Let's disspel the myth that Federer thrived against a "weak field"
- Thread starter Jamin2112
- Start date
Frying Pan Forehand
Rookie
lol, are you 5 years old?
The Dark Knight
Legend
Just joking . 
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Okay we'll leave it at that.
aceX
Hall of Fame
Had to run around in the shower to get wet hahaha
The Dark Knight
Legend
"age doesn't matter "
BullDogTennis
Hall of Fame
pwnd!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Dark Knight
Legend
No doesn't mean anything till 2008.
Nadal was still developing in 2005. He was merely 18 years old....Federer was getting his butt kicked at 20 to rafter on every surface at the same age (3-0 rafter).....
The fact that baby Rafa the clay court specialist was the #2 player in the world just shows how pathetically weak that era was.
Nadal developing is a reason yet Fed's decline is an excuse. Double standards.
If the era was so weak, why couldn't Nadal win any slams other than the French? At least Federer got to the finals of the French despite being a fast court player (By your reasoning that make the clay field weak.)
The Dark Knight
Legend
You want a double standard ...... I'll give you one ....
Nadal was 14 when he beat pat cash ...
He was 17 when he beat Federer in his so called "peak"
He was 20 when he was #2 .
No player has ever done so much so quick and yet that's still not enough ...
Now hered the double standard .... Why was fed completely dominated by rafter ?? Well of course not he was only 20 ...
So for fed you see it's ok to be young but not nadal.... He should have been numer 1 at 14.
VPhuc tennis fan
Professional
Should have been... but WAS NOT.
Still try to rewrite the timeline.
Absolutely pathetic.
Read this: WAS NOT.
End of the story.
When did I say it was ok for Fed to be young?
Everybody has their different paths so it's not surprising that their career achievement are distributed differently or is that too hard for your one-dimensional brain to interpret?
The Dark Knight
Legend
No it's too hard for Federer to understand because he agrees with me.
Or rather I agree with him.
LOL. He doesn't understand but agrees with you. hmm lol
The Dark Knight
Legend
The Dark Knight
Legend
Ok then I'll ask you .....
Rafter beat Federer on fast grass , fast hard court and clay
Why? Was it because Rafter is just better than Federer ? Or is there another reason? Hmmmmmm?
Because he was better than Federer back then.
Federer beat Sampras on fast grass in 2001 when he was 19. Does this make Federer better than Sampras on grass? No. But according to you the age Sampras was back then was "prime".
The Dark Knight
Legend
Why was rafter better than federer " back then" and not later on?
Combination of Rafter getting old and worse and Federer getting better. It's part of the career. You start off bad, you get better and then you decline.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Why was federer getting better?
Like everyone else. Just like Rafter got old like everyone else.
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
"like everyone else "
So then it's fair to say that people get better the more they play?
Isn't what your saying is that Feder was not as good at age 20 as he was at age 25 because like "everyone else " at 25 as a " seasoned Pro" rather than a " rookie" at 17?
Well couldnt you say the same about Rafa ? Maybe at 17 he was also a "rookie" and as you say "like everyone else " he got better and became a season pro at 25?
Or when you say "everyone else" do you mean everyone else except Rafa ? The rules don't apply to him ?
It's a double standard .
I think you see the double standard.
Last edited:
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
speaking of double standard, because Fed won everything( before and during rafa's presence) it was a weak era and fed is a clown.
however this is a strong era because it features nadal, djoker and fed.
how can it be a strong era if fed is a weak era clown?
The Dark Knight
Legend
You see that's the problem ....your hearing something that I'm not saying.
Federer is a goat and will always be a goat . I never even hinted that he was a clown.
However I don't think he is the goat jut because he win 16 slams. He woul have won less slams of a 21 year old Nadal were there from the beginning ....even a 20 year old Nadal possibly....
But Nadal ages 14-19 is being a bit harsh ......I mean clearly "like everyone else" he got better . Even Federer acknowledged that.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
I think tennis like other sports is more about what you do, than at what age you do it.
Your one-dimensional brain has missed the whole point. When I said "everyone else" it includes Rafa so it's not double standard (what part of 'everyone else' do you not understand). My point is that Rafa getting better is not the ONLY reason. My point is that Fed getting old declining, slower surfaces are ALSO reasons and because you think Rafa can get better and Fed can't get worse, it is a double standard.
I.E Fed getting better than Rafter is the combination of both Fed becoming better and Rafter getting old. However, being a rookie and gettin old, injuries etc are part of the game so you can't use it was as an excuse to justsfy losses and say they don't count.
Otherwise why would Sampras lose to Hewitt, Safin in the US Open finals (a slam Sampras was good at) and a 19 yr old Federer at Wimbledon as the defending champion? Because part of the reason is that he got old and declined. Sampras claimed that he was better in 2002 than 1996 as well, which was clearly not the case.
Put it simply, there are more than one reason for everything not just the reason that suits your argument. Simple enough? or is it too much for your one-dimensional brain?
Last edited:
Chang won his first and only slam at 17 making him the youngest ever to win a slam. Turns out it's his only slam so age is not that relevant and as I said before "everyone's path is different so it's no surprise that the achievements are distributed differently." Is that too much for your one-dimensional brain?
The Dark Knight
Legend
Ok then Rafter is better than Federer . Rafter is 3-0 against Federer on clay hard and grass ....by the way that's fast grass and fast hard.
Does that make Hrbaty better than Nadal? No. Does that make Federer better than Sampras on grass? No. Again there's more than 1 factor involved, not just the one that supports your argument. Can your one dimensional mind understand that?
Last edited:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Record breaking stupidity congrats.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Btw both Nadal and Federer started playing tennis around 1989, so Nadal had quite a lot more tennis under his belt when they turned seniors. Since then Federer has made up for the advantage though.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
how can he be goat if he won in a weak era? The two are mutually exclusive...either he is goat, or he is overrated by competition but he cant be both at the same time.
by downplaying his opposition you are by default undermining his claim to GOAThood.
cant you even keep your various bs straight?
So let me see if I get the gist of your argument
Fed played in a weak era, but he is still a goat( or rather you still need him to be goat) to prop up Rafa's wins against him, that about right?
Feather
Legend
When Roger Federer wins, the era is weak. When Rafa beats Roger, he has beaten the greatest player of all time
This is the logic of some Rafa fansFed's been playing tennis since he was 2 or 3 years old. 1989 (age eight) is just when he had his first formal lessons, but before that he was playing for years for fun at his parents' club and hitting balls for hours against the garage doors or even closets at home. Unlike Nadal, Fed played tennis as a kid just because he enjoyed it.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Ok, I read he started at 8, I stand corrected I guess...
No problem; it's been widely mis-reported that way, but you can see him on the Letterman show tell Dave he started at 2 or 3 and there are even photos of him playing clearly way younger than eight -
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Ok, I thought it was a fun point to make that they have played more or less equally long. I guess one could argue that they have had formal training equally long. But to me sports is not about what age you do things at, but what you do. If anything I would be more impressed if a guy in his forties came along and broke Federers records.
The Dark Knight
Legend
When Roger Federer wins, the era is weak. When Rafa beats Roger, he has beaten the greatest player of all time
Actually it's Rogers logic .
He says this is a golden era .
Therefore the old era was weaker .
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
trolls know no shame.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Look here's the proof ....
Nadal lost today.... In the past that meant Federer wins yet another grand slam ...
But in the golden era he still had to deal with joker and possibly Murray .
3 > 1
Nadal lost today.... In the past that meant Federer wins yet another grand slam ...
But in the golden era he still had to deal with joker and possibly Murray .
3 > 1
This result today, as the above poster states, shows Fedmug has bad it so easy and the past decade of players wouldn't have even beaten William Renshaw with Willy only being allowed to underarm serve. The fact that Rosol showed the grade A mug Nadal (who owns Fedgimp bad) for what is truly is proves this. Frankly if Roscoe Tanner played between 1998 and now he would be called the GOAT.
Agreed. Fedgimp, ****** and ******** needed easy players to win their first slam proving how lucky they are and how weak this era is. Fed beat that Mark Phillithingbob (can't be any good if I can't spell his name!) and he was ranked low, wasn't even seeded. ****** beat drug cheat Puerta and he was crap, even when taking drugs! and Faker beat french nobody Tsonga. Luck Luck Luck. Roscoe Tanner and Ille Nastasie would have cruised to 15 slams each in this era.
Let us compare Federer opponents;
Agassi - very old
Safin - injured/headcase
Hewitt - injured/semi retired
Duck - plain useless
Nadal - lost to Rosol
Djokovic - gluten untill 2010 (then started winning)
Murray - CHOKER
Fatbandian - more time eating and injuring
Blake - need i say more?!
Luck. Luck. Luck.
"a" golden era doesn't mean old era is weaker or that is wasn't a golden era. For all we know Fed's era could be a platinum era.
Last edited:
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
i know that and you know that, but he doesnt...he can only think in terms of extreme myopism and black and white.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Feds definitely a goat .....
But the prior era was weaker.
Without Nadal there was no one in his way but now he has to deal with Joker and Murray.
Do you seriously think that's not tougher ??
But the prior era was weaker.
Without Nadal there was no one in his way but now he has to deal with Joker and Murray.
Do you seriously think that's not tougher ??
