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

[Jamin2112]

I see it all the time on here:

"Federer only snatched so many titles because the players were weak during 2003-2007. The fact that he later had a trouble with Nadal and Djokovic, eventually losing his #1 rank to them, proves this."

What a ludicrous argument!

First of all, in tennis, as in any sport, the level of play is always improving (I guess "level of play" would have to be measured by average speed of groundstrokes and serves, physical fitness of players, and a few other metrics). The game gets more competitive at every level, every year.

Second of all, the fact that there was a greater variety of finalists to face Federer in 2003-2007 does not mean he had it easy. The guys who made it to the final in a given tournament were on fire during that tournament. Just because they weren't on fire as consistently (á la Nadal or Djokovic) does not mean they were any less difficult to defeat when they were on fire. (Say it were true that the same 2 or 3 Rookie players always showed up in the final match, while the Champs tournaments, on the other hand, always seemed to have a different set of players in the final. Would that mean that Champs is less competitive?)

Third of all, Roddick, Safin, and the other supposed "light weights" of yesteryear were not in fact lightweights. Roddick was hitting 25 aces per game and successfully charging the net off his forehand. Against a prime 2003-2005 Roddick on a 2003-2005 hard court, Nadal got whooped, and I bet Djokovic would've too.

Fourth of all, the fact that Nadal and Djokovic, both of whom originally had trouble against Federer, were eventually able to crack him (when he reached age 28+), does not mean they are better players. But suppose it does mean that. Then we can apply the same argument for any player, since they all reach a state of permanent decline at some point (Not to say that Federer has reached permanent decline). "Player X used to beat player Y, but eventually player Y started to beat player X. Therefore player X was never better than player Y; he only was able to beat player X before player X had reached his full potential."


Discuss.

[10is]

Originally Posted by Jamin2112

Discuss.

Golly gee whiz...how novel... its not like this "myth of a myth" hasn't been discussed ad nauseum 52657967897365346^9868768697709 times before or anything.

[Agassifan]

This is a non-issue and only brought up by loser Rafa fans. Not worth discussing.

[zcarzach]

Originally Posted by Agassifan

This is a non-issue and only brought up by loser Rafa fans. Not worth discussing.

Well said. +10federers

[BeHappy]

1)Safin hurt his knee in 2005, never the same again = GONE

2)Roddick started pushing in 2005= GONE

3) Hewitt has not had 6 months injury free tennis in 7 years (2005) = GONE

4) Guillermo Coria had a mental breakdown after 2005 = GONE

5) Gaston Gaudio (42-8 on clay 2005) had a mental breakdown in 2005 = GONE

6) Gustavo Kuerten retired with an injured hip shortly after beating Federer in the French Open in 2004 = GONE

7) Nalbandian got fat and his nephew was crushed in an elevator shaft = GONE (except for a few months towards the end of 2007)

8 ) Ferrero got the chicken pox and somehow (no one really understands this) couldn't hit his forehand hard anymore when he came back = GONE

9 ) Philipoussis hurt his knee and had to retire = GONE

10) Tommy Haas has been constantly injured for the last ten years, whenever he gets close to reaching Federer's level he gets injured (AO 2006, FO 2009) = GONE

So in 2005, basically, overnight, players like Tommy Robredo were in the top 10.

The SECOND Murray and Djokovic arrived on the scene (real competition) they started beating him, even though they weren't fully developed yet. Murray beat Federer in 2006, and Djokovic beat him in 2007.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Jamin2112

I see it all the time on here:



What a ludicrous argument!

First of all, in tennis, as in any sport, the level of play is always improving (I guess "level of play" would have to be measured by average speed of groundstrokes and serves, physical fitness of players, and a few other metrics). The game gets more competitive at every level, every year.

Second of all, the fact that there was a greater variety of finalists to face Federer in 2003-2007 does not mean he had it easy. The guys who made it to the final in a given tournament were on fire during that tournament. Just because they weren't on fire as consistently (á la Nadal or Djokovic) does not mean they were any less difficult to defeat when they were on fire. (Say it were true that the same 2 or 3 Rookie players always showed up in the final match, while the Champs tournaments, on the other hand, always seemed to have a different set of players in the final. Would that mean that Champs is less competitive?)

Third of all, Roddick, Safin, and the other supposed "light weights" of yesteryear were not in fact lightweights. Roddick was hitting 25 aces per game and successfully charging the net off his forehand. Against a prime 2003-2005 Roddick on a 2003-2005 hard court, Nadal got whooped, and I bet Djokovic would've too.

Fourth of all, the fact that Nadal and Djokovic, both of whom originally had trouble against Federer, were eventually able to crack him (when he reached age 28+), does not mean they are better players. But suppose it does mean that. Then we can apply the same argument for any player, since they all reach a state of permanent decline at some point (Not to say that Federer has reached permanent decline). "Player X used to beat player Y, but eventually player Y started to beat player X. Therefore player X was never better than player Y; he only was able to beat player X before player X had reached his full potential."


Discuss.

Only flaw with the argument is that Fed admitted in an interview a couple of days back that his shoulders are stronger and his backhand is better than ever before, so we are actually seeing a prime Federer now. This argument is offset to some extent because he is older and so his eyesight and quickness could have degraded to some extent.

[mcenroefan]

I think the field is a bit weak as to all of the top three.

[10is]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Only flaw with the argument is that Fed admitted in an interview a couple of days back that his shoulders are stronger and his backhand is better than ever before

Yeeeeeaaaah.... nice "sound byte", except he only meant "better" that in the context of how his backhand holds up on clay with returning over the shoulder moon balls more efficiently.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by 10is

Yeeeeeaaaah.... nice "sound byte", except he only meant "better" that in the context of how his backhand holds up on clay with returning over the shoulder moon balls more efficiently.

Yes, that was a huge problem for him before (and one of the reasons the 1 hander is dying).

[kishnabe]

They won't listen....so what ever. The competition in 04-06 was much more entertaining than the grinds fests for the last two years.

[dudeski]

Originally Posted by Agassifan

This is a non-issue and only brought up by loser Rafa fans. Not worth discussing.

I agree. Loser Sampras fans already know very well that their hero had much weaker field to deal with.

[dudeski]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Only flaw with the argument is that Fed admitted in an interview a couple of days back that his shoulders are stronger and his backhand is better than ever before, so we are actually seeing a prime Federer now. This argument is offset to some extent because he is older and so his eyesight and quickness could have degraded to some extent.

Fed's physical recovery is total crap compared to lets say 2006 (same age Novak is now) when Federer could play several tournaments back and without any rest and still either win them or at least lose in epic finals. These days he can't play two tournaments back to back or even get deep in a slam without being half injured.

[dudeski]

Fed can claim all he wants that he is as good as ever but all you need to see that he is wrong is to look at his 2006 results and imagine him repeating the same thing today. He is simply unable to do it physically:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...=2006&m=s&e=0#

Just take a look at how many long matches he played back to back in 2006. For example at Rome Q,S,F. Or being able to play 5 long matches including 4 back to back 3 setters at Halle only days after exhausting FO final. If he tried that today he would be out for the rest of the season with an injury. 2006 Federer would still own anyone expect maybe for Nadal on clay today.

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by dudeski

Fed can claim all he wants that he is as good as ever but all you need to see that he is wrong is to look at his 2006 results and imagine him repeating the same thing today. He is simply unable to do it physically:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...=2006&m=s&e=0#

Just take a look at how many long matches he played back to back in 2006. For example at Rome Q,S,F. Or being able to play 5 long matches including 4 back to back 3 setters at Halle only days after exhausting FO final. If he tried that today he would be out for the rest of the season with an injury. 2006 Federer would still own anyone expect maybe for Nadal on clay today.

2006 federer would own current Nadal on clay.

[813wilson]

OP - Great Post!

I'll add....

Fifth of all - how does "Roddick hit 25 aces per game"?

Sixth of all - be sure to weigh in on any number of the other "weak v strong era" threads.....

Seventh of all - oh, why bother. Palms to face.....

[BeHappy]

I listed every single rival that Federer had and they all became non factors after 2005.

[Hood_Man]

Your insight serves you well. Bury your feelings deep down, Jamin2112. They do you credit, but they could be made to serve the Emperor.

[TopFH]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

I listed every single rival that Federer had and they all became non factors after 2005.

So the fact that after 05, when Nadal already was No.2, Federer has won 10 slams doesn't mean anything to you?

[Evan77]

I do agree that Fed didn't really have any big competition. Forget about Roddick, Hewitt, Safin... However, it's not his fault. He was winning matches, sometimes because everyone was sh!tting their pants when they saw Roger.

Then a little buttpicker "showed up". again, the worst match up in tennis history. One thing I hate about Fed is that he simply refused to adapt, he was too stubborn.

[TopFH]

Originally Posted by Evan77

I do agree that Fed didn't really have any big competition. Forget about Roddick, Hewitt, Safin... However, it's not his fault. He was winning matches, sometimes because everyone was sh!tting their pants when they saw Roger.

Then a little buttpicker "showed up". again, the worst match up in tennis history. One thing I hate about Fed is that he simply refused to adapt, he was too stubborn.

Now he is trying a bit, winning two of their last three matches and giving a hell of a fight in the other one, but it is too late. Had he done it as a 25-26 year old, there would be no GOAT discussion.