tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
What if Djokovic and Murray were 31 and Federer was 25? Ever thought that might just make a difference in the end?
Let's disspel the myth that Federer thrived against a "weak field"
- Thread starter Jamin2112
- Start date
What if Djokovic and Murray were 31 and Federer was 25? Ever thought that might just make a difference in the end?
How crappy was Sampras, then? The SECOND Safin and Hewitt arrived on tour, they beat him in grand slam finals. Pretty embarrassing.
Federer also beat him at Wimbledon while he was four-time defending champion. Talk about being unable to adapt to the new generation. Instead, he just hung up his racquet.
ramos77
Semi-Pro
Please don't use logic in this thread! :shock:
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
We'll have to see about those Roger/Novak numbers later this year. Most of the matches where Novak beat Roger in the past 2 years have been close. It is conceivable that some to come can go the other way. Novak has not been quite as dominant as he was in 2011. Roger actually has a better overall record since the last US Open than Novak -- Roger has more match wins and only 4 losses, I believe. (I think that Rafa's record is also a bit better than Novak of late).
Yes, Murray has a 1 match lead over Federer. However, most of those wins by Andy came in 2008 and early 2009. In their last 7 meetings, Roger has a 5-2 lead.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Of course it doesn't. That why I think everybody will agree that Hewitt and Safin are better players than Sampras, especially with Sampras peaking at 30, according to our great tennis philosopher (aka TDK). :roll:
Swissv2
Hall of Fame
There is another way to look at this issue. Federer is much older and has lost speed, endurance, and a bit of his "aura" (where people would be intimidated to play him even before they went on court). But...he is still staying very strong in the top 3 in the world after all these years, regularly beating anyone ranked 4 and above. If he truly was a "has-been" that only can thrive in a "weak-era" then he would have fallen hard to a ranking of top 20 like all the rest of the top 10 players in his era.
Here's the facts: the TT forums is filled with posts that are 10% logical and 90% emotional by individuals who would prefer to be on a bandwagon and trash any other player then their favorite player.
Here's the facts: the TT forums is filled with posts that are 10% logical and 90% emotional by individuals who would prefer to be on a bandwagon and trash any other player then their favorite player.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
^ Excellent point. Roger is a strong #3, very close to #2, even tho he is past his prime. He has got great staying power. Everyone else that was in the top 10 when he rose to the top has dropped off (Roddick was the last of the old top 10 from 7-10 yrs ago).
It is so funny. It is the fourth or fifth time I see this (basically every generation).
And we will see it again with Nadal and Djokovic in five years.
Some ******** people think that the current top-2 players are the best players ever and the cycle repeats on and on and on every generation.
First of all: Federer is one of the best players ever.
Second: Federer's prime was better (and lasted longer) than Nadal's or Djokovic's.
Third: in the last 30 years only Connors, Lendl, Agassi and Federer have been top-3 Year End in their 30s.
Let us wait and see where are Nadal and Djokovic in five years in the rankings.
And we will see it again with Nadal and Djokovic in five years.
Some ******** people think that the current top-2 players are the best players ever and the cycle repeats on and on and on every generation.
First of all: Federer is one of the best players ever.
Second: Federer's prime was better (and lasted longer) than Nadal's or Djokovic's.
Third: in the last 30 years only Connors, Lendl, Agassi and Federer have been top-3 Year End in their 30s.
Let us wait and see where are Nadal and Djokovic in five years in the rankings.
How crappy was Sampras, then? The SECOND Safin and Hewitt arrived on tour, they beat him in grand slam finals. Pretty embarrassing.
Federer also beat him at Wimbledon while he was four-time defending champion. Talk about being unable to adapt to the new generation. Instead, he just hung up his racquet.
Sampras was so crappy that he could not win RG
10is
Professional
LOL! I like you suresh! You employ subtlety, intelligence and veneer of humor in your non-malignant trolling shenanigans.
Pretty much.. though the Aussie open has become very slow. 2006 Fed would still make all 4 finals now and win 2 or 3 slams / year.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Lets be real here. Hardly any of those players were ever big threats to Federer. Philippoussis was destroyed by 2003 Federer in the Wimbledon final, it would have only gotten worse from there. Coria was only a threat on clay, and Federer was even 2-0 vs 04/05 Coria there. Haas has not beaten Federer since January 2002 where at his career peak he beat a weakish Federer in 5 sets after saving a match point for his last ever win. Ferrero is not a contender off clay, and Federer was winning their clay meeting in 2003 before retirement too. Gaudio, Robredo, ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only legit threats of that list are Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, and Kuerten. Federer owned even prime Safin from 2001-2005 though. Same goes for Roddick. Nalbandian's prime was 2003-2007, just like Federer's, and he remained the same the entire time, often overweight, often uncommited, inconsistent, but still dangerous. Nothing ever changed, until he started his real decline in 2008 at the same time Federer started his, and when was he better, 2002 due to his fluke Wimbledon final? Please.
lendledbergfan
Rookie
When has Nadal EVER had trouble against Federer? If I remember correctly, he has a winning record against Fed from day1
lendledbergfan
Rookie
When has Nadal EVER had trouble against Federer? If I remember correctly, he has a winning record against Fed from day1
Oh, by the way, even though I am a notion that 2004-2007 was a relatively weak era, I do think Fed has legitimately earned the GOAT title, simply 'coz he is still #3 at 30+ years old, raking up titles after titles at every level except GS (and even then, consistently reaching semis/finals).
The Dark Knight
Legend
Nah.....the rest of the field is still pretty weak.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
Nah, it's only your (highly unbacked and uneducated) opinion.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Murray.....
But the point is Fed did notbhave Nadal and Joker around in the form they are now.
In nadals first Wimbledon final for example he was known as a clay court specialist.....everyone was shocked that he made it to the finals and said the field was so weak that Nadal could make it there.
Nole was not the player he is today either....the "pre-gluten" era .
.For much of Feds career he had virtually no competition.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
When has Nadal EVER had trouble against Federer? If I remember correctly, he has a winning record against Fed from day1
Yep. A 16 year old Nadal Whooping Fed in his absolute prime was a gem. :lol:
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
Murray.....
But the point is Fed did notbhave Nadal and Joker around in the form they are now.
In nadals first Wimbledon final for example he was known as a clay court specialist.....everyone was shocked that he made it to the finals and said the field was so weak that Nadal could make it there.
Nole was not the player he is today either....the "pre-gluten" era .
For much of Feds career he had virtually no competition.
Murray who has still not won a slam in only three tries. Is that your best shot?
Fact: Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, Safin, Agassi, Nadal, Gaudio were are in contention for slams when Federer was in his prime and they were all slam winners themselves.
We may as well discount every single slam winner before Djokovic and Nadal arrived since they didn't have to deal with him. That's the ridiculous logic you are using.
Unlike you, we use facts. You use your opinions and try to present them as facts when in actuality, they're not even commonly shared opinions.
ramos77
Semi-Pro
Murray.....
But the point is Fed did notbhave Nadal and Joker around in the form they are now.
In nadals first Wimbledon final for example he was known as a clay court specialist.....everyone was shocked that he made it to the finals and said the field was so weak that Nadal could make it there.
Nole was not the player he is today either....the "pre-gluten" era .
For much of Feds career he had virtually no competition.
Murray is the ultimate choker, he wont win anything while Nole/Nadal and Fed are around. Scots are mentally weak in sport IMO (no offence to any scots here, you're good people)
You say Federer didn't have Nadal and Novak around, the same can be said about the opposite. Neither of them had to contend with Fed during his peak either.
It's a silly argument anyway. Wait and see what Nadal and Novak will be doing at Federer's age now. They will most likely already be playing on the masters circuit because their bodies will give up on them.
The Safin's/Hewitt's of Fed's error are better players than the Murray/Tsonga/Berdich's of this era.
There were periods where, in my subjective opinion, Federer really wasn't playing very well at all, and was still winning almost by default. For 3-4 tournaments leading up to his defeat by Murray in 2006 for example I remember thinking he was playing pretty badly. I think if all those guys were still around he would have been beaten when he wasn't at his best.
Of course, Federer is still better than all those guys (hence 3 slams in 2004 and and 2 in 2005), but I definitely don't think he would have won 3 slams in 2009 for example if he had competition, or 2007 possibly. And on clay if Coria and Gaudio and Kuerten were still around I don't think he would have gotten to all all those RG finals.
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
First of all you can't say something really offensive and then simply take it away by saying "no offense ". You can't say "your mother is an idiot....no offense". What you said about the Scots was really horrible.
The silly argument is that Murray won't make it because he is a Scott. How do I even debate with you?
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
The same can be said about Nadal and Roland Garros. A lot of Nadal fans maintain that Nadal wasn't playing well last year, but he still won it. Nadal has won RG while not playing well and has not encountered very much trouble racking up titles there. Going by what you say, Nadal faced a weak era on clay starting from 2005 and it continues on to today.
abmk
Bionic Poster
firstly, he won 2 slams in 2009
secondly, he won both of his CC matches vs coria and both of his CC matches vs gaudio in the 2003-05 period (their peaks)
thirdly, in 2007, he faced an on-fire gonzo in the AO finals and straight-setted him ...no one was beating fed in that form
he faced nadal playing his best tennis in wimbledon
he faced roddick playing his best tennis in USO and an on-fire djokovic
if that's weak competition, all I can say is LOL !!
you fail as usual ...
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
......on clay (corrected for accuracy).When has Nadal EVER had trouble against Federer? If I remember correctly, he has a winning record against Fed from day1
He also was the #2 ranked player in the world during virtually that entire span.
Still, as I said earlier, I think they have both played against a shallow field. Of course, I thill think Fed is the most graceful player I have ever seen.
Last edited:
ok but he still played the worst tennis of his career in my opinion and only won because Djokovic and Murray who had been beating him like a drum all year suddenly seemed to choke for the whole slam season, and more importantly because Nadal was either injured or taking time off because of his parents divorce depending on who you believe.
And Nadal used to beat Djokovic like a drum so I don't really care that Federer has a 2-0 record against Coria, and I don't think he played GAudio on clay in 2005. Before 2005 Gaudio was a journeyman. He fluked that RG in 2004 and in 2005 he suddenly played incredibly, going 42-8 or something on clay, bagelling Nadal etc.
Yeah the end of 2006 up to that Australian is his best tennis ever in my opinion, but he was terrible by his standards) the rest of the year. Losses to Canas and Volandri and losses to Djokovic and Murray.
I strongly disagree. Nadal shouldn't have even played that final! Nadal didn't play a top 50 player till Youzhny in the QF, Youzhny was destroying Nadal and then injured his back, then Djokovic was up a set in th semi final and retired.
He played pusher Roddick, and a Djokovic who, apart from that great match in Montreal, was years off his best.
It is incredibly weak competition. And actually it's really unfortunate for him because he would still have achieved incredible things, maybe not quite what he has achieved but pretty close. Probably 12-14 slams instead of 16 (I think Federer still has more slams left in him). Ultimately Federer wasn't able to prove himself against top opposition which is pretty unfortunate for him as a champion and for us as viewers.
Last edited:
From the baseline he was, that cross-court- approach shot/net rushing game was never going to cut it with his terrible pusher volleys. Seriously, have you ever seen someone hit softer volleys than Roddick?
abmk
Bionic Poster
2008 was easily his worst year from 2003-2009... footwork and forehand was all over the place for majority of the year and yet in 2008 he beat both murray and djoker at the USO ...
so murray losing 2-5,5-7,2-6 in USO 2008 final is beating federer like a drum ? LOL !! in 2009, murray/djoker beat a lackluster federer in the non slam events, but when federer turned it up a notch in cincy, they were no match for him ( djoker had just destroyed nadal in the semis , mind you ) ..
and beat djoker at the USO ...
in RG 2009, he faced an absolutely monstrous hitting delpo in the SF ( & soderling in the finals, although soderling wasn't playing that well as he did in R4 and QF ) and in 2009 wimbledon, he faced roddick playing arguably his best grass court tennis , and a slew of big serving guys before that - soderling, karlovic and haas ( yes, he was serving real big )
and as mentioned above, of course he beat djoker who was playing well in the USO semis and on-fire soderling in the QFs... only lost to an on-fire delpo ( and delpo needed help from fed in that one )
nadal always had problems with djoker on HC ...
you don't care that fed has a 2-0 record vs coria on clay smack in the middle of his prime ? LOL ..... then why bother stating coria as that big a threat to federer on clay ???? that's one of the most insane pieces of reasoning I've seen ..
not in the slams , in the smaller events, he regressed ..
I was referring to his level of play in the final only , not before that...he played his very best in the finals ...
pusher roddick in USO 2007 ??? are you crazy ? wait, that was rhetorical ..
did you even watch that USO match ? roddick was hitting the cr*p out of the ball.
Here, some highlights from the match:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7D3iQxlUo
you can get the full match yourself ...
djoker was playing very well in that USO ..
Last edited:
I thought 2009 was way worse. Couldn't hit his backhand in the court.
Delpo is Federer's pigeon in slams apart from that one great win. We've seen it at multiple AO including this years. Soderling really choked in that final, it was very disappointing. His consistency disappeared. Djokovic wasn't that good back then.
I thought that Roddick/Federer 2009 Wimbledon was the worst Wimbledon final I had seen in a long long time, I even made a thread about it:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=272489
Haas coming back from injuries as always, Karlovic has a 48% record in tie breaks.
Djoker wasn't playing well, Federer did play well against Del Potro and Soderling though.
I'd say the opposite. Murray really could have won a slam that year.
pusher roddick ??? are you crazy ? wait, that was rhetorical ..
did you even watch that USO match ? roddick was hitting the cr*p out of the ball.
djoker was playing very well in that USO ..
oh I thought you meant 2006 final, not their 2007 match. Problem was Roddick was hitting the ball hard, but he didn't have Gilbert so he wasn't constructing points, he played mindless ball bashing tennis.
Disagree that Djokovic played well.
Murrayfan31
Hall of Fame
Federer won against a weak field. Nothing wrong with that.
abmk
Bionic Poster
LOL,LOL and LOL ..... movement, serve and forehand were there ... that's what mattered much more than BH ... in 2008, he was only hanging in by his serve for so much of the year ...
LOL, you don't watch much, do you ?
delpo played very well in that FO semi, better than the USO final by some distance in fact ... just that fed's determination was more in the FO semi-final
soderling didn't play his best in that final, but it wasn't a choke at all , just a nervous start... How can you choke when the opponent ( in this case federer ) hits 4 aces on 4 serves in the TB ? fed took all the time away from him by taking it early on the rise and plain outhit him ..
what a joke .. that was a pretty good final ... 2005 and 2002 finals were much worse ...
fed broke karlovic twice, that match had only one TB IIRC ...karlovic wasn't broken even once that grass season before ...
haas was playing some real good tennis in that stretch ... pushed fed to 5 at RG ( was helped by fed's errors no doubt, but haas still played some smart tennis ), then won halle beating djoker and then again beat djoker in the QF ... easily his best wimbledon and was playing real well ...
again, go and actually watch his matches in that time-frame ..
and of course soderling was fresh off from a great RG ...
fed played very well vs soderling ..... not so vs delpo ... his serve in particular was pathetic
djoker was playing very well in that semi vs federer ... go watch that match ...
I was talking about federer in slams vs non-slams in 2007 there ...
I was very clearly mentioning 2007 ... roddick didn't face a single BP vs his nemesis , federer , who himself was playing well in the first 2 sets , that should tell you how well he was playing ... he wasn't playing mindless tennis at all ... just that federer edged him out on the crucial points in the breakers ..
djoker of course was playing real well that summer HC season .....
Last edited:
Well look:
In my opinion Federer played his worst tennis in 2009, he had a bunch of losses to Djokovic and Murray where was hitting 20 unforced errors off his backhand a match.
I think Djokovic choked in that 2007 final, and that was the consensus of the posters in my thread from after the match:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=156365
I thought the Federer Del Potro match was great and Del Potro put in the performance of his life. Really enjoyable tournament, great matches with Soderling and Del Potro in a year where Federer played terribly.
Actually it's ironic that it was the slam that Federer played great in that he lost in 2009.
And yeah Roddick was playing mindless tennis, that's why he didn't beat an out of form Federer in 2007 when Roddick himself in terms of pure ball striking was playing fantastic. If he had Gilbert's point construction he would definitely have won.
And the "go watch some matches from that time frame" comment is weird. I talked about them on this forum after watching them for goodness sake!
In my opinion Federer played his worst tennis in 2009, he had a bunch of losses to Djokovic and Murray where was hitting 20 unforced errors off his backhand a match.
I think Djokovic choked in that 2007 final, and that was the consensus of the posters in my thread from after the match:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=156365
I thought the Federer Del Potro match was great and Del Potro put in the performance of his life. Really enjoyable tournament, great matches with Soderling and Del Potro in a year where Federer played terribly.
Actually it's ironic that it was the slam that Federer played great in that he lost in 2009.
And yeah Roddick was playing mindless tennis, that's why he didn't beat an out of form Federer in 2007 when Roddick himself in terms of pure ball striking was playing fantastic. If he had Gilbert's point construction he would definitely have won.
And the "go watch some matches from that time frame" comment is weird. I talked about them on this forum after watching them for goodness sake!
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, those losses were in the period till about madrid 2009 ( when he had health problems and he couldn't serve well) , I was referring to the period after that ..from madrid to USO 2009 .... he thrashed both djoker and murray in cincy and beat djoker convincingly at the USO ...
in 2008, he was losing to stepanek, roddick, blake, karlovic, simon ( twice ) etc etc ... and got ripped by rafa in the 2008 RG final , playing craptastic tennis ( granted rafa was perfect, but no ways does fed lose 1,3,0 to anyone on any surface unless he plays absolute sh*t )
the first set was a choke, no doubt, but that's it... still djoker played well
both, fed and delpo had a negative winner to UE ratio and fed's serve % was only around 50 ... delpo did play well after a set and half ... fed-roddick in wimbledon was a better match ...
till the finals, fed did play great in the USO ... certainly better than the FO, but not better than wimbledon ...
jeez, that's the dumbest post I've read from you and that's saying something ... federer played brilliantly in that match vs roddick ..... out of form ????? LOL !!!!!!!
roddick's coach was connors at that time, you know, one of the smartest players ever ..... bah !!
give me 5-10 points of mindless tennis from roddick in that match .....
then , you have zero or near zero idea of how to analyze a tennis match ...
abmk
Bionic Poster
btw here are some of the reports from after that USO match in 2007 , including interview from roddick himself ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/sports/tennis/06federer.html
http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2007-09-05/m.phphttp://
http://voices.yahoo.com/roger-federer-frustrates-andy-roddicks-best-efforts-532294.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/sports/tennis/06federer.html
http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2007-09-05/m.phphttp://
http://voices.yahoo.com/roger-federer-frustrates-andy-roddicks-best-efforts-532294.html
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Don't know about Federer but as sure as hell Stubbs ain't winning s***.
10is
Professional
Considering I don't even have a remote idea who this Stubbs character is its obvious she's trying to "get her name out" by delberately fanning the flames of controversy.
Who cares what reporters say? We actually watch tennis, we know more about tennis than 95% of reporters.
Roddick doesn't have a clue when it comes to the strategic side of tennis.
Steffi-forever
Hall of Fame
She has won 6 Grand Slams double titles and around 60 titles overall I think.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I don't know about we, but you sure as hell don't ...
when someone says federer was out of form in that match vs roddick in USO 2007 , I have to say he/she is outright clueless about that match ....
yeah, right .... even with connors , considered as one of smartest players of all time ..
still waiting for 5-10 points of dumb shots from roddick in that USO QF ...
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Did you guys hear what Stubbs had to say about Nole vs Rafa? That was hilarious.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Waaaaaaaaaat?
Connors couldn't make Roddick play the way he wanted him to. Under Gilbert Roddick was paying 1-2 tennis, in that match he was playing more like James Blake. There was no point construction, he was just hitting the ball as hard as he could into space.
IvanisevicServe
Banned
He only played 1 tournament after Wimbledon (possibly the greatest tournament he played of his career) before that loss to Murray in Cincinnati 2006...Toronto. And he was a bit patchy in that one, sure, but he still pulled it out.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
You're absolutely right.
Federer did not play that well for much of 2009, its just that Nadal, Nole, and others played even worse (or not at all) for various reasons overall.
Federer's hardcourt slam performances were at least good, particularly in Australia; although he did not serve his best in the USO final...
bjsnider
Hall of Fame
Before I get into this, I want to address one thing from the first post:
That is irrelevant. We are not comparing the eras relative to each other, as in 'the players from such-and-such era would beat the players from an earlier era', we are comparing players within each era, as in 'so-and-so would beat his contemporaries'. Doing the former would be impossible, because tennis is always changing. Techniques in training, new equipment, changes in playing surfaces, the additional money leading to more players being trained for the sport, etc. make it totally impossible, and criminally unfair, to compare the eras to each other. It is also irrelevant because Federer and his contemporaries were trained in the same era and had the same advantages and disadvantages. It's therefore not more impressive that Federer beat his contemporaries because they were somehow better than earlier tennis players, since Federer also benefitted from those improvements in the training process.
Anyway, here's how I see it.
Tennis Channel's top 100 players features 3 of Federer's contemporaries (within approximately 3 years of Federer's age either way). They are Hewitt at #61, Safin at #80, and Roddick at #94. Federer is obviously at the top of the list.
Lendl was the #1 player through the latter half of the 1980s and Sampras was the dominant player in the 90s.
Lendl's contemporaries: McEnroe at #13, Yannick Noah at #85. Looking at Lendl, he started dominating at a relatively late age, 25, and a new generation came along, including Pat Cash, Mats Wilander, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg et al. All of whom appear on the top 100, and all of whom won majors while Lendl was the #1 player. With the advent of the younger players combined with McEnroe, Lendl faced very tough competition.
Sampras's contemporaries: Agassi at #12, Courier at #42, Rafter at #70, Kafelnikov at #82, Muster at #95, and Chang at #100. Not to mention players who won majors while Sampras was at his best, including Sergi Bruguera with 2 RG titles, and Richard Krajicek with one Wimbledon. Sampras also crossed over, as a youth, with the end of the Lendl era and had to face some of the players listed above while they were in their primes. He crossed over, as an aging vet, to Kuerten and Carlos Moya, who were 5 years younger, and Hewitt.
Federer's contemporaries include Fererro, Malisse, Coria, Gonzalez, Davydenko, Nalbandian, et al. Underwhelming. Federer crossed over to Agassi as a youngster, and obviously to much better players in Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga et al, as an aging vet.
Federer's most dominant years were 2004-07. His ages were between 22-26. I have spent time researching what an athlete's physical, athletic prime years are. The prime occurs between ages 16-26. Prior to 16, the body is too frail, after 26, there is a loss of youthful quickness and endurance that leads to less explosion and power and more stretches of middling play. This is true in any sport. The mental side of the game is something different. Every player is somewhat different. Lendl was a late bloomer. Borg was an early bloomer. Lendl maintained the mental dominance well past the point where his body was cooperating. Borg lost the mental edge long before his body broke down. Sampras lost the mental edge many years before Agassi. Injuries can play into this, as with Hewitt and many others.
All of this in mind, it appears Federer's best years were played in the absence of any great competition, and that somewhat accounts for his winning of 3 majors per year in those years. He did not have a contemporary rival that was near him in greatness, unlike Lendl/McEnroe and Sampras/Agassi. His career arc resembles Connors, who was not as dominant in his prime, but had the longevity. Connors, however, had a contemporary who is an all-time great, in Vilas. Federer lost a slam to a contemporary only once between 2004-07 (prime years), the 2005 Australian Open Semi, to Safin. Connors and Federer both have great rivals who are of a younger generation (McEnroe/Borg - Djokovic/Nadal). Both men stayed mentally and physically competitive past their athletic primes. Both resisted serious injuries (which probably accounts for the longevity).
There is one other thing to consider. Federer plays an attacking style of tennis that works much better on surfaces past generations got to play on. In his era, Federer has had to play on slow hard courts and a slowed-down Wimbledon. So, compared to many of the former players discussed, Federer can be considered somewhat hobbled during his career. But, this issue also would afflict Federer's contemporaries, many of whom were attacking players too.
All of this presupposes some sort of objective truth in TC's list, which is obviously not the case. But other than win/loss records, there is no way of measuring an era.
The plain fact of the matter is this: with the exception of the 2005 Australian Open, Federer's contemporaries failed to make any dent in his career accomplishments. That means those players were not in the same league as Federer. And that is not true of Connors (Vilas), McEnroe (Borg/Lendl), Lendl (McEnroe), Sampras (Agassi et al.) or Nadal (Djokovic). That is beyond dispute. So unless the era vs. era issue is what's being argued, which I already explained is impossible, I don't see the argument. Federer faced inferior rivals. That's the end of it.
But is Federer still the GOAT? I don't care. It's a non-issue. I enjoy watching him play and will regret his retirement when it happens.
That is irrelevant. We are not comparing the eras relative to each other, as in 'the players from such-and-such era would beat the players from an earlier era', we are comparing players within each era, as in 'so-and-so would beat his contemporaries'. Doing the former would be impossible, because tennis is always changing. Techniques in training, new equipment, changes in playing surfaces, the additional money leading to more players being trained for the sport, etc. make it totally impossible, and criminally unfair, to compare the eras to each other. It is also irrelevant because Federer and his contemporaries were trained in the same era and had the same advantages and disadvantages. It's therefore not more impressive that Federer beat his contemporaries because they were somehow better than earlier tennis players, since Federer also benefitted from those improvements in the training process.
Anyway, here's how I see it.
Tennis Channel's top 100 players features 3 of Federer's contemporaries (within approximately 3 years of Federer's age either way). They are Hewitt at #61, Safin at #80, and Roddick at #94. Federer is obviously at the top of the list.
Lendl was the #1 player through the latter half of the 1980s and Sampras was the dominant player in the 90s.
Lendl's contemporaries: McEnroe at #13, Yannick Noah at #85. Looking at Lendl, he started dominating at a relatively late age, 25, and a new generation came along, including Pat Cash, Mats Wilander, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg et al. All of whom appear on the top 100, and all of whom won majors while Lendl was the #1 player. With the advent of the younger players combined with McEnroe, Lendl faced very tough competition.
Sampras's contemporaries: Agassi at #12, Courier at #42, Rafter at #70, Kafelnikov at #82, Muster at #95, and Chang at #100. Not to mention players who won majors while Sampras was at his best, including Sergi Bruguera with 2 RG titles, and Richard Krajicek with one Wimbledon. Sampras also crossed over, as a youth, with the end of the Lendl era and had to face some of the players listed above while they were in their primes. He crossed over, as an aging vet, to Kuerten and Carlos Moya, who were 5 years younger, and Hewitt.
Federer's contemporaries include Fererro, Malisse, Coria, Gonzalez, Davydenko, Nalbandian, et al. Underwhelming. Federer crossed over to Agassi as a youngster, and obviously to much better players in Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga et al, as an aging vet.
Federer's most dominant years were 2004-07. His ages were between 22-26. I have spent time researching what an athlete's physical, athletic prime years are. The prime occurs between ages 16-26. Prior to 16, the body is too frail, after 26, there is a loss of youthful quickness and endurance that leads to less explosion and power and more stretches of middling play. This is true in any sport. The mental side of the game is something different. Every player is somewhat different. Lendl was a late bloomer. Borg was an early bloomer. Lendl maintained the mental dominance well past the point where his body was cooperating. Borg lost the mental edge long before his body broke down. Sampras lost the mental edge many years before Agassi. Injuries can play into this, as with Hewitt and many others.
All of this in mind, it appears Federer's best years were played in the absence of any great competition, and that somewhat accounts for his winning of 3 majors per year in those years. He did not have a contemporary rival that was near him in greatness, unlike Lendl/McEnroe and Sampras/Agassi. His career arc resembles Connors, who was not as dominant in his prime, but had the longevity. Connors, however, had a contemporary who is an all-time great, in Vilas. Federer lost a slam to a contemporary only once between 2004-07 (prime years), the 2005 Australian Open Semi, to Safin. Connors and Federer both have great rivals who are of a younger generation (McEnroe/Borg - Djokovic/Nadal). Both men stayed mentally and physically competitive past their athletic primes. Both resisted serious injuries (which probably accounts for the longevity).
There is one other thing to consider. Federer plays an attacking style of tennis that works much better on surfaces past generations got to play on. In his era, Federer has had to play on slow hard courts and a slowed-down Wimbledon. So, compared to many of the former players discussed, Federer can be considered somewhat hobbled during his career. But, this issue also would afflict Federer's contemporaries, many of whom were attacking players too.
All of this presupposes some sort of objective truth in TC's list, which is obviously not the case. But other than win/loss records, there is no way of measuring an era.
The plain fact of the matter is this: with the exception of the 2005 Australian Open, Federer's contemporaries failed to make any dent in his career accomplishments. That means those players were not in the same league as Federer. And that is not true of Connors (Vilas), McEnroe (Borg/Lendl), Lendl (McEnroe), Sampras (Agassi et al.) or Nadal (Djokovic). That is beyond dispute. So unless the era vs. era issue is what's being argued, which I already explained is impossible, I don't see the argument. Federer faced inferior rivals. That's the end of it.
But is Federer still the GOAT? I don't care. It's a non-issue. I enjoy watching him play and will regret his retirement when it happens.
