NatF, I still think that Federer did not decline at 26. And if yet: At least a GOAT should last a bit longer.
In Rosewall's case I would say that his peak was 1961 to 1963 and his prime (I coreect me) from 1959 to 1971.
Discussing the second tier
- Thread starter Flash O'Groove
- Start date
NatF, I still think that Federer did not decline at 26. And if yet: At least a GOAT should last a bit longer.
In Rosewall's case I would say that his peak was 1961 to 1963 and his prime (I coreect me) from 1959 to 1971.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I said his peak not his prime. Besides as I think you agreed in the past, it's harder to stay competitive in todays game as you get older. Federer's peak was from 2004 - 2007, may have been longer if not for the mono. I think his prime extended into 2010 up until he became more susceptible to big hitters. I still think longevity is only one factor in depending GOAT'ness anyway.
NatF, I'm convinced that the decline issue is an excuse from Federer fans for the fact that Federer won less since Nadal, Djokovic and Murray got their prime.
Of course longevity is only one criterion for greatness but it is one. Federer is not great at that factor. Generally Roger is overrated by many fans and experts.
kiki
Banned
Has the new Pope gotten the blessings from Holly Roger?
kiki, To be a bit devilish to the Federer fanatics: Rosewall was more successful on grass than Federer. Rosewall won eight majors and reached many finals and SFs at majors. Federer won seven majors.
But yes a match of 1962 Rosewall against top Federer would be interesting (both with the same equipment of course).
NatF
Bionic Poster
Sorry but you're being hard headed here. Federer is having problems from far more people than just Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Prime Federer wouldn't have lost a set to that guy ranked in the 100's a couple of weeks ago. He wouldn't go down to Bennetau either.
Federer has won slams 10 years apart. Thats pretty good for longevity. He also hasn't missed a quarter final of a slam for 8 or so years. So yes his longevity is pretty great compared to other greats of the modern game. He can't walk on water but he's underrated by you for sure.
Good question. Holy Roger is infallible while many Popes have fallen terribly...
The hard headed Bobby thinks that Federer played in a rather weak era. Therefore his winning streaks and his many majors.
I agree that Roger is NOW in his decline but not 5 years ago (leaving peak years is also a kind of decline).
Of course Federer is a very good player. I don't rank him at place 20 or 27...
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Federer from the 2008 U.S Open to the 2010 Australian Open won 4 of 6 slams, and each of the 4 once, and lost in 5 sets in the finals of the other 2. This also concluded a streak of 8 straight slam finals, winning 4. Sorry he was not past his prime. That kind of success is impossible for a "past their prime" player. At the absolute most he was a tiny bit past his peak, which is different than prime. This 26 and 27 year old Federer was way past his prime crap is simply ****s trying to dismiss any of his losses or loss of total dominance at the hands of Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal had been regularly beating even peak Federer, even when Nadal himself was aged 17-19, so anyone with a brain knew once Nadal began to regularly make finals of all the slams that Federer's total dominance of the game would be over. Also funny that the same people insisting Federer an old crippled and gimpy man at only 26 insist that:
1. His longevity is amazing and amongst the best ever.
2. The much earlier blooming Nadal with a cascade of injuries, is still at his peak at 26, especialy if he loses matches to Federer or Djokovic.
3. That 30 year old Sampras losing to a young Federer at Wimbledon is one of the biggest embarrasments ever, and forever prove that Sampras was somehow an inferior grass courter to godly Federer. 30 year old Sampras losing the U.S Open final to Hewitt, also proves how godly the Federer generatoin is.
4. That Federer winning a series of tough 4 and 5 set matches vs 34 and 35 year old Agassi proves he would have owned him with ease in their mutual primes.
:lol:
1. His longevity is amazing and amongst the best ever.
2. The much earlier blooming Nadal with a cascade of injuries, is still at his peak at 26, especialy if he loses matches to Federer or Djokovic.
3. That 30 year old Sampras losing to a young Federer at Wimbledon is one of the biggest embarrasments ever, and forever prove that Sampras was somehow an inferior grass courter to godly Federer. 30 year old Sampras losing the U.S Open final to Hewitt, also proves how godly the Federer generatoin is.
4. That Federer winning a series of tough 4 and 5 set matches vs 34 and 35 year old Agassi proves he would have owned him with ease in their mutual primes.
:lol:
NatF
Bionic Poster
His quarters streak extends even now. I could just as easily call the split field of the pros weak. Players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc...were very capable players capable of playing extremely well. Beating them 8 times in a row or more with scorelines including all sorts of bakery products is an impressive feat.
No you don't rank him that low, but I think you underestimate the modern era. A guy like Roddick in his final year on tour with a much diminished game can blast 3 90+ mph forehands in a game like he did versus Federer in Miami. Even if these guys were largely one dimensional that doesn't mean they didn't have serious weapons.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
18 year old Nadal who was pretty much a mug on all but clay at that point very easily took over the #2 ranking in 2005 over prime Hewitt and prime Roddick (and I believe over Safin before his injury layoff too). That already says enough about the Federer contemporaries. OK they arent bad players, even excellent players in their own time, but they certainly arent all time greats even on the smallest of scales, and 120% guaranteed would have never been one in any era.
abmk
Bionic Poster
lol wut ? that's not being devilish, that's being downright clueless and biased ....
federer > rosewall on grass, no question ..........
rosewall had lot more chances on grass majors, yet won 'only' 8 (2 in amateurs, 1 in depleted AO 72 ) compared to federer's 7 ( all in full majors and at Wimbledon )
kiki
Banned
Hahaha just don' t tell newtards about that...
One serious question: do you have the results of Kodes vs Rosewall?
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
For me it is not (for me he is a clear top 5, but where in this top 5 is up to each other preferences), but it is for TMF whom I was answering. My point is that the ranking of tennis channel has no credibility due to the ranking of Emerson, Lendl, Connors, Rosewall, Gonzales, even Agassi.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I know that Rosewall and Gonzales couldn't play Wimbledon, and that is a good excuse for not winning it. But they played other tournaments instead, and they receive full credits for them (well, they receive some credits for them; the US pro had often a very limited field).
So I don't think they should receive credits for both their wins in the pro majors AND the titles they would likely have if they had been allowed to play the slams (beside the fact that we don't know: if Borg never played the USopen, everybody would be certain that he would have won it several time had he played it).
The main point is that Wimbledon is maybe the more prestigious tournaments, but prestige has little to do in the goat discussion. This tournament was not harder to win than the other: it required a different skill set. The players who had this skill set don't deserve more credit than the players who had the skill set for RG (Cash is no greater than Ferrero).
A title at Wimbledon doesn't have more value than a title at RG, at the USO, or at the AO, as long as the fields are equivalents.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
The other exact same discussion on Federer ended with PC1 stoping to write due a nasty debate. That would be nice if we could avoid the same situation here. No need to provoke.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Safin was injured during the clay season of 05 IIRC. Nadal in 2005 also had one of his most successful seasons tournament wise. It's going to be hard for the other guys to get ranking points if you have Federer hoovering up the non clay surface titles and Nadal getting the clay ones. Also a mug off clay doesn't bag hardcourt masters titles. Arguably he was a mug in no clay slams but not overall.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I don't agree with you. Statistics provided by Falstaff have proven in a convincing way that most players decline as soon as 26 years old. Fed might differ from this pattern, but his success is not a good measure of it.
Success is not a strong indicator of players prime/peak for the very best, because they have success even out of their prime/peak. Nadal had a 80% winning percentage of clay in 2005, and won 40% of his HC master 1000 titles this years. I agree he wasn't fully developped on HC and grass at the moment.
You say that Fed met less success from 2008 onward, not because of him declining, but because Nadal and Djokovic rose their level. Krosero showed that his winning percentage went down as soon as 2007, and later further down. Was it at the hands of Djokovic, the new challenger, or Nadal?
Have a look at his record against Djokovic:
In 2007, Djokovic defeated Fed only once: in Toronto.
In 2008, he beated him against only once, but this time in AO.
in 2009, he beated him twice, in Miami and Rome. A feat that has been accomplished by none other than Roddick, Gasquet, Gulbis, Berdych.
In 2010, he beated Fed once, in the USO SF, 9 month after the AO titles.
That 5 loss to the hand of Djokovic in 4 years: I don't think that these loss explain the diminution of Fed's winning percentage. Truth be told is: if Federer benefitted from a weak era, Djokovic was part of it.
And a look at his "record" against Nadal:
From 2005-2007, he lost to Nadal eight time.
From 2008-2010, he lost six time.
Here again, it is not the rise of Nadal which is responsible for his poorer winning percentage. Anyway, his loss against Nadal cannot be used to assess Fed'prim/peak because he was losing against him since the beginning. The only difference is that Nadal was able to go further in non-clay slam, and administer to Fed his usual treatment.
So what is certain is that Fed had a winning percentage over 90% from 2004-2006, and around 80% since 2007, and that this diminution is hardly the responsibility of Nadal or Djokovic. We must conclude that he was vulnerable to a range of second tier players he used to own before, and that is a good indication of decline.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I base my tiers and rankings on achievements, not on potential, or prowess or peak.
Hoad was a great player. Maybe he was the greatest of all at his peak: able to beat anyone, anytime, on any surface.
But he did not achieve that much. His health let him down
Other than that your list looks very close to mine, particularly on 2-6. (If I were constructing a list based on peak capabilities, it might exactly parallel yours--although I might move Vines higher.)
Last edited:
We all base our rankings on achievements rather than potential, nothing new there.
Ranking number one in a field consisting of Hoad, Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, Anderson, Cooper, Rose, McGregor, Hartwig, Giammalva, each one a champion in his own right, is an unparalleled achievement.
This field was stronger than the top twelve today, or any day, and to be top money and points winner for two years running is a paramount achievement.
Most people rank Laver highly on the basis of two years, 1967 and 1969.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
True. I base my ranking of Laver mostly on 1962-72.
Winning at 31 is kind of like winning at near 40 during Rosewall's time. Tennis is more brutal, more demanding in fitness, athleticism, endurance than ever before. That's why tennis players today retire early because of the wear and tear, and can't keep up with the younster, greater depth/strength of the playing field. If you've been watching tennis lately(which you don't), Federer hurt his back, and he's 31.
Also, Federer is considered the greatest grass player of all time, so it's not a surprise that he can win Wimbledon at his past prime. Rosewall is not that good at Wimbledon, because if he is, he at least should win there, unlike he was able to win at other majors.
And Hoad had great results throughout the 1953 to 1964 period.
abmk, I would say that 8 grass majors(third all-time) plus numerous other top placings (first all-time) are pretty good . You "forget" that Rosewall in his prime did not have many chances to play grass court majors: At the pros there were no Australian and Wimbledon events and Rosewall played the US Open only five times.
It's curious: People like you don't concede that Rosewall had a disadvantage in playing only few Wimbledons in his prime but now you use that excuse for Federer (less chances than Rosewall).
I confess: I hate your obnoxious posts and would enjoy a non-biased one from you...
Last edited:
kiki, I will give you the matches later. I do know that Rosewall leads Kodes by 4:1 matches.
Flash, I see.
Flash, Shame on a few Federer fanatics who caused pc1 to stop writing!
It takes many Federer fans, but it takes only one guy(you!) to stop Limpin from posting. lol
kiki, Here the Rosewall/Kodes matches:
1970, Stockholm: Rosewall d Kodes 6-3,6-4
1970, Masters: Rosewall 6-5 (sic),6-4
1973, Houston: Rosewall 6-2,6-2
1977, Houston: Rosewall 2-1, ret.
1973 Vancouver: Kodes 7-6 (7-1), 2-6, 6-3
I find the 1973 Houston win of Rosewall sensational.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
of course rosewall was a damn fine grass courter ... but better than federer or close to him .. nope ....
federer had only one grass court major to play at his prime ... so did rosewall in the pros .. but rosewall had lot more chances at grass court majors in the amateurs and the open era ....
eh, really ? haven't I said plenty of times that rosewall was unlucky not to play wimbledon at his prime and that he'd win a couple of them if he did ?
however wimbledon was where he was at his weakest, not the grass at the AO or USO ... he wouldn't win 7 majors on grass in 10 attempts at any of them like federer did at wimbledon from 2003-12 ....
oh jeez, have a look at your own posts first ... if you make decent/good posts, I would never respond that way .....
Last edited:
Limpin insults other posters too, even before you join this board, but my point is it's your present is the reason why he isn't here. If you never join, Limpin wouldn't get banned.
Last edited:
abmk, Sorry, I confused you with a few of your Federer armada's colleagues.
Rosewall had a lot of chances only outside of his prime or at least his peak...
How often should I tell that story??
TMF, I doubt that your IQ is rather high: It's NOT my fault that Limpinhitter was banned. It was his own "achievement"! And HE has decided to not post anymore...
Mighty Federer: I'm not sure if your intelligence or your character must rank lower. For instance I believe that you once insinuated that pc1 and Mustard are the same person. Rather nasty...
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Thanks Bobbyone
I knew Rosewall had the edge, seems most of their matches were indoors
Yes, I also think that only Houston (River Oaks) was outdoors (clay).
