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

[The Dark Knight]

Holy crap!!!!!!

Juan Carlos Ferrero former #1 of the weak era never retired!!!!

I didn't realize this guy kept playing ! What the hell ever happened to him
He has drawn none other than Joker in te first round....LOL.

This should be a blood bath !

Come on guys ......how the hell can you say that era was stronger than today. I mean Ferrero ????? I know Feds your idol.....but it's so much stronger today than before . Please give it up.

[tudwell]

Why is today's era stronger, Dark Knight? Because no one is capable of penetrating the duopoly that sits at the top, whereas in 2003 it was far more competitive and players weren't afraid to win slams and push for the number one ranking? Is it because Djokovic and Nadal have no one their age pushing them whereas Federer had tons of great players his age that he had to contend with and overcome to dominate the way he did? I'm really missing something here, if you could please explain.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Holy crap!!!!!!

Juan Carlos Ferrero former #1 of the weak era never retired!!!!

I didn't realize this guy kept playing ! What the hell ever happened to him
He has drawn none other than Joker in te first round....LOL.

This should be a blood bath !

Come on guys ......how the hell can you say that era was stronger than today. I mean Ferrero ????? I know Feds your idol.....but it's so much stronger today than before . Please give it up.

Yes, you are going around in circles Dark Knight. Ferrero was a great player, my favourite spaniard before Nadal. He had more variety and speed in his game (was his nickname The Mosquito?). He did a mistake with changing racket and fell out of form (was there some injury involved too?). Now leads a tennis academy. A great player at his time/best.
If you dont know he is still playing it says more about you really.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Yes you are going around in circles Black Knight. Ferrero was a great player, my favourite spaniard before Nadal. He had more variety and speed in his game (was his nickname The Mosquito?). He did a mistake with changing racket and fell out of form (was there some injury involved too?). A great player at his time/best.
If you dont know he is still playing it says more about you actually.

No it says that he is not factor anymore because his era was weaker. What the hell is Ferrero even ranked?

Come on all the guys like Roddick Blake Ferrero baghdatis gonzo hewitt all gone . Why are none of the greats in the weak era even in the top 10 anymore ? I mean is there even one of them around?

True greats last....Sampras Agassi McEnroe Lendl Connors ......but not one from the weak era except Federer......because he was the only great in the weak era.

Come on .....Ferrero #1 in the world?? Jesus.....he is a mosquito because that's about how much of a factor he is today.

Ferrero also seemed better than he was because he was playing in an era when Gaston Gaudio was the champ.

All these guys disappeared .......

I know you idolize Fed but Federer himself says this is a golden era.....everyone does ......this is just sad already

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Yes, you are going around in circles Dark Knight. Ferrero was a great player, my favourite spaniard before Nadal. He had more variety and speed in his game (was his nickname The Mosquito?). He did a mistake with changing racket and fell out of form (was there some injury involved too?). Now leads a tennis academy. A great player at his time/best.
If you dont know he is still playing it says more about you really.

Ferrero was awesome to watch. Had a great 2001-2003 (winning 10 titles and making 8 finals in that span, including winning RG, and 2 other Major finals), and some solid results later on, reaching the AO Semis in 2004, the Cincy final in 2006 and the Wimby QF in 2009.

At his peak though, he was really fun to watch. Great overall game.

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

No it says that he is not factor anymore because his era was weaker. What the hell is Ferrero even ranked?

Come on all the guys like Roddick Blake Ferrero baghdatis gonzo hewitt all gone . Why are none of the greats in the weak era even in the top 10 anymore ? I mean is there even one of them around?

True greats last....Sampras Agassi McEnroe Lendl Connors ......but not one from the weak era except Federer......because he was the only great in the weak era.

Come on .....Ferrero #1 in the world?? Jesus.....he is a mosquito because that's about how much of a factor he is today.

Ferrero also seemed better than he was because he was playing in an era when Gaston Gaudio was the champ.

All these guys disappeared .......

I know you idolize Fed but Federer himself says this is a golden era.....everyone does ......this is just sad already

Ferrero is ranked 38 in the world. He'll be 33 years old later this year. His prime was 8-10 years ago.

You can't prop up a guy like Ferrero, Roddick or Hewitt, and say "if these guys were that good, they'll still be around". They're all nearly retired, and it's a completely unfair comparison to guys that are currently in their primes.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

Ferrero was awesome to watch. Had a great 2001-2003 (winning 10 titles and making 8 finals in that span, including winning RG, and 2 other Major finals), and some solid results later on, reaching the AO Semis in 2004, the Cincy final in 2006 and the Wimby QF in 2009.

At his peak though, he was really fun to watch. Great overall game.

Originally Posted by BigServer1

Ferrero is ranked 38 in the world. He'll be 33 years old later this year. His prime was 8-10 years ago.

You can't prop up a guy like Ferrero, Roddick or Hewitt, and say "if these guys were that good, they'll still be around". They're all nearly retired, and it's a completely unfair comparison to guys that are currently in their primes.

You should stop using your own ignorance as an argument for your case Dark Night. And stop saying the same over and over and over. You are not really going anywhere.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Except that in a best of three Federer beats Nadal even on clay.

Federer has only beaten Nadal twice on clay and they've had, by far, the most number of encounters on that surface. Try harder.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

Ferrero is ranked 38 in the world. He'll be 33 years old later this year. His prime was 8-10 years ago.

You can't prop up a guy like Ferrero, Roddick or Hewitt, and say "if these guys were that good, they'll still be around". They're all nearly retired, and it's a completely unfair comparison to guys that are currently in their primes.

Sure you can .....vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras , Connors , Federer , Agassi ,
Chang , wilander and the list just goes in and on played until 30 or more and were factors....

But guys from the weak era Vekerk , Ferrero , gonzo , Gaudio , coria , Blake .....can't compete ....and they haven't been a factor for a long time.

Come on .....and what do you have to say about Federer himself saying this is a golden era?? Why does Federer say that?? You guys just keep ignoring it.

In fact is there any authority outside of TW rhy agrees with you? Show me anyone that says the prior era was stronger than this era....you won't find it .....because this is *******mania talking.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by tudwell

Why is today's era stronger, Dark Knight? Because no one is capable of penetrating the duopoly that sits at the top, whereas in 2003 it was far more competitive and players weren't afraid to win slams and push for the number one ranking? Is it because Djokovic and Nadal have no one their age pushing them whereas Federer had tons of great players his age that he had to contend with and overcome to dominate the way he did? I'm really missing something here, if you could please explain.

Tsonga, Murray, Berdych, Del Potro? These guys are all around their age and capable of beating them. In fact, all 4 of them have beaten either Rafa or Novak in a major before.

With Fed he had Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, old Agassi, Safin, Davydenko, Blake, Gonzalez, out of those Safin was the only one who proved he could get the job done in a major...

So its quite obvious Fed's competition wasn't as strong it's just the Fed fan in you that cannot admit it.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by mandy01

Federer has only beaten Nadal twice on clay and they've had, by far, their most number of encounters on that surface.

I bet they were best of three.

Which is my point!!

Best if three Fed wins....but in a best of five he can't hang with nadal....it's not a bad matchup ....it's just that Nadal is stronger physically.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Tsonga, Murray, Berdych, Del Potro? These guys are all around their age and capable of beating them. In fact, all 4 of them have beaten either Rafa or Novak in a major before.

With Fed he had Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, old Agassi, Safin, Davydenko, Blake, Gonzalez, out of those Safin was the only one who proved he could get the job done in a major...

So its quite obvious Fed's competition wasn't as strong it's just the Fed fan in you that cannot admit it.

Even Safin was to temperamental to be a constant. When he was great he could beat ANYONE but when he was nuts he could lose to ANYONE.....

Safin is the modern day nastase.....unbelievable talent but too crazy to be a factor for an extended period of time .

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Tsonga, Murray, Berdych, Del Potro? These guys are all around their age and capable of beating them. In fact, all 4 of them have beaten either Rafa or Novak in a major before.

With Fed he had Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, old Agassi, Safin, Davydenko, Blake, Gonzalez, out of those Safin was the only one who proved he could get the job done in a major...

So its quite obvious Fed's competition wasn't as strong it's just the Fed fan in you that cannot admit it.

Perhaps it was because Federer was so much better. You have no case, give it a rest. Loosing is not an argument in Nadals and Djoks favour.
Perhaps Djok and Nadal are exploiting the vacuum era of Federer stepping down from peak form, hm...

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

It's just that Nadal is stronger physically.

And..? Has anyone said Federer is stronger than Nadal?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by tudwell

Why is today's era stronger, Dark Knight? Because no one is capable of penetrating the duopoly that sits at the top, whereas in 2003 it was far more competitive and players weren't afraid to win slams and push for the number one ranking? Is it because Djokovic and Nadal have no one their age pushing them whereas Federer had tons of great players his age that he had to contend with and overcome to dominate the way he did? I'm really missing something here, if you could please explain.

I wouldn't call Roddick a "great player". Certainly not on the level of this Nadal and Djokovic.. Who else was pushing Fed at the time? Andre with a bad back needing cortizone shots? Shows how questionable that time was in tennis where Andre with Sciatica was one of the few only challenging Roger.. Safin was totally erratic.. etc. Hewitt after 2005 was pretty much finished.


This era "at the top" makes it more difficult to break through that impenetrable wall we call Nadal and Djokovic.. To win a slam you have to go through these guys. Back then in the vacuum era you had to go through Agassi on literally his LAST LEG

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

I bet they were best of three.

Which is my point!!

Best if three Fed wins....but in a best of five he can't hang with nadal....it's not a bad matchup ....it's just that Nadal is stronger physically.

If they've played so many matches on clay, Roger's bound to win a couple here and there. They've played way too many on that surface. That doesn't prove anything.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

And..? Has anyone said Federer is stronger than Nadal?

No because he is not. Don't tell me you think Federer is stronger than Nadal as well?

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Sure you can .....vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras , Connors , Federer , Agassi ,
Chang , wilander and the list just goes in and on played until 30 or more and were factors....

But guys from the weak era Vekerk , Ferrero , gonzo , Gaudio , coria , Blake .....can't compete ....and they haven't been a factor for a long time.

Come on .....and what do you have to say about Federer himself saying this is a golden era?? Why does Federer say that?? You guys just keep ignoring it.

In fact is there any authority outside of TW rhy agrees with you? Show me anyone that says the prior era was stronger than this era....you won't find it .....because this is *******mania talking.

LOL, you're cherry picking all time greats (except Chang) and comparing them to Verkerk, Ferrero and Gaudio. Are you kidding me? No one is arguing those guys are all time greats, we're simply arguing that they're better than you give them credit for (which is no credit at all).

BTW, a couple of notes about your list of players above:

Chang retired in 2003, at age 31. He won his last title and made his last tour final in 2000 at 28. To me, that's not "being a factor in his 30s"

Wilander retired in 1996 at age 32. However, he won his last title in 1990, at age 26. He won his last Major at 25. He made one final in 1996 (Pinehurst), which was his only final between 1990 and 1996. He essentially went 6 years from 26-31 without making a final or winning a title. Again...Not much of a "factor in his 30s".

McEnroe won his last title at 32 (Chicago), and made a final at 32 as well (Basel), but won his last Major in 1984 at 25, and made his last Major final in 1985 at 26. Again, not really competing at the biggest events in his 30s.

No argument about Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Lendl and Vilas, but I find it hilarious that that is the group you choose to compare to Gaudio and Ferrero.

To the bolded, I've said it before, I disagree with Fed. I think he consistently overstates his own current worth to the tour and every media person loves Fed, so they prop him up as a big Champ, even though he's clearly past his prime.

Top 3 = Strong right now, Everyone else = weak right now. For the 1,000th time, THAT'S why I disagree that we're in a golden age.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by mandy01

If they've played so many matches on clay, Roger's bound to win a couple here and there. They've played way too many on that surface. That doesn't prove anything.

But the only ones that Fed has won out of all their matches on clay is a best of three!!!! You think thats a coincidence?

Fed can and does beat Nadal on every surface in a best of three....in fact I believe at least in one FO fed was leading 2 sets to 1.

If the FO was best of three he would have won .

[The Dark Knight]

Why does Federer himself call this the golden age?!


.