 2003-2007 does not mean he had it easy. The guys who made it to the final in a given tournament were on fire during that tournament. Just because they weren't on fire as consistently (á la Nadal or Djokovic) does not mean they were any less difficult to defeat when they were on fire. (Say it were true that the same 2 or 3 Rookie players always showed up in the final match, while the Champs tournaments, on the other hand, always seemed to have a different set of players in the final. Would that mean that Champs is less competitive?)

Third of all, Roddick, Safin, and the other supposed "light weights" of yesteryear were not in fact lightweights. Roddick was hitting 25 aces per game and successfully charging the net off his forehand. Against a prime 2003-2005 Roddick on a 2003-2005 hard court, Nadal got whooped, and I bet Djokovic would've too.

Fourth of all, the fact that Nadal and Djokovic, both of whom originally had trouble against Federer, were eventually able to crack him (when he reached age 28+), does not mean they are better players. But suppose it does mean that. Then we can apply the same argument for any player, since they all reach a state of permanent decline at some point (Not to say that Federer has reached permanent decline). "Player X used to beat player Y, but eventually player Y started to beat player X. Therefore player X was never better than player Y; he only was able to beat player X before player X had reached his full potential."


Discuss.

Originally Posted by sureshs (Post 6582072)

Only flaw with the argument is that Fed admitted in an interview a couple of days back that his shoulders are stronger and his backhand is better than ever before

Originally Posted by 10is (Post 6582103)

Yeeeeeaaaah.... nice "sound byte", except he only meant "better" that in the context of how his backhand holds up on clay with returning over the shoulder moon balls more efficiently.

Originally Posted by Agassifan (Post 6582041)

This is a non-issue and only brought up by loser Rafa fans. Not worth discussing.

Originally Posted by sureshs (Post 6582072)

Only flaw with the argument is that Fed admitted in an interview a couple of days back that his shoulders are stronger and his backhand is better than ever before, so we are actually seeing a prime Federer now. This argument is offset to some extent because he is older and so his eyesight and quickness could have degraded to some extent.

Originally Posted by dudeski (Post 6582432)

Fed can claim all he wants that he is as good as ever but all you need to see that he is wrong is to look at his 2006 results and imagine him repeating the same thing today. He is simply unable to do it physically:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...=2006&m=s&e=0#

Just take a look at how many long matches he played back to back in 2006. For example at Rome Q,S,F. Or being able to play 5 long matches including 4 back to back 3 setters at Halle only days after exhausting FO final. If he tried that today he would be out for the rest of the season with an injury. 2006 Federer would still own anyone expect maybe for Nadal on clay today.

Originally Posted by BeHappy (Post 6582832)

I listed every single rival that Federer had and they all became non factors after 2005.

Originally Posted by Evan77 (Post 6582854)

I do agree that Fed didn't really have any big competition. Forget about Roddick, Hewitt, Safin... However, it's not his fault. He was winning matches, sometimes because everyone was sh!tting their pants when they saw Roger.

Then a little buttpicker "showed up". again, the worst match up in tennis history. One thing I hate about Fed is that he simply refused to adapt, he was too stubborn.