‘Roger Federer is the greatest of his era,’ says Rod Laver

[Thetouch]

So what Laver was saying was no matter what happens in the future Roger was the best from 2003-2010 or so?

We need a definition for "era" because the way I see it, there is none. Federer has been playing for 2 decades and he has been on top for 2 decades so what era are we even talking about? Federer is still playing in the same era as Zverev and Thiem for that matter.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The Rocket is bored.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The difference between ranks 2 and 3 were small and they were roughly equal and you remember W2015 SF where Federe beat Murray etc. In principle, I agree with you that this logic leads to the conclusion that Murray2015 is better player than Federer2005 and I think that this conclusion is right. We are talking about absolute level of play.

Quoted for the posterity. Please, continue.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I was getting confused as well. Laver said you cannot compare eras. I think Laver has hinted Federer and Nadal are best of their respective eras but he is subtle.

Nadal doesn't have his own era.

So what Laver was saying was no matter what happens in the future Roger was the best from 2003-2010 or so?

We need a definition for "era" because the way I see it, there is none. Federer has been playing for 2 decades and he has been on top for 2 decades so what era are we even talking about? Federer is still playing in the same era as Zverev and Thiem for that matter.

"Era" is pretty well defined in general and in tennis terms. In tennis terms it is obviously the time within which the bulk of a tennis players' peak and prime falls and in which time obviously he needs to have dominated more or less. Federer is playing in the same time as Zverev and Thiem, but he is so far from his peak and most of his prime that it is absurd to count that time as "his" era. Not that it is Zverev and Thiem's era, as they haven't even been dominant to be called "their" era.

 

[junior74]

ABCD said:
I can't argue with Roger Federer about Roger Federer.

If you ask me to explain how he had better statistics in 2005 than in 2015 and he was better player in 2015 than in 2005 that is easy. In 2015 he played much stronger field and although he was better in 2015 his results were worse. Do not confuse level of performance with the outcome of performance. As an example, I am now better scientist than I ever was, but my grant income is lower than 20 years ago as I play stronger field nowadays.

@KINGROGER : You’re not a scientist.

I am. Some things could be relative, but that is the fact. I work/worked in institutions that you know about.

I guess Talk Tennis is an institution, but it's not science to post here

 

[KINGROGER]

The difference between ranks 2 and 3 were small and they were roughly equal and you remember W2015 SF where Federe beat Murray etc. In principle, I agree with you that this logic leads to the conclusion that Murray2015 is better player than Federer2005 and I think that this conclusion is right. We are talking about absolute level of play.

Imagine how many slams peak murray would win in 2004-2007 era? Probably 10+ minimum.

 

[Seth]

Laver Cup about to be renamed Rogi Cup

 

[Thetouch]

Nadal doesn't have his own era.



"Era" is pretty well defined in general and in tennis terms. In tennis terms it is obviously the time within which the bulk of a tennis players' peak and prime falls and in which time obviously he needs to have dominated more or less. Federer is playing in the same time as Zverev and Thiem, but he is so far from his peak and most of his prime that it is absurd to count that time as "his" era. Not that it is Zverev and Thiem's era, as they haven't even been dominant to be called "their" era.

And that's why "era" is such an abstract word. Federer might not be on the very top but he has been almost permanently in the top 3 since 2003 and the same 3 players are domintating on top for at least a decade. So there is no other player outside of the big 3 to claim this his era and that's why we have basically been in the same era for like 15 years.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

And that's why "era" is such an abstract word. Federer might not be on the very top but he has been almost permanently in the top 3 since 2003 and the same 3 players are domintating on top for at least a decade. So there is no other player outside of the big 3 to claim this his era and that's why we have basically been in the same era for like 15 years.

Well, there is no requirement for an era to have more than one dominant player (it is a kind of the opposite, actually), so three is already enough for more than one era. That they are contemporaries doesn't mean that they have played in one and the same era all the time. Naturally, if one has to stick to picking one, it is obviously going to be the player with simultaneously the biggest achievements and the biggest impact on the tennis developments. The trendsetter. However, I don't think that the Rocket was alluding to that. I think that he straight out said that when Federer was at his peak/prime years there was no more dominant player than him and IMO, he is absolutely right.

 

[Thetouch]

I think that he straight out said that when Federer was at his peak/prime years there was no more dominant player than him and IMO, he is absolutely right.

Sure, but who has ever questioned that? That's why I feel like Rod's "compliment" sounds like weak consolation.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Sure, but who has ever questioned that? That's why I feel like Rod's "compliment" sounds like weak consolation.

The Rocket is too old for consolation awards. I think that he might have wanted to be ahead of the imminent frenzy, if Nadal and Djokovic start being disproportionately pushed by the tennis business as "the new messiah". A sort of gentle warning that there is a better basis for judgement than who/what brings in most controversy and viewerships numbers (as is the current trend of hyping the Majors race), and the debate shouldn't be as one sided as it is shaping up to be. IMO, he senses that the pure tennis narrative is in danger from business interests, and wants to chime in while he can.

 

[Bender]

Rod Laver says Roger Federer is the ‘greatest of his era,’

Fair enough

no matter what Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic might achieve.

Well now we know that critical thinking was not consulted when making this statement

“Modern racket technology has definitely made the game easier,” Laver is quoted as saying in the Herald and Times.

Yeah, it's easier if you think athleticism should be discounted as a factor of difficulty in sports

 

[LETitBE]

what exactly is an era?

 

[GoldenMasters]

Why is Laver such a fedta*d

 

[GoldenMasters]

what exactly is an era?

2000s was mostly Federer's era and 2010s was mostly Djokovic's era. Nadal had great success in his career but he never really had his own era and you can see that from the fact that he never finished back to back years as no.1 and how he lacks a lot of weeks at no.1 compared to the other two.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Federer stopped beating Nadal in 2007 in slams at the age of 26 .
Federer didn't beat Nadal again at slams for whole decade till 2017 .
So it means Federer's era ended in 2007 ,isn't it ? lol
Bullsheeet

 

[ForehandRF]

Federer stopped beating Nadal in 2007 in slams at the age of 26 .
Federer didn't beat Nadal again at slams for whole decade till 2017 .
So it means Federer's era ended in 2007 ,isn't it ? lol
Bullsheeet

Have you jumped in the trolling boat recently ? Fed's era was from late 2003 till early 2010.

 

[maratha_warrior]

Have you jumped in the trolling boat recently ? Fed's era was from late 2003 till early 2010.

If Sir Rod laver joined trolling boat recently , Why should we stay away from the fun ??
He even claimed Andy Murray would have won CYGS lol

Jokes and trolling aside , Federer will be best of his era but that era doesn't include Rafa Nadal for sure . Do fed fans really believe Federer bested Nadal during 2005- 2010 ???

I want to say , Noone among them are the Greatest in their respective eras . We can only give a judgement when their career is over .
whoever wins wid most slam titles ,No 1, Weeks at no 1 , WTF , Masters might end up as GOAT .
Rod laver here is simply being thankful to CEO /brain behind " Laver Cup "

 

[mike danny]

If Sir Rod laver joined trolling boat recently , Why should we stay away from the fun ??
He even claimed Andy Murray would have won CYGS lol

Jokes and trolling aside , Federer will be best of his era but that era doesn't include Rafa Nadal for sure . Do fed fans really believe Federer bested Nadal during 2005- 2010 ???

I want to say , Noone among them are the Greatest in their respective eras . We can only give a judgement when their career is over .
whoever wins wid most slam titles ,No 1, Weeks at no 1 , WTF , Masters might end up as GOAT .
Rod laver here is simply being thankful to CEO /brain behind " Laver Cup "

His era totally includes Nadal. Why wouldn't it?

 

[mxmx]

Henman dominated Federer at the beginning when Federer had bad H2H against many players he later surpassed (Agassi, Hewitt, Nalby etc.). Even with Henman he reversed it and in the end it was 9-5. sure Henman was past prime then but nevertheless o would not read too much into the fact that Fed was trailing him at the beginning.

Federer dominated Sampras "in the beginning", so it's hard to tell if Sampras also wouldn't have had Federer's number after a few matches.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Federer dominated Sampras "in the beginning", so it's hard to tell if Sampras also wouldn't have had Federer's number after a few matches.

Sample size n=1, tough five setter with Pete having break points at 5-5 in the last set. No domination at all. Also Federer has nothing to loose and Pete might have been unprepared for this new challenger. One never knows, I would have loved to see them crossing swords again at the US Open 2001 or 2002.

 

[Deleted member 763691]

I agree Federer is the greatest of the Roddick era, without a doubt

 

[mxmx]

Sample size n=1, tough five setter with Pete having break points at 5-5 in the last set. No domination at all. Also Federer has nothing to loose and Pete might have been unprepared for this new challenger. One never knows, I would have loved to see them crossing swords again at the US Open 2001 or 2002.

Yes. Dominated was totally the wrong word I used.

 

[Forehanderer]

February 8, 2020

‘Roger Federer is the greatest of his era,’ says Rod Laver in snub to Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic

Rod Laver says Roger Federer is the ‘greatest of his era,’ no matter what Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic might achieve.
Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are battling it out to see who finishes their career with most Grand Slam titles, with Federer currently leading the way on 20.
Both Nadal and Djokovic are younger than the Swiss star, though, and expected to surpass his tally before they are done.
However, Laver is having none of it, claiming that racket innovations make it impossible to compare players from different eras, but Federer is the best of his.

“Modern racket technology has definitely made the game easier,” Laver is quoted as saying in the Herald and Times.

“If Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic were playing with wooden rackets, they couldn’t play some of the shots they can execute now.

That’s why comparing players of different eras and claiming particular players’ as the greatest of all time is a pointless exercise.
“All you can really say is that certain players were the greatest of their era and I would put Roger in that category.”

These days I would rather read the quote to end quote of greats to have played the sport than these extra rubbish in these "articles". Say for example here that Rod considers Roger as the greatest of this era. How come his opinion became a snub to Rafa and Novak. This is tabloid material right here. They are needling the Rafa and Novak fans to read it and expend their energies negatively and promoting Roger as a god to his fans. I consider him to be great of his era too but I'm no tennis great. I'm just a fan. I tend to agree with Rod about comparing players of different eras and the whole GOAT thing to me is a baseless exercise. Sampras dominated the 90s which had some of the great players that we still appreciate such as Edberg, Becker, Courier, Agassi, etc and he can be considered a great of that era. Why isn't Sampras considered a GOAT. He can hit a second serve ace at first serve speeds on breakpoint. He didn't have the swagger, was quiet but his game had more swagger.
The big 3 and the GOAT discussion as @Hitman mentioned seems to be a PR exercise and news material in this day and age as was the case with this article.

 

[mattennis]

He seems to be saying that for a certain period of time (for example 2004-2007) Federer was the best player in the world. I see nothing controversial about that.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

He seems to be saying that for a certain period of time (for example 2004-2007) Federer was the best player in the world. I see nothing controversial about that.

Federer's era is pretty clearly defined (middle of 2003 - Spring of 2010).

 

[quirotkicks]

It is funny how he says his era referring to someone else. I am wondering if Laver is subtly implying he is still the GOAT.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It is funny how he says his era referring to someone else. I am wondering if Laver is subtly implying he is still the GOAT.

He says that eras are not comparable, which rules out that possibility.

 

[quirotkicks]

He says that eras are not comparable, which rules out that possibility.

I kind of wish he were more outright cocky. I enjoy Navratilova trolling people how she is the GOAT still and fans going crazy. I like the sass. I wish Gonzales were still alive, I am sure he would have been far more cocky and arrogant and telling people how he is better than the Big 3 today, giving people things to talk about.

 

[One Handed Dynasty]

2000-2009:

Federer: 15 slams, 9-5 record vs Djokovic, 7-12 vs Nadal (5-3 on hard and grass, 2-9 on clay)

Nadal: 5 slams, 12-7 vs Federer, 17-8 vs Djokovic

Djokovic: 1 slam, 5-9 vs Federer, 8-17 vs Nadal (0-9 on clay, 8-8 on grass and hard)

2010-2019:

Djokovic: 15 slams, 21-14 vs Federer, 21-12 vs Nadal (6-8 on clay, 13-6 on grass and hard)

Nadal: 14 slams, 11-10 vs Federer, 12-21 vs Djokovic

Federer: 5 slams, 14-21 vs Djokovic, 10-11 vs Nadal (0-5 on clay, 10-6 on grass and hard)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk