At their best, who would win?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

I am asking you to describe any of those matches as you saw it .... doesn't necessarily have to be very good or a brilliant description ....just say how you saw it ...

you keep saying you've seen matches of federer at his prime or peak ? which ones ? how difficult is to describe whatever you remember from those matches ?




well, IMO, you fail badly at that too , considering you "think" newk, roche, nadal , djoker have a higher peak level of play than federer ....



because santana wasn't remotely close to federer's talent ...

now laver was ridiculously talented overall , both power and touch
mac's feel and touch , along with "sense of the court geometry" are unprecedented
borg's ability to switch b/w slow, grinding rallies @ RG to aggressive play @ wimbledon within a month, now that's massive talent .....
sampras' all court ability, with ability to overpower almost anyone , now that's massive talent ...
agassi's and connors' hand-eye coordination, amazing returning and clean striking, now that's talent ...

etc etc ...

santana ? umm, no .......

abmk, I can remember the 2004 US Open final when Federer beats Hewitt. I saw that Hewitt stayed passively on the baseline (as he often does), no wonder against a first class Federer.

And I remember the 2009 Wimbledon final when Roger almost lost to Roddick who put an easy volley into the net.

I will never be able to convince you about Santana.

I agree regarding your description of some great players of the past.

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

abmk, I can remember the 2004 US Open final when Federer beats Hewitt. I saw that Hewitt stayed passively on the baseline (as he often does), no wonder against a first class Federer.

And I remember the 2009 Wimbledon final when Roger almost lost to Roddick who put an easy volley into the net.

I will never be able to convince you about Santana.

I agree regarding your description of some great players of the past.

Who cares about whether Santana was as talented as Federer or not? While I do think that simply counting numbers and list of accomplishments in order to determine greatness is simplistic, the wide gulf of those between Santana and Federer is so vast that they cannot be compared on any level.

And regarding that Roddick match, almost counts for nothing. We could also say that Federer almost beat Djokovic at the 2010 and 2011 US Opens. Federer wasn't exactly at his peak even back at Wimby 2009.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TomT

I enjoy reading your comments BobbyOne. I think you appreciate the beauty of the game, and mostly present interesting arguments for your positions.

I think our opinions and tastes converge regarding an appreciation and certain affinity for old(er) style tennis.

I love his anticipation and cunning. His movement and quickness. And of course (not counting his serve ), and maybe most of all, the way he strokes the ball. He played calmly and intelligently and tenaciously with great technical execution.

Totally agree. The general style and pace of today's game is so different mostly because of the evolution of equipment. Players' skills have evolved to maximize the potential of the equipment changes.

Given that they're playing in the same era with the same equipment, who, of the greats, would emerge as the dominant player? I really don't have anything approaching a firm opinion on this. But, today, for me, it's Federer. Tomorrow it might be Nadal or Djokovic. Or Sampras or Agassi. Or McEnroe or Connors or Borg (hmmm, no, probably not Borg). Or Gonzalez or Laver or Rosewall, etc. etc. etc. Just a tentative opinion based on very limited experience, and maybe faulty analysis.

TomT, Since I still suffer from an ear pain and a cold, I'm thus the more grateful for your post. Thanks a lot.

I generally regret that nowadays there almost are no serve and volley players.

Even the mighty Federer would have troubles when meeting a man who dares to volley repeatedly. It was interesting to see that a few years ago an old and off the game Sampras was able to beat Roger in an exhibition and to give Roger good opposition in the other ones. Of course an exhibition is not a Wimbledon final but it at least the exhibitions indicated that even Federer is vulnerable sometimes.

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TomT, Since I still suffer from an ear pain and a cold, I'm thus the more grateful for your post. Thanks. a lot.

I generally regret that nowadays there almost are no serve and volley players.

Even the mighty Federer would have troubles when meeting a man who dares to volley repeatedly. It was interesting to see that a few years ago an old and off the game Sampras was able to beat Roger in an exhibition and to give Roger good opposition in the other ones. Of course an exhibition is not a Wimbledon final but it at least the exhibitions indicated that even Federer is vulnerable sometimes.

Really, are we using exhibitions as an example again?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by qindarka

Really, are we using exhibitions as an example again?

quindarka. Yes, I do.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Feather

The point is some old posters are here with a certain agenda. It's very easy to see through that.

They refuse to acknowledge that game has changed. 39 year old Rosewall lost to Connors but today none can play till that age. Players having same age as Roger retires. Roger is number two and just won a slam. That's also held against him by saying he won ONLY one. Tennis has become way too physical. All the courts are slowed down. Six hour matches are more battle of attrition and in such cases obviously the younger player will have a huge advantage. Nadal at age 26 cannot play an year completely, with an extremely physical style of play Djokovic also is unlikely to win slams at age 30.

If the courts at Wimbledon and US open were as fast as it was then Federer would have done well against both Djokovic and Nadal. When you talk about Roger losing to Nadal, Novak at these slams you have to consider these aspects. Getting old, surfaces getting slowed and playing against players 5,6 years younger than him all drawbacks

He didn't have the luxury of Pete Sampras to serve his way to US Open finals at the later stage of his career. He literally has to fight for each points there. In both 2010 and 2011, Roger was at match points against NOvak. We all know what happened when they played in a fast court like Cincinnati, Roger bageled Novak 6-0.

Last year in AO, he reached the SF and at the same age Pete lost in 4R. So if Roger also lost iin 4R then none would have bothered to talk about going 2-0 against Rafa at slow as molasses hard court in AO.

Roger was lucky to win FO in 2009 but otherwise he had been very unlucky. He lost the edge in two slams against his close rivals due to slowing down of courts. However some old posters either ignore or pretend to ignore all these.

Feather, Yes, some posters here (and even much more on General PPD) have an agenda: Idolizing a certain, well-known player...

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Feather, Yes, some posters here (and even much more on General PPD) have an agenda: Idolizing a certain, well-known player...

Of all the Fed fans posting here, only TMF really pushes the pro-Fed agenda. The rest are willing to engage in reasoned discussions, it's not their fault if others talk nonsense and attempt to dismiss them as fanboys.

If they have an agenda, then you among other 'historians' have an even more blatant one.

You've been doing your fair share of whining that people have differing opinions.

And yes, General PPD is filled with Federer fanboys and people pretending to be Federer fanboys. There are a fair share of anti-Federer posters as well. It doesn't go all on one way.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

quindarka. Yes, I do.

Except that you shouldn't, (modern) exos aren't serious in the least, it's just a cash grab and and at best light training for pros (none of them go anywhere near full out).

Heck, Andy Roddick straight setted Fed in an exo in 2007 (Kooyong) and that was a more serious exo as it served as a warm up for AO.

Using their 2001 Wimbledon encounter to draw conclusions is far more credible and even that match is pretty insignificant in the large scheme of things as neither player was at his best.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Fed declined a bit in 2008.. But 2009 was certainly nothing to scoff at. He only reached the finals of every slam. I dont think a "real" decline began until 2010. While Pete's real decline began in 2000. Around the same age as Roger.

Agree, more or less.

Pete's 1999 could have been greater had he not injured himself before USO, there's no doubt he would have been the 1st favourite (he was in great form leading to it) but yeah 2000 was when he became almost a pure serve and volleyer.

It's interesting to me how people still remember Sampras mostly as a serve and volleyer when he played a lot of tennis from the baseline in his best year and he wasn't always an overly aggressive player either.

In his 1995 IW final against Agassi for example I felt that it was Agassi who had to play more out of his comfort zone and go for bigger shots from the baseline (then he would have liked to ) while Sampras played patient, controlled tennis (don't have the stats to back me up it was just the feeling I got while watching the match).

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

abmk, I can remember the 2004 US Open final when Federer beats Hewitt. I saw that Hewitt stayed passively on the baseline (as he often does), no wonder against a first class Federer.

And I remember the 2009 Wimbledon final when Roger almost lost to Roddick who put an easy volley into the net.

I mentioned 2004-07 , you got only one measly match from there ? hewitt was a counter-puncher, he is going to stay mainly on the baseline ......
that's still not much of a description of the match or how federer played ....

as far as the 2009 wimbledon final goes, again, wrong again ..... roddick hit that volley out, not into the net ...he'd have been up 2 sets to love ... while a very strong position, its still not equivalent to roddick winning it ...again, federer just missed an easy FH at 5 all in the first set at a BP chance ... if he hadn't, he'd have served for the set and probably would have taken it ...

and again, that's no description of the match at all ..... you mention the near result and a shot ( that too wrongly ) .. that doesn't constitute a description at all

there are plenty of things one could mention about a match - the ebbs and flows, the strokes/movement of each player , the mental state of the player etc etc ... but what you've said so far is almost nothing ... you seriously think you can't do better than that ?

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I will never be able to convince you about Santana.

course not, trust me , you are insanely wrong about santana being anywhere close to federer's talent level ...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

quindarka. Yes, I do.

exos these days are merely for charity/entertainment unlike in the 60s or 70s or 80s where the winner would take a lot more money...

roddick defeated federer at an exo just before the AO in 2007 ...... what happened when they actually met @ the AO ? federer absolutely blitzed him 6-4,6-0,6-2

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by abmk

I mentioned 2004-07 , you got only one measly match from there ? hewitt was a counter-puncher, he is going to stay mainly on the baseline ......
that's still not much of a description of the match or how federer played ....

as far as the 2009 wimbledon final goes, again, wrong again ..... roddick hit that volley out, not into the net ...he'd have been up 2 sets to love ... while a very strong position, its still not equivalent to roddick winning it ...again, federer just missed an easy FH at 5 all in the first set at a BP chance ... if he hadn't, he'd have served for the set and probably would have taken it ...

and again, that's no description of the match at all ..... you mention the near result and a shot ( that too wrongly ) .. that doesn't constitute a description at all

there are plenty of things one could mention about a match - the ebbs and flows, the strokes/movement of each player , the mental state of the player etc etc ... but what you've said so far is almost nothing ... you seriously think you can't do better than that ?



course not, trust me , you are insanely wrong about santana being anywhere close to federer's talent level ...

That's the thing with these historians. They talk of being so experienced, having apparently watched tennis for decades and use this point to lord it over others. Yet all they can do is talk about numbers and selectively follow the opinions of former players, I see little in way of actual analysis from them.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by qindarka

Of all the Fed fans posting here, only TMF really pushes the pro-Fed agenda. The rest are willing to engage in reasoned discussions, it's not their fault if others talk nonsense and attempt to dismiss them as fanboys.

If they have an agenda, then you among other 'historians' have an even more blatant one.

You've been doing your fair share of whining that people have differing opinions.

And yes, General PPD is filled with Federer fanboys and people pretending to be Federer fanboys. There are a fair share of anti-Federer posters as well. It doesn't go all on one way.

qindarka, Let's make peace between the fans of older times and the fans of current time.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by zagor

Except that you shouldn't, (modern) exos aren't serious in the least, it's just a cash grab and and at best light training for pros (none of them go anywhere near full out).

Heck, Andy Roddick straight setted Fed in an exo in 2007 (Kooyong) and that was a more serious exo as it served as a warm up for AO.

Using their 2001 Wimbledon encounter to draw conclusions is far more credible and even that match is pretty insignificant in the large scheme of things as neither player was at his best.

zagor, I believe that the pride of Federer was a factor in those exhibitions. He surely did not want to lose against an oldie who was away from regular tennis for 5 years. Also Pete's pride should have turned him on to try in those matches.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

I mentioned 2004-07 , you got only one measly match from there ? hewitt was a counter-puncher, he is going to stay mainly on the baseline ......
that's still not much of a description of the match or how federer played ....

as far as the 2009 wimbledon final goes, again, wrong again ..... roddick hit that volley out, not into the net ...he'd have been up 2 sets to love ... while a very strong position, its still not equivalent to roddick winning it ...again, federer just missed an easy FH at 5 all in the first set at a BP chance ... if he hadn't, he'd have served for the set and probably would have taken it ...

and again, that's no description of the match at all ..... you mention the near result and a shot ( that too wrongly ) .. that doesn't constitute a description at all

there are plenty of things one could mention about a match - the ebbs and flows, the strokes/movement of each player , the mental state of the player etc etc ... but what you've said so far is almost nothing ... you seriously think you can't do better than that ?



course not, trust me , you are insanely wrong about santana being anywhere close to federer's talent level ...

abmk, I don't want to be belittled by you. As I told you match descriptions are not my strength. Sorry for my error.

As you can blame me for being a weak match commentator, I can blame you for ignoring Santana's greatness.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by qindarka

That's the thing with these historians. They talk of being so experienced, having apparently watched tennis for decades and use this point to lord it over others. Yet all they can do is talk about numbers and selectively follow the opinions of former players, I see little in way of actual analysis from them.

qindarka,

Don't put all historians in one pot. I do know that some of them, f.i. krosero and pc1, are much better in describing matches as I'm...

[Feather]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

zagor, I believe that the pride of Federer was a factor in those exhibitions. He surely did not want to lose against an oldie who was away from regular tennis for 5 years. Also Pete's pride should have turned him on to try in those matches.

Clutching at straws !

Federer has ONLY respect for Sampras. He has said that many times. Losing or winning in a exho doesn't mean anything. They don't play with their full potential.

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

qindarka, Let's make peace between the fans of older times and the fans of current time.

I'd love to see that. Needs both sides to cooperate though.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

qindarka,

Don't put all historians in one pot. I do know that some of them, f.i. krosero and pc1, are much better in describing matches as I'm...

Yeah, probably shouldn't have done that. I don't dislike all the historians, mainly annoyed by guys like kiki and DRII. Though I honestly think you talk a lot of nonsense as well.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

abmk, I don't want to be belittled by you. As I told you match descriptions are not my strength. Sorry for my error.

As you can blame me for being a weak match commentator, I can blame you for ignoring Santana's greatness.

He isn't ignoring Santana's greatness. 4 slams, including titles at RG and Wimbledon is certainly a great accomplishment, amateur field or not. It's just that Federer has far eclipsed him, and I honestly don't see how that can be disputed. The subjective issue of 'talent' might be brought up but what does that matter when the accomplishments are miles apart.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

abmk, I don't want to be belittled by you. As I told you match descriptions are not my strength. Sorry for my error.

I don't quite think so .... A much more likely possibility is that you haven't watched many matches of federer at all ..... that's why you can't describe ... I'm not asking you to write 'eloquent' paras about the matches .... just what happened in those matches ... your sentences don't do that...

you are just going by the stupid propaganda of anti-federer fans as it is convenient for you ...

anyways leaving that aside for a moment, what on earth makes you think peak nadal ( outside of clay ) and peak djoker (maybe outside of slow HC ) are better than peak federer ?

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

As you can blame me for being a weak match commentator, I can blame you for ignoring Santana's greatness.

santana was a good player, a very good one .... but doesn't touch federer's talent level ...... ignoring santana's greatness ??? LOL ......

doesn't even come close to your statements against federer - weak era , not anywhere near the top when it comes to peak level of play .....

funny thing - by the end of 2004, when federer had "just 4 slams", many were already talking about whether his level of play was the highest in the history of tennis ...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

zagor, I believe that the pride of Federer was a factor in those exhibitions. He surely did not want to lose against an oldie who was away from regular tennis for 5 years. Also Pete's pride should have turned him on to try in those matches.

surely much more than pride was at stake in their 2001 wimbledon match where it was defending champion sampras vs a 19 year old rookie federer ? Guess what happened ?