View Single Post
Old 01-23-2013, 02:00 PM   #18
zagor
Talk Tennis Guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Weak era
Posts: 25,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ultradr View Post
In current environment, there will be more dominant player
and wins his 1st slam as a teenager, and accumulate ~20+ slams.

And Federer's reign was interrupted by ~5 year younger generation:
Nadal, Djokovic. This is weak as a all time greats. Top 5 GOATs dominated
a decade until 10+ younger generation arrived.
If 5 years of domination is weak for Fed as an all-time great then so is 6 years for Sampras as well, you do realize number 6 is closer to number 5 than number 10, Fastdunn? Not to mention that Fed was more dominant in his years at #1 than Sampras was by a solid margin, yes I know you can say that was due to homogenization of the surfaces/different seeding system in slams etc. but I can also say Fed didn't have 6 or more years at #1 because Nadal is a greater player and competitor than Agassi.

And yes it's possible there will a more dominant player than Fed in current conditions but until it actually happens, it's just speculation and thus silly to use as an argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ultradr View Post
IMHO, Federer knows this and is playing to show that he can stand again
at the top over Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.


I am pretty sure that's the reason why Federer is playing now
Yeah, that would be the reason Fed is still playing, if he was a nutjob.

He's playing because he hopes to win a few more slams if he can (thus making his slam record tougher to break) and because he still enjoys it.

Thinking that he could stand at the top over Nadal, Novak and Murray at the age of 31-32 with them being in their mid 20s would make him delusional and somehow I never got that vibe from Fed's interviews.
zagor is offline   Reply With Quote