2003-2007

[AssaultJoker]

Roddick - 21-3
Hewiit - 18-9
Nalbandian - 11-8
Safin - 10-2
Ferrero - 10-3
Agassi - 8-3
Ljubicic - 13-3
Schuettler - 3-1
Moya - 7-0
Grosejan - 3-2
Henman 7-6
Coria - 3-0
Gaudio - 5-0
Davydenko - 19-2
Blake - 10-1
Robredo - 11-1
Ancic - 6-1
F. Gonzalez - 12-1
Ferrer - 16-0
Gasquet 12-2
Philippoussis - 4-1
Baghdatis - 7-1

-------------------------
216-50

This is Roger's competition during ''golden era of tennis 2003-2007'' - no words, badass list...

And now I want to get how this could be possible that 3 players from cast-iron era - Nadal-Djokovic-Murray have more victories over Roger(51) than 22 guys from golden era...

 

[dominikk1985]

no one would argue that nadal, djokovic and probably even murray were better competition than those guys.

however fed was also a lot older when he faced those guys. till 2010 he was still rather Close to his prime but since 2011 he started to decline more rapidly.

of course fed would have lost more matches against those guys but they would also have lost more against him. even past prime fed has his fair share of wins against the other "big 3".

 

[dominikk1985]

can someone break down how fed did against murray and Novak from 08-10 vs 11-14? I'm sure fed did a lot better 08-10.

 

[jg153040]

Roddick - 21-3
Hewiit - 18-9
Nalbandian - 11-8
Safin - 10-2
Ferrero - 10-3
Agassi - 8-3
Ljubicic - 13-3
Schuettler - 3-1
Moya - 7-0
Grosejan - 3-2
Henman 7-6
Coria - 3-0
Gaudio - 5-0
Davydenko - 19-2
Blake - 10-1
Robredo - 11-1
Ancic - 6-1
F. Gonzalez - 12-1
Ferrer - 16-0
Gasquet 12-2
Philippoussis - 4-1
Baghdatis - 7-1

-------------------------
216-50

This is Roger's competition during ''golden era of tennis 2003-2007'' - no words, badass list...

And now I want to get how this could be possible that 3 players from cast-iron era - Nadal-Djokovic-Murray have more victories over Roger(51) than 22 guys from golden era...

You mean Davy and Roddick those weak era guys that lead Nole and Rafa?



Did prime Federer ever lost to Rosol, Wawrinka, Nishikori at majors?

We can all play this game and get nowhere.

Maybe Federer was better in his prime, than today, that's why he had more wins vs top 10 then, no?

But of course him losing because he is past his prime doesn't make sense to you right?

And how did Rafa and Nole do at that time vs those guys?

 

[The Green Mile]

^^I wouldn't bet my money on Fed leading Murray in 08-10. Murray gained a lot of his wins against Fed in that time period. Can't be bothered finding what that hth was....

 

[jg153040]

^^I wouldn't bet my money on Fed leading Murray in 08-10. Murray gained a lot of his wins against Fed in that time period. Can't be bothered finding what that hth was....

h2h at majors is what matters. Because if it doesn't, Nole leads Rafa in masters h2h.

 

[NatF]

OP: Forgets that Roger played Rafa in that period and also Djokovic (became top 3 from 07).

 

[torpantennis]

Guess the OP is a 13yo teen who's never heard of aging. :lol:

 

[Chanwan]

can someone break down how fed did against murray and Novak from 08-10 vs 11-14? I'm sure fed did a lot better 08-10.

Fed was 13-6 vs. Novak by the end of 2010. Murray led him early on (6-2 even iirc though Fed had his number in the slams) and Fed has since then gotten more wins than Murray.

 

[The Green Mile]

h2h at majors is what matters.

Sorry, that was for Dominik. The hth in that time period, was 7-5 to Murray. I'll find out what Djokovic's is. Fed was 8-5 against Djokovic from 08-10.

 

[jg153040]

OP: Forgets that Roger played Rafa in that period and also Djokovic (became top 3 from 07).

And what did Murray, Rafa, Nole get for beating Federer? They COMBINED can't beat Fed in WTF titles 302 weeks, HC majors, W titles.

I mean think about it. Three great players together can't beat Fed's non clay records.

 

[kOaMaster]

By the end of 2007, Federer was:
a) 5-1 against Djokovic
b) 1-1 against Murray
c) 6-8 against Nadal

I don't see the TO's point. I think we can totally agree that Federer's level decreased while the others level increased.
There is no statistic to prove that Djokovic/Murray(/Nadal) would've done any better than the above listed opponents against Federer from 2003-2007. Nadal had some of his best years during that period.
A lot of people say that without Federer, Hewitt & Roddick would've won multiple slams. Perhaps those slams that Djokovic & Murray were able to win nowadays?

I'll make an exception for Nadal who - as Roger - is a great and superior tennis player over many many others but again, Nadal was/is around since 2005 and always made Federers life pretty tough.

 

[jg153040]

Sorry, that was for Dominik. The hth in that time period, was 7-5 to Murray. I'll find out what Djokovic's is.

I think it is fair if we use h2h for Fed only till 2010 and by surfaces.

If we do that (of course Nadal fans don't want to be fair) we see that Fed's h2h in his prime was pretty phenomenal against everyone, except vs Rafa on clay.

It's pretty low and grasping for straws if people penalize Fed for losing to clay goat, while Sampras did nothing on clay and was called goat with 14 majors.

 

[jg153040]

By the end of 2007, Federer was:
a) 5-1 against Djokovic
b) 1-1 against Murray
c) 6-8 against Nadal

I don't see the TO's point. I think we can totally agree that Federer's level decreased while the others level increased.
There is no statistic to prove that Djokovic/Murray(/Nadal) would've done any better than the above listed opponents against Federer from 2003-2007. Nadal had some of his best years during that period.
A lot of people say that without Federer, Hewitt & Roddick would've won multiple slams. Perhaps those slams that Djokovic & Murray were able to win nowadays?

I'll make an exception for Nadal who - as Roger - is a great and superior tennis player over many many others but again, Nadal was/is around since 2005 and always made Federers life pretty tough.

If we dissect the h2h of prime Federer, we see he was only owned by Rafa on clay. That is the only "big" issue.

In that case, I don't see how Sampras with 14 majors and his poor clay record was considered goat by the same people who now argue against Federer.

 

[mike danny]

Oh yes, ignore the fact that Fed was 29+ from 2010 onwards and he others were in their prime.

Reasonable people will agree that prime Federer would win the most matches against 29+ year old Nadal, Djokovic and Murray

 

[Russeljones]

It's an Assjoke thread, what do you all expect?

 

[jg153040]

It's an Assjoke thread, what do you all expect?

I expected that his trolling skills should improve by now and not make it so obvious that he was trolling.

 

[Chico]

Anyway you twist it, it is a weak era indeed. No question about it. Lucky Fed didn't have to deal with two GOAT candidates and players like Murray during his Peak.

So Fed had it easy, while Novak had the most difficult career path of all open era all times greats, unfortunately.

 

[NatF]

Federer is so lucky he didn't have to deal with Murray :lol: and Chokervic would only take a couple of AO's from Federer at his peak...

Nadal would always be an obstacle for Federer no arguments there.

 

[Russeljones]

Anyway you twist it, it is a weak ear indeed. No question about it. Lucky Fed didn't have to deal with two GOAT candidates and players like Murray during his Peak.

So Fed had it easy, while Novak had the most difficult career path of all open era all times greats, unfortunately.

How is it a week era when then man you argue is the true GOAT, has a losing, yes losing, H2H vs a declining Roddick. Same Roddick that has 3 wins in 24 matches played vs Federer.

The saving grace of your argument is that Novak sucked too hard to face most of these players between turning pro in 2003 and 2007.

 

[beast of mallorca]

It's an Assjoke thread, what do you all expect?

Hahaha........it is indeed.
Am not sure who's worse, theOP/ AssaultDjoker or Chico.........:twisted:

 

[mike danny]

Anyway you twist it, it is a weak ear indeed. No question about it. Lucky Fed didn't have to deal with two GOAT candidates and players like Murray during his Peak.

So Fed had it easy, while Novak had the most difficult career path of all open era all times greats, unfortunately.

Fed never lost to Murray in slam finals. So he did had to deal with him and he dealt with him very well. It's only Djokovic's fault that he lost 2 slams to Murray, a guy Fed owns in GS.

BTW it's kinda hard for Fed to deal with 2 GOAT candidates when he himself is one of them.

 

[jg153040]

Federer is so lucky he didn't have to deal with Murray :lol: and Chokervic would only take a couple of AO's from Federer at his peak...

Nadal would always be an obstacle for Federer no arguments there.

I don't know why people try to make that comparisons. If you put players from different generations in the same era, they ALL win less.

If we put Rafa and Nole in 2003-2007, they won't win 21 majors either.

If we put Rafa and Nole vs Laver or Sampras era, those guys don't win that much too.

I don't see the point people are making with this.

 

[AssaultJoker]

It's an Assjoke thread, what do you all expect?

I expected that his trolling skills should improve by now and not make it so obvious that he was trolling.

The stats in the first post of the thread expose Federer whether you like it or not. That's the beauty of truth.

 

[AssaultJoker]

Anyway you twist it, it is a weak ear indeed. No question about it. Lucky Fed didn't have to deal with two GOAT candidates and players like Murray during his Peak.

So Fed had it easy, while Novak had the most difficult career path of all open era all times greats, unfortunately.

 

[mike danny]

The stats in the first post of the thread expose Federer whether you like it or not. That's the beauty of truth.

Yet Fed has a losing record to only 1 player after that and is still Nadal. He isn't being led by neither Djokovic nor murray at the moment.

And he owns all the others after them.

But of course, why mention this, since it doesn't make Fed look bad?

 

[Russeljones]

The stats in the first post of the thread expose Federer whether you like it or not. That's the beauty of truth.

They only point to an unprecedented dominance of the field. I fail to see how they "expose" someone. If anything, this thread exposes you.

 

[AssaultJoker]

They only point to an unprecedented dominance of the field. I fail to see how they "expose" someone. If anything, this thread exposes you.

Where has Federer's dominance gone when Nadal/Murray/Djokovic came onto the scene?

 

[torpantennis]

The stats in the first post of the thread expose Federer whether you like it or not. That's the beauty of truth.

The stats prove that he dominated ALL players of his own age. That cannot be said of any players after him! And Davy-Nadal/Roddick-Djokovic prove that there's no weak eras. Grow up!

 

[Russeljones]

Where has Federer's dominance gone when Nadal/Murray/Djokovic came onto the scene?

Assuming you mean what you wrote, they were under his thumb or unable to make it to a match vs him, with the notable exception of Nadal at RG, who was a 1 in a billion combination of skill and physical prowess. Next question.

 

[beast of mallorca]

Anyway you twist it, it is a weak era indeed. No question about it. Lucky Fed didn't have to deal with two GOAT candidates and players like Murray during his Peak.

So Fed had it easy, while Novak had the most difficult career path of all open era all times greats, unfortunately.

The stats in the first post of the thread expose Federer whether you like it or not. That's the beauty of truth.

Chico and AssaultJoker, together

 

[Chico]

 

[torpantennis]

Where has Federer's dominance gone when Nadal/Murray/Djokovic came onto the scene?

Where did Djokovic/Nadal level of play go after they turned 27/28? Nobody thinks they could win as much now as Federer did at 28yo!

 

[AssaultJoker]

Assuming you mean what you wrote, they were under his thumb or unable to make it to a match vs him, with the notable exception of Nadal at RG, who was a 1 in a billion combination of skill and physical prowess. Next question.

No, they were just teenagers back than and another fact that proves ''Fed's golden era'' is Nadal and Djokovic winning Slams during Fed's prime being under 21 yo. How many Slams Federer won while being a teenager? I guess not much.

 

[AssaultJoker]

Chico and AssaultJoker, together

 

[tennisaddict]

Fed has more majors on non favorite surfaces than all the majors that Novak has. That sure hurts me badly.

 

[AssaultJoker]

Fed has more majors on non favorite surfaces than all the majors that Novak has. That sure hurts me badly.

That's the only thing that left for Fed fans - counting majors during ''golden age of tennis 03-07'' because Roger failed to dominate worthy players.

 

[jg153040]

No, they were just teenagers back than and another fact that proves ''Fed's golden era'' is Nadal and Djokovic winning Slams during Fed's prime being under 21 yo. How many Slams Federer won while being a teenager? I guess not much.

Djokovic won one slam till 2011 lol. Murray won 0. You are grasping.

Djokovic and Murray did less than Hewitt and Safin in Fed's era.

 

[jg153040]

That's the only thing that left for Fed fans - counting majors during ''golden age of tennis 03-07'' because Roger failed to dominate worthy players.

And what about Rafa beating 0 RG champions and his entire legacy is based on clay?

You guys do the same.

How is it a weak era if Djokovic and Murray win 1 major till 2011, but they win 8 majors after 2011.

So, they win more in strong era than in weak era? YEah, makes sense.

 

[Russeljones]

No, they were just teenagers back than and another fact that proves ''Fed's golden era'' is Nadal and Djokovic winning Slams during Fed's prime being under 21 yo. How many Slams Federer won while being a teenager? I guess not much.

Relevance of your argument? Please underline it.

 

[jg153040]

Relevance of your argument? Please underline it.

That it is a weak era if teenagers can win majors.

 

[mike danny]

No, they were just teenagers back than and another fact that proves ''Fed's golden era'' is Nadal and Djokovic winning Slams during Fed's prime being under 21 yo. How many Slams Federer won while being a teenager? I guess not much.

Why isn't Djokovic dominating now? The competition is weak yet he still isn't winning more than 1 slam. I guess he isn't that good after all

 

[jg153040]

Why isn't Djokovic dominating now? The competition is weak yet he still isn't winning more than 1 slam. I guess he isn't that good after all

Yeah, I mean I wouldn't call Nishikori and Wawrinka some world class competition.

 

[Algo]

That it is a weak era if teenagers can win majors.

so Clay field is also weak, as Nadal was winning since he was a baby there, then.

 

[jg153040]

so Clay field is also weak, as Nadal was winning since he was a baby there, then.

I was just conveying the point the OP was trying to make. This isn't my argument.

But yeah, it's so sad that people who try to use weak era argument, don't apply this to clay.

Yeah, you raise a good point. He wasn't winning on HC as a baby, he was only winning on clay as a teen.

And Djokovic wasn't a teen in 2008. His prime started in 2008.

 

[Algo]

I was just conveying the point the OP was trying to make. This isn't my argument.

I know you weren't. I was also pointing out the stupidity of weak era arguments in general.
But if someone is to use it, at least don't split it up on convenience.

 

[Chanwan]

Don't feed the troll.....

 

[jg153040]

I know you weren't. I was also pointing out the stupidity of weak era arguments in general.
But if someone is to use it, at least don't split it up on convenience.

True. But actually I feel more stupid than weak era guys. They can't help it but I should have known better and avoid stupid arguments

So, all this is me being an idiot.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Don't feed the troll.....

Seriously, he should be obese by now anyway.

 

[jg153040]

so Clay field is also weak, as Nadal was winning since he was a baby there, then.

It is according to OP's reasoning . Rafa didn't win on HC till 2009.