How much do the weak fields detract from Serena and Federer's achievements

[varsity8993]

All speculation without a time machine.

[edberg505]

Originally Posted by jamesblakefan#1

Fed's won 3 of the 4 slams in 3 different years (2004, 2006, 2007). Why would this year be any different, and you "might" reconsider your stance? What a joke. He has been dominant, he had one of the most dominant seasons of all time in 2006, and was only 2 sets from the Grand Slam that season. I don't know what more Federer has to do for some folks to give him credit....if 15 slams, 22 straight slam SF, and 237 straight weeks at #1 isn't dominant enough, I don't know what is...

And we've already exposed the flaws in all the weak/strong era talk, so gimme a break.

Oh come now. You know that if Korda was playing in this era he would totally dominate the field. I'd put Kucera, Schaller, Philippoussis, and Yzaga right up there with Korda as well.

[jamesblakefan#1]

We already know that your definition of what a strong field is and isn't is biased and retarted, so I'm not even gonna get into this discussion w/ you GSF, it would be pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

And she still gets to almost everything. No she's isn't elegant and gliding on the court, But the result is what matters.

I always found Steffi to be stiff and mechanical but she was fast with great footwork. Seles wasn't a great mover.

This girl Wickmayer who I saw live on Monday actually is pretty to watch.

You are right. She still chases down even well struck balls and is tough to get the ball past. Even not in her absolute best shape she is still one of the best movers out there, and her determination helps her get to more balls too. I found Graf light on her feet, but of course I am partial and enjoy her more than most probably would. I agree that she wasnt a fluid player or mover like Goolagong or Mandlikova per say though. Seles wasnt a great mover, but of course at her best didnt have to be as she was such an amazing ball striker and killer competitor.

[crazylevity]

Here is an article for your consideration, highlighting the strength and depth of today's mens field:

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/art...361648859.html

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

You did not bold my entire statement. I said has not proven he could dominate vs a very strong field. The current mens field could be considered strong to a degree I suppose. 2004, 2006, even 2007 definitely wasnt though so do not prove ability to dominate a particularly strong field, hence my statement. I did not say he has never dominated, I said he has never dominated a strong field, and if he completed this year as the defact dominant player it would be the first time he ever has. Now if Nadal somehow won the U.S Open and ended the year with 2 slams to Federer's 2, with Nadal missing 1 of the middle slams he won last year with injury, of course Federer would now not be even close to the dominant player of the year. If Federer wins the U.S Open he definitely would be though.

Serena has already proven her ability to dominate a very strong womens field in 2002-2003. Yes the current womens field is very weak (as I have said many times) but Serena has already in the past given us indication events she is playing well enough to win she would win even had the competition been very strong.

The reason is because Federer wins everything. So you say the field was "weak". maybe he's just that good.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by jamesblakefan#1

We already know that your definition of what a strong field is and isn't is biased and retarted, so I'm not even gonna get into this discussion w/ you GSF, it would be pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

Do you honestly believe Federer ever faced a field any year from 2004-2007 that is up to the level of the field Serena dominated in 2002-2003. Again not the current womens or mens fields (which I concede the mens is much stronger right now) but the fields of just those particular years.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

The reason is because Federer wins everything. So you say the field was "weak". maybe he's just that good.

Of course this is possible, but do you think Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, or Davydenko would be World beaters in any era? I sure as heck dont. There was Nadal but didnt become a major threat on non clay surfaces until mid 2007, Djokovic emerged as a big threat starting in mid 2007, and Murray not until late 2008.

[mandy01]

Ahh...the Samprastards/Fed-haters are at it again
LOL..Desperate

[sunny_cali]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

Do you honestly believe Federer ever faced a field any year from 2004-2007 that is up to the level of the field Serena dominated in 2002-2003. Again not the current womens or mens fields (which I concede the mens is much stronger right now) but the fields of just those particular years.

the weakest field is probably 1997-2003, when Sampras picked a few slams.

And, yes, you keep droning about the same point again and again. Does'nt change anything. Fed is a great player, just like Nadal. (debates about GOAT are pointless exercises in futility)

Why don't you get it that it is nigh impossible to compare different era's -- and the fact that you don't have to, you know. Just enjoy the players of every era - is that too difficult to do ?

Basically, you and your ilk are so blinded by hate for one player (Fed) and insane fanboyism for someone in the past, you just can't sit back and enjoy the tennis of today.

[Bruguera]

Well its not all of their faults.. I mean is it Fed's fault that there are no Lendls, Sampras, Agassi's, Mac's, Borgs, Lavers and Connors anymore around?

Im not the world's biggest Fed fan but hes tremendously dedicated to the game even now when he was pretty much shattered most records put in front of him.. Unlike Serena who will phone in half the season just to get prepared for slams.

But they only play who is put in front of them. Its not Fed's fault, Nadal has been the ONLY PLAYER who has actually stepped up over the years to become the only legit rival he has. Its the rest of the fields fault for not doing the same.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by Bruguera

Well its not all of their faults.. I mean is it Fed's fault that there are no Lendls, Sampras, Agassi's, Mac's, Borgs, Lavers and Connors anymore around?

Im not the world's biggest Fed fan but hes tremendously dedicated to the game even now when he was pretty much shattered most records put in front of him.. Unlike Serena who will phone in half the season just to get prepared for slams.

But they only play who is put in front of them. Its not Fed's fault, Nadal has been the ONLY PLAYER who has actually stepped up over the years to become the only legit rival he has. Its the rest of the fields fault for not doing the same.

Fed would own those players.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

Fed would own those players.

I think some would give him more trouble than others.

Sampras- that serve would give everyone trouble. Agassi who some couldnt the greatest returner ever couldnt handle it. Then add the great attacking game, the strong baseline play, and Federer would have a big challenge on his hands, especialy on faster courts.

Borg- plays similar to Nadal but with a much better serve and much better net game.

Agassi- backhand to backhand rallies would be a nightmare for Federer. Agassi in his mid 30s was taking sets from Federer in about half their matches. Federer would probably lead the head to head, but Agassi would still be a handful especialy on hard courts.

Connors- an agressive baseline with a very strong backhand, best returner ever along with Agassi, and was an incredibly fierce competitor. Cant see Federer having it easy given that these are many traits of players he has trouble with.

[Bruguera]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

Fed would own those players.

Thats your opinion. I dont think Fed would "own" an 80s field or even early 90's for that matter as he does today's overrall field. I still see Fed having success in any era due to his talent.. But not to the degree as he has had 04-present.



I know difficulties in comparing eras. But it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the likes of Roddick, "on off again Safin", Nalbandian, Hewitt, Davydenko are on par with the some of the past greats.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

I think some would give him more trouble than others.

Sampras- that serve would give everyone trouble. Agassi who some couldnt the greatest returner ever couldnt handle it. Then add the great attacking game, the strong baseline play, and Federer would have a big challenge on his hands, especialy on faster courts.

Agassi- backhand to backhand rallies would be a nightmare for Federer. Agassi in his mid 30s was taking sets from Federer in about half their matches. Federer would probably lead the head to head, but Agassi would still be a handful especialy on hard courts.
.

How much more coulda ,woulda shoulda?
BTW-Roger dosent mind bh to bh rallies.He has a problem only when the ball comes high with heavy topspin .
And against Sampras-Roger has way more variety than Agassi ever had inspite of being a great returner.Not to mention the courts have been slowered down now

[Bruguera]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

You did not bold my entire statement. I said has not proven he could dominate vs a very strong field. The current mens field could be considered strong to a degree I suppose. 2004, 2006, even 2007 definitely wasnt though so do not prove ability to dominate a particularly strong field, hence my statement. I did not say he has never dominated, I said he has never dominated a strong field, and if he completed this year as the defact dominant player it would be the first time he ever has. Now if Nadal somehow won the U.S Open and ended the year with 2 slams to Federer's 2, with Nadal missing 1 of the middle slams he won last year with injury, of course Federer would now not be even close to the dominant player of the year. If Federer wins the U.S Open he definitely would be though.

Serena has already proven her ability to dominate a very strong womens field in 2002-2003. Yes the current womens field is very weak (as I have said many times) but Serena has already in the past given us indication events she is playing well enough to win she would win even had the competition been very strong.

Overrall I guess you can say the field is pretty deep in men's tennis.. However, we can certainly question the top players (Yes even the top 5 in the world). Fed and Nadal need no introduction. Tough to question those two. They have manhandled the tour for years together. We can question the likes of Djoker and Murray though. Djoker hasnt seen a slam final since AO 2008. Buts he young and tremendously talented so thats on his side. Murray? Another slam gone by, another egg he has laid. Del Potro is very talented.. Maybe with the most "upside" next to Djokovic surely but its still a mystery how he will pan out. Hes an awfully big guys and his movement and stamina will always be questioned I think. He can overwhelm you, but he can also run out of gas.

These guys have some upsides to their careers because they are young. But at this point in time, they are all very questionable. At the end of the day, Its the Fed-Nadal show. Has been for years, and still looks to be the case until proven otherwise.

[crazylevity]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

I think some would give him more trouble than others.

Sampras- that serve would give everyone trouble. Agassi who some couldnt the greatest returner ever couldnt handle it. Then add the great attacking game, the strong baseline play, and Federer would have a big challenge on his hands, especialy on faster courts.

Borg- plays similar to Nadal but with a much better serve and much better net game.

Agassi- backhand to backhand rallies would be a nightmare for Federer. Agassi in his mid 30s was taking sets from Federer in about half their matches. Federer would probably lead the head to head, but Agassi would still be a handful especialy on hard courts.

Connors- an agressive baseline with a very strong backhand, best returner ever along with Agassi, and was an incredibly fierce competitor. Cant see Federer having it easy given that these are many traits of players he has trouble with.

Sampras-agree on faster surfaces to some extent; would likely split them with Federer given how dominant Federer is on fast surfaces. Would own Sampras on anything slower.

Borg-agree, but would be dominated by Federer on hardcourts.

Agassi-yes he was occasionally taking sets, but you overlook all the straight set beatdowns. And come on, even Agassi said that he had no chance against Federer. To him, Federer has no weaknesses.

Connors-flat, hard hitter. Exactly the type of game Federer eats for breakfast.

[jamesblakefan#1]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

I think some would give him more trouble than others.

Sampras- that serve would give everyone trouble. Agassi who some couldnt the greatest returner ever couldnt handle it. Then add the great attacking game, the strong baseline play, and Federer would have a big challenge on his hands, especialy on faster courts.

Borg- plays similar to Nadal but with a much better serve and much better net game.

Agassi- backhand to backhand rallies would be a nightmare for Federer. Agassi in his mid 30s was taking sets from Federer in about half their matches. Federer would probably lead the head to head, but Agassi would still be a handful especialy on hard courts.

Connors- an agressive baseline with a very strong backhand, best returner ever along with Agassi, and was an incredibly fierce competitor. Cant see Federer having it easy given that these are many traits of players he has trouble with.

And blah blah freaking blah. Seriously, do you ever stop it with these imaginary matches you play out in your head? You're better off using Borg vs Federer from TopSpin 3 as proof that Fed wouldn't be successful in past eras...

Oh wait...you'll love this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jba-Xo1TlI4

Becker schooling Federer, your dream come true right?

[edberg505]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

I think some would give him more trouble than others.

Sampras- that serve would give everyone trouble. Agassi who some couldnt the greatest returner ever couldnt handle it. Then add the great attacking game, the strong baseline play, and Federer would have a big challenge on his hands, especialy on faster courts.

Borg- plays similar to Nadal but with a much better serve and much better net game.

Agassi- backhand to backhand rallies would be a nightmare for Federer. Agassi in his mid 30s was taking sets from Federer in about half their matches. Federer would probably lead the head to head, but Agassi would still be a handful especialy on hard courts.

Connors- an agressive baseline with a very strong backhand, best returner ever along with Agassi, and was an incredibly fierce competitor. Cant see Federer having it easy given that these are many traits of players he has trouble with.

Ok, how about this...

1. Does Sampras make 21 straight slam semi-finals if he's in this era?

[edberg505]

Originally Posted by jamesblakefan#1

And blah blah freaking blah. Seriously, do you ever stop it with these imaginary matches you play out in your head? You're better off using Borg vs Federer from TopSpin 3 as proof that Fed wouldn't be successful in past eras...

Oh wait...you'll love this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jba-Xo1TlI4

Becker schooling Federer, your dream come true right?

Oh yeah, that is totally the way that match up would play out. Becker beating Federer from the baseline, awesome.