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

[PCXL-Fan]

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.

I've done a bit of snooping and Federer stated in some interviews in 2011 that hes as good as he's ever been. So basically Federer is beyond his peakest peak form, and if he grew up in the era of Murray and Berdych he would be ranked #7-#8. All the tournie wins in the weak era gap gave him a mental boost while derailing confidence and momentum in his opponents. If he was Murrays age he'd be a 1 slam wonder with a losing record against older more veteran 6 time slam winner Roddick.

[Evan77]

Originally Posted by TopFH

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.

he is much more humble nowadays then 5 years ago. I guess, it has something to do with his family, kids etc. As much as I've always loved his game, I didn't like a young arrogant Fed. but everyone matures ... gosh, I was the biggest idiot when I was 25 yo thinking I knew everything. lol.

[TopFH]

Originally Posted by PCXL-Fan

I've done a bit of snooping and Federer stated in some interviews in 2011 that hes as good as he's ever been. So basically Federer is beyond his peakest peak form, and if he grew up in the era of Murray and Berdych he would be ranked #7-#8. All the tournie wins in the weak era gap gave him a mental boost while derailing confidence and momentum in his opponents. If he was Murrays age he'd be a 1 slam wonder with a losing record against older more veteran 6 time slam winner Roddick.

Him saying he plays better now is just like you saying "I can win this match", being set and break down. It is a mental boost.

Besides, nobody is likely to say he's worse than before.

[PCXL-Fan]

Originally Posted by Evan77

he is much more humble nowadays then 5 years ago. I guess, it has something to do with his family, kids etc. As much as I've always loved his game, I didn't like a young arrogant Fed. but everyone matures ... gosh, I was the biggest idiot when I was 25 yo thinking I knew everything. lol.

I disagree you were probably smarter at 25. The brain only shrinks in size as you get older. Your brain volume and neuron count was at a higher peak at 25 (though not the peakiest of peaks), and your neuronal adenosine-5'-triphosphate output was higher too.

[SystemicAnomaly]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by TopFH

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

BeHappy lost his perspective/objectivity = GONE


And yet Roger remained #1 til late 2008 and maintained the #1 or #2 slot until mid 2010. Sure Murray had done pretty well against Federer in the past. However, in their last 7 meetings, Roger leads 5-2.

Novak turned pro in 2003 but did not post a win against Federer until 2007. Prior to 2011 Roger lead Novak 13-6 h2h. Despite Novak's dominance and Roger's mini-decline since 2011, Roger still leads 14-11.

[Evan77]

Originally Posted by PCXL-Fan

I disagree you were probably smarter at 25. The brain only shrinks in size as you get older. Your brain volume and neuron count was at a higher peak at 25 (though not the peakiest of peaks), and your neuronal adenosine-5'-triphosphate output was higher too.

ok bud ... I was talking about "THE Emotional intelligence" , it's just as important as 'the other one'

now, seriously, I've always seen Fed as a super smart guy. same with Djoko. great intelligent guys. sure Rog is a maestro ... and Djoko is moving like a puma but I think we'll have to wait for a long time to see a player like Roger again.

on the other hand, when I hear Nudall talking, I'm like, wtf, where the hell you little monkey came from? I truly love Spanish/Latin culture, their passion for everything ... have some great Latin friends ... but when it comes to Nadal, it's like meh

[BeHappy]

Originally Posted by TopFH

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

Nadal couldn't play on anything but clay till 2008 (and not really well on hard till 2010), and was injured for the slam season in 2009. So no, to answer your question.

[Evan77]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

Nadal couldn't play on anything but clay till 2008 (and not really well on hard till 2010), and was injured for the slam season in 2009. So no, to answer your question.

yup, it's the fact, but many guys posting here started watching tennis like yesterday ...

[SystemicAnomaly]

Originally Posted by Evan77

yup, it's the fact, but many guys posting here started watching tennis like yesterday ...

Yesterday was the the early 1970s for me.

BTW, Novak has been in the top 3 or 4 since 2007. There has been plenty of good competition in the past decade. This weak era talk is nonsense.

[jm1980]

Originally Posted by The-Champ

2006 federer would own current Nadal on clay.

You're kidding me, right?

Fed in his absolute prime got straight setted on clay by Kuerten just getting back from hip surgery. Current Nadal would own any version of Federer on clay.

[Evan77]

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly

Yesterday was the the early 1970s for me.

BTW, Novak has been in the top 3 or 4 since 2007. There has been plenty of good competition in the past decade. This weak era talk is nonsense.

cool, 1980 JMac vs. Borg at W. first match I've ever seen and I went crazy about tennis

now, we can discuss this 'weak era' thing all night long. I still think that Fed was lucky in a way that he was not really challenged by anybody. Rafa was doing his clay sh!t, Djoko was not matured enough. Tell me one name, one person who was Fed's big rival, NOBODY (except Nadal on clay). now don't get me wrong, don't want to take anything away from Fed. I love the guy.

yes, Djoko was it the top 3 since 2007, but he wasn't really able to compete with Rog and Rafa till 2011. sure he won the AO 2008, some masters but it took time for him to mature and spank everyone left and right in 2011.

[FlashFlare11]

Originally Posted by Evan77

cool, 1980 JMac vs. Borg at W. first match I've ever seen and I went crazy about tennis

now, we can discuss this 'weak era' thing all night long. I still think that Fed was lucky in a way that he was not really challenged by anybody. Rafa was doing his clay sh!t, Djoko was not matured enough. Tell me one name, one person who was Fed's big rival, NOBODY (except Nadal on clay). now don't get me wrong, don't want to take anything away from Fed. I love the guy.

yes, Djoko was it the top 3 since 2007, but he wasn't really able to compete with Rog and Rafa till 2011. sure he won the AO 2008, some masters but it took time for him to mature and spank everyone left and right in 2011.

Don't get me wrong, Evan, you're one of my favorite posters here. And I sincerely mean that.

But why did he need a consistent rival? If he had one player who met him everywhere and still lost to him, could we still say Roger ruled a weak era? He had someone meeting him consistently, but they weren't good enough. See, it makes no sense. Roger is being punished for not losing so often to other players. If Roger lost more often, then would his wins be more legitimate?

Again, not taking a dig at you, just asking a general question.

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by jm1980

You're kidding me, right?

Fed in his absolute prime got straight setted on clay by Kuerten just getting back from hip surgery. Current Nadal would own any version of Federer on clay.

as much as I hate federer, I do believe his 2006 clay version would own any Nadal from 2009-2012.

2006 federer was lot faster and had a much better footwork although he himself doesn't want to admit it, plus infinitely more penetrating and accurate forehand. Current Nadal on clay doesn't stand a chance.

Unfortunately, when federer peaked on clay, Nadal too was at his peak on clay. But, peak federer on clay would absolutely destroy current Nadal.

[Evan77]

Originally Posted by FlashFlare11

Don't get me wrong, Evan, you're one of my favorite posters here. And I sincerely mean that.

But why did he need a consistent rival? If he had one player who met him everywhere and still lost to him, could we still say Roger ruled a weak era? He had someone meeting him consistently, but they weren't good enough. See, it makes no sense. Roger is being punished for not losing so often to other players. If Roger lost more often, then would his wins be more legitimate?

Again, not taking a dig at you, just asking a general question.

Flash, I get your point. Roger earned everything. I'm not saying he should be punished by all means. you see what I ask myself very often, was Roger that great or everybody else sucked? to be honest not sure ... well, sure Rog is great

now, I truly believe that Fed is the best tennis player ever ... it's just that I tend to maybe over-analyze things sometimes. both you and I are speculating ... was the field so weak or was Fed so good ...

I also, really don't worship any players (well, I'm weak when it comes to Borg)

[FlashFlare11]

Originally Posted by Evan77

Flash, I get your point. Roger earned everything. I'm not saying he should be punished by all means. you see what I ask myself very often, was Roger that great or everybody else sucked? to be honest not sure ... well, sure Rog is great

now, I truly believe that Fed is the best tennis player ever ... it's just that I tend to maybe over-analyze things sometimes. both you and I are speculating ... was the field so weak or was Fed so good ...

I also, really don't worship any players (well, I'm weak when it comes to Borg)

I get what you mean, and I'm kind of the same way. Then I watch Federer's matches from the time of his domination and then it's all too clear. Even watching Sampras I never got the same feeling of domination, and I love Pete. I firmly believe that the players in Federer's era would have been highly competitive in any era, but Roger was just too good.

[Evan77]

Originally Posted by FlashFlare11

I get what you mean, and I'm kind of the same way. Then I watch Federer's matches from the time of his domination and then it's all too clear. Even watching Sampras I never got the same feeling of domination, and I love Pete. I firmly believe that the players in Federer's era would have been highly competitive in any era, but Roger was just too good.

Roger IS still good. as being a tennis freak I am, yeah, I loved Sampras, never really enjoyed that young flashy Agassi (I appreciate Agassi as a player, don't get me wrong)...

I actually didn't like any of that fashion sh!t of Agassi or (whoever sponsored him atm) came up with ... just not my thing ... the hair colour, then no hair and being embarrassed about it, wearing a wig, all those silly jeans outfits (God help me)

sorry, didn't want to turn this thread about Agassi and Pete

Fed is special, the most beautiful game ever. if anybody wants to argue, I will post, like a thousands of videos of his matches

[sbengte]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by BeHappy

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

Why do I get a sneaky feeling that you are essentially trying to prove that Nadal won his slams in a weak era ? Because 2005 is when Nadal started winning slams. Besides all the great points you have listed above, if you consider Federer as an additional factor (though insignifcant, as he beat Nadal in a slam only a couple of times some 5 years ago), he became a non-factor after 2008.

[Flash O'Groove]

This discussion is so boring, so I'm entering it. There is two thinks I wonder:

1. Peolpe often thinks that exept in case of injuries, a player improve steadily. Thus if a top 5 players in 2006 has fallen back in 2012, it mean that he was not good at all and profited from a very weak era. It seems to me that this is not true. All athlete have trouble to sustain their best level and sometimes decline (i can think of a lot of soccer players). Was Ivan Ljubicic of 2006 (N°5 at the year end, N°3 during the year) less good than David Ferrer or Tsonga of today? Same as Roddick. The guy obviously lost his game. So, if he is weak now, it doesn't mean he was always weak, no?

2. What exactly is the opposition today to see this era as a stronger one? Headcase Murray, Berdych in the top 10. Still good and threatening but one notch below Federer. Consistent but armless Ferrer? Or is John Isner who make the era so though?
So, doesn't Djokovic and Nadal benefit of a quiet weak era to split the titles between the two, one year the flow going to one, the over to the over?

[IvanisevicServe]

What is with BeHappy's obsession with Tommy Robredo? He rarely factored into anything prime-Federer did...they didn't play once at a slam between 2004 and 2006.

And what's the difference between Robredo and...Almagro? Almagro has more talent, but they're both essentially clay court specialists who briefly reached the Top 10.

[IvanisevicServe]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

This discussion is so boring, so I'm entering it. There is two thinks I wonder:

1. Peolpe often thinks that exept in case of injuries, a player improve steadily. Thus if a top 5 players in 2006 has fallen back in 2012, it mean that he was not good at all and profited from a very weak era. It seems to me that this is not true. All athlete have trouble to sustain their best level and sometimes decline (i can think of a lot of soccer players). Was Ivan Ljubicic of 2006 (N°5 at the year end, N°3 during the year) less good than David Ferrer or Tsonga of today? Same as Roddick. The guy obviously lost his game. So, if he is weak now, it doesn't mean he was always weak, no?

2. What exactly is the opposition today to see this era as a stronger one? Headcase Murray, Berdych in the top 10. Still good and threatening but one notch below Federer. Consistent but armless Ferrer? Or is John Isner who make the era so though?
So, doesn't Djokovic and Nadal benefit of a quiet weak era to split the titles between the two, one year the flow going to one, the over to the over?

The funny thing is, Ferrer was there in 2006, finishing 14th in the world, and he was no baby (24). He had limited upside. Now he's 6th in the world and he's been in the Top 10 for a long time.