Better Competition?
- Thread starter T1000
- Start date
lambielspins
Banned
No difference really. 2004-2006 is atleast as good as 2008-2009. Federer playing at his 2004-2006 level would dominate today as well, other than a top notch Nadal on clay. The *********s will be jumping back on the weak era bandwagon for the current field as well after Federer wins Wimbledon and regains #1.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
2008 and 2009. Federer's results say it all.
VivalaVida
Banned
These new players are overated. Djokovic and Murray are overrated and arent even posing challenges in grand slams. Federer is still dominating GS except for nadal but federer, although in his prime, is not at his peak. If he was, he would still dominate everything except clay tournaments. 8)
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
well, in relation to who was number one at the time, i believe nadal had more competition, since federer steamrolled through everyone during his years of dominance.
i think however this speaks volumes more about how great a player federer is, fending off 4 years worth of players that catch fire (like the baghdatis's blake's and coria's) as well as the seasoned veterans (such as the agassi's, henman's, safin's, hewitt's, roddick's, nalbandians and etc.) opposed to nadal's 1 year of the simon's the tsongas, mixed in with the djokovic's and the murray's.
so i would say just about the same, but federer dominated more.
Last edited:
FedFan_2009
Banned
Competition is always increasing, but that doesn't diminish the value of Federer's 2004-2007 domination. That Federer continues to win slams in 2008-2009 "uber ball" era is testimony to his greatness.
FedFan_2009
Banned
BTW, since Federer won #11 and stated that he was glad to win it before "Nadal wins them all", both have won 3 slams and Nole the other one. So much for Nadal "winning them all".
T1000
Legend
I believe 2004-2006, especially prime hewitt and roddick, would bet djokovic, murray, and all those guys. Fed had to compete against a lot more better players than today (davydenko, hewitt, roddick, haas, llubijic, coria, gonzalez, safin, nalbandian) compared to (murray, djokovic, simon, del potro, tsonga, cilic)
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
actually, i take that back, after i read my post, a minute after i posted, i realize that federer's era of domination consisted of greater names. so fed had more competition, but still managed to dominate for 4 solid years.
Last edited:
navratilovafan
Banned
2004-2006 was a very strong field with prime Hewitt, prime Roddick, prime Safin for awhile, prime Nalbandian, Coria in 2004-2005 still playing very well, prime Davydenko, Gonzalez and Ljubicic threats.
Overall better than the overrated field mostly made up with overrated pretenders like Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro. The ones that play Federer luck out to play a Roger lower on confidence and somewhat less sharp. Even Roddick and Hewitt who are also past their best are doing better vs Federer than they did then.
Overall better than the overrated field mostly made up with overrated pretenders like Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro. The ones that play Federer luck out to play a Roger lower on confidence and somewhat less sharp. Even Roddick and Hewitt who are also past their best are doing better vs Federer than they did then.
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
ljubicic even went pretty deep in rome(?) this year, if i recall correctly.
also, i think some aussie player, that i heard was pretty good a few years ago, just recently beat some dude in the current top 5. i forget their names
but both instances show how deep competition was in fed's 4 years.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Seriously some of you are such Fed fanatics, you would feel you are discrediting Fed by saying it was a weak field in 2004-2006. None of those players had consistent results. Djokovic, Murray, and prime Nadal are way tougher than 2004-2006 offered with Roddick being number 1 at one point. lol
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
agassi, hewitt, safin, and roddick > djokovic and murray.
we can do the math with majors won, master shields won, rankings, and etc, but the end result will be the same as above.
and how can nadal's competition include nadal himself?
navratilovafan
Banned
What consistent results do Djokovic and Murray show? Murray is consistent in a way I guess, consistent at losing in the quarterfinals or 4th round of virtually all slams. Djokovic has lost to an aging/nearly retired Safin on grass in straights in the 3rd round, Federer himself at the U.S Open in the semis, Roddick in Australia in the quarters, and the great Kohlschreiber in the 3rd round of the French in straights in his last 4 slams. That is your example of consistency.
On the other hand Hewitt lost to the eventual champion of all 7 slams from 2004-2005, 5 of those Federer. Now that is consistency. Roddick only from 2003-2005 lost before the quarters of a non French Open only once.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Fed's competition I was talking about. Nadal was way tougher in 2008 and 2009 than 2004-2006. Nadal had way tougher matches on clay since Djokovic came along. Murray has beaten Fed 5 straight times. The list goes on why this era is stronger. I'm sure the point totals on the ranking would prove it as well who had the better results of the top 5 altogether.
FedFan_2009
Banned
4 straight times - all in best-of-3.
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
you contradicted yourself left and right and back again, all in a single post.
the thread is about which years had the toughest competition.
fed's competition, hewitt, safin, agassi, roddick, and nalby just to name a few.
rafa's competition, murray and djokovic, neither are as talented as the five listed above.
Last edited:
Djokovic isn't any more difficult than other players Nadal has faced in the past. Nadal almost lost to Richard Gasquet in 2005. He had an epic five setter in Rome with Coria in 2005. Epic five setter in Rome with Federer in 2006. Where's Djokovic's epic five setter?
Nadal only won one of his matches at the 2005 Italian Open in straight sets. All the others went the distance. Scraped by Davydenko in 07 7-6 6-7 6-4 (straight setting Djokovic the match before). From the start of 2005, the following players have beaten Nadal on clay: Gaston Gaudio, Igor Andreev, Roger Federer (twice), Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Robin Soderling.
Not Djokovic.
lambielspins
Banned
You forget, there will be an excuse from NF for each of those other losses. :twisted:
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Ridiculous. Over the hill Agassi, streaky Safin, slightly declining Hewitt, never was Roddick, and streaky Nalbandian is hardly a comparison to Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray. Federer can beat those 5 names of the past without a problem except when Nalbandian decides to have a big tournament.
FedFan_2009
Banned
Your trolling is tiring. Go to Craig Hickman's blog.
lambielspins
Banned
Hewitt was not declining in 2004-2005. 2004-2005 was his best tennis ever as he lost to the eventual champion in 7 straight slams. Without Federer 2004 and 2005 would have eclipsed 2001-2002. Even in 2001-2002 he had losses in slams to people like a washed up Moya, Martin, Escude, even excluding the French Opens.
Never was Roddick? Roddick at barely 21 was already something Andy Murray and Del Potro arent- grand slam winners. Never was Roddick has beaten the supposably great Djokovic 3 of their last 4 meetings too. At turning 22 he had achieved more overall than either Djokovic or Murray now around turning 22 have so far.
Streaky Nalbandian and streaky Safin? Like Djokovic and Del Potro arent streaky, LOL! Like Murray is a reliable great performer in the slams. What a joke.
It is also hard to take anyone seriously who built up Gulbis with his pathetic 9-16 record this year and failure to get past the 2nd round of any tournament as this especialy tough draw:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=269722
while dismissed Kohlschreiber a MUCH better player than the pathetically overhyped Gulbis is right now as a joke opponent:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=270140&page=4
LOL, what a clown you are.
As for Nadal, Nadal of 2005-2007 would be ranked over either Murray or Djokovic of today I bet. Is Nadal of 2009 really better, you know the so injured and fatigued one (according to you as well) which cant even beat Robin Soderling at the French Open and withdraws from Wimbledon.
Last edited:
VivalaVida
Banned
Excellent post, Lambiel. Your signature cracks me up. hahah
T1000
Legend
this 10 char
lambielspins
Banned
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Hewitt's best year was 2002. A couple years later he wasn't winning slams. He lost some speed.
I'd say it's about the same level of play for both eras. True Fed's results were not as good in 2008 but he had mono and a bad back. The actual proof is 2009 - he's probably going to win his usual 3 Majors again with the new bunch of players. I feel he's going to rue letting Nadal win the AO, as it could have been a calendar slam for him.
lambielspins
Banned
He wasnt winning slams because of Federer. 2001-2002 even with no Federer to deal with he still won only 2 slams, losing opportunities for more since he couldnt even beat Escude, Alberto Martin, an unseeded Moya, and an aging Agassi. 2004-2005 he lost to the eventual champion in all 7 slams like I already said, and FIVE of those were to Federer. The only reason he wasnt winning slams in 2004-2005 was because of Federer. In 2001-2002 he also probably would have won nothing had a prime Federer been around. He began losing speed and hunger in 2006, the year he really feel off, 2004-2005 was his best tennis ever, even he has said so.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Well maybe the era before Federer was even weaker. 2001-2003 before Wimbledon. lol
lambielspins
Banned
Finally we agree on something. 2002 was the worst Wimbledon ever for the men.
T1000
Legend
you started watching tennis in 2006 didn't you
T1000
Legend
it was except for the end result
I too was very happy Hewitt won a Wimbledon.
viduka0101
Hall of Fame
totally agree
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
In terms of competition to the current number 1...Federer had more. Murray and Djokovic trouble Fed more than they do Nadal...although they can give Nadal a fight. Prime Roddick was able to take a set of Fed of 2004-2006 on grass...which I think just shows how good Roddick really was, maybe if you just consider Fed's record against him he looks like a joke but he was strong during those years and would have at least one of those 2 wimbledons he lost if not for the presense of Fed.
Agassi, not to sure what I think of him in the years relative to the poll though, apart from the US Open in 2005 where he pushed Fed hard he wasn't much direct competition to Fed. But I would put Roddick as he was in those years, Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian >>>>>> Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro et al. I am a fan of the later guys to varying degree's, but apart from Fed himself...Nadal's competitions isn't as good. And this is from me who does wish Fed's competiton was stronger and closer to his level.
Agassi, not to sure what I think of him in the years relative to the poll though, apart from the US Open in 2005 where he pushed Fed hard he wasn't much direct competition to Fed. But I would put Roddick as he was in those years, Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian >>>>>> Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro et al. I am a fan of the later guys to varying degree's, but apart from Fed himself...Nadal's competitions isn't as good. And this is from me who does wish Fed's competiton was stronger and closer to his level.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Put it this way, what time frame did we witness the most amazing matches?
All-rounder
Legend
thats right it was 2004-2006
Andres
G.O.A.T.
Nalbandian in 2004-2006 was ANYTHING but streaky. He was the most consistent player on tour not named Federer, both in slams and master series events.
cknobman
Legend
Yeah 1 slam between Murray and Djoker is WAY tougher than
5 slams between Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick
zagor
Bionic Poster
That's true,he was reaching QF or better in almost any tournament he entered in that period.
Blinkism
Legend
Yeah 1 slam between Murray and Djoker is WAY tougher than
5 slams between Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick
First of all, you named 3 people..
second of all, Hewitt was the only one to win more than one slam in a short period of those 3.
For Safin it took 5 years to get his second slam. So, by that logic, if Djokovic can win another slam by 2012, he'll be on Safin's level.
Also, you're forgetting about a guy named Nadal with 6 slam. And a guy named Federer who wasn't winning slams when Hewitt won his first 2 and Safin won his first.
lambielspins
Banned
When Federer is winning slams it doesnt leave any room for anyone else.
and if Djokovic is lucky he will be able to do that.
Yes a guy who won 3 of those 6 slams so far from 2004-2007, and who is still facing Federer in almost all the finals so is still competition for him today. Moreso than Djokovic and Murray who seem to find making slam finals a very hard thing to do, sometimes even making slam semis.
yes and Murray and Djokovic dont have to deal with prime Federer and they still find it mighty hard to stay consistent or win slams. Your point.
The 2000-2001 field was much harder than todays anyway with Sampras still a danger in the big fast court events even past his prime, Agassi having his late career surge and playing some of his best tennis ever, Rafter playing some of his best tennis ever in his final years before takin early retirement, Hewitt and Safin both of course, Kafelnikov still playing really well, Kuerten at his career peak, Ivanisevic still a force that year as his 2001 Wimbledon title shows. So good for Hewitt and Safin to have won U.S Opens and reached #1 vs guys like rather than now only facing the overrated Murray, a past his prime Federer, a constantly injured Nadal, and the overrated Djokovic.
GameSampras
Banned
At first, I would have admitted that the competition was stronger now. At least the top 5. But now Im seeing how Murray and Djoker have been doing jack diddly crap at the slams. So think Im recanting on that. I dunno if they are much tougher opposition to Fed and Nadal as Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davy etc. ever were to be honest.
Djoker and Murray are "slam handicapped".
though I dont believe 04-07 was that strong. At least not compared to other eras like the 80s, early 90s etc in terms of pure talent. Sure you had prime Nalbandian, Safin etc but they were both worthless 90 percent of the time when it mattered most and never seemed focused on tennis. Safin was too busy in the bars and Nalbandian at the various doughnut factories in Argentina. Hewitt was tough but only for a short period of time due to injuries and fizzeled out very fast. Roddick was a decent rival. Hardly a great one as he had to many holes in his game that could be exploited.
So at this point... Maybe 04-07 was stronger. Until proven otherwise with Djoker and Murray. Its a still a 2 man show as far as slams are concerned.
Hell no one seems to be even capable of winning a slam today other than Rafa and Fed. Sad actually. But its reality
Djoker and Murray are "slam handicapped".
though I dont believe 04-07 was that strong. At least not compared to other eras like the 80s, early 90s etc in terms of pure talent. Sure you had prime Nalbandian, Safin etc but they were both worthless 90 percent of the time when it mattered most and never seemed focused on tennis. Safin was too busy in the bars and Nalbandian at the various doughnut factories in Argentina. Hewitt was tough but only for a short period of time due to injuries and fizzeled out very fast. Roddick was a decent rival. Hardly a great one as he had to many holes in his game that could be exploited.
So at this point... Maybe 04-07 was stronger. Until proven otherwise with Djoker and Murray. Its a still a 2 man show as far as slams are concerned.
Hell no one seems to be even capable of winning a slam today other than Rafa and Fed. Sad actually. But its reality
Last edited:
Similar threads
