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

[TMF]

Originally Posted by DRII

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

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

WHAT??

Sampras made one semi and he's a contender. However David made the semi twice and Murray made one semi losing to the clay goat(Nadal) are not a contender???

You're a joke...I suggest you quit while you're behind because you'll continue to embarrass yourself.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by DRII

Go back and read my posts...

and then try to ascertain context...

then get back to me.

i've gone back and read my posts, and I completely can ascertain the context. I can only conclude that

you got royally pwned!!!!!

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

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

what rank would murray have in the list of open era greats? he's been a contender at all slams, so i'm sure we can find a place for him in the top 10?

[DRII]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

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.

Well we just disagree; its simple as that.

BTW, I'm not disparaging anyone; I simply making a comparison. I don't know how many times i have to say: that no era in a world class, competitive, established sport-- was, is, or will be weak. There is simply too much money and potential fame at stake. However there are certainly weaker or stronger eras or time periods as compared to others.

If Hewitt had not lost his only weapon (footspeed); Safin not been injured so many times or not mentally focused; or Roddick wasn't so one dimensional -- then I probably would not rate 04-07 as 'weaker' than 08 to present...

I also agree with you comparing the 2000's to pervious eras and have previously made the very same points you have regarding such...

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by DRII

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

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

ok then Michael stich and Safin are open era greats. what's their rank in your list?

[DRII]

Originally Posted by TMF

WHAT??

Sampras made one semi and he's a contender. However David made the semi twice and Murray made one semi losing to the clay goat(Nadal) are not a contender???

You're a joke...I suggest you quit while you're behind because you'll continue to embarrass yourself.

Beeoch, could you please switch to the semi-coherrent personality that has at least some cognitive ability!

Nalby nor Murray has won a slam! How thick are you?

[DRII]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

i've gone back and read my posts, and I completely can ascertain the context. I can only conclude that

you got royally pwned!!!!!

Oh so you've "gone back and read your posts"

You were suppose to read mine!

Try again...

[TMF]

Originally Posted by DRII

Beeoch, could you please switch to the semi-coherrent personality that has at least some cognitive ability!

Nalby nor Murray has won a slam! How thick are you?

(SIGH)Playing by your own rule(s) just to suit your biased agenda. Fact is Murray and David had the same run if not better than Sampras at the FO. So if Sampras is a contender(which no one agree with you), then Murray/David should be included !

[Flash O'Groove]

Federer not substantially declining since 2007 is demonstrated by him consistently being in contention to win slams, including now...

We will never know, because it could also mean that he was so good in his primer that he can still compete with the new generation even despite a mental and physical decline.

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

So as I suggested, a player able to go to the final of the slam at the moment is a treat, even if he is generally inconsistent or a non factor. Therefore, saying that Fed era is a weak era because he had to face Hewitt, Gonzo and Baghdatis is incoherent.

No. Because your basic premise is totally wrong, or at least heavily skewed by your perception of the situation (aka what you want the "truth" to be).

Here's another take at this situation:

1) Federer was so much better than the field in 2004-2006 that he made everyone (except Nadal on clay) look like journeymen.

2) He was so much better than the field then that, despite declining substantially since 2007, he is still in contention to win slams at 31.

Do 1 and 2 fit the facts? They sure do. So who's to say that this theory doesn't have at least as much merit as yours?

Well said, sir.

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..

Obviously you realize that you faith the weak competition of 2004-07 isn't convincing, otherwise you would not be so utterly consumed by the discussion and so vigorously retort; let alone attack..

BTW, I'm not disparaging anyone; I simply making a comparison. I don't know how many times i have to say: that no era in a world class, competitive, established sport-- was, is, or will be weak. There is simply too much money and potential fame at stake. However there are certainly weaker or stronger eras or time periods as compared to others.

There may be stonger or weaker era, but we don't know to distinguish one from the other, because all argument car be used in one way or another (see above)

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by DRII

Well we just disagree; its simple as that.

BTW, I'm not disparaging anyone; I simply making a comparison. I don't know how many times i have to say: that no era in a world class, competitive, established sport-- was, is, or will be weak. There is simply too much money and potential fame at stake. However there are certainly weaker or stronger eras or time periods as compared to others.

If Hewitt had not lost his only weapon (footspeed); Safin not been injured so many times or not mentally focused; or Roddick wasn't so one dimensional -- then I probably would not rate 04-07 as 'weaker' than 08 to present...

I also agree with you comparing the 2000's to pervious eras and have previously made the very same points you have regarding such...

Sure...I get where the argument comes from. I do. Like you said, we simply disagree (which is fine).

My point with the guys you mentioned...Hewitt continues to trouble Nadal and Djokovic. He doesn't beat them, but he still troubles them. The same can be said for Nalbandian. Rewind 5-10 years to their primes, and imagine how tough they would have been then.

The same can be said for Roddick, who has a 5-3 h2h against Djokovic, and he's troubled Nadal in the past as well (most notably beating him in Miami 2010). The guy is so far out of his prime it's not even funny, but he still manages to trouble some guys at the top. He's wildly inconsistent now, but in his prime he could beat anyone (except Federer, who has always been an awful matchup for Andy).

Tommy Haas beat Djokovic twice in two weeks in 2009 on the grass courts. Nalbandian always gives Nadal and other top players fits, and he's proven himself to be one of the more talented players of the last 10-15 years. Safin beat Djokovic in 2008 at Wimbledon also.

There are even more examples, but for me, looking at "washed up, old, past their prime" guys like I mentioned above continuing to trouble and beat the current top 5 guys says something to me about the quality of that era. It also says to me how incredible Federer was from 2004-2007, because he was able to dominate most of those guys.

I've said it before, give me the top 3 from today (ideally Fed from a few years ago), but the top 30 from 2004 any day of the week.

[DRII]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

There may be stonger or weaker era, but we don't know to distinguish one from the other, because all argument car be used in one way or another (see above)

Riigghhtt...

so therefore we must devolve to the default position that eras or time periods are so different form one another that they are all actually the same

Do you realize how literally insane that premise is???

Yet, none of you would dare say the same thing about the women's game. We all know the WTA is weaker than 10 or 15 years ago! (although things are beginning to look better)...

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by DRII

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

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

This is becoming really confusing, so let's just try and make it clearer, right?

Now, your new rule is that, to be a contender in a slam, you have to reach the semis (at least) and have won at least another slam previously.

Fine.

Then, you 'll agree with me that Federer wasn't a contender at Wimbledon 2003, Nadal wasn't a contender at RG 2005, Djokovic wasn't a contender at AO 2008, Sampras wasn't a contender at USO 1990, etc., etc.

Yet they all won. Amazing, isn't it? So, can we reasonably say that a player who won a tournament wasn't a contender?

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by DRII

Oh so you've "gone back and read your posts"

You were suppose to read mine!

Try again...

did try again, and the conclusion is the same:

you got royally pwned

[DRII]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

This is becoming really confusing, so let's just try and make it clearer, right?

Now, your new rule is that, to be a contender in a slam, you have to reach the semis (at least) and have won at least another slam previously.

Fine.

Then, you 'll agree with me that Federer wasn't a contender at Wimbledon 2003, Nadal wasn't a contender at RG 2005, Djokovic wasn't a contender at AO 2008, Sampras wasn't a contender at USO 1990, etc., etc.

Yet they all won. Amazing, isn't it? So, can we reasonably say that a player who won a tournament wasn't a contender?

Now you're just being stupid...

and you know it.

Don't fall to the level of TMF, mandy, ambk etc...


There is no new rule. I said that IMO to be an open era great a player has to be a multiple slam winner and contender to win or have won slams on every slam surface...

Its pretty simple, i don't understand the confusion...

[DRII]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

did try again, and the conclusion is the same:

you got royally pwned

tried but obviously did not succeed!

[Gorecki]

let me guess : DRII getting owned once more, denying in face of the facts and kicking and screaming while being sucked in the sands of pawnage?

[BeHappy]

This thread has consolidated the reality that Federer thrived against a weak field.

[DRII]

Originally Posted by Gorecki

let me guess : DRII getting owned once more, denying in face of the facts and kicking and screaming while being sucked in the sands of pawnage?

Get back to your Bravo shows...

[DRII]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

This thread has consolidated the reality that Federer thrived against a weak field.

Essentially so...

but not weak, just weaker. No matter how 'they' try to take my words out of context.

Rationalization at its best (or worst)...

[billnepill]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

This thread has consolidated the reality that Federer thrived against a weak field.

How can reality be consolidated? If it is reality, it doesn't need consolidating. Reality is that Federer won 11 slams between 2004 and 2007. Anything else is angry people trying to cope with the reality (look up cognitive dissonance)