Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Federer fans love to play the if Federer didnt exist game to build up Roddick and Hewitt, who anyone who knows the game realizes are at absolute best on par with the typical level of a 1 or 2 slam winner, and placed in most other random eras would not have done any better than that either (there are some eras one or both might have been slamless for that matter, and there are certainly numerous people better than them in every era). As opposed to eliminating Federer place Hewitt or Roddick in any previous era, the Sampras and Agassi era, the Borg and Connors era, the Borg and McEnroe era, the Lendl and Becker and Edberg era, and try arguing how they would win anymore than 1 or 2 majors in those as well. Good luck doing so, especialy as the French Open (where opportunity in some of those beckons) is not even a feasible option for either in any era. However even that flawed logic fails, since if you remove Federer and pretend he never existed, Djokovic could well have 8 or 9 slams now himself, vs the 4 or 5 Roddick or Hewitt might have, so would still be way ahead, just as he already is, with lots of career and likely lots of slams left. Even Murray would probably have 4 or 5 slams, just as Roddick is being given in the hypothetical, if Federer didnt exist, and like Djokovic and unlike Roddick and Hewitt, still has alot of career left, and likely more slams in the future. Nadal of course needs no qualification. The very suggestion Roddick might have won 4, 5, or even 6 slams without Federer only proves the very point of how poor the field must have been then as well, since Roddick with his limited skill set winning that many majors is simply incomprehensible and shouldnt even be possible in the first place. Especialy when the huge serve and huge forehand combination which made him somewhat legitimately formidible lasted all of 18 months into his contending years, and the remainder of his career reverted to a pooshy clay courter forehand and tried to win with defense and grinding when he doesnt even have the foot speed to even logically attempt to play that way, which meant he was essentialy all a huge serve, fight, and some junk from the baseline after that.
If my argument is flawed, yours is as well. You assume that your opinion (that Roddick is a talentless hack) is true, but that may not be the case. It's easy for you to say Roddick would never win a major in a previous era, but that's not necessarily true. We all know how big prime Roddick could hit, and I don't want to waste my time fleshing out a counterargument to you knowing full well you won't even consider it.
But the fact is that Hewitt has beaten Sampras on more than one occasion; there's no reason to assume he wouldn't have been able to win as much, if not more, as he has in the mid 90's against players who still played to an extent in a way he was able to beat. Likewise, Roddick was a power hitter, and many men of that type won majors. If a man like Malivai Washington or Todd Martin can make finals, and be as close to winning a major as Martin has been, there's no reason to assume Roddick wouldn't also be capable of it. Stick martin in this era, and I don't see him even making a final.
For the record, the remainder of your post, meaning the lot about Djokovic and Murray; you actually helped me with the argument that I was making. Yes, take Fed out, and EVERYONE has a better career. But the point was that Federer was most difficult to beat during his prime, from 03-08/09. That is why almost no one besides he and Nadal won majors during that period. By the end of 2009, the only other people than Fedal to win a major since Wimbledon 2004 were Djoke and Delpo. Federer began to decline after that, coupled with Djokovic and Murray's rise.
My whole point was that while Roddick may not be on the level of a Djokovic (despite leading the h2h, as you ***** always like to harp about), he was better than 1 major. As was hewitt. I won't make an argument about Nalbandian, as he was too streaky for me to consider him winning a major, but guys like the two I mentioned are definitely better than 1 or 2 majors apiece. Just because you think differently doesn't make me wrong. It just means you're very arrogant about your opinions.
But I doubt you'd consider it a 'weak era' if Federer were removed and Hewitt, Roddick, and perhaps (I'll say perhaps, because at least Roddick was winning sets against prime Fed, unlike Murray in his first 3 major finals) Murray all won multiple majors with Djokovic and Nadal proving a dual heirarchy. It would be very similar to the 90's era, with two men winning the majority of majors (like Sampras and Agassi), and several other players cleaning up the rest (becker, edberg, etc.). This is why I believe the weak era argument holds no water, because the removal of a single anomaly (Federer) makes it almost the same as the previous decade. This turnout of events is easily explained as having a single, exceedingly proficient individual being present rather than a dozen or more pathetic players.