The second half of this decade was much tougher than the second half of the 90's

[mandy01]

wow..this is quite interesting

[Driver's Seat]

I'll agree with that. Late 90s was a rather dire time for tennis. However, I do think the field in the late 00's have been a bit overrated. At least, top ranking wise. It was still primarily a Nadal-Federer show. And for all the praise Djokovic and Murray get as being, "Top threat contenders" Well the hell were they for the slams? Both failed to even reach a final this year. Late was still a bit more competitive than late 90s (at least until Andre got back on the scene) but late 00's I still feel in terms legit threats is overrated.

The early 90's had quite a few specialists and many threats and talent players. I would put the early 00s ahead of any period of the 00's at least at the top. Maybe not all the way down to 50-100 rank in the world

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by Gorecki

what a convenient choice of time frames...

lets look at the first halves, where Rogelio was facing a crippled Agassi and a no power grinder like Hewitt...

She did say that she thinks the first of the 90s was stronger.
But like she said Federer did most of his damage in the second half

[Driver's Seat]

Originally Posted by Driver's Seat

I'll agree with that. Late 90s was a rather dire time for tennis. However, I do think the field in the late 00's have been a bit overrated. At least, top ranking wise. It was still primarily a Nadal-Federer show. And for all the praise Djokovic and Murray get as being, "Top threat contenders" Well the hell were they for the slams? Both failed to even reach a final this year. Late was still a bit more competitive than late 90s (at least until Andre got back on the scene) but late 00's I still feel in terms legit threats is overrated.

The early 90's had quite a few specialists and many threats and talent players. I would put the early 00s ahead of any period of the 00's at least at the top. Maybe not all the way down to 50-100 rank in the world

Sorry I meant to say I would put the early 90's ahead of any 00's period

[jamesblakefan#1]

Honestly who cares. There's no reason to constantly make these threads to defend Federer's greatness. Anyone who's seen him play knows how great he is, numbers really only matter to morons who know close to nothing about tennis. All these numbers threads really are annoying. Fed is GOAT, IMO, not just because of 15 slams, but because he's the greatest I've seen play. Bringing in these stats really isn't going to shift anyone's mind as far as if they think Fed's GOAT or not.

[Camilio Pascual]

Originally Posted by dropshot winner

I guess the WTA is in the best state ever?

How do we define best?
As a sports fan, I pretty much define best by how high the competitiveness level is, the higher the better, at least in baseball, football, and tennis. I like low competitiveness levels in sports I'm less interested in (bowling, golf, gymnastics) to keep it simple for me.
A New York Yankees baseball fan may see the baseball eras with low competitive levels as being best.
Sports promoters and many fans, I'm guessing, like low competitive levels where only 1, 2, or 3 teams/individuals are "branded" and sold to the public at large who otherwise would not care. Tiger Woods 2 weeks ago, for example.
The NFL, which I think does the best job of managing a major sport, adjusts the schedules and teams' incomes to increase competitiveness.

[Gorecki]

Originally Posted by mandy01

She did say that she thinks the first of the 90s was stronger.
But like she said Federer did most of his damage in the second half

but neither you nor me started popcorn threads for no reason do we?

my point is : why start such meticulously framed threads like Jennys does every two hours?

it another of those "roger is the greatest ever to wear Kriskross pants" in a final of wimbledon...

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by Gorecki

but neither you nor me started popcorn threads for no reason do we?

my point is : why start such meticulously framed threads like Jennys does every two hours?

it another of those "roger is the greatest ever to wear Kriskross pants" in a final of wimbledon...

I agree with this.

[Gorecki]

Originally Posted by mandy01

I agree with this.

in a way, i agree with what JBF#1 said, with the difference that for me
GOAT=LAVER (and not Fed)

[dropshot winner]

Originally Posted by Camilio Pascual

How do we define best?
As a sports fan, I pretty much define best by how high the competitiveness level is, the higher the better, at least in baseball, football, and tennis. I like low competitiveness levels in sports I'm less interested in (bowling, golf, gymnastics) to keep it simple for me.
A New York Yankees baseball fan may see the baseball eras with low competitive levels as being best.
Sports promoters and many fans, I'm guessing, like low competitive levels where only 1, 2, or 3 teams/individuals are "branded" and sold to the public at large who otherwise would not care. Tiger Woods 2 weeks ago, for example.
The NFL, which I think does the best job of managing a major sport, adjusts the schedules and teams' incomes to increase competitiveness.

Competitiveness in a way only says how close together a group of athletes are, skill-wise (parity).
To say it blunt, 10 equally shitty players have a VERY high level of competitiveness.

Have you really enjoyed the level of tennis of the 2009 WTA season?

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by Gorecki

in a way, i agree with what JBF#1 said, with the difference that for me
GOAT=LAVER (and not Fed)

Well,a lot of people who watched both Laver and Federer say that the two have been the best to watch.Roger plays a game I like to watch.Thats what I care for the most.

[ChrisCrocker]

Originally Posted by JennyS

Total times Federer had to face his toughest competitors:
Nadal: 6
Roddick: 6
Djokovic: 5
Hewitt: 4
Safin: 4
Davydenko: 4
Del Potro: 4
Soderling: 4
Haas: 3
Nalbandian: 2
Murray: 1

Slams won by Federer in the second half of the 00's: 11

this thread is a joke, Nadal was not a threat on hard court to federer in slams until 2009, Fed won his significant amount of slams in 04-07.

Djokovic was not a threat to fed in slams until 08, when did fed win most of his slams?

Is Murray even a threat to anyone in slams? besides gulbis?

Nalbandian isnt a threat in slams since 03, right before fed won almost all his slams.

Haas? took fed to 5 sets at RG one time. of course after 04-07

Del potro beat fed once at 09 uso, WELL after 04-07.

FEDERER HAD NO COMPETITION IN SLAMS UNTIL 08, SO FROM 04-07 HIS ONLY COMPETITION WAS A CRIPPLED KUERTEN AND A YOUNG NADAL AT RG.

this topic should be from 08-09 and 98-99. if you want to make it fair.

or from 04-07 and 94-97 if you want to make fed look like the best player ever.

[dropshot winner]

Originally Posted by ChrisCrocker

this thread is a joke, Nadal was not a threat on hard court to federer in slams until 2009, Fed won his significant amount of slams in 04-07.

Djokovic was not a threat to fed in slams until 08, when did fed win most of his slams?

Is Murray even a threat to anyone in slams? besides gulbis?

Nalbandian isnt a threat in slams since 03, right before fed won almost all his slams.

Haas? took fed to 5 sets at RG one time. of course after 04-07

Del potro beat fed once at 09 uso, WELL after 04-07.

FEDERER HAD NO COMPETITION IN SLAMS UNTIL 08, SO FROM 04-07 HIS ONLY COMPETITION WAS A CRIPPLED KUERTEN AND A YOUNG NADAL AT RG.

this topic should be from 08-09 and 98-99. if you want to make it fair.

or from 04-07 and 94-97 if you want to make fed look like the best player ever.

Have you seen the 2007 US Open final?
Even in Australia that year he played really well, but Federer was just untouchable.

[Driver's Seat]

Originally Posted by ChrisCrocker

this thread is a joke, Nadal was not a threat on hard court to federer in slams until 2009, Fed won his significant amount of slams in 04-07.

Djokovic was not a threat to fed in slams until 08, when did fed win most of his slams?

Is Murray even a threat to anyone in slams? besides gulbis?

Nalbandian isnt a threat in slams since 03, right before fed won almost all his slams.

Haas? took fed to 5 sets at RG one time. of course after 04-07

Del potro beat fed once at 09 uso, WELL after 04-07.

FEDERER HAD NO COMPETITION IN SLAMS UNTIL 08, SO FROM 04-07 HIS ONLY COMPETITION WAS A CRIPPLED KUERTEN AND A YOUNG NADAL AT RG.

this topic should be from 08-09 and 98-99. if you want to make it fair.

or from 04-07 and 94-97 if you want to make fed look like the best player ever.

I agree.. People are forgetting that fact that up until early 2009, Federer never once had to deal with Nadal at a HC slam. And my issue should still have some merit. IF today is so strong, top heavy, why havent Murray and Djoker made a final all year? Hell both went down to Roddick at a slam this year. So maybe Djoker and Murray are not on the level that so many people want to put them on.

At the end of the day, Im sorry I would still pick Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Goran (for the most part), Courier etc even if they were a tad passed their primes or yet to reach it over guys like Davydenko, Blake, Roddick, Hewitt, etc. The early 90s had a pretty big all star cast. And for those who say Edberg was passed his prime. He was still a top 1-3 player in the world in the early 90s. So he wasnt some washed up player

[Driver's Seat]

Originally Posted by dropshot winner

Have you seen the 2007 US Open final?
Even in Australia that year he played really well, but Federer was just untouchable.

Djokovic hasnt been a threat since. So that settles that.

[jamesblakefan#1]

Originally Posted by ChrisCrocker

this thread is a joke, Nadal was not a threat on hard court to federer in slams until 2009, Fed won his significant amount of slams in 04-07.

BS. Nadal won HC MS events as far back as 2005, don't blame Federer for Nadal's fitness and game not being good enough to perform in HC slams as well.

Djokovic was not a threat to fed in slams until 08, when did fed win most of his slams?

Haha, so I guess making a slam final in 07 still doesn't make you a threat?

FEDERER HAD NO COMPETITION IN SLAMS UNTIL 08, SO FROM 04-07 HIS ONLY COMPETITION WAS A CRIPPLED KUERTEN AND A YOUNG NADAL AT RG.

this topic should be from 08-09 and 98-99. if you want to make it fair.

or from 04-07 and 94-97 if you want to make fed look like the best player ever.

Funny how you leave out Roddick, just because Federer happens to own him doesn't mean Roddick sucks, just means Fed is that damn good. You mention a guy like Haas, but not Roddick? Ridiculous.

[Camilio Pascual]

Originally Posted by dropshot winner

Competitiveness in a way only says how close together a group of athletes are, skill-wise (parity).
To say it blunt, 10 equally shitty players have a VERY high level of competitiveness.
Have you really enjoyed the level of tennis of the 2009 WTA season?

True, 10 equal players of any skill level have a VERY high level of competitiveness.
Good question, I guess you know I'm a big WTA fan. I'm going to take your word for it that 2009 is not a good WTA season. I haven't watched much this year, I dumped my cable because I took up cycling. Maybe good timing on my part. Also, I'm a Serena fan. Her behaviour has me unwilling to root for her, I need a new player to root for this next year.
1997 is often cited, for good reason, as a very weak year for the WTA. My favourite all-time player, Amanda Coetzer, was a big beneficiary of this, getting as high as #3. I loved watching the WTA during that crappy year.

[JoshDragon]

Originally Posted by TMF

Definitely Pete benefitted from the field getting weaker after the mid 90's as he start to decline. Roger's field is getting tougher and potentially be even tougher by 2012, so if a declining Roger continue to do better than Pete every year, more testament of him > Pete.

That's a good point. I agree.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Driver's Seat

I agree.. People are forgetting that fact that up until early 2009, Federer never once had to deal with Nadal at a HC slam. And my issue should still have some merit. IF today is so strong, top heavy, why havent Murray and Djoker made a final all year? Hell both went down to Roddick at a slam this year. So maybe Djoker and Murray are not on the level that so many people want to put them on.

Is Nadal the only player competing in the HC slam? Does Roger needs to lower his playing level to NOT making 6 consecutive USO final in order to make the HC field stronger? Is that what you want?

You need to go back and read the thread about JennyS making a comparison about how much Fed/Sampras faced the top ten players at the GS. Roger faced more top ten players means today’s elite players made deeper run at the slam. A testament of Roger’s peers are more consistent at the slams.

Murray/Nole didn’t make the final(and they are still young) this year, but Roddick is the only player(except Fed) to consistently stay at the top 10 in this decade. how many final did Chang made when he spent all of those weeks ranked in the top 10 in the 90s?

[Driver's Seat]

Originally Posted by TMF

Is Nadal the only player competing in the HC slam? Does Roger needs to lower his playing level to NOT making 6 consecutive USO final in order to make the HC field stronger? Is that what you want?

You need to go back and read the thread about JennyS making a comparison about how much Fed/Sampras faced the top ten players at the GS. Roger faced more top ten players means today’s elite players made deeper run at the slam. A testament of Roger’s peers are more consistent at the slams.

Murray/Nole didn’t make the final(and they are still young) this year, but Roddick is the only player(except Fed) to consistently stay at the top 10 in this decade. how many final did Chang made when he spent all of those weeks ranked in the top 10 in the 90s?

Thats not what I am trying to reference at all. It just shows that while Fed was grabbing the bulk of his slams, Rafa was just a major threat at clay slams and grass, NOT hardcourt slams. Opposed to Agassi who won every slam, adapted to EVERY SURFACE. Has Nadal done this? I talking about adaptability here. Has Rafa been on par with Agassi in this regard? The answer is no.