Federer at 25 FAR superior than Murray now

[Federer20042006]

What's interesting is Djokovic and Murray are aging better than Federer did. I've always thought Federer's physical decline in 2007 onward was more noticeable than it should have been at his age, and this is reinforcing that belief. Djokovic and Murray are moving as well as they ever have...while Federer in 2007 was already a little more sluggish than before. And in 2008, it was night and day.

Unless Djokovic/Murray age rapidly in the next year or so, they're going to be better players at 26-30 than Federer was at the same age, which is bizarre.

People thinking Federer's a better player now than in his prime just make me laugh. I mean, really? Do you think if today's Federer entered the scene back then, the commentators would be ooing and ahing all over the place, as if they'd seen the Messiah of tennis?

"Wow! OK, so he can't hit a running forehand to save his life, he's below average for a Top 10 player in the return game, he gets overpowered by the big hitters and frustrated by defensive players, and there are numerous guys quicker and who hit bigger than him...but he might be the greatest player ever?"

All you have to do is take one look at his shot selection now and realize the guy's just not the same player. "Open court? Nah, I'll just hit it right back at him and let him pass me instead."

I'm not even particularly entertained by Federer matches anymore. He looks so stiff. There's no fluidity at all to his game anymore. He's a smart server with solid enough ground strokes to bother most.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

It's good to see that another tennis great agrees with me when it comes to Fed's competition and playing abilities at his current age.

BUT Arrrrrboooooomk seems to know something Agassi doesn't because Arrrrrboooooomk is smarter and knows more than legends like Agassi and Hewitt who continuously admit that the reason Fed doesn't win as much is because they weren't as tough a competetion as the current gen. LOL.

its just a bunch of cr*p said for 'promoting' the game of tennis - the game always improves and players get better and better , LOL .......

fact is tennis doesn't always get better, it evolves .... gets better in some aspects, get worse in some aspects ......

most players decline with age, so has federer ....

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

What's interesting is Djokovic and Murray are aging better than Federer did. I've always thought Federer's physical decline in 2007 onward was more noticeable than it should have been at his age, and this is reinforcing that belief. Djokovic and Murray are moving as well as they ever have...while Federer in 2007 was already a little more sluggish than before. And in 2008, it was night and day.

Unless Djokovic/Murray age rapidly in the next year or so, they're going to be better players at 26-30 than Federer was at the same age, which is bizarre.

People thinking Federer's a better player now than in his prime just make me laugh. I mean, really? Do you think if today's Federer entered the scene back then, the commentators would be ooing and ahing all over the place, as if they'd seen the Messiah of tennis?

"Wow! OK, so he can't hit a running forehand to save his life, he's below average for a Top 10 player in the return game, he gets overpowered by the big hitters and frustrated by defensive players, and there are numerous guys quicker and who hit bigger than him...but he might be the greatest player ever?"

All you have to do is take one look at his shot selection now and realize the guy's just not the same player. "Open court? Nah, I'll just hit it right back at him and let him pass me instead."

I'm not even particularly entertained by Federer matches anymore. He looks so stiff. There's no fluidity at all to his game anymore. He's a smart server with solid enough ground strokes to bother most.

We don't know that yet, and I would lean towards saying no anyway. Djokovic and Murray's primes started 2 years later than Federer's did age wise, and after Fed turned 26 he has since won 6 slams. There's absolutely nothing suggesting to me yet that Djokovic and Murray are aging better than Federer did, and I doubt there will be with their styles of play.

[ctoth666]

Originally Posted by McEnborg

This Federer criticism is a freaking joke. The guy is HANDS DOWN the greatest player ever. Joko or Nadal might be able to catch him, but they need a lot more wins and longevity.

Federer has lost at least 1/2 or 1 full step and yet, he's still one of the top 4 players in the world.

Does anyone honestly think Joko, Rafa or Murray will be as good at age 31 as Roger is now?? If you do, you're delusional.

Federer in his prime from 2006 beats Murray, Joko and Rafa on hard court 90% of the time. The fact that Roger still gets to GS semis or finals and won Wimbledon last year is amazing. Look at his record, consistency, longevity, and all the indicators--he's the greatest ever. There is NO DEBATE --maybe in 3 or 4 years if Novak and/or Rafa win more slams and titles...BUT NOT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post is a joke. Guess what? In 2006, Federer lost 2/3 HC matches to Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic. He played each of them once, and only beat Djokovic in the World Group.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by ctoth666

This post is a joke. Guess what? In 2006, Federer lost 2/3 HC matches to Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic. He played each of them once, and only beat Djokovic in the World Group.

Guess what, he won 6 majors that year. They didn't. Therefore, he was better than them in 2006

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by ctoth666

This post is a joke. Guess what? In 2006, Federer lost 2/3 HC matches to Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic. He played each of them once, and only beat Djokovic in the World Group.

Adding to that, if this "McEborg" was even remotely correct, then his false god Federer would have swept the year's majors--the Grand Slam during this so-called "prime," yet the false god could not. He--like others of his ilk--have no explanation for that.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Guess what, he won 6 majors that year. They didn't. Therefore, he was better than them in 2006

Yep ******* logic at it's finest...

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

its just a bunch of cr*p said for 'promoting' the game of tennis - the game always improves and players get better and better , LOL .......

fact is tennis doesn't always get better, it evolves .... gets better in some aspects, get worse in some aspects ......

most players decline with age, so has federer ....

How does him saying he felt he was a better player at 33 than 25 promote tennis?

How does him saying Fed now would beat Fed at 25 promote tennis?

WHY would Agassi go about promoting tennis today, what does he get out of it? The guy is giving his honest opinion and you can't handle the fact that it goes against all the tripe you yap on about.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

How does him saying he felt he was a better player at 33 than 25 promote tennis?

How does him saying Fed now would beat Fed at 25 promote tennis?

WHY would Agassi go about promoting tennis today, what does he get out of it? The guy is giving his honest opinion and you can't handle the fact that it goes against all the tripe you yap on about.

by saying players are always improving, they want to make it make it look like present day tennis is the best ...

hell, even, yesterday Vijay Amritraj and Alan Wilkins were yapping about how "exciting" the final was ... blah blah blah ...*yawn*

agassi said he "felt" he was better at 33, i.e in 2003, 04 around that time ... than at 25, around 95, when he had arguably his best year level wise ....

according to him, he was better during the start of fed's domination period than during the 90s, go figure

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

by saying players are always improving, they want to make it make it look like present day tennis is the best ...

hell, even, yesterday Vijay Amritraj and Alan Wilkins were yapping about how "exciting" the final was ... blah blah blah ...*yawn*

agassi said he "felt" he was better at 33, i.e in 2003, 04 around that time ... than at 25, around 95, when he had arguably his best year level wise ....

according to him, he was better during the start of fed's domination period than during the 90s, go figure

Again, what does Agassi get out of it?

Hewitt is saying the same thing. Why would these guys just talk up tennis now as if it needed any further promoting, the AO had record attendences this year.

Agassi and Hewitt gain NOTHING out of promoting the game, especially by admitting that they weren't as much of a challenge for Federer.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Again, what does Agassi get out of it?

Hewitt is saying the same thing. Why would these guys just talk up tennis now as if it needed any further promoting, the AO had record attendences this year.

Agassi and Hewitt gain NOTHING out of promoting the game, especially by admitting that they weren't as much of a challenge for Federer.

That is what tennis players who want to be good ambassadors of the sport do. Its a very common phenomenon ....

But given your poor observation skills, you wouldn't know .....

[sunny_cali]

Originally Posted by The_Order

How does him saying he felt he was a better player at 33 than 25 promote tennis?

How does him saying Fed now would beat Fed at 25 promote tennis?

WHY would Agassi go about promoting tennis today, what does he get out of it? The guy is giving his honest opinion and you can't handle the fact that it goes against all the tripe you yap on about.

If you truly believe that Agassi was better when he was 34-35 you should have no problem accepting that Fed's competition during 2003-2004 was as good as it was today. Agassi should be better than Murray/Nadal and perhaps even Djokovic on HC, no ?

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by sunny_cali

If you truly believe that Agassi was better when he was 34-35 you should have no problem accepting that Fed's competition during 2003-2004 was as good as it was today. Agassi should be better than Murray/Nadal and perhaps even Djokovic on HC, no ?

Nope Agassi was 33 when he was #1. Try again.

[sunny_cali]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Nope Agassi was 33 when he was #1. Try again.

so? Agassi said he was better at 33 than at 25. You should really listen to Agassi again.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

That is what tennis players who want to be good ambassadors of the sport do. Its a very common phenomenon ....

But given your poor observation skills, you wouldn't know .....

So now you can read their minds and somehow KNOW they want to be good ambassadors? Yeah, it would be farfetched to think they are being honest, they're such liars.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by sunny_cali

so? Agassi said he was better at 33 than at 25. You should really listen to Agassi again.

Listen to what again? You're making a complete fool of yourself. Agassi said he felt he was better when he was #1 in 2003 than when he was 25. The Fed era began in 2004. By then Agassi was not ranked #1 anymore. LOL.

[sunny_cali]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Listen to what again? You're making a complete fool of yourself. Agassi said he felt he was better when he was #1 in 2003 than when he was 25. The Fed era began in 2004. By then Agassi was not ranked #1 anymore. LOL.

No jackass. You have made a fool of yourself trolling in multiple accounts the same poo over and over again.

Agassi said he was playing at his best post the age of 33 -- that was the time he went 0-8 against baby Fed. He wasn't no 1 because Fed spanked him 8 times in a row. Since Agassi is better than all the current players on hard, it goes without saying that Fed's competition was better then, than it is now. Of course, this is only if you agree with Agassi.

Oh, and Agassi also said that Fed is one of the greatest across all sport, not merely tennis, comparable to MJ. Do you agree with that as well ?

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by sunny_cali

No jackass. You have made a fool of yourself trolling in multiple accounts the same poo over and over again.

I don't have multiple accounts pal, there is only one The_Order.

Originally Posted by sunny_cali

Agassi said he was playing at his best post the age of 33 -- that was the time he went 0-8 against baby Fed. He wasn't no 1 because Fed spanked him 8 times in a row. Since Agassi is better than all the current players on hard, it goes without saying that Fed's competition was better then, than it is now. Of course, this is only if you agree with Agassi.

LOL wut? ... Agassi wasn't number 1 because Fed beat him? Fwhahahaha, no **** Agassi lost #1 because he didn't defend his AO title in 04 losing to SAFIN, not Federer. He then got knocked out in the first round of RG (again not losing to Fed) where he made the QF the year before. He was then absent at Wimbledon IIRC and in the USO, old crippled Agassi pushed peak indestructable Fed to the limit.

And Agassi did not say post 33 read the damn interview, he said when he was #1 at 33 he felt he was better player than when he was #1 at 25. When he lost to Fed at USO 04 he was 34 and a half and his body was on it's last legs.

Originally Posted by sunny_cali

Oh, and Agassi also said that Fed is one of the greatest across all sport, not merely tennis, comparable to MJ. Do you agree with that as well ?

This is different. Agassi has no idea who the greatest across all sports is, he is not involved in the world's most popular sport - soccer/football, nor is he involved in basketball or any other popular sport apart from tennis obviously. He DOES however have knowledge over his own level of play and tennis in general so his opinions regarding tennis have added value to them, whereas his opinions regarding across all other sports is most likely biased towards tennis.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Agassi has no idea who the greatest across all sports is, he is not involved in the world's most popular sport - soccer/football, nor is he involved in basketball or any other popular sport apart from tennis obviously. He DOES however have knowledge over his own level of play and tennis in general so his opinions regarding tennis have added value to them, whereas his opinions regarding across all other sports is most likely biased towards tennis.

True; he feels the only way to support present day tennis is by claiming Federer is "the best," (despite evidence to the contrary) otherwise he believes it suggests tennis is in some sort of slump--a danger to sponsor interest, et al. If he had an honest bone in his skull, he would be able to admit popularity wise, Federer's era is not even a whisper in the scream that was the "tennis boom" which predeated his own era. As many majors as Federer's won, he's not the exciting part of the popular culture as that "tennis boom" generation, who were known to people who had no interest in pro tennis, and marketed as household names.

The average person (meaning outside of certain tennis fans and sports media) would struggle to name the top male players today.

One cannot simply place a crown on an undeserving head, because he believes that will keep the sport alive.

Strong personalities have to go along with great games, as that is what entertains audiences.

[sunny_cali]

Originally Posted by The_Order

I don't have multiple accounts pal, there is only one The_Order.

Ya right. And after being banned from several previous ones.

LOL wut? ... Agassi wasn't number 1 because Fed beat him? Fwhahahaha, no **** Agassi lost #1 because he didn't defend his AO title in 04 losing to SAFIN, not Federer. He then got knocked out in the first round of RG (again not losing to Fed) where he made the QF the year before. He was then absent at Wimbledon IIRC and in the USO, old crippled Agassi pushed peak indestructable Fed to the limit.

And lost. He lost eight times in a row -- eat it, retard. Twice in 2003 just after he lost his No. 1 ranking at the year end Masters, and 6 times since. He was a constant top-10 player till 2005 and beat everyone except Federer.

Any great player is capable of good days, irrespective of whether he is old or not, so your infantile emphasis on "old, crippled" is irrelevant. It hardly matters that Federer took Rafa to the 5th set at Wimby/AO or at other places. He lost.

And Agassi did not say post 33 read the damn interview, he said when he was #1 at 33 he felt he was better player than when he was #1 at 25. When he lost to Fed at USO 04 he was 34 and a half and his body was on it's last legs.

He was beaten like a drum from the time he was 33 till be retired. Digest it, slowly. He is on record saying he didn't know where to go against Federer -- whereas Sampras had weaknesses he could exploit. Don't see you bringing that up.

This is different. Agassi has no idea who the greatest across all sports is, he is not involved in the world's most popular sport - soccer/football, nor is he involved in basketball or any other popular sport apart from tennis obviously. He DOES however have knowledge over his own level of play and tennis in general so his opinions regarding tennis have added value to them, whereas his opinions regarding across all other sports is most likely biased towards tennis.

Bull. It does not fit your silly biases so you chose to agree with whatever that does, and disagree with the rest.

And since you agree that his opinion on tennis is terrific, you should also agree when he said that Fed/Djoker/Nadal are the 3 GOATs. Ergo, all 3 of them are better than either he or Sampras were.

For the record, I don't think that Fed is the GOAT leave alone the rest.