How bad could Federer's competition have really been?

[Deleted member 307496]

Think about it, Federer is STILL winning majors at 36 years of age. He prevented guys that are deemed "weak" like the trio of Roddick, Hewitt and Safin from amassing quite a few majors. Guy is the most consistent tennis player I've ever heard of, and in his prime you would never see him not in a SF at the very least at pretty much every tournament.

Could his competition have been better had they been dealing with different competition? Or were they REALLY that bad now that you think about it? Dealing with the greatest of all time (or of AT LEAST the Open Era) would be horrible for most top players in ANY era. That is why they end up being the greatest, because they crush their competition. That doesn't exactly mean they are as "weak" as people make out.

For example, how do you think Tomas Berdych, David Ferrer or even Tsonga would do from 2004-2007? Think they'd win anything?

 

[mike danny]

I don't know about that, but the weak era is not an argument people should use from now on. Winning a slam at 35 beating 4 top 10 players, including his nemesis, should close this weak era talk for good.

I expected this talk to end after Fed had won Wimb 2012, but obviously I couldn't be more wrong. But if that didn't seal it, this one definitely should.

 

[SLD76]

Forget Federer


The weak era talk should have ended after old broke down shell.Of himself Hewitt took a.set off Djoker at the 2011 AO and then again at the 2012 Olympics at Wimbledon

 

[Steve0904]

I love the subtle "STILL winning majors at 36." @Sabratha.

 

[jm1980]

Think about it, Federer is STILL winning majors at 36 years of age. He prevented guys that are deemed "weak" like the trio of Roddick, Hewitt and Safin from amassing quite a few majors. Guy is the most consistent tennis player I've ever heard of, and in his prime you would never see him not in a SF at the very least at pretty much every tournament.

Could his competition have been better had they been dealing with different competition? Or were they REALLY that bad now that you think about it? Dealing with the greatest of all time (or of AT LEAST the Open Era) would be horrible for most top players in ANY era. That is why they end up being the greatest, because they crush their competition. That doesn't exactly mean they are as "weak" as people make out.

For example, how do you think Tomas Berdych, David Ferrer or even Tsonga would do from 2004-2007? Think they'd win anything?

Fed is lucky he didn't have to contend with Peak Murray in his era, because peak for peak their Slam matches would have been a coin flip

 

[dh003i]

Forget Federer


The weak era talk should have ended after old broke down shell.Of himself Hewitt took a.set off Djoker at the 2011 AO and then again at the 2012 Olympics at Wimbledon

Yes. Let's also not forget that a guy like Wawrinka who were beaten by Federer time and again earlier in his career might have developed that steely Major-winning self-confidence and mental fortitude earlier if not for Federer.

Don't forget about Del Potro in 2009 and Federer beating him at the FO; he showed he was the real deal at the USO (a player who's career was sadly diminished by injuried, in my opinion).

Hewitt is an underrated player because Federer was so good at beating him post 2003. Hewitt really frustrated Sampras with ATG lobs, for example. He was the #1 player for a 75 consecutive weeks and 80 weeks total. 2 Major championship victories. He wasn't a placeholder.

 

[tennis_pro]

The problem with guys like Safin or Hewitt was not that they couldn't challenge Federer but that they became non-factors too fast.

 

[tennis_pro]

Besides, if the so called weak era ended in 2008 Federer still won 6 majors at the age of 27-35 against 2 other ATG's in their primes so it's really not so hard to imagine that this guy was pretty good at his peak too. It really didn't matter who Federer faced at the time because he was playing at a level from a different planet. You literally need to hand pick players from the Open Era who could even challenge that Federer.

 

[BigServer1]

Fed is lucky he didn't have to contend with Peak Murray in his era, because peak for peak their Slam matches would have been a coin flip

Is that why Federer is 5-1 against Murray at Majors, including 3-0 in finals, all but one played after Fed's peak but during Murray's?

Just making sure...

 

[tennisaddict]

The weak era talk will never end. Allow a day or two and you will start seeing posts like 18 majors was achieved because Fed sneaked in a boat load of majors before the big 4 showed up and the count should really be 13-15