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

[Tony48]

Federer was an exceptional tennis player back then (and greatest of all time), but to be honest, beating who he beat to wins slams made it like 10 times easier.

It's like if Michael Jordan played on a junior varsity team: he's so far ahead of everyone else that it's basically unfair.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Tony48

Federer was an exceptional tennis player back then (and greatest of all time), but to be honest, beating who he beat to wins slams made it like 10 times easier.

So, you believe beating an inform Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Carlos Moya, Marat Safin, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andy Roddick and a young Nadal is an easy task?

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

But.. weren't they part of the field then?

Hmm.....

Federer is part of the field now yet you dismiss him as competition because he is older, not in his prime, etc......It is funny how many of you seem to regard an 18-20 year old Nadal as way better than a 28-30 year old Federer when one reads your assessments of the two eras and the competition in them. That in itself is quite telling, and also something that you dont even realize you are indirectly doing.

[DRII]

Originally Posted by Sabratha

So, you believe beating an inform Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Carlos Moya, Marat Safin, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andy Roddick and a young Nadal is an easy task?

Ha ha, that was funny...

[10is]

Originally Posted by Tony48

It's like if Michael Jordan played on a junior varsity team: he's so far ahead of everyone else that it's basically unfair.

No, it's like Michael Jordan playing against who he did and then ignorant individuals (almost a decade later) saying he played in a weak era because he didn't face off against the likes of Kobe, LeBron etc. or even taking into account his later out of prime form (when he wasn't half the player he used to be) and extrapolating that to his prime form relative to his peers at the time in an attempt to erroneously prove how lackluster his competition was during his prime.

[90's Clay]

The field had more threats and was a bit deeper during Fed's heyday. (Safin, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Roddick, Younger Rafa developing outside of clay still, Young Djokovic etc).

But in terms of the level that Nadal and Djokovic have brought for the past few years... Not even close. I guess it depends on your definition of "tougher". Does depth and more threats equal "tougher" or do two unstoppable studs and the top two best in the world equal "tougher". I don't know

You don't have as many talented guys littered in the draw but if you want to win a slam today you gotta go through these two. Thats a tough obstacle with the level they have been playing at and doing it on slower, higher bouncing surfaces which make them even stronger

[FlashFlare11]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

The field had more threats and was a bit deeper during Fed's heyday. (Safin, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Roddick, Younger Rafa developing outside of clay still, Young Djokovic etc).

But in terms of the level that Nadal and Djokovic have brought for the past few years... Not even close. I guess it depends on your definition of "tougher". Does depth and more threats equal "tougher" or do two unstoppable studs and the top two best in the world equal "tougher". I don't know

You don't have as many talented guys littered in the draw but if you want to win a slam today you gotta go through these two. Thats a tough obstacle with the level they have been playing at and doing it on slower, higher bouncing surfaces which make them even stronger

This is exactly what I believe as well. There are differences between today's field and Federer's field, but the difference does not lie in strength. The field today is top-heavy, with the top four making the semifinals of every slam with relative ease. While the level of the top four is incredibly high, everyone below them is pretty easy for the top players to handle. In Federer's prime, the field didn't have as many top players as consistent as today, but what it did have were incredibly talented players and multiple slam winners, all of which could make a slam final or upset the top players. It was a more trecherous road to the semis of an event than it is today.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by FlashFlare11

This is exactly what I believe as well. There are differences between today's field and Federer's field, but the difference does not lie in strength. The field today is top-heavy, with the top four making the semifinals of every slam with relative ease. While the level of the top four is incredibly high, everyone below them is pretty easy for the top players to handle. In Federer's prime, the field didn't have as many top players as consistent as today, but what it did have were incredibly talented players and multiple slam winners, all of which could make a slam final or upset the top players. It was a more trecherous road to the semis of an event than it is today.

Ummmm ..... No.

It was the vacuum era.... When sampras retired it left a vacuum .... That's why guys like ferrero and roddick were the number 1 players in the world.

Or you had 35 year old Agassi who quite literally could barely walk. He limped out fo the French , skipped Wimbledon, and then got shot up with so many drugs that a heroin addict would be shocked,.....some how this pathetic 35 year old man made it to the finals of the us open.

Others like safin were great but not consistent. He was great one day and insane the next.

Roddick the one dimensional wonder....

Hewitt a hasbin .a...a guy who style was antiquated .

Blake another one dimensional player who made it to the top 10 proving how weak this era was.....

It was a transitional period after samaras retired . Pathetically bad.

It was not top heavy medium heavy or bottom heavy.....it just was weak,

[The Dark Knight]

"Novak Djokovic, the French Open runner-up, would probably be the first to tell you that Roger Federer's triumph at Roland Garros in 2009 was not just remarkable, but danged lucky. The all-time Grand Slam singles champ got to win the title without having to go through Rafael " Peter Bodo

[FlashFlare11]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Ummmm ..... No.

It was the vacuum era.... When sampras retired it left a vacuum .... That's why guys like ferrero and roddick were the number 1 players in the world.

Or you had 35 year old Agassi who quite literally could barely walk. He limped out fo the French , skipped Wimbledon, and then got shot up with so many drugs that a heroin addict would be shocked,.....some how this pathetic 35 year old man made it to the finals of the us open.

Others like safin were great but not consistent. He was great one day and insane the next.

Roddick the one dimensional wonder....

Hewitt a hasbin .a...a guy who style was antiquated .

Blake another one dimensional player who made it to the top 10 proving how weak this era was.....

It was a transitional period after samaras retired . Pathetically bad.

It was not top heavy medium heavy or bottom heavy.....it just was weak,

Welcome back, Volley King! How was the ban?

No one included 2003 in the discussion. So I don't know why you bring up times when Ferrero and Roddick were No. 1. Everyone admits 2003 was a transitional period. We're not talking about that year (which, by the way, is not an era).

You didn't see Roddick play prior to 2010 so no point in discussing him.

Hewitt's style was antiquated? How? Aren't there still counterpunchers today (Do you know what a counterpuncher in tennis is?)

You didn't see Blake play before 2011, so no point in talking about his game either.

Agassi pathetic at 35? So many questions to ask here but I know they won't have responses.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by FlashFlare11

Welcome back, Volley King! How was the ban?

No one included 2003 in the discussion. So I don't know why you bring up times when Ferrero and Roddick were No. 1. Everyone admits 2003 was a transitional period. We're not talking about that year (which, by the way, is not an era).

You didn't see Roddick play prior to 2010 so no point in discussing him.

Hewitt's style was antiquated? How? Aren't there still counterpunchers today (Do you know what a counterpuncher in tennis is?)

You didn't see Blake play before 2011, so no point in talking about his game either.

Agassi pathetic at 35? So many questions to ask here but I know they won't have responses.

The only people who could beat Hewitt in his prime today are Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and maybe Roger Federer if he's on a hot streak.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Ummmm ..... No.

It was the vacuum era.... When sampras retired it left a vacuum .... That's why guys like ferrero and roddick were the number 1 players in the world.

Or you had 35 year old Agassi who quite literally could barely walk. He limped out fo the French , skipped Wimbledon, and then got shot up with so many drugs that a heroin addict would be shocked,.....some how this pathetic 35 year old man made it to the finals of the us open.

Others like safin were great but not consistent. He was great one day and insane the next.

Roddick the one dimensional wonder....

Hewitt a hasbin .a...a guy who style was antiquated .

Blake another one dimensional player who made it to the top 10 proving how weak this era was.....

It was a transitional period after samaras retired . Pathetically bad.

It was not top heavy medium heavy or bottom heavy.....it just was weak,

Exactly right these guys claiming that it was tougher in feds heyday are totally delusional and hilarious.

[The Dark Knight]

If Nadal hadn't suffered knee injuries in 2009, he might already be clearly considered the greatest ever. He was upset in the French Open that year -- the only time he hasn't won it in the last eight years. That was the year Federer won his only French Open title. And he pulled out of Wimbledon and didn't even play, the only defending champion in decades to not play at Wimbledon. Federer won his last Wimbledon title that year, but Nadal came back to win the next year. It's very reasonable to assume that if Nadal had been healthy, he would have won both of those tournaments, giving him a string of 5 Grand Slam titles in 6 events. He would then have 13 career titles to Federer's 14.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Federer is part of the field now yet you dismiss him as competition because he is older, not in his prime, etc......It is funny how many of you seem to regard an 18-20 year old Nadal as way better than a 28-30 year old Federer when one reads your assessments of the two eras and the competition in them. That in itself is quite telling, and also something that you dont even realize you are indirectly doing.

Actually, I don't dismiss him. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

If Nadal hadn't suffered knee injuries in 2009, he might already be clearly considered the greatest ever. He was upset in the French Open that year -- the only time he hasn't won it in the last eight years. That was the year Federer won his only French Open title. And he pulled out of Wimbledon and didn't even play, the only defending champion in decades to not play at Wimbledon. Federer won his last Wimbledon title that year, but Nadal came back to win the next year. It's very reasonable to assume that if Nadal had been healthy, he would have won both of those tournaments, giving him a string of 5 Grand Slam titles in 6 events. He would then have 13 career titles to Federer's 14.

If's, And's, and But's don't count. That didn't happen, Nadal lost in 4R of RG in 2009, Fed won it. End of story. Get over it.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Ummmm ..... No.

It was the vacuum era.... When sampras retired it left a vacuum .... That's why guys like ferrero and roddick were the number 1 players in the world.

Or you had 35 year old Agassi who quite literally could barely walk. He limped out fo the French , skipped Wimbledon, and then got shot up with so many drugs that a heroin addict would be shocked,.....some how this pathetic 35 year old man made it to the finals of the us open.

Others like safin were great but not consistent. He was great one day and insane the next.

Roddick the one dimensional wonder....

Hewitt a hasbin .a...a guy who style was antiquated .

Blake another one dimensional player who made it to the top 10 proving how weak this era was.....

It was a transitional period after samaras retired . Pathetically bad.

It was not top heavy medium heavy or bottom heavy.....it just was weak,

The only thing pathetically bad is your argument. None of this is anything except uneducated opinion, and shows that you literally didn't watch tennis before this year.

[merlinpinpin]

First, let's dismiss the fact that trolls know how to count...

Originally Posted by DRII

3 OPEN ERA GREATS ARE BETTER THAN 1...

So tell me, DRII, are you among those who consider that a player level never changes and Federer is as good as he was in his so-called heyday and that the others are now better than him?

Think carefully, there's a whole house of cards just hanging over your head, and I'm waiting to give it a tiny little push depending on what you say...

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

The only thing pathetically bad is your argument. None of this is anything except uneducated opinion, and shows that you literally didn't watch tennis before this year.

Let it go, guys. Chances are, he isn't watching tennis even now. He's just looking for a way to rile you up and must be doing the same on tons of other boards about soccer, bungee-jumping, skinny-dipping, or what have you...

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

First, let's dismiss the fact that trolls know how to count...



So tell me, DRII, are you among those who consider that a player level never changes and Federer is as good as he was in his so-called heyday and that the others are now better than him?

Think carefully, there's a whole house of cards just hanging over your head, and I'm waiting to give it a tiny little push depending on what you say...

Nadal as beating Federer in his hey day.

Pre nadal federerer dominated .

When nadal skipped Wimbledon due to a knee injury and wasn't in the FO final Federer won Wimbledon and the FO.....because nadal
Was not there .

Nadals Level has not Changed he has changed. He used to be Joker more but now joker has been beating nadal . So it's safe to say Joker has improved .

So you now have three competitive players.

Competition with Nadal> c

[The Dark Knight]

Oops....

.