How much do the weak fields detract from Serena and Federer's achievements

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by lambielspins, Sep 8, 2009.

  1. Bruguera

    Bruguera Banned

    Sep 6, 2009
    Well its not all of their faults.. I mean is it Fed's fault that there are no Lendls, Sampras, Agassi's, Mac's, Borgs, Lavers and Connors anymore around?

    Im not the world's biggest Fed fan but hes tremendously dedicated to the game even now when he was pretty much shattered most records put in front of him.. Unlike Serena who will phone in half the season just to get prepared for slams.

    But they only play who is put in front of them. Its not Fed's fault, Nadal has been the ONLY PLAYER who has actually stepped up over the years to become the only legit rival he has. Its the rest of the fields fault for not doing the same.
  2. pmerk34

    pmerk34 Legend

    Sep 16, 2007
    L. Island, NY
    Fed would own those players.
  3. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Mar 23, 2009
    I think some would give him more trouble than others.

    Sampras- that serve would give everyone trouble. Agassi who some couldnt the greatest returner ever couldnt handle it. Then add the great attacking game, the strong baseline play, and Federer would have a big challenge on his hands, especialy on faster courts.

    Borg- plays similar to Nadal but with a much better serve and much better net game.

    Agassi- backhand to backhand rallies would be a nightmare for Federer. Agassi in his mid 30s was taking sets from Federer in about half their matches. Federer would probably lead the head to head, but Agassi would still be a handful especialy on hard courts.

    Connors- an agressive baseline with a very strong backhand, best returner ever along with Agassi, and was an incredibly fierce competitor. Cant see Federer having it easy given that these are many traits of players he has trouble with.
  4. Bruguera

    Bruguera Banned

    Sep 6, 2009

    Thats your opinion. I dont think Fed would "own" an 80s field or even early 90's for that matter as he does today's overrall field. I still see Fed having success in any era due to his talent.. But not to the degree as he has had 04-present.

    I know difficulties in comparing eras. But it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the likes of Roddick, "on off again Safin", Nalbandian, Hewitt, Davydenko are on par with the some of the past greats.
  5. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Nov 25, 2008
    How much more coulda ,woulda shoulda?
    BTW-Roger dosent mind bh to bh rallies.He has a problem only when the ball comes high with heavy topspin .
    And against Sampras-Roger has way more variety than Agassi ever had inspite of being a great returner.Not to mention the courts have been slowered down now :wink:
  6. Bruguera

    Bruguera Banned

    Sep 6, 2009

    Overrall I guess you can say the field is pretty deep in men's tennis.. However, we can certainly question the top players (Yes even the top 5 in the world). Fed and Nadal need no introduction. Tough to question those two. They have manhandled the tour for years together. We can question the likes of Djoker and Murray though. Djoker hasnt seen a slam final since AO 2008. Buts he young and tremendously talented so thats on his side. Murray? Another slam gone by, another egg he has laid. Del Potro is very talented.. Maybe with the most "upside" next to Djokovic surely but its still a mystery how he will pan out. Hes an awfully big guys and his movement and stamina will always be questioned I think. He can overwhelm you, but he can also run out of gas.

    These guys have some upsides to their careers because they are young. But at this point in time, they are all very questionable. At the end of the day, Its the Fed-Nadal show. Has been for years, and still looks to be the case until proven otherwise.
  7. crazylevity

    crazylevity Hall of Fame

    Jul 27, 2005
    Sampras-agree on faster surfaces to some extent; would likely split them with Federer given how dominant Federer is on fast surfaces. Would own Sampras on anything slower.

    Borg-agree, but would be dominated by Federer on hardcourts.

    Agassi-yes he was occasionally taking sets, but you overlook all the straight set beatdowns. And come on, even Agassi said that he had no chance against Federer. To him, Federer has no weaknesses.

    Connors-flat, hard hitter. Exactly the type of game Federer eats for breakfast.
  8. jamesblakefan#1

    jamesblakefan#1 G.O.A.T.

    Oct 17, 2007
    VA Beach
    And blah blah freaking blah. Seriously, do you ever stop it with these imaginary matches you play out in your head? You're better off using Borg vs Federer from TopSpin 3 as proof that Fed wouldn't be successful in past eras...:lol:

    Oh'll love this one...

    Becker schooling Federer, your dream come true right?

  9. edberg505

    edberg505 Legend

    Mar 11, 2005
    Ok, how about this...

    1. Does Sampras make 21 straight slam semi-finals if he's in this era?
  10. edberg505

    edberg505 Legend

    Mar 11, 2005
    Oh yeah, that is totally the way that match up would play out. Becker beating Federer from the baseline, awesome.
  11. rwn

    rwn Semi-Pro

    Dec 7, 2006
    Federer would have shaken in his boots if he had to play Pioline twice in a grand slam final.
  12. roberttennis54

    roberttennis54 Semi-Pro

    Sep 7, 2009
    I don' buy into the weaker competition thing with Fed, but for one minute lets pretend he does have weaker competition than all the other great champions. Lets say we made Sampras 10 years younger and gave him a similar career path to what he has now. Do you really think he could have won more slams than Federer and even if you do how many exactly?

    Being as generous as possible just for fun I will give the most optimistic career path Sampras would have had.

    2000 =not good enough to win apart from US. Questionable whether he could beat 29 year old Sampras, but will give it to him 1 slam

    2001=poor other slams and straight setted by Courier, definitely does not beat Hewitt/Agassi/30 year old Pete

    2002=does not play australian, straight setted by Agassi at French in 92 shows he could not have beat the likes of Ferrero/Kuerten. I'll give him wimbly to make it 2 slams. Don' think he gets past Pete at the US though.

    2003 Optimistic again say he manages to beat Agassi at the Aussie wins Wimbledon and US to give him 5 slams.

    2004= wins australian, wins wimbledon. Loses US, because losing to the likes of Yzaga shows your level is not good enough to win. Goes deep in Roland Garros maybe a semi, but the grind of clay means he loses. So he has 7.

    2005= Safin to good for him at the Aussie, but he wins Wimbs and US. So he has 9 slams

    2006=Poor form at the 96 Aussie losing to a teenage Scud probably goes out to someone like Baghdatis, Haas, Nalbandian. No chance at the French with Nadal, but will give him Wimbledon and US. 11 slams.

    2007=wins Aussie, normal poor performance at RG and wins Wimbledon. Lost to Korda in 97 so no way he gets past likes of Djoke to win this. 13 slams.

    2008= No Aussie loses to Kureca means its likely Djoke or Tsonga beat him. Again I would give him Wimbly and even US. so he has 15 slams.

    2009=Does not play Aussie, does not win RG will give him Wimbly and he does not play US open. So ends with 16 slams.

    Like I said not completely serious about this and it's just for fun and to kill a bit of time. However being as optimistic as possible it goes to show, that even if Federer has supposed weaken competition its not as if Sampras or anyone else in the history of the game could do better than he has.
  13. FlamEnemY

    FlamEnemY Hall of Fame

    May 6, 2008
    I agree it's pointless to compare eras. It's only reasonable to think that the overall talent level is the same. The genetic pool hasn't changed, the technology and training methods are accessible for all of the players, and there are still 4 slams a year.

    Now, about your list... I like those scenarios, they are quite funny. You have to mention Hewitt from 2002 - 2005 though. He's pure death to S&V players.
  14. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Jan 23, 2008
    In my humble, but honest opinion:

    Nothing, niets, nichts, niente, nada, δεν, , nullus, כלום
  15. Fedfan1234

    Fedfan1234 Rookie

    Jul 28, 2009
    It detracts nothing, no way of measuring the strength of a field. Saying the competition is weak is only an opinion and a dumb one at that.

Share This Page