Krajicek: Federer dominated in 2004 to 2008 when he had no rivals

Dolgopolov85 · Jun 22, 2018

Djorau said:
Mental disadvantage + pre-Edberg net game + pre-neo backhand + slower court. Nadal would have moonballed Fed BH for fun.

2012 Fed would have simply run around those moonballish and hit inside out forehand winners instead of the CC BH he was going for in 2017. With this mental disadvantage you speak of, he still took 2012 Nadal to 4 sets and that Nadal took peak Djoker to 5 in the final.

Dolgopolov85 · Jun 22, 2018

WeakEraKing said:
I’ve always wondered why Fed fans feel like they need to defend Federer as being so weak era GOAT. You would think if it was a non issue they would ignore the claims, but nonetheless they defend it by saying Hewitt, Baghdatis, Gonzalez are better than Murray and co. Deep down they know that it was a truly weak era 2004-07. Federer simply took advantage of it, which is ofc not his fault

Don't think anybody said Baghdatis and Gonzalez are BETTER than Murray overall. But on the day they played more lights out against Fed. Murray is capable of a great game but gets bullied a bit by Fedal for whatever reason. In 2010, Fed still beat Murray more easily than he did Baggy in 2006. And the 2007 scoreline is misleading. Gonzalez was on fire, but Fed was absolutely GOATing in that match. Remember Gonzalez beat Nadal that year to get to Fed. And Gonzalez did beat Fed later that year in the RR stage of the WTF IIRC. I see Nadal fans claim that Rosol/Darcis/Kyrgios/Brown were GOATing against Nadal and would have beaten anybody else that day. If that is the case, why is it so questionable to believe that an otherwise slamless guy happened to play his A plus game that day even while losing to Fed?

Now as for Hewitt, I don't rank him ahead of Murray but he was a no.1 too and won two slams, one of them his first slam final and against Sampras. So he is not far behind Murray and he had his strengths. He was more clutch and grittier than Murray. It took Murray a long time to work out a championship game and finally start winning slams. I don't even know why people repeatedly bring up Murray. Other than at the Masters during 2009-10 or so and Olympics 2012, he has never bothered Fed. Er, ok, 2013 which was Fed's worst year after turning slam winner. I know he is part of the Big Four but Murray being in his prime in 2004-07 would have made absolutely no difference to Fed's slam tally. Nadal and Djokovic peaking then would have affected his tally but because he has aged better, he would get many more slams after turning 27 than he actually has. As it is, he has won 7 slams in the 'strong era' even after losing his peak. That's Wilander's career already. And he's not done. So what is this weak era business supposed to prove anyway? If the case is it inflated Fed's slam tally, his longevity has already disproved that notion.

Deleted member 307496 · Jun 22, 2018

3lite said:
He's a 5'9 version of Michael Chang.

Spent.

5'11 and everyone at the time talked about how he had more weapons in his arsenal than Chang.

RS · Jun 22, 2018

Djorau said:
Mental disadvantage + pre-Edberg net game + pre-neo backhand + slower court. Nadal would have moonballed Fed BH for fun.

Nadal Forehand was better in 2012 and had more RPM. Federer always was great when the ball stayed lower on the BH side even in 2012. I think Federer would have won in 4.

zagor · Jun 22, 2018

Dolgopolov85 said:
Don't think anybody said Baghdatis and Gonzalez are BETTER than Murray overall. But on the day they played more lights out against Fed. Murray is capable of a great game but gets bullied a bit by Fedal for whatever reason. In 2010, Fed still beat Murray more easily than he did Baggy in 2006. And the 2007 scoreline is misleading. Gonzalez was on fire, but Fed was absolutely GOATing in that match. Remember Gonzalez beat Nadal that year to get to Fed. And Gonzalez did beat Fed later that year in the RR stage of the WTF IIRC. I see Nadal fans claim that Rosol/Darcis/Kyrgios/Brown were GOATing against Nadal and would have beaten anybody else that day. If that is the case, why is it so questionable to believe that an otherwise slamless guy happened to play his A plus game that day even while losing to Fed?

Now as for Hewitt, I don't rank him ahead of Murray but he was a no.1 too and won two slams, one of them his first slam final and against Sampras. So he is not far behind Murray and he had his strengths. He was more clutch and grittier than Murray. It took Murray a long time to work out a championship game and finally start winning slams. I don't even know why people repeatedly bring up Murray. Other than at the Masters during 2009-10 or so and Olympics 2012, he has never bothered Fed. Er, ok, 2013 which was Fed's worst year after turning slam winner. I know he is part of the Big Four but Murray being in his prime in 2004-07 would have made absolutely no difference to Fed's slam tally. Nadal and Djokovic peaking then would have affected his tally but because he has aged better, he would get many more slams after turning 27 than he actually has. As it is, he has won 7 slams in the 'strong era' even after losing his peak. That's Wilander's career already. And he's not done. So what is this weak era business supposed to prove anyway? If the case is it inflated Fed's slam tally, his longevity has already disproved that notion.

Surgical-like exposing of double standards.

RS · Jun 22, 2018

KINGROGER said:
They’ve all had it tough at different points but overall Fed probably had it hardest.
Federer had it hardest in his post prime years. Not in his Prime years though. Nadal had to face a Prime Federer on one end then a Prime Novak on the other in his prime.

Nadal doesn’t factor into this, he loses to every journeyman/mug going off clay.
6 slams off clay. Great for a guy who people call Clay bully. He beat Federer at Wimbledon and Djokovic in form twice at USO. What a hater.
Djokovic has a prime opportunity aged 31-35 to clean up in this pathetic mug era of 2015- present but he fell off a cliff. Imagine how many slams 2011-2015 Fed would win if he had 0 peak/prime ATG in his way?[/
Your hatred for Djokovic is clear.
Federer had no ATG in their prime until Nadal hit his which was after Federer won 10 slams. Djokovic maybe had some luck facing post 2012 Federer and post RG 2014 Nadal but he still dominated Federer who was still WC and was world number Wimbledon/US were tight matches.
The point is you hate on Djokovic about this but then you say no weak eras.

RS · Jun 22, 2018

2003 and 2007-2008 were ATG standard. 2004-2006 was relatively weaker but still good. Don’t agree with Richards statement.

robthai · Jun 22, 2018

Djokovic and Nadal never had a strong generation of players that came after them, therefore their slam tallies are inflated. Federer's longevity is unmatched. Enough of this weak era stuff. It would have made no difference in the end.

Deleted member 307496 · Jun 22, 2018

Druss said:
Tbh I think it would be 50/50 between 2001 Hewitt and 2007 Djokovic at USO, could go either way, 4 tight sets or 5.

Don't think so. Mentality would play a huge part, Djokovic would crack under pressure and Hewitt would love the challenge.

Hewitt in 4.

Deleted member 307496 · Jun 22, 2018

robthai said:
I think so too. I think Hewitt was better in 2004 and Fed destroyed him there. But that 04 version of Fed was stronger than 07.

He wasn't better in '04. He played a p1ss poor final. He was better in their '05 SF.

abmk · Jun 22, 2018

Djorau said:
Mental disadvantage + pre-Edberg net game + pre-neo backhand + slower court. Nadal would have moonballed Fed BH for fun.

...he did that in AO 12, but lost the 1st set, was a break down in the 3rd set as well ...the match was a close 4-setter,

nadal 2017 with reduced speed and FH would see more winners fly by him, fed would have it easier handling that FH than 2012 FH , would commit lesser UEs and Nadal himself would commit more UEs.

again, utter load of bullsh*te from you , as usual

jelle v · Jun 22, 2018

Being Dutch and reading the original article from February, I can say that all the quotes from de OP do not do justice to the orignal Dutch article.

It is very poorly interpreted/translated and quotes are being taken from different eras as described in the article..

NatF · Jun 22, 2018

jelle v said:
Being Dutch and reading the original article from February, I can say that all the quotes from de OP do not do justice to the orignal Dutch article.

It is very poorly interpreted/translated and quotes are being taken from different eras as described in the article..

Can you give us something more accurate?

zverev2018 · Jun 22, 2018

It's easy to say that he had no rivals, but maybe if it weren't for Federer being so amazing, players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, etc. would have went on to win many more slams each and be all-time greats. So it was basically Federer who made it seem that he had no rivals because he was playing spectacular tennis and shutting down all the contenders and pretenders.

Justice Underworld · Jun 22, 2018

Gary Duane said:
I agree with that, because some pros are amazingly ignorant, which to be honest continually shocks me. I'm just saying that I would not make any criticism of Krajicek based on the garbage in the OP.

What do you mean garbage of the OP? I guess you haven't been following the thread nor see that I posted the original interview of Krajicek that was posted on a Dutch website in February. He actually said even more than that and there is no garbage here, and all truth . This is why it's best to do research before making yourself look like a dunce.

KINGROGER · Jun 22, 2018

@reesesachs
They’ve all had weak eras. 2015- present weakest.

Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko etc would wipe the floor with these next gen mugs.

Don’t forget, Djokovic won 11/12 slams once Fed declined and half his slams with 0 prime ATG competition. Nadal won vs weakest clay field ever and vultured a few off clay also.

RS · Jun 22, 2018

KINGROGER said:
@reesesachs
They’ve all had weak eras. 2015- present weakest.
So Federer in 2015 with 63-11 and beat Djokovic 3 times was easy
Murray 71-14 in 2015 was easy
Great.

Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko etc would wipe the floor with these next gen mugs.

Don’t forget, Djokovic won 11/12 slams once Fed declined and half his slams with 0 prime ATG competition. Nadal won vs weakest clay field ever and vultured a few off clay also.

More hatred. Zverev is clearly not a mug with 3 masters 1000s.
2015-18 was weaker but 2007-14 was the one of the strongest and Djokovic won 7/12 GS titles here.
So Nadal is a vulture and Federer and Djokovic are weak on clay. I don’t think the 9 combined FO Finals will agree with you
Your coming across bad here hating on Djokovic

Gary Duane · Jun 22, 2018

Justice Underworld said:
What do you mean garbage of the OP? I guess you haven't been following the thread nor see that I posted the original interview of Krajicek that was posted on a Dutch website in February. He actually said even more than that and there is no garbage here, and all truth . This is why it's best to do research before making yourself look like a dunce.

My comment was not about you as the original poster but the info in the original post:

'What makes Federer special is that he played at the highest level for 16 years and achieved the record Grand Slam titles.

"The record Grand Slam titles" may or may not be correct, depending on how challenged Krajicek is in English. But it's odd "foreign" English.

Now this:

So Krajicek gave a lot of praise to Roger but thinks he dominated a transition era when there were no rivals, that he is #1 only because his rivals are injured and thinks Djokovic is more complete.

Call that what you want. I call it dead wrong. If you are saying it, then I totally disagree with you. I don't draw the same conclusions, and I have no reason to believe that everything quoted was exactly right, or totally in context.

A Wimbledon champion basically said everything that others have been saying for years.

No. YOU said that. I didn't meant to imply that what is coming from you is garbage, but now I will say that. I think that's garbage, much the same garbage that I read in this forum trying to negate the accomplishments of ATGs.

Gary Duane · Jun 22, 2018

Justice Underworld said:
What do you mean garbage of the OP? I guess you haven't been following the thread nor see that I posted the original interview of Krajicek that was posted on a Dutch website in February. He actually said even more than that and there is no garbage here, and all truth . This is why it's best to do research before making yourself look like a dunce.

I just checked your link. The mistake in English is probably yours, if you translated yourself. I'm assuming you didn't use something like Google Translate.

If you translated yourself, it's pretty good. I can't check the Dutch, though, because I do not read Dutch. I do read German.

Unfortunately it seems to be bits and pieces, so IF you are the translator, we are forced to read what you have translated, which may be cherry-picked.

Autodidactic player · Jun 22, 2018

Red Rick said:
Says the worst player on the Wimbledon trophy in the Open Era.

How many posters on the board wish that their game was good enough for them to be "the worst player on the Wimbledon trophy in the Open Era?"

Red Rick · Jun 22, 2018

Autodidactic player said:
How many posters on the board wish that their game was good enough for them to be "the worst player on the Wimbledon trophy in the Open Era?"

Oh definitely, I'm jealous of his tennis ability. That was just me knee jerking over someone supposedly speaking from authority and coming up with ********, and me being salty he has more Wimbledons than Roddick.

clout · Jun 22, 2018

I personally think 2007-2012/13 were the strongest stretch of years in the modern era but I feel like Fed's era being crap is also a bit of an overstatement. I mean the guy was dominating so much that no one else really had much of a chance to win. None of the guys in his gen were ATG material but the guys that Fed had to compete with as his career progressed onwards (the rest of the big four + stan/delpo) and how well he's been able to stick with those guys despite being 5-6 years older has been nothing short of impressive. Guys like Fed, Nadal and Novak are all once in a lifetime players IMO, which means they'd dominant in any given era because that's just how great they are

Justice Underworld · Jun 22, 2018

Gary Duane said:
My comment was not about you as the original poster but the info in the original post:

"The record Grand Slam titles" may or may not be correct, depending on how challenged Krajicek is in English. But it's odd "foreign" English.

Now this:

Call that what you want. I call it dead wrong. If you are saying it, then I totally disagree with you. I don't draw the same conclusions, and I have no reason to believe that everything quoted was exactly right, or totally in context.

No. YOU said that. I didn't meant to imply that what is coming from you is garbage, but now I will say that. I think that's garbage, much the same garbage that I read in this forum trying to negate the accomplishments of ATGs.

You are quite all over the place. You say the comment was not about me but you're still accusing me of being dishonest. The original article was from an English website that was already translated, and those are not my words. They are his, except for the part about what people have said about Federer's era. Plenty of people in the tennis world have said it. How dense can anyone really be? Also, I read the interview on the Dutch website, yes I can understand Dutch, and the translation is pretty much spot on. So really I have to ask, what the hell are you talking about?

3lite · Jun 22, 2018

One thing remains clear:

When Tennis was at its peak, one man clearly stood at the top.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...is-the-best-tennis-player-of-all-time.603038/

Gary Duane · Jun 22, 2018

Justice Underworld said:
You are quite all over the place. You say the comment was not about me but you're still accusing me of being dishonest.

OK. Since you are so incredible thinned skinned, here we go.

I never accused you of anything. And I never said you are dishonest.

The original article was from an English website that was already translated, and those are not my words.

You gave the Dutch source. Give us the English source.

They are his, except for the part about what people have said about Federer's era.

You also cherry-picked. If you have the source, let people read the source.

Plenty of people in the tennis world have said it. How dense can anyone really be?

Dense equal not agreeing with your conclusions?

Also, I read the interview on the Dutch website, yes I can understand Dutch, and the translation is pretty much spot on. So really I have to ask, what the hell are you talking about?

I read several languages. I don't read Dutch. But I pointed out one sentence that sounds weird. That indicates to me that whoever did the translation does not speak English as his first language.

If this were German, French or Spanish I could pinpoint exactly what was mistranslated. Regardless, translation is a tricky business. Maybe you know whether Krajicek was speaking in English, and quoted in English, or speaking in Dutch, and translated into English.

I don't know.

Justice Underworld · Jun 22, 2018

Gary Duane said:
OK. Since you are so incredible thinned skinned, here we go.

I never accused you of anything. And I never said you are dishonest.

You gave the Dutch source. Give us the English source.

You also cherry-picked. If you have the source, let people read the source.

Dense equal not agreeing with your conclusions?

I read several languages. I don't read Dutch. But I pointed out one sentence that sounds weird. That indicates to me that whoever did the translation does not speak English as his first language.

If this were German, French or Spanish I could pinpoint exactly what was mistranslated. Regardless, translation is a tricky business. Maybe you know whether Krajicek was speaking in English, and quoted in English, or speaking in Dutch, and translated into English.

I don't know.

The mods banned the original source because someone complained but it was on tennisworldu$a. Go find it yourself. I copied and pasted the entire article and didn't cherry pick anything. You're not only dense but quite pretentious as well. The original interview was on a Dutch website and he was speaking in Dutch, which is obvious.

Gary Duane · Jun 22, 2018

Justice Underworld said:
Also, I read the interview on the Dutch website, yes I can understand Dutch, and the translation is pretty much spot on. So really I have to ask, what the hell are you talking about?

Let's start with your source:

'Spelers van zijn lichting als Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Davidenko en zijn huidige coach Iwan Ljubicic hadden niet de wapens om hem op de grandslamtoernooien pijn te doen.

Now, translation, either yours of someone esle's:

'What makes Federer special is that he played at the highest level for 16 years and achieved the record Grand Slam titles.

In English that should be: achieved the record FOR the most majors. I won't argue with "grand slam titles", but it's not the best.

The point is that when you give a source in another language, Dutch, and we are talking about a guy whose native language is Czech, and the English looks a little weird here and there, and there are omissions, the logical conclusion is that the guy who is all over the place is you.

Justice Underworld · Jun 22, 2018

Gary Duane said:
Let's start with your source:

Now, translation, either yours of someone esle's:

In English that should be: achieved the record FOR the most majors. I won't argue with "grand slam titles", but it's not the best.

The point is that when you give a source in another language, Dutch, and we are talking about a guy whose native language is Czech, and the English looks a little weird here and there, and there are omissions, the logical conclusion is that the guy who is all over the place is you.

A translation will have grammatical errors. I mean it's not that urgent or serious really. Krajicek's parents were Czech but he still speaks fluent Dutch. This is a waste of time and you need something else to focus on.

Gary Duane · Jun 22, 2018

Justice Underworld said:
The original interview was on a Dutch website and he was speaking in Dutch, which is obvious.

It's obvious how? And how is it obvious that you linked to a site that is not allowed here?

Do you believe everything you read?

I don't.

That doesn't make me pretentious. It makes me careful.

You have an agenda. You believe that Djokovic is a better player than Fed. You are attempting to use an article to PROVE that you are right, the idea being that Krajicek thinks this. Which may be true.

Or it may be typical clickbait, an opinion tossed off casually that gets picked up and repeated endlessly among people who already have the same opinion and want to stir up controversy.

My original comment was about the OP, the original post. Not about the poster. But since you've dug in and tried to make it personal, I've pointed out some problems, pretty politely too.

If you are fully fluent in both Dutch and English, you should be able to spot things in translation that are not quite right. What I viewed on the Dutch site translates pretty close to what you posted when stuck into Google Translate. That is usually a sign of sloppy work, because a lot of people are naively trusting online translators.

Let's be clear: Are you saying you gave a full translation of everything that is on the Dutch site?

Yes or no, please.

Gary Duane · Jun 22, 2018

Justice Underworld said:
A translation will have grammatical errors. I mean it's not that urgent or serious really. Krajicek's parents were Czech but he still speaks fluent Dutch. This is a waste of time and you need something else to focus on.

It's a waste of time because you decided you are right and everyone else is wrong.

No, not all translations have grammatical errors. When they do, it means that the person translating doesn't know what he's doing.

Druss · Jun 22, 2018

It seems like common knowledge that 2007-12 (2010 not so much) represented the strongest years in recent times. During that span all slams were won by a Big 4 member (w/ the exception of JMDP).

Nadal = 9
Federer = 8
Djokovic = 5
Murray = 1

Why are these years considered ‘strong’ one might ask?

What about when one of the Big 3, who are ATGs, win multiple slams outside of those years and crush all competition like in 2004-06/17 Fed, 2010/13/17 Nads, 2014-16 Djoko? Do they then automatically become non-ATGs and just somehow vultured slams?

Or is it simply because they are that good and make the competition look weak if not challenged consistently by another fellow ATG?

How many of Sampras’ 14 slams were won beating fellow ATGs in their prime?

Justice Underworld · Jun 22, 2018

Gary Duane said:
You have an agenda. You believe that Djokovic is a better player than Fed. You are attempting to use an article to PROVE that you are right, the idea being that Krajicek thinks this. Which may be true.

Or it may be typical clickbait, an opinion tossed off casually that gets picked up and repeated endlessly among people who already have the same opinion and want to stir up controversy.

Hahaha! So I think all of this but you can't find anywhere that I have posted anything like this. In fact, I didn't even focus on the Djokovic part of the article and made the comment about 2004 through 2008 the main topic. Krajicek may think this? Your constant delusional rants are beyond moronic and so is your thinking. Please go find a life or a hobby.

AceSalvo · Jun 22, 2018

So, Fred dominated 2017 and 2018 when he had no rivals??

Might as well just say that Fred had no rivals in his entire career.

Unrivaled!

Dolgopolov85 · Jun 22, 2018

Druss said:
It seems like common knowledge that 2007-12 (2010 not so much) represented the strongest years in recent times. During that span all slams were won by a Big 4 member (w/ the exception of JMDP).

Nadal = 9
Federer = 8
Djokovic = 5
Murray = 1

Why are these years considered ‘strong’ one might ask?

What about when one of the Big 3, who are ATGs, win multiple slams outside of those years and crush all competition like in 2004-06/17 Fed, 2010/13/17 Nads, 2014-16 Djoko? Do they then automatically become non-ATGs and just somehow vultured slams?

Or is it simply because they are that good and make the competition look weak if not challenged consistently by another fellow ATG?

How many of Sampras’ 14 slams were won beating fellow ATGs in their prime?

Relatively speaking, those other years are not as strong as 2007-12 because they didn't have at least two of these ATGs playing well in tandem AND challenging each other at the slams. OK, Fed always got to Nadal at RG but 2007 was the first year that Nadal came close to beating Fed at Wimbledon. 2008, no explanation needed. 09 was patchy, 10 weaker still. 11 to 13 were the strongest years and 2012 was the apex of the Big Four. But 13 to 16 were still moderately strong coming up to AO 2017 which was a legit strong slam in spite of Djokovic and Murray's early defeats because both Fed and Dal came through tough semis and had to play each other in the final. It is after AO 2017 that a new weak era has dawned where, once again, Fed and Nadal aren't getting to each other. So they almost coast through to their slams, with maybe one or two tough matches along the way (not even that at RG/W 17). In that sense, this phase is weaker than 2005-07 when Fed was at least making Nadal work for the RG title and Nadal too was gradually rising to the challenge at Wimbledon. AO is still ok because its conditions seem to suit most players and they are also fresher being the first slam of the year. By USO it becomes a ****fest. It's a shame that the once more prestigious latter half of the slam calendar (W/USO) has become rather soporific. Is it a coincidence that this has happened along side Brexit/Trump?

The last classic Wimbledon final was 2014 and last great one was 2015. Last great USO final, 2013 and classic, maybe 2012. I mean, it went to 5 sets but the tennis wasn't that entertaining (compared to W 2014). And neither of these W and USO matches were as amazing as AO 2012/2017 and maybe barely as good as AO 2018.

Deleted member 757377 · Jun 22, 2018

WI03-UO07: 12 slams won out of 17 (70.6%)
AO08-UO16: 5 slams won out of 36 (13.9%)
AO17-RG18: 3 slams won out of 6 (50%)

Deleted member 757377 · Jun 22, 2018

Sabratha said:
5'11 and everyone at the time talked about how he had more weapons in his arsenal than Chang.

5'10''

Shortest 2 slam winner since 1982.

Druss · Jun 22, 2018

Lew said:
WI03-UO07: 12 slams won out of 17 (70.6%)
AO08-UO16: 5 slams won out of 36 (13.9%)
AO17-RG18: 3 slams won out of 6 (50%)

Djokovic W16-W18 zero slams won out of 8! Must be strong era then?

Deleted member 757377 · Jun 22, 2018

Druss said:
Djokovic W16-W18 zero slams won out of 8! Must be strong era then?

2017-18 is not regarded as strong era, while 2008-16 is.

Djokovic isn't making multiple finals/semis and hasn't started dominating again.

Gary Duane · Jun 22, 2018

Justice Underworld said:
The full interview can be found here and here are some excerpts from the interview translated for those who don't understand any Dutch.

Let's look at your "translation":

Government period II: 2009
For four years Federer hardly had any competition, according to tournament director Richard Krajicek. 'Nadal was then a pure engraver who could not threaten Federer on other surfaces. It was a transition period. Roger also played against the stars of the previous generation as Agassi and the two-year-old Safin.

Now let's look at the Dutch I plugged into Google translate, from the Dutch site:

For four years Federer hardly had any competition, according to tournament director Richard Krajicek. 'Nadal was then a pure engraver who could not threaten Federer on other surfaces. It was a transition period. Roger also played against the stars of the previous generation as Agassi and the two-year-old Safin.

Note the the Google Translate version is identical to yours.

I'm going to guess that "gravelspeler" refers to someone who is primarily a claycourt player.

I'm going to guess that "twee jaar oudere" is two years older, not two years old.

And I'm going to guess that "als" means such as or like.

The point is not that there are mistakes.

The point is that your "translation" is something you dumped into a program any of us could of used with the idea that you are telling us things we can't figure out for ourselves because "you know Dutch".

If you are sincere, and if you actually do know Dutch, you could have taken a few minutes to fix the things that obviously are wrong. Since you did not, I don't trust your information. Nor should anyone else.

RS · Jun 23, 2018

Lew said:
2017-18 is not regarded as strong era, while 2008-16 is.

Djokovic isn't making multiple finals/semis and hasn't started dominating again.

I would say 2007-2013
2014-15 was strong but not as strong
I would throw in 2007 and leave 2016 out.

Rafa24 · Jun 23, 2018

Lew said:
- slam finals/semis/quarterfinals
- olympic finals/semis/bronze
- yec finals/semis
- masters finals

against other big4:

nadal 39-27 (59.1%)
djokovic 41-33 (55.4%)
federer 26-35 (42.6%)
murray 16-27 (37.2%)

NADAL the one true goat.

Justice Underworld · Jun 23, 2018

Gary Duane said:
Let's look at your "translation":

Now let's look at the Dutch I plugged into Google translate, from the Dutch site:

Note the the Google Translate version is identical to yours.

I'm going to guess that "gravelspeler" refers to someone who is primarily a claycourt player.

I'm going to guess that "twee jaar oudere" is two years older, not two years old.

And I'm going to guess that "als" means such as or like.

The point is not that there are mistakes.

The point is that your "translation" is something you dumped into a program any of us could of used with the idea that you are telling us things we can't figure out for ourselves because "you know Dutch".

If you are sincere, and if you actually do know Dutch, you could have taken a few minutes to fix the things that obviously are wrong. Since you did not, I don't trust your information. Nor should anyone else.

Why are you still going on and on about this? How annoying can anyone be? Of course it's Google Translate Einstein since all it took was one click of a button and copy and paste. Also, of course there are errors which everyone here knows but you are the only pretentious dullard who is making a big deal about them. You have accused me of trying to say Djokovic is better than Federer (when that is nowhere in this thread), accused me of cherry picking when the original source is the entire article and are so full of yourself that you think I owe it to you to correct every misplaced word created by Google Translate. Please take your moronic drivel to someone who actually cares because my patience with you has officially worn out. Do not ever reply to me in any thread on this site ever again because I won't see it, since you are now the first person on my blocked list.

Deleted member 757377 · Jun 23, 2018

Rafa24 said:
NADAL the one true goat.

Mostly on clay though.

Gary Duane · Jun 23, 2018

Justice Underworld said:
Why are you still going on and on about this? How annoying can anyone be? Of course it's Google Translate Einstein since all it took was one click of a button and copy and paste. Also, of course there are errors which everyone here knows but you are the only pretentious dullard who is making a big deal about them. You have accused me of trying to say Djokovic is better than Federer (when that is nowhere in this thread), accused me of cherry picking when the original source is the entire article and are so full of yourself that you think I owe it to you to correct every misplaced word created by Google Translate. Please take your moronic drivel to someone who actually cares because my patience with you has officially worn out. Do not ever reply to me in any thread on this site ever again because I won't see it, since you are now the first person on my blocked list.

To everyone else. I feel honored to be on this guy's blocked list.

An honest person translating something from another language, using only Google Translate, tells us what he's doing. It's also laughable that someone who has been argumentative from the start - considering that I only initially had criticism about the text, not the poster - says his "patience has worn out".

I also doubt he will let this go, since he obviously wants to have the final word!

Dolgopolov85 · Jun 23, 2018

Justice Underworld said:
Why are you still going on and on about this? How annoying can anyone be? Of course it's Google Translate Einstein since all it took was one click of a button and copy and paste. Also, of course there are errors which everyone here knows but you are the only pretentious dullard who is making a big deal about them. You have accused me of trying to say Djokovic is better than Federer (when that is nowhere in this thread), accused me of cherry picking when the original source is the entire article and are so full of yourself that you think I owe it to you to correct every misplaced word created by Google Translate. Please take your moronic drivel to someone who actually cares because my patience with you has officially worn out. Do not ever reply to me in any thread on this site ever again because I won't see it, since you are now the first person on my blocked list.

The point is you do not pass off Google translate as an official or reliable translation.

KINGROGER · Jun 23, 2018

Lew said:
2017-18 is not regarded as strong era, while 2008-16 is.

Djokovic isn't making multiple finals/semis and hasn't started dominating again.

In what universe is 2014-2016 considered a strong era? Nadal fell off the map after RG 14 so Djokovic had literally 0 prime ATG competition.

Tennis_Hands · Jun 23, 2018

Lew said:
WI03-UO07: 12 slams won out of 17 (70.6%)
AO08-UO16: 5 slams won out of 36 (13.9%)
AO17-RG18: 3 slams won out of 6 (50%)

You crack me up, mate.

You really do!

Art Vandelay · Jun 23, 2018

I'm Dutch and if this is actually what Krajicek said, then the Google translation is surprisingly accurate.

Excerpt from the original Dutch article (https://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/wed...d-op-historische-avond-in-rotterdam~b456042d/):

Original Dutch:
Krajicek beseft als geen ander dat het record van Federer het toernooi in Rotterdam een meerwaarde gaf. Je zou zeggen, discussie gesloten. Federer is nu zeker de beste tennisser aller tijden. Maar bij Krajicek is Djokovic nummer 1. 'Wat Federer speciaal maakt is dat hij al zestien jaar op topniveau presteert en een recordaantal grandslamtitels heeft veroverd.

'Hij is ook de mooiste tennisser om naar te kijken. Maar zet Federer en Djokovic tegenover elkaar en Novak wint de meeste partijen. Ik vind hem nog completer. Djokovic had in 2016 alle grandslamtitels in zijn bezit, dat is Federer nog nooit gelukt. En Roger kon nu ook eerste worden, omdat zijn naaste concurrenten geblesseerd zijn.'

My translation would be:
Krajicek realises as no other that Federer's record gave the tournament in Rotterdam extra shine. One could say, case closed. Federer is now certainly the best tennis player of all time. But for Krajicek, Djokovic is his number 1.

"What makes Federer special is the fact that he's been able to perform at such a high level for 16 years and attained the most grandslam titles. He is also the most beautiful tennis player to watch. But put Djokovic and Federer against eachother and Novak wins most matches. I feel he is even more complete. Djokovic held all grand slam titles in 2016, something Federer never managed to achieve. Also, Federer was able to regain no.1 now, because his closest rivals are injured."

I definitely don't agree with Krajicek, but he's entitled to his opinion. I also agree that just running something through Google Translate can't be considered a credible source. But as I pointed out, atleast above excerpt, actually is surprisingly accurate.

Dolgopolov85 · Jun 23, 2018

Art Vandelay said:
I'm Dutch and if this is actually what Krajicek said, then the Google translation is surprisingly accurate.

Excerpt from the original Dutch article (https://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/wed...d-op-historische-avond-in-rotterdam~b456042d/):

Original Dutch:
Krajicek beseft als geen ander dat het record van Federer het toernooi in Rotterdam een meerwaarde gaf. Je zou zeggen, discussie gesloten. Federer is nu zeker de beste tennisser aller tijden. Maar bij Krajicek is Djokovic nummer 1. 'Wat Federer speciaal maakt is dat hij al zestien jaar op topniveau presteert en een recordaantal grandslamtitels heeft veroverd.

'Hij is ook de mooiste tennisser om naar te kijken. Maar zet Federer en Djokovic tegenover elkaar en Novak wint de meeste partijen. Ik vind hem nog completer. Djokovic had in 2016 alle grandslamtitels in zijn bezit, dat is Federer nog nooit gelukt. En Roger kon nu ook eerste worden, omdat zijn naaste concurrenten geblesseerd zijn.'

My translation would be:
Krajicek realises as no other that Federer's record gave the tournament in Rotterdam extra shine. One could say, case closed. Federer is now certainly the best tennis player of all time. But for Krajicek, Djokovic is his number 1.

"What makes Federer special is the fact that he's been able to perform at such a high level for 16 years and attained the most grandslam titles. He is also the most beautiful tennis player to watch. But put Djokovic and Federer against eachother and Novak wins most matches. I feel he is even more complete. Djokovic held all grand slam titles in 2016, something Federer never managed to achieve. Also, Federer was able to regain no.1 now, because his closest rivals are injured."

I definitely don't agree with Krajicek, but he's entitled to his opinion. I also agree that just running something through Google Translate can't be considered a credible source. But as I pointed out, atleast above excerpt, actually is surprisingly accurate.

Fair enough if that's what he said and I do vehemently disagree with him. I don't think Djokovic wins most matches against Fed because, duh, he didn't. And they got enough matches before Djokovic's prime and after Fed's in turn (rather more of the latter) to balance the head to head. Also blatantly false that Fed got to no.1 because of injuries to rivals; Nadal wasn't/isn't injured. But on the point of Nole getting the NCYGS, no arguments and it's definitely an amazing achievement he has which Fedal don't.

oldmanfan · Jun 23, 2018

Art Vandelay said:
I'm Dutch and if this is actually what Krajicek said, then the Google translation is surprisingly accurate.

Excerpt from the original Dutch article (https://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/wed...d-op-historische-avond-in-rotterdam~b456042d/):

Original Dutch:
Krajicek beseft als geen ander dat het record van Federer het toernooi in Rotterdam een meerwaarde gaf. Je zou zeggen, discussie gesloten. Federer is nu zeker de beste tennisser aller tijden. Maar bij Krajicek is Djokovic nummer 1. 'Wat Federer speciaal maakt is dat hij al zestien jaar op topniveau presteert en een recordaantal grandslamtitels heeft veroverd.

'Hij is ook de mooiste tennisser om naar te kijken. Maar zet Federer en Djokovic tegenover elkaar en Novak wint de meeste partijen. Ik vind hem nog completer. Djokovic had in 2016 alle grandslamtitels in zijn bezit, dat is Federer nog nooit gelukt. En Roger kon nu ook eerste worden, omdat zijn naaste concurrenten geblesseerd zijn.'

My translation would be:
Krajicek realises as no other that Federer's record gave the tournament in Rotterdam extra shine. One could say, case closed. Federer is now certainly the best tennis player of all time. But for Krajicek, Djokovic is his number 1.

"What makes Federer special is the fact that he's been able to perform at such a high level for 16 years and attained the most grandslam titles. He is also the most beautiful tennis player to watch. But put Djokovic and Federer against eachother and Novak wins most matches. I feel he is even more complete. Djokovic held all grand slam titles in 2016, something Federer never managed to achieve. Also, Federer was able to regain no.1 now, because his closest rivals are injured."

I definitely don't agree with Krajicek, but he's entitled to his opinion. I also agree that just running something through Google Translate can't be considered a credible source. But as I pointed out, atleast above excerpt, actually is surprisingly accurate.

Thx for your version of this!

All this hubbub about Krajicek's 'opinion'. If this is truly what he thinks, then he's just a stan like any of us, and we shouldn't give his words more weight than any of ours. Also, by his logic, if all of Fedalovicray retires today, and Alexander Zverev wins 5 slams in a row, I guess Zverev would be Krajicek's #1, and as a result, Zverev > all of Fedalovicray (right @paranoidandroid?). Who cares if Zverev had no ATGs to challenge him in this stretch.

In regards to Djokovic holding all 4 slams (it's true) being the reason why Krajicek ranks Djokovic above Federer, well, it's his opinion, and it's fine. But I'm sure he'd considered that Djokovic didn't face Nadal for his RG16 win, the 'same' way Federer 'didn't' face Nadal at RG in his 2 best chances to hold 4-in-a-row in 2006 & 2007! oh wait...

Yes, Djokovic could've beaten Nadal at RG16 had Nadal not been injured and meets him there. But that didn't happen, just as in 2006/2007, Fed could've won the CYGS 2x if no Nadal at RG06/RG07 (unlike Djokovic's RG16), but that ALSO didn't happen. All 3 situations are hypotheticals, but none are realities. They are also 'different', so cannot be said to be the same, as Mr. Krajicek is insinuating (if those are his words).

The situation leading to Djokovic holding 4-slams (includes 2 fading ATGs in Fedal), and Federer holding 'only' 3-slams (2x!) are apples and oranges Mr. Krajicek.

Krajicek: Federer dominated in 2004 to 2008 when he had no rivals

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 757377

Guest

Deleted member 757377

Guest

Hall of Fame

Deleted member 757377

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Deleted member 757377

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

New User

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Similar threads