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

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by frinton

You don't count

Relax. His comments meant more for TDK, who got banned BTW?
How long is the ban? Until the next GS? Can someone tell me?

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Look here's the proof ....

Nadal lost today.... In the past that meant Federer wins yet another grand slam ...

But in the golden era he still had to deal with joker and possibly Murray .

3 > 1

1 > other 2?

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by VPhuc tennis fan

Relax. His comments meant more for TDK, who got banned BTW?
How long is the ban? Until the next GS? Can someone tell me?

Wasn't banned vphuck.....just bored.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

1 > other 2?

Oh geezzz, The Dark Night is back. I got to put him on my ignore list again, much like the 6-1 6-3 6-0

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by TMF

Oh geezzz, The Dark Night is back. I got to put him on my ignore list again, much like the 6-1 6-3 6-0

Well you should listen because I picked Fed to win Wimbledon because of the roof....I was right yet again.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Nadal lost today.... In the past that meant Federer wins yet another grand slam ...

Wrong again.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Wrong again.

Fed only could win one grand slam this year...why?

[Povl Carstensen]

You were wrong.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Fed only could win one grand slam this year...why?

Because he was the best player in just that one Grand Slam tournament?

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Because he was the best player in just that one Grand Slam tournament?

No because he could only win 7 matches in a row at wimby

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

No because he could only win 7 matches in a row at wimby

Yeah, and that makes him the best in that one Grand Slam tournament, and that's why he won it.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Because he was the best player in just that one Grand Slam tournament?

No he has much more competition than he used to.


"This is the golden era"

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

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

Federer still dominated in 2004, 2005 (and to some degree in 2003), that's why you can't say that he "thrived against a weak field".

It got significantly worse in 2006 when Safin/Hewitt became non-factors and Roddick was crap for the first 7-8 months of the year (Federer dominated completely off clay and only lost to Nadal in the finals on clay), then by 2007 we already had a fully established Federer-Nadal-Djokovic trio, yet Federer still dominated (at least when it mattered).

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

No he has much more competition than he used to.


"This is the golden era"

Yes and he is nr. 1 in it, at 31, we've heard it.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Yes and he is nr. 1 in it, at 31, we've heard it.

Maybe but would he have had as many slams?

[rst]

is a myth the same thing as a claim??

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Maybe but would he have had as many slams?

Probably. Perhaps he would have a couple less in his prime, but so would the others, so he would still be in the lead. And then he would be raking in more now, because of his amazing longeivity, so it all evens out.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Maybe but would he have had as many slams?

Its not maybe.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Probably. Perhaps he would have a couple less in his prime, but so would the others, so he would still be in the lead. And then he would be raking in more now, because of his amazing longeivity, so it all evens out.

Ok but he would probably not be considered the goat...for some odd reason most people measure if one is a goat by the number of slams they rack up...(maybe because it's the simplest way?)
Which in Federers case is really not great as a feat as it seems.

Is Federers one of the greatest......Absolutely. Is he the greatest......not in my personal opinion.

By my standards the number of slams one wins is only one factor.

For example.....Borg had more slams than McEnroe ; however before Borg quit McEnroe basically had Borgs number. Therefore I think McEnroe was the better player.

Same thing with Laver. Although Emerson had more slams I think Laver was the better player.

Finally in my book Nadal is the greatest of all time.....Nadal is clearly a better player on clay but Federers is better indoors. That used to not matter but now that two of the four slams are partially indoors it does make a difference.

But the reason I think Nadal is the greatest is the same reason I think laver is the greatest. Laver did not win as many slams as Emerson but Laver did win the calendar slam twice.......by analogy Nadal won the career slam and the golden slam.....Federer did neither in my opinion.

I don't find Federers calendar slam impressive at all......it's only a calendar slam on paper because he didn't go through Nadal. Rafa had a lot of issues that year and skipped Wimbledon......in fact I believe Federers stats are only as great as they are because Nadal was not around.

Feds French open slam is symbolic of his entire career. It's the premise that :
"Federer can only win if Rafa is not around".

Nadals game is more physical and he cannot be around as much as Federer. So Federers is fortunate that Nadal was not around for much of his career. Feds stats only look good on paper.....the truth is Nadal is the stronger player.

Clearly though I think Nadal is the better player in my personal opinion.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Ok

Glad you agree.