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

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Feds definitely a goat .....

But the prior era was weaker.

Without Nadal there was no one in his way but now he has to deal with Joker and Murray.

Do you seriously think that's not tougher ??

why, because Nadal lost to a guy barely in the top 100?

so let me get this straight...when fed routinely owned slam winners like agassi, roddick, hewitt, djoker( yes, he still owned djoker after AO 2008 til this year), and safin, its a weak era.

but nadal loosing to a guy playing out of his mind in the second round proves its a strong era?

maybe it proves( especially after losing to kohlschreiber in halle) that rafa was still in clay mode and not ready for grass tennis.

and that he got outplayed today.

[msc886]

Originally Posted by SLD76

why, because Nadal lost to a guy barely in the top 100?

so let me get this straight...when fed routinely owned slam winners like agassi, roddick, hewitt, djoker( yes, he still owned djoker after AO 2008 til this year), and safin, its a weak era.

but nadal loosing to a guy playing out of his mind in the second round proves its a strong era?

maybe it proves( especially after losing to kohlschreiber in halle) that rafa was still in clay mode and not ready for grass tennis.

and that he got outplayed today.

TDK's one dimensional mind can't comprehend anything other than Pro-Nadal or Anti-Fed.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Do you seriously think that's not tougher ??

It is hypothetical how Nadal and Djok of today would have fared against peak Federer.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

It is hypothetical how Nadal and Djok of today would have fared against peak Federer.

Well apparently "peak" Federer is not the problem against Nadal at least . It's just a "bad matchup".....

So Federer can't win whether it's peak or not.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Well apparently "peak" Federer is not the problem against Nadal at least . It's just a "bad matchup".....

So Federer can't win whether it's peak or not.

I think you don't know about the head to head,

Rafa and Roger have played on three surfaces

Clay Rafa leads 12-2
Grass Roger leads 2-1
Hard courts Roger leads 6-5

So in short, Roger leads on two surfaces, Rafa leads on one surface.

I will give you another interesting stat

Roger has bageled Rafa on all three surfaces, yes Roger has bageled Rafa even on his beloved clay

Rafa has bageled Roger only once, that too in clay

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by SLD76

why, because Nadal lost to a guy barely in the top 100?

so let me get this straight...when fed routinely owned slam winners like agassi, roddick, hewitt, djoker( yes, he still owned djoker after AO 2008 til this year), and safin, its a weak era.

but nadal loosing to a guy playing out of his mind in the second round proves its a strong era?

maybe it proves( especially after losing to kohlschreiber in halle) that rafa was still in clay mode and not ready for grass tennis.

and that he got outplayed today.

First of all what is "loosing" ?

Secondly yeah Nadal lost ....so what?

In fact it proves why this is such a tough era.....

Now Federer still has to get past Gluten free Joker and Mirray for that matter.

I feel like this is a merry go roud......Agassi and the other guys were nothing at that time period.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Feather

I think you don't know about the head to head,

Rafa and Roger have played on three surfaces

Clay Rafa leads 12-2
Grass Roger leads 2-1
Hard courts Roger leads 6-5

So in short, Roger leads on two surfaces, Rafa leads on one surface.

I will give you another interesting stat

Roger has bageled Rafa on all three surfaces, yes Roger has bageled Rafa even on his beloved clay

Rafa has bageled Roger only once, that too in clay

Actually I agree with you in a way.....it's my exact argument in the "ba matchup" thread.

Im saying that Federer has a hard time lasting five sets against Nadal but can still take him 2 out of three.

Fed fans counter saying its a bad matchup.....

You guys need to make up your minds ....which excuse is it ginna be "bad matchup " or "peak".

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Secondly yeah Nadal lost ....so what?

In fact it proves why this is such a tough era.....

True. Fed only played some weakling players from the 2000's who wouldn't even be top 100 today. Obviously if Rosol had played at this time he would have been at least top 5 material. Roddick, Safin, and such would struggle to be inside the top 100 with player as good as Rosol.

Today competition is way thougher. It's not only about the top 2 or top 3 in from the semi-final which is thougher, as explained with brightness TDK, it is though from round 1 nowadays. Serouisly, back in the weak fed era, even the top 5 wasn't as challenging as today's journeymen!!!

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

True. Fed only played some weakling players from the 2000's who wouldn't even be top 100 today. Obviously if Rosol had played at this time he would have been at least top 5 material. Roddick, Safin, and such would struggle to be inside the top 100 with player as good as Rosol.

Today competition is way thougher. It's not only about the top 2 or top 3 in from the semi-final which is thougher, as explained with brightness TDK, it is though from round 1 nowadays. Serouisly, back in the weak fed era, even the top 5 wasn't as challenging as today's journeymen!!!

28 out of the last 29 were won by the top three. That's 7 years. That goes all the way back to 2005 !!!! Nothing has changed with the top except now there's additional players at the top besides just federer .....so its tougher now.

I think Federer has a point and I personally agree with him.

And why does someone else avatar keep appearing everytime? Sort of annoying .

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

You guys need to make up your minds ....which excuse is it ginna be "bad matchup " or "peak".

These things are not mutually exclusive, so you dont have a point.

[jackson vile]

Look how strong this field is, this would never happen back in 2005.

[Povl Carstensen]

Look how strong Federer was in 2005, and so on and so forth.

[PCXL-Fan]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Well apparently "peak" Federer is not the problem against Nadal at least . It's just a "bad matchup".....

So Federer can't win whether it's peak or not.

The high topspin high bounce to the 1handed backhand over and over and over and over and over and over and over is a big problem. Have you seen 2006 & 2007 RO finals?

[freedomtennis]

i think federer was in his prime in 05

[DeShaun]

Is the field stronger with or without Nadal?
When did he join the field? Was it the same year that he turned pro? Or was it the year that he began winning slams? Or how about the year in which he finally won his first non-clay slam?
WHEN DID RAFA'S ERA BEGIN?

Beginning in 2005, Roger has won ten slams in the exact same era that Rafa has won eleven.


If it bothers you that Roger was able to collect six slams prior to Nadal winning his first slam, Roger turned pro just one year earlier than Rafa. Rafa had plenty of time to get his game up to speed off of clay, but he never seemed to get around to it until Roger was twenty-six years old and I am sorry but it does not impress me when a junior can out-grind an old man who can scarcely protect his backhand against the junior's arguably hideous-looking attack.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Look how strong this field is, this would never happen back in 2005.

They all play against the same field since 2005, you clown. It's not like in the 60s which had a split fields when they had guys like Emerson was competing in the amateur and Laver was competing in the pro.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by PCXL-Fan

The high topspin high bounce to the 1handed backhand over and over and over and over and over and over and over is a big problem. Have you seen 2006 & 2007 RO finals?

Exactly.....

Fed came out in at least one FO and beat Nadal in one set 6-2. Feds beaten him on clay 6-0......the problem is he can't keep up that level of play for five sets.

That's not a "matchup" issue.....that's physical strength.

Nadal just keeps hitting it in the same spot until Fed breaks down. It's a good strategy on Nadals part .....he know Fed can't keep up because he is not strong enough .

Fed simply has to get stronger . But that's not a matchup issue.

[ledwix]

Just to be clear, 31 year old Federer next month will be ranked #2 in the world ahead of prime Nadal. If Federer is from a weak era, then this era is just as weak.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by ledwix

Just to be clear, 31 year old Federer next month will be ranked #2 in the world ahead of prime Nadal. If Federer is from a weak era, then this era is just as weak.

Yeah but Rafa did beat Fed in the greatest match of all time in Feds own house.

Nothing beats that.

[TopFH]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Yeah but Rafa did beat Fed in the greatest match of all time in Feds own house.

Nothing beats that.

It's not like Federer has more slams, weeks at No.1, etc...