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

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

DRII said:
I think many Federer fanatics (not normal fans) are coming to the realization (kicking and screaming) that many of his slams were won during a weaker era; particularly the time span of 2004-2007 of his era where there were no other open era greats consistently competing against him on every surface and the overall field lacked depth.

The overall field still lacks depth now (and from 2008 to present), but we also have at least 2 other open era greats competing against Federer and winning slams on every surface.

This is what makes the difference; if there were no Nadal or Nole (or perhaps Murray, maybe Delpo) no one could reasonably come to the conclusion that Federer's competition was relatively weak, it could be that he was just that much better. However, since there are 3 players that are now consistently in a position to win slams and otherwise destroying the rest of the field in every big tournament; one can reasonably reach the conclusion that the field lacks depth in this era compared to previous eras and that there are at least 3 players that are just that good enough to take advantage...

Good analysis. I agree with the main point.

I disagree in part of the rest of the field.....but that doesn't really matter anyway. When you are dealing with players like fed, nadal and joker they are really the only competition for each other and that's all that needs to be focused on. Bottom line :

3 GOATS > 1 GOAT

.

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

Leto said:
I guess I'm too set in my ways and trust my own gut feel/observations, so no matter the intricate arguments back and forth, I'm stuck in the mud

Sort of like Fed....

Fed was cheated in a way. During the weak era like all of us we just figured his game was perfect. He didn't need to change. So when Nadal came around we were to stubborn to change.

Nadal on the other hand ha Federer to push him to become better an better. Changing his grip hitting flatter balls and just pushing to become better.

Joker was chasing both Nadal & Fed and his hunger to become better pushed him to a new level.

And now Joker has pushed Nadal again....Rafa changed racquets and almost took out Joker at the AO even though joker has always dominated nadal on hard courts.

I think Nadal has been pushed by Jiker to raise his game yet again .

Federer never had that battle. His competition was so weak for So long he just became complacent. He is finally realizing that and hired anacone.....he is at least trying ......the question is whether it's too little too late?

I hope that this competition will push fed to a higher level the way it has pushed nadal and Joker....

Fed and all of us have been cheated on a way. :-(

DRII · Jun 11, 2012

Leto said:
So it really wasn't the thread that changed your opinion but your own curiosity to research things more on your own because the thread raised the question, as opposed to it "answering" the question (and Djoker making the FO final, of course, as you mentioned earlier)?

Anyway, I think it's great that people are passionate about certain subjects and have a lot of great knowledge about the game, stats, and history. I find a lot of it very entertaining and enlightening, but nothing I've ever read on a forum has changed my opinion on a topic as subjective as this.

I guess I'm too set in my ways and trust my own gut feel/observations, so no matter the intricate arguments back and forth, I'm stuck in the mud

At least you admit it...

NadalAgassi · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
Nadal beat Federer in Wimbledon , nadal beat Fed at the AO and Nadal beat Fed at the FO.....there are no other surfaces.....

In fact Fed is regarded as one of the greatest clay courters of all time.....his problem is that he had to face the greatest clay court player of all time....

And some would even argue the true GOAT.

I agree on all your points regarding Federer (except I dont consider him the true GOAT) so I am not sure what you are getting at.

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
Sort of like Fed....

Fed was cheated in a way. During the weak era like all of us we just figured his game was perfect. He didn't need to change. So when Nadal came around we were to stubborn to change.

Nadal on the other hand ha Federer to push him to become better an better. Changing his grip hitting flatter balls and just pushing to become better.

Joker was chasing both Nadal & Fed and his hunger to become better pushed him to a new level.

And now Joker has pushed Nadal again....Rafa changed racquets and almost took out Joker at the AO even though joker has always dominated nadal on hard courts.

I think Nadal has been pushed by Jiker to raise his game yet again .

Federer never had that battle. His competition was so weak for So long he just became complacent. He is finally realizing that and hired anacone.....he is at least trying ......the question is whether it's too little too late?

I hope that this competition will push fed to a higher level the way it has pushed nadal and Joker....

Fed and all of us have been cheated on a way. :-(

You are aware that Federer is 30, correct?

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
I agree on all your points regarding Federer (except I dont consider him the true GOAT) so I am not sure what you are getting at.

I meant some woul argue Nadal is the true goat.

At this point however it's a pointless argument because nadal, joker and Fed are battling for that right .

The last man standing o these three will be the goat.

As to who is in the lead is purely debatable.

NadalAgassi · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
I meant some woul argue Nadal is the true goat.

At this point however it's a pointless argument because nadal, joker and Fed are battling for that right .

The last man standing o these three will be the goat.

As to who is in the lead is purely debatable.

I believe Laver is the GOAT and I dont think anyone else is possible until they win atleast 1 true Grand Slam, and roughly 20 slams.

At this point the order is Roger > Rafa > Novak in historical value, but indeed Roger is lucky he played Roddick and Hewitt for years and not Nadal and Djokovic, and the idea he would just breezes to 3 or 4 slams every year from 2003-2007 even with Nadal and Djokovic in their primes at the same time as this forum seems to believe is quite the laugh.

Dutch-Guy · Jun 11, 2012

Fed had to face pigeons in his era: Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Gonzalez, Baghdatis (50-8 combined *shaking my head*) whereas Rafa has to face Fed, Nole, Del Potro, Murray,Tsonga, etc.

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

Dutch-Guy said:
Fed had to face pigeons in his era: Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Gonzalez, Baghdatis (50-8 combined *shaking my head*) whereas Rafa has to face Fed, Nole, Del Potro, Murray,Tsonga, etc.

Those players are only looked at as Federer's "pigeons" in hindsight because they lost to him.

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
I believe Laver is the GOAT and I dont think anyone else is possible until they win atleast 1 true Grand Slam, and roughly 20 slams.

At this point the order is Roger > Rafa > Novak in historical value, but indeed Roger is lucky he played Roddick and Hewitt for years and not Nadal and Djokovic, and the idea he would just breezes to 3 or 4 slams every year from 2003-2007 even with Nadal and Djokovic in their primes at the same time as this forum seems to believe is quite the laugh.

For me, there are other records that mean more than Federer's slam record but would be meaningless without it. For instance, the 23 slam semis streak, the 237 weeks at No. 1, etc. all come together to make him the GOAT in my eyes.

augustobt · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
Those players are only looked at as Federer's "pigeons" in hindsight because they lost to him.

Imagine in the future. When people seeing Federer's record against Del Potro, they'll say the same thing, that he was his pigeon...

augustobt · Jun 11, 2012

Thus, Nadal on always have his spanish buddies on his draw.

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
You are aware that Federer is 30, correct?

Yeah its amazing !

Has he ever been even injured ?

Because of Rafas physical game I think Nadals body is way more banged up.

Fed is playing amazing . I see no evidence of him slowing down .

He was losing to Nadal before and he is losing today the same way.

Joker on the other hand has raised his game and is now beating Nadal as well as Federer.

The only thing that's changed in the equation is Joker.

Fed would be #1 today if not for those two players.

.

Dutch-Guy · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
Those players are only looked at as Federer's "pigeons" in hindsight because they lost to him.

Exactly.Constantly losing to him made them pigeons. I mean 60-8 win/loss combined is an abysmal record for guys that were supposed to challege him.

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

augustobt said:
Thus, Nadal on always have his spanish buddies on his draw.

So now nadal won because his spanish buddies threw their matches ?

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
Yeah its amazing !

Has he ever been even injured ?

Because of Rafas physical game I think Nadals body is way more banged up.

Fed is playing amazing . I see no evidence of him slowing down .

He was losing to Nadal before and he is losing today the same way.

Joker on the other hand has raised his game and is now beating Nadal as well as Federer.

The only thing that's changed in the equation is Joker.

Fed would be #1 today if not for those two players.

.

And Nadal played at very good level on hard courts in 2005 and even beat Federer on the surface in 2004. That didn't stop you from saying he was pre-prime before 2008.

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

Dutch-Guy said:
Exactly.Constantly losing to him made them pigeons. I mean 50-8 win/loss combined is an abysmal record isn't it?

Theres a lot of ways I can counter that.....

But the easiet way to say it is that Nadal & Joker are so much better than those guys.

3 goats > 1 goat.

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
So now nadal won because his spanish buddies threw their matches ?

That's what you're saying Federer's competition did.

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
And Nadal played at very good level on hard courts in 2005 and even beat Federer on the surface in 2004. That didn't stop you from saying he was pre-prime before 2008.

Again it's a simple premise ....

3 goats > 1 goat

augustobt · Jun 11, 2012

You don't know nothing about anything. I'm very impressed about that.

NadalAgassi · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
That's what you're saying Federer's competition did.

They didnt throw matches. Hewitt and Roddick atleast were great fighters. They just dont have near the talent or overall games of top 30 players all time, let alone top 10.

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
Again it's a simple premise ....

3 goats > 1 goat

Those GOATs were all in the field in 2005. Why is it only now that they're competing?

NadalAgassi · Jun 11, 2012

augustobt said:
Imagine in the future. When people seeing Federer's record against Del Potro, they'll say the same thing, that he was his pigeon...

What is your point. It is not like Del Potro is likely on his way to being a great great player, or one of the stars of his or any era. Heck at this point it is unlikely he will even surpass people like Hewitt, Roddick, or Safin. When people talk about the stronger competition today, he is barely of note, ending one year ranked #5, and having won 1 title above 500 level at nearly age 24 now. Murray has had a way better career even without a slam.

Of course Federer owns Del Potro. Nearly every good player does.

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
They didnt throw matches. Hewitt and Roddick atleast were great fighters. They just dont have near the talent or overall games of top 30 players all time, let alone top 10.

I still think there's a difference among the type of fields between then and now, but not in strength. Federer's field included more landmines spread out across the draw with potential upsets and slam winners everywhere. Today, the game is more top-heavy while everything before the semis is virtually a cakewalk.

augustobt · Jun 11, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
What is your point.

I don't get what you're trying to argue. Todays competition is harder because we have Nadal and Novak OR because we have Nadal, Novak, Murray, Tsonga, Del Potro and many other good players?

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
Those GOATs were all in the field in 2005. Why is it only now that they're competing?

Good question.

Because they were young developing players.

Nadal wasn't born to win on hardcourts. He worked hard at it .....changing his serve grip and increasing his serve by 20 mph....and hitting balls flatter. That didn't happen over night.

Similarly Joker used to quit on the middle of mathes and was dubbed chokeavic. Ever since his gluten free diet or whatever inspired him he is stronger physically now and mentally.....he is just a different player who has come into his own.

These guys were in their early 20's. It's like asking why is Federer 0-3 against rafter. He wasn't the same player back then .....that's why.

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
I still think there's a difference among the type of fields between then and now, but not in strength. Federer's field included more landmines spread out across the draw with potential upsets and slam winners everywhere. Today, the game is more top-heavy while everything before the semis is virtually a cakewalk.

I don't agree....but anyway all that matters is what's at the top.

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
Good question.

Because they were young developing players.

Nadal wasn't born to win on hardcourts. He worked hard at it .....changing his serve grip and increasing his serve by 20 mph....and hitting balls flatter. That didn't happen over night.

Similarly Joker used to quit on the middle of mathes and was dubbed chokeavic. Ever since his gluten free diet or whatever inspired him he is stronger physically now and mentally.....he is just a different player who has come into his own.

These guys were in their early 20's. It's like asking why is Federer 0-3 against rafter. He wasn't the same player back then .....that's why.

Then by the same measure Federer isn't the same player he was either. Maybe you haven't noticed (or are nearly as observant), but Federer has declined, whether you like it or not.

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
Then by the same measure Federer isn't the same player he was either. Maybe you haven't noticed (or are nearly as observant), but Federer has declined, whether you like it or not.

I really have not noticed it.

But fed has been losing to at least Nadal for quite some time now.

Joker has been beating nadal.

Nadal is not in decline so it's safe to assume that the only thing that has changed in the equation is that joker has improved.

TMF · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
Those players are only looked at as Federer's "pigeons" in hindsight because they lost to him.

Dutch-Guy said:

Fed had to face pigeons in his era: Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Gonzalez, Baghdatis (50-8 combined *shaking my head*) whereas Rafa has to face Fed, Nole, Del Potro, Murray,Tsonga, etc.

Click to expand...

Past prime Fed is still doing fine against DP, Tsonga and Murray. However, a young Fed was having all sorts of trouble against Nalbandian and Hewitt.

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
I really have not noticed it.

But fed has been losing to at least Nadal for quite some time now.

Joker has been beating nadal.

Nadal is not in decline so it's safe to assume that the only thing that has changed in the equation is that joker has improved.

If you haven't noticed a decline, then you must have only just started watching Federer play (so it appears as though he's always played that way).

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

TMF said:
Past prime Fed is still doing fine against DP, Tsonga and Murray. However, a young Fed was having all sorts of trouble against Nalbandian and Hewitt.

And still losing to Nadal....and he also lost the AO to joker but in so called "past prime" beat Joker just last year.

He also did beat nadal this year .

I don't see a past prime fed at all.

You guys throw it around like water as a defense be aide no one can really pin point when a prime starts or ends.

I see no evidence of any slow down yet .....but he got beat by both guys in his so called "prime" as well.

augustobt · Jun 11, 2012

Seriously, when you started to watch tennis?

tennis_pro · Jun 11, 2012

TMF said:
Past prime Fed is still doing fine against DP, Tsonga and Murray. However, a young Fed was having all sorts of trouble against Nalbandian and Hewitt.

LAWL at the guy pointing out Gonzalez and Baghdatis as if they were constantly reaching slam finals but at the same time ignores Nadal beating Berdych, Soderling or freaking Puerta who had no bussiness reaching the 2nd round of the FO.

Heck, he would probably include Soderling as one of Federer's pigeons but unfortunately he would also have to take away one of Nadal's slams (2010 FO to be exact).

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
And still losing to Nadal....and he also lost the AO to joker but in so called "past prime" beat Joker just last year.

He also did beat nadal this year .

I don't see a past prime fed at all.

You guys throw it around like water as a defense be aide no one can really pin point when a prime starts or ends.

I see no evidence of any slow down yet .....but he got beat by both guys in his so called "prime" as well.

Yeah, and Roddick beat a prime Nadal in 2010.

tennis_pro · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
Yeah, and Roddick beat a prime Nadal in 2010.

-But but Nadal was still in a slump!
-Ok, so Roddick beat Nadal in Dubai in 2008 in straight sets.
-But Nadal wasn't the Nadal we now!

YAAAY

a10best · Jun 11, 2012

augustobt said:
I don't get what you're trying to argue. Todays competition is harder because we have Nadal and Novak OR because we have Nadal, Novak, Murray, Tsonga, Del Potro and many other good players?

90s Era - Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek were no flukes. Don't forget Henman, Alex Corretja, Carlos Moya and a few others that would give this era a run for their money. deep competition

90s - clay court champs - Brugera, Kuerten, Muster were extremely tough on clay.

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

a10best said:
90s Era - Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek were no flukes. Don't forget Henman, Alex Corretja, Carlos Moya and a few others that would give this era a run for their money. deep competition

90s - clay court champs - Brugera, Kuerten, Muster were extremely tough on clay.

Definitely a far stronger era than 2003-2006 which saw the #1 players to be guys like Ferrero and Roddick.

I agree

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

tennis_pro said:
-But but Nadal was still in a slump!
-Ok, so Roddick beat Nadal in Dubai in 2008 in straight sets.
-But Nadal wasn't the Nadal we now!

YAAAY

No....

First of all you can't compare a 5 set grandslam to a 2 set little tournament.

Second .....Rafa can lose on a hard court . It's really not his surface . But the point is that there's this other guy by the name of Djokovic.

You now have joker, nadal and fed .

tennis_pro · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
Definitely a far stronger era than 2003-2006 which saw the #1 players to be guys like Ferrero and Roddick.

I agree

You ignorant f***.

Can't compare players who competed in a 4-year period with all the players who were active in 20 years.

Ferrero, Roddick, Coria, Moya, Henman, Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian all played well in parts of 2003-2006, also Nadal was very much there at least on clay.

augustobt · Jun 11, 2012

Today:

Novak, Nadal, Murray, Federer, Del Potro, Tsonga, Berdych. And the spainards when isn't against Nadal, Nadal and Almagro. Gasquet is very talented and can upset (like he did against Murray). Isner and Raonic are two bombs in fast hard courts.

NadalAgassi · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
I still think there's a difference among the type of fields between then and now, but not in strength. Federer's field included more landmines spread out across the draw with potential upsets and slam winners everywhere. Today, the game is more top-heavy while everything before the semis is virtually a cakewalk.

Fair enough. That is a reasonable way to look at it and quite true. For the record I dont think any of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic have had the best overall competition in history, not by a long shot.

tennis_pro · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
No....

First of all you can't compare a 5 set grandslam to a 2 set little tournament.

Second .....Rafa can lose on a hard court . It's really not his surface . But the point is that there's this other guy by the name of Djokovic.

You now have joker, nadal and fed .

Federer in 2003-2006 was so lucky, he didnt' have to face himself.

GTFO

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

tennis_pro said:
-But but Nadal was still in a slump!
-Ok, so Roddick beat Nadal in Dubai in 2008 in straight sets.
-But Nadal wasn't the Nadal we now!

YAAAY

There's an excuse for everything. Only for Federer can age and illness never be used against him.

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

tennis_pro said:
LAWL at the guy pointing out Gonzalez and Baghdatis as if they were constantly reaching slam finals but at the same time ignores Nadal beating Berdych, Soderling or freaking Puerta who had no bussiness reaching the 2nd round of the FO.

Heck, he would probably include Soderling as one of Federer's pigeons but unfortunately he would also have to take away one of Nadal's slams (2010 FO to be exact).

Wasn't that the same year Nadal skipped wimbledon?

Why do you think the defending champ slipped it?

And take a guess who we saw in the wimby final when nadal wasn't around .....good old Roddick yet again.

augustobt · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
No....

First of all you can't compare a 3 set grandslam to a 2 set little tournament.

Second .....Rafa can lose on a hard court . It's really not his surface . But the point is that there's this other guy by the name of Djokovic.

You now have joker, nadal and fed .

I corrected, by your logic.

The Dark Knight · Jun 11, 2012

FlashFlare11 said:
There's an excuse for everything. Only for Federer can age and illness never be used against him.

I think the excuse train for fed is a bit longer than that . Don't you think?

augustobt · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
Wasn't that the same year Nadal skipped wimbledon?

Why do you think the defending champ slipped it?

And take a guess who we saw in the wimby final when nadal wasn't around .....good old Roddick yet again.

The same Roddick that beaten Murray, right?

tennis_pro · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
Wasn't that the same year Nadal skipped wimbledon?

Why do you think the defending champ slipped it?

And take a guess who we saw in the wimby final when nadal wasn't around .....good old Roddick yet again.

If 2009 is included in your tough era what was Roddick doing in a Wimbledon final, then? I thought Murray, a fair representative of that tough era was good enough to take out the washed up Roddick in the semis?

OH MY GODDDZZZZ

FlashFlare11 · Jun 11, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
I think the excuse train for fed is a bit longer than that . Don't you think?

No, not really. You've clearly demonstrated this.

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

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

NadalAgassi

Guest

Hall of Fame

Legend

NadalAgassi

Guest

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

NadalAgassi

Guest

Hall of Fame

NadalAgassi

Guest

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Legend

NadalAgassi

Guest

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Similar threads