Let's disspel the myth that Federer thrived against a "weak field"

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by DRII

Because he was a semi-finalist.

Next...

yes, now why don't you tell us the reasoning behind making a semi-finalist a contender? According to you, every player who makes a semi becomes a contender at the same. Ergo, there is no question of a weak era.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by DRII

Yes, we clearly do...

Sampras was a contender to win the French the year he made it to the semis; period point blank.

I think any semifinalist is a contender to win that slam, that year.

Hey, don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because you got owned.

[DRII]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

Of course. I forgot about Bjorkman. I also forgot about Youhzny, who made the Semis at the US Open in 2006, and of course Schuttler and Ferriera who both made the AO Semis in 2003.

Using this critera to discern "contenders", there is no weak era. Even the highly criticized 2003, look at all the AO contenders...Such a strong year.

First off this criteria you are referring to is just one aspect that I think an open era great needs to have to be considered such; it is not everything (obviously one would have to be a multiple slam winner).

It was mainly a response to a poster about the comparisons between Federer, Nadal, and Nole in the time periods of 2004-07 vs 2008 to present...

So please stop trying to extrapolate this one premise as some reason to disqualify obvious open era greats (such as Sampras) or qualify obvious non-open era greats such as Schuttler or Ferriera (I'm not sure about Rafter)!

You all are getting a little ridiculous.

[DRII]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Hey, don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because you got owned.

Go back and read my posts...

and then try to ascertain context...

then get back to me.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by DRII;6594773[B

]First off this criteria[/b] you are referring to is just one aspect that I think an open era great needs to have to be considered such; it is not everything (obviously one would have to be a multiple slam winner).

It was mainly a response to a poster about the comparisons between Federer, Nadal, and Nole in the time periods of 2004-07 vs 2008 to present...

So please stop trying to extrapolate this one premise as some reason to disqualify obvious open era greats (such as Sampras) or qualify obvious non-open era greats such as Schuttler or Ferriera (I'm not sure about Rafter)!

You all are getting a little ridiculous.

You mean a criterion. I thought you were a native English speaker?

Nevermind, why don't you give us a set of criterions upon which to judge? And why don't you give a sound reasoning for the claims you're making? So far, I haven't seen you give any constructive. Most of your logic has been thoroughly debunked.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

It's even worse in this case, of course. The strongest possible era would obviously be one with four different semi-finalist at each slam, ie, 16 slam contenders. Of course, you'd get a #1 who would be struggling to reach the 5,000-point mark, but hey, wouldn't that be huge?

Of course, that would mean that *this* era, with the same four players reaching the semis in most slams, is the absolute weakest you can imagine, as you only have four contenders in slams instead of 16. Oh-hum, nice demonstration...

LOL, indeed. Major ownage ......

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by DRII

You all are getting a little ridiculous.

But we're not. We're just showing you something that I told you about a couple of pages ago: for your theory to work, it must work for everyone. The moment you start making allowances for such and such, you've got yourself a sinking ship.

At the moment, we're just throwing your own arguments back at you with stupid examples, and the question, "Does it work now?" The answer, of course, is no, so that means the reasoning/theory behing all of this must be flawed, at least in part.

I personnally have nothing against a kind of "unified theory of weak-Federer-era-ship", but it has to hold water when you use the same arguments to judge the other eras against, and I don't think you're ever going to manage that one...

[DRII]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

Agreed. Sampras was in contention for one French Open, once. He lost his semifinal match in straight sets, getting bageled in the process.

He never reached another Semi at the French, so I'd say only being in contention 1/13 years means, more often than not (AKA 92% of the time), Sampras wasn't contending for the French Open. In my book, that isn't being looked at, year in, year out as a contender to do something big at an event.

When did i say year end and year out.

Given Sampras' substantial resume, that fact that he was a contender to win the French even one year certainly qualifies him as an open era great by my definition.

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by DRII

First off this criteria you are referring to is just one aspect that I think an open era great needs to have to be considered such; it is not everything (obviously one would have to be a multiple slam winner).

It was mainly a response to a poster about the comparisons between Federer, Nadal, and Nole in the time periods of 2004-07 vs 2008 to present...

So please stop trying to extrapolate this one premise as some reason to disqualify obvious open era greats (such as Sampras) or qualify obvious non-open era greats such as Schuttler or Ferriera (I'm not sure about Rafter)!

You all are getting a little ridiculous.

No, we're exposing your hollow arguments to try and illustrate your point.

I don't think Schuttler, Ferriera, Bjorkman or Youhzny were ever big contenders at the events I mentioned, I was simply stating how simple it is to make a long list of "contenders" based on your criteria (made a Semifinal appearance).

No one takes anything away from Sampras, he was my favorite player until he retired, and he should be on everyone's GOAT short list. But to call him a contender at the French Open is just plain dumb. It doesn't take away from the fact that he was an incredible champion at the other three slams, but he made one Semi, and got blitzed.

You are so hell bent on proving your point about 2004-2007 being weaker than today that you can't see the forest for the trees. You refuse to acknowledge that Federer is quite a bit worse than he was 5 years ago, or that Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Nalby were good players once upon a time.

You refuse to accept or acknowledge anyone else's point(s), while simultaneously expecting everyone to take your word as fact. You are the classic internet instigator and troll, and you're good at it. People (myself included) still engage in discussions and debate with you, even though it's like talking to a wall.

These discussions are like playing chess against a pigeon. Regardless of my level of skill, the pigeon will knock all the pieces off, crap on the board and walk around like it won.

[IvanisevicServe]

In another era, Federer probably would've won more French Open titles. Talk about Kuerten 2004 FO if you wish, but Federer had beaten Kuerten on clay before, and that was pre-prime Federer.

Of course, if we're talking about the Borg era, his odds go back down...though Borg probably wouldn't have been the matchup nightmare for him Rafa has been.

But with Nadal destroying everyone in his path once again, with FO #7 all but a foregone conclusion, it really underscores just how unfortunate Federer is to play in the era of the probable clay court GOAT...and one who also happens to be just about the most difficult matchup possible for him.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by DRII

Go back and read my posts...

and then try to ascertain context...

then get back to me.

yea whatever im done with you

[DRII]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

But we're not. We're just showing you something that I told you about a couple of pages ago: for your theory to work, it must work for everyone. The moment you start making allowances for such and such, you've got yourself a sinking ship.

At the moment, we're just throwing your own arguments back at you with stupid examples, and the question, "Does it work now?" The answer, of course, is no, so that means the reasoning/theory behing all of this must be flawed, at least in part.

I personnally have nothing against a kind of "unified theory of weak-Federer-era-ship", but it has to hold water when you use the same arguments to judge the other eras against, and I don't think you're ever going to manage that one...

Actually it does work and does hold water. Not that this arbitrary exercise you all are attempting really means anything.

Sampras was a contender to win the French (even if it was only for one year), so therefore he qualifies as an open era great under my original definition...

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by DRII

Actually it does work and does hold water. Not that this arbitrary exercise you all are attempting really means anything.

Sampras was a contender to win the French (even if it was only for one year), so therefore he qualifies as an open era great under my original definition...

And so, Murray is one, too, isn't he? And Nalbandian?

[DRII]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

No, we're exposing your hollow arguments to try and illustrate your point.

I don't think Schuttler, Ferriera, Bjorkman or Youhzny were ever big contenders at the events I mentioned, I was simply stating how simple it is to make a long list of "contenders" based on your criteria (made a Semifinal appearance).

No one takes anything away from Sampras, he was my favorite player until he retired, and he should be on everyone's GOAT short list. But to call him a contender at the French Open is just plain dumb. It doesn't take away from the fact that he was an incredible champion at the other three slams, but he made one Semi, and got blitzed.

You are so hell bent on proving your point about 2004-2007 being weaker than today that you can't see the forest for the trees. You refuse to acknowledge that Federer is quite a bit worse than he was 5 years ago, or that Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Nalby were good players once upon a time.

You refuse to accept or acknowledge anyone else's point(s), while simultaneously expecting everyone to take your word as fact. You are the classic internet instigator and troll, and you're good at it. People (myself included) still engage in discussions and debate with you, even though it's like talking to a wall.

These discussions are like playing chess against a pigeon. Regardless of my level of skill, the pigeon will knock all the pieces off, crap on the board and walk around like it won.

I'm not responsible for your or other Fedephants insecurities regarding Federer and a qualitative analysis of his record. Obviously you and others realize there is at least some truth to the premise that 2004-07 consisted of relatively weak competition otherwise you would not be so utterly consumed by the discussion and so vigorously retort; let alone attack...

And btw, me responding is acknowledging your point of view, nor do i expect you to necessarily agree with me. My opinion is my opinion, and when it comes to a qualitative analysis; everything is opinion. However given you and others' responses; this line of discussion is a sore spot. Perhaps you should ask yourself why...

[DRII]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

And so, Murray is one, too, isn't he? And Nalbandian?

No, because they have not won a slam...

and again your only focussing on one aspect and avoiding the others.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by DRII

No, because they have not won a slam...

and again your only focussing on one aspect and avoiding the others.

Ah so now you have to win a major as well in your criteria. Anything else you'd like to add before we throw in some random names to prove that you're wrong yet again?

[DRII]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Ah so now you have to win a major as well in your criteria. Anything else you'd like to add before we throw in some random names to prove that you're wrong yet again?

Again...

try and discern context.

How desperate can you get?

An open era great IMO is a multiple-slam winner that is or has been a contender to win slams on every slam surface.

If you had read my posts, and not so focused on proving someone wrong, you could have deciphered this yourself!

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by DRII

I'm not responsible for your or other Fedephants insecurities regarding Federer and a qualitative analysis of his record. Obviously you and others realize there is at least some truth to the premise that 2004-07 consisted of relatively weak competition otherwise you would not be so utterly consumed by the discussion and so vigorously retort; let alone attack...

And btw, me responding is acknowledging your point of view, nor do i expect you to necessarily agree with me. My opinion is my opinion, and when it comes to a qualitative analysis; everything is opinion. However given you and others' responses; this line of discussion is a sore spot. Perhaps you should ask yourself why...

Nice try grouping me in with "Fedephants" (an attack in itself) and people who are full of vitriol and love to attack. I'm generally pretty calm, though I don't mind arguing my point.

I don't accept that there is truth to the idea that 2004-2007 was weak competition when compared to 2008-today.

I think if you want to make the case that 2000-2012 is weaker when compared with 1970-1999 (with some clear gaps in the 30 year time frame listed prior), I'll be on board with that, 100%. The combination of surface disparity, and depth of the top 10-20 being littered with Major champions to me, means that dominating then was a lot harder than dominating now. It's what makes Borg's FO/Wimby doubles so impressive, as well as Connor's longevity, or Sampras winning 7 Wimbledon titles on fast grass and facing some big serves and grass specialists.

That's an argument I'll have, but I think that people disparaging Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Nalby, Nadal (2005 and 2006), etc. is misguided and it's something that I'll always argue against. It's not rooted in fear of Federer being exposed as a weak era champion, it's the fact that people are giving Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga etc. WAY too much credit when discussing them as "serious threats" to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic.

That's not to mention that Djokovic spent most of 2009 and 2010 floundering (until the 2010 US Open, where even still he lost in the final), Federer was garbage for much of 2008 and 2010-2011, and Nadal hasn't won a title off clay since the 2010 US Open. The 2008-2012 era doesn't look quite as strong when that stuff is brought to light.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by DRII

Again...

try and discern context.

How desperate can you get?

Am I? So I'm the one adding new criteria to support my claims, right?

First you said a contender in a major should reach the semis, then do it several times and finally win a major. So I'm asking you now:

Was Thomas Johansson a contender at Wimbledon? He did manage to win a major (2002 AO) and reached the Wimbledon semis in 2005.

Was Patrick Rafter a contender at the French Open? He's a 2-time US champion and played in 1 FO semi in 1997.

Was Yannick Noah a contender at the AO? Was Mark Edmondson a contender at Wimbledon? Petr Kodra at the French?

Originally Posted by DRII

An open era great IMO is a multiple-slam winner that is or has been a contender to win slams on every slam surface.

If you had read my posts, and not so focused on proving someone wrong, you could have deciphered this yourself!

Do you have some serious reading disability or what? What does that have to do with my question?

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

Of course. I forgot about Bjorkman. I also forgot about Youhzny, who made the Semis at the US Open in 2006, and of course Schuttler and Ferriera who both made the AO Semis in 2003.

Using this critera to discern "contenders", there is no weak era. Even the highly criticized 2003, look at all the AO contenders...Such a strong year.

ROFL!! this is epic. DRII is getting torn a new one, and sounds desperate for a way out. guys, please go easy on him...