I think prime Fed is overrated on this forum

[kragster]

Don't get me wrong, I think of Fed as the best GOAT candidate and prime Fed may be the highest level of tennis ever. The records will say that and I believe that records count for a lot more than subjective bias. But the records also say that being better than the overall field does not mean dominating every H2H. Prime Fed lost matches to young Rafa even when he was cleaning up the rest of the field. So when people say stuff like prime Fed would destroy prime Nole/Sampras/Agassi/Nadal etc I find that somewhat amusing.

At this point of time we know that prime Fed was achieving more than prime Nole (unless he can repeat 2011) or prime Rafa. Yes old man Fed beat Nole in his prime. But he also lost badly to Nole at AO and Dubai. If you want to use old man Fed vs prime Nole argument to hypothesize about how prime Fed would do, use ALL FOUR matches this year not just the ones that suit your convenience.

These top 4 are a lot closer in ability than most think (Even Murray if he had the mindset/attitude of the other 4). On average, prime Fed would have tough matches with prime Rafa/Nole but have a definitive edge on fast courts. And prime Fed would likely clean up the field more than Rafa/Nole. So if they all played in the same generation, he would do the best because no one but Rafa/Nole takes out prime Fed but the same can't be said for prime Rafa/Nole.
Cliffs:

In achievement

Prime Fed > Prime Rafa > Prime Nole

In individual matchup

Prime Fed ? Prime Rafa ? Prime Nole

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

Individual matchup: Fed>>>>Rafa off clay/Nole everywhere

 

[Tammo]

Individual matchup: Fed>>>>Rafa off clay/Nole everywhere

Nadal owns Federer in the H2H, and Djokovic is owning nadal this year, and could even the H2H. Federer still owns Djokovic though, and I don't know why, but Fed is a bad matchup for Djokovic.

 

[BeHappy]

Federer's peak was 2006. His backhand was as good as his forehand that year, he was unstoppable. It carried on into the AO 2007.

 

[Mustard]

It's amazing how short some people's memories are. Prime Federer was the most formidable player in the open era.

 

[SLD76]

It's amazing how short some people's memories are. Prime Federer was the most formidable player in the open era.

^this here. And Mustard is an unapologetic Nadal fan.

 

[pvaudio]

I don't think that Federer's stats can really make him overrated. His slams are not the point. Every other record, however, proves he's the best.

 

[cc0509]

It's amazing how short some people's memories are. Prime Federer was the most formidable player in the open era.

THIS! These type of threads are a joke already!

 

[cc0509]

I don't think that Federer's stats can really make him overrated. His slams are not the point. Every other record, however, proves he's the best.

Only a complete idiot would say otherwise. You just have to look at all of those records with Federer at the top of most and say, it is what it is.

 

[Cup8489]

A guy who has won 3 majors a year 3 times, and 11 in 4 years is overrated?

What?

What's better than doing that?

 

[Mustard]

It's scary to think what Federer would have achieved without Nadal in his way. Just scary. Federer reached 10 major finals in a row from 2005 Wimbledon to the 2007 US Open, winning 8, both losses to Nadal. Federer has lost 7 of his 23 major finals, 6 of those losses to Nadal. I rest my case.

 

[FedExpress 333]

Agree with mustard. He is not overrated at all.

 

[Hood_Man]

The rivalry has been incredibly one sided in recent years but by the end of 2007 it was fairly close at 8 wins to 6 in Nadals favour, with Nadal winning 6 of their first 7 matches, and Federer winning five of the next 7 meetings after that.

Nadal was able to beat Federer from the very beginning but it wasn't all one way traffic.

 

[bluescreen]

Prime Fed lost matches to young Rafa even when he was cleaning up the rest of the field. So when people say stuff like prime Fed would destroy prime Nole/Sampras/Agassi/Nadal etc I find that somewhat amusing.

H2H records are not an accurate indicator of a player's level. Some playing styles don't match up against others. Nadal's playing was was, is, and will continue to be a problem for Federer. But Djokovic has a style that is more beneficial to Federer when they matchup. Of course we can never pit prime Fed against current Djoker, but based on results this year and comparing Fed's current form to his prime form, I think most tennis enthusiasts would agree prime Fed would have comfortable odds against current Djoker.

Rafa lost a lot of matches to James Blake. He has a losing record against Davydenko. But one would never use these stats to measure Rafa's level. Stats against the entire field are much more revealing.

 

[Mighty Matteo]

Don't get me wrong, I think of Fed as the best GOAT candidate and prime Fed may be the highest level of tennis ever. The records will say that and I believe that records count for a lot more than subjective bias. But the records also say that being better than the overall field does not mean dominating every H2H. Prime Fed lost matches to young Rafa even when he was cleaning up the rest of the field. So when people say stuff like prime Fed would destroy prime Nole/Sampras/Agassi/Nadal etc I find that somewhat amusing.

At this point of time we know that prime Fed was achieving more than prime Nole (unless he can repeat 2011) or prime Rafa. Yes old man Fed beat Nole in his prime. But he also lost badly to Nole at AO and Dubai. If you want to use old man Fed vs prime Nole argument to hypothesize about how prime Fed would do, use ALL FOUR matches this year not just the ones that suit your convenience.

These top 4 are a lot closer in ability than most think (Even Murray if he had the mindset/attitude of the other 4). On average, prime Fed would have tough matches with prime Rafa/Nole but have a definitive edge on fast courts. And prime Fed would likely clean up the field more than Rafa/Nole. So if they all played in the same generation, he would do the best because no one but Rafa/Nole takes out prime Fed but the same can't be said for prime Rafa/Nole.
Cliffs:

In achievement

Prime Fed > Prime Rafa > Prime Nole

In individual matchup

Prime Fed ? Prime Rafa ? Prime Nole

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp05kCONoi4

 

[NadalAgassi]

What is most funny is the inconsistency of Federer fans. They claim since 29 year old Federer sometimes has close matches, and occasionally beats, peak Djokovic that he would dominate him in his "prime". Yet 34-35 year old Agassi (who despite his so called late blooming won only 1 slam after 31) with a bad back having prime Federer on the ropes of possible defeat twice at the U.S Open means nothing, and prime Federer would regularly crush prime Agassi still. Not to mention Federer didnt get his first win over Agassi until he was 33 (and 21 year old Federer had won Wimbledon and would win that WTF event) and even then he had to save a match point.

Nadal beating 26 year old Federer in the Wimbledon final means nothing since Federer was old and way past his prime by then. Oh yeah and Federer is a late bloomer too supposably. However Federer is obviously better than Sampras on grass since a young Federer barely won one match with a 30 year old Sampras who would soon be out of the top 10. A still developing Nadal nearly beating Federer at Wimbledon 2007, and novice on grass Nadal giving Federer a tough battle in 2006, also means nothing.

This place is basically Federer Palace. The bias to Federer is even beyond the two most overrated players on TW- Nalbandian and Del Potro. There is no point trying to argue anything Federer related with the ******* army (98% of this forum).

 

[Tammo]

What is most funny is the inconsistency of Federer fans. They claim since 29 year old Federer sometimes has close matches, and occasionally beats, peak Djokovic that he would dominate him in his "prime". Yet 34-35 year old Agassi (who despite his so called late blooming won only 1 slam after 31) with a bad back having prime Federer on the ropes of possible defeat twice at the U.S Open means nothing, and prime Federer would regularly crush prime Agassi still. Not to mention Federer didnt get his first win over Agassi until he was 33 (and 21 year old Federer had won Wimbledon and would win that WTF event) and even then he had to save a match point.

Nadal beating 26 year old Federer in the Wimbledon final means nothing since Federer was old and way past his prime by then. Oh yeah and Federer is a late bloomer too supposably. However Federer is obviously better than Sampras on grass since a young Federer barely won one match with a 30 year old Sampras who would soon be out of the top 10.

This place is basically Federer Palace. The bias to Federer is even beyond the two most overrated players on TW- Nalbandian and Del Potro. There is no point trying to argue anything Federer related with the ******* army (98% of this forum).

Lol, exactly, whenever I say somthing critical about Fed, they come after me.

 

[Docalex007]

LOL @ Federer being considered overrated.

All the praise he gets by many around here is 100% fully deserved. Go check out the Official Records Book of Professional Tennis to see what all the fuss is about.

Federer overrated... lmao.

 

[NadalAgassi]

It's scary to think what Federer would have achieved without Nadal in his way. Just scary. Federer reached 10 major finals in a row from 2005 Wimbledon to the 2007 US Open, winning 8, both losses to Nadal. Federer has lost 7 of his 23 major finals, 6 of those losses to Nadal. I rest my case.

True. It just shows Federer had no competition other than Nadal until Djokovic came on the scene. Basically an era of no depth.

 

[Mustard]

True. It just shows Federer had no competition other than Nadal until Djokovic came on the scene. Basically an era of no depth.

Another way of looking at it is that Federer was so much better than his competition. When it comes down to it, one can only beat who is in front of them on the court.

 

[sadowsk2]

Federer's peak was 2006. His backhand was as good as his forehand that year, he was unstoppable. It carried on into the AO 2007.

He played garbage talent.... Throw him in the 80's or early mid 90's and you can chop his majors in half

 

[cc0509]

True. It just shows Federer had no competition other than Nadal until Djokovic came on the scene. Basically an era of no depth.

Who exactly has been Nadal's tough competition other than Federer and more recently Djokovic? From 2005 on they had the same competition! Or was Nadal playing in some other version of the ATP I am not aware of from 2005 on?

 

[cc0509]

He played garbage talent.... Throw him in the 80's or early mid 90's and you can chop his majors in half

Are you sure about that? Would you bet your life on it?

 

[NadalAgassi]

Who exactly has been Nadal's tough competition other than Federer and more recently Djokovic? From 2005 on they had the same competition! Or was Nadal playing in some other version of the ATP I am not aware of from 2005 on?

None of Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal have had tough competition compared to past greats. I have said that many times. Nadal did beat Federer in 6 slam finals though so he still had the most out of those three. Federer was dominating on hard courts and grass when Roddick, Hewitt, and mid 30s Agassi were his toughest competition on those surfaces as Nadal during Federer's prime was still weak on hard courts (and only starting to become strong on grass at the end), so he obviously had the weakest of all. However Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, basically every other great in the Open Era has had more competition. One reason I rate Sampras as better than Federer personally.

 

[Clarky21]

In his prime Federer was so good that people lost matches to him before they even stepped on court. He was devastating off the forehand side,and his backhand wasn't as weak as people make it out to be. He could also defend with the best of them,and did it with a lot less wear and tear on his body than players like Nadal and Cvac. At times the guy was unbeatable,with the only exception being Nadal.

 

[Docalex007]

True. It just shows Federer had no competition other than Nadal until Djokovic came on the scene. Basically an era of no depth.

You write an entire post about inconsistency and possible flaws in logical reasoning, yet then you post something like this?!

I've said it before and I'll say it again... when a player completely dominates to the point where he's beating literally everyone on tour day in and day out winning tournaments left and right... that era is almost by definition somehow "weak" and there was no depth of talent at the time.

If a player is fairly consistent at winning big tournaments and beating most of the field but nonetheless still losing a fair amount of matches to Top 10 guys throughout the year... this era is super-strong. Lots of depth. Lots of talented pros can be found in this era.


You see what I'm getting at. It's just a failure in reasoning.


Now regarding your earlier post, Federer lost to Nadal at Wimbledon in 2008 when he was still at a ripe 26. Sure. And? Nobody said Federer went undefeated throughout his prime.

Federer was in fact leading his off-clay H2H against Nadal throughout most of his prime. Shame Nadal didn't make more HC finals!

The Agassi argument is a valid point to a certain extent. Agassi had some matches late in his career, aged 30+ where he pushed Federer. Sure. But any avid tennis enthusiast/watcher should be able to tell that Federer prime outperforms Djokovic prime as their styles favour Federer. Federer is by no means shabby at his current level, he's 30 but still damn good. But give him 5 years of his youth back and I'm fairly certain he'd obliterate current Djokovic off the court most of the time.. with a few tight matches and even a Djokovic win every now and then. But the overall story is the same, Federer wins most matches, most titles, gets the records.

 

[Docalex007]

One reason I rate Sampras as better than Federer personally.

Which is why Federer beat the great Sampras at 2001 Wimby. Federer had yet to win a slam at that point (was still two years away!), Sampras was not in his prime, but was still at a level that could, and did, win another slam title the following year!

 

[NadalAgassi]

You write an entire post about inconsistency and possible flaws in logical reasoning, yet then you post something like this?!

I've said it before and I'll say it again... when a player completely dominates to the point where he's beating literally everyone on tour day in and day out winning tournaments left and right... that era is almost by definition somehow "weak" and there was no depth of talent at the time.

Like I said Federer's main competition on hard courts and grass during his prime was Roddick, Hewitt, and a mid 30s Agassi. Those people would compare weak to past greats competition by any rational persons measure. Are you going to compare those people to say Lendl, Connors, and Borg (McEnroe's competition) or Agassi, Becker, Courier (Sampras's competition), or Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe (Laver's competition). His main competition on clay was Nadal, but he didnt win hardly anything on clay anyway.

 

[sadowsk2]

You write an entire post about inconsistency and possible flaws in logical reasoning, yet then you post something like this?!

I've said it before and I'll say it again... when a player completely dominates to the point where he's beating literally everyone on tour day in and day out winning tournaments left and right... that era is almost by definition somehow "weak" and there was no depth of talent at the time.

If a player is fairly consistent at winning big tournaments and beating most of the field but nonetheless still losing a fair amount of matches to Top 10 guys throughout the year... this era is super-strong. Lots of depth. Lots of talented pros can be found in this era.


You see what I'm getting at. It's just a failure in reasoning.


Now regarding your earlier post, Federer lost to Nadal at Wimbledon in 2008 when he was still at a ripe 26. Sure. And? Nobody said Federer went undefeated throughout his prime.

Federer was in fact leading his off-clay H2H against Nadal throughout most of his prime. Shame Nadal didn't make more HC finals!

The Agassi argument is a valid point to a certain extent. Agassi had some matches late in his career, aged 30+ where he pushed Federer. Sure. But any avid tennis enthusiast/watcher should be able to tell that Federer prime outperforms Djokovic prime as their styles favour Federer. Federer is by no means shabby at his current level, he's 30 but still damn good. But give him 5 years of his youth back and I'm fairly certain he'd obliterate current Djokovic off the court most of the time.. with a few tight matches and even a Djokovic win every now and then. But the overall story is the same, Federer wins most matches, most titles, gets the records.

Eloquent but flawed due to broad generalizations. Peel the layers of the onion away. By Feds own admission, before Rafa came along his competition was weak and mediocre, which is why he never practiced as hard as he could/should have.... Fed never had to face some talent that lasted a long time (aside from maybe weak-ass Roddick)... Safin flamed out... Hewitt- injuries and flamed out.... nalbandian and DelPo? Please.... You can look at the 80's where you had a decent amount of players playing at ultra-high levels for long periods of time....

 

[Docalex007]

Like I said Federer's main competition on hard courts and grass during his prime was Roddick, Hewitt, and a mid 30s Agassi. Those people would compare weak to past greats competition by any rational persons measure. Are you going to compare those people to say Lendl, Connors, and Borg (McEnroe's competition) or Agassi, Becker, Courier (Sampras's competition), or Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe (Laver's competition). His main competition on clay was Nadal, but he didnt win hardly anything on clay anyway.

You have a problem with valid lines of reasoning. You are name-dropping all the big Open-Era names that have become iconic and therefore have lots of weight to them.

Let's take the names you dropped for Sampras's competition: Agassi, Becker, Courier.

Let's see, Agassi, a legend no doubt, has 8 slams, Nadal has 10 slams.

Becker has 6 slams. Djokovic has 4 and most importantly... counting.

Courier has 4 slams. Safin and Hewitt both have 2 each, Roddick would have 3-4 alone if not for Federer winning so many slams.

So you see, all your competition of past generations can basically be nullified through this type of reasoning. It's just an example to show you how comparing generations is utterly futile.

Roddick, a so-called "clown" by many disrespectful members of this forum, would wipe the floor on grass/HC against players like Courier, McEnroe, even Borg with his serve. They wouldn't be used to speeds like that coming at them! Different generations, different fitness levels, different technology. You can't compare!

 

[Emet74]

What is most funny is the inconsistency of Federer fans. They claim since 29 year old Federer sometimes has close matches, and occasionally beats, peak Djokovic that he would dominate him in his "prime". Yet 34-35 year old Agassi (who despite his so called late blooming won only 1 slam after 31) with a bad back having prime Federer on the ropes of possible defeat twice at the U.S Open means nothing, and prime Federer would regularly crush prime Agassi still. Not to mention Federer didnt get his first win over Agassi until he was 33 (and 21 year old Federer had won Wimbledon and would win that WTF event) and even then he had to save a match point.

I'm not gonna get sucked into this "prime Fed" era comparing debate nonsense. But I want to comment on this 'cause I've been reading on these boards for years about how embarassing it should be for Fed that Andre played him close at times.

The fact of the matter is that Fed's first match against Agassi after his Wimby breakthru' was at 2003 TMC RR and yes he saved match point but won.

After that he went to defeat Agassi seven more consecutive times and never lost to him again, nor did Agassi ever see another matchpoint.

8-0 is pidgeon status is there ever was one and with a record like that the details of the various matches aren't hugely relevant.

Agassi may well have won one or more slams had he not had the bad luck to run into Fed at 2004 and 2005 USO's and at 2005 AO. 2004 AO Agassi went out to Safin in 5 sets, who is also a very well-respected player. Clearly he was still playing at a quite high level that year despite his age.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Eloquent but flawed due to broad generalizations. Peel the layers of the onion away. By Feds own admission, before Rafa came along his competition was weak and mediocre, which is why he never practiced as hard as he could/should have.... Fed never had to face some talent that lasted a long time (aside from maybe weak-ass Roddick)... Safin flamed out... Hewitt- injuries and flamed out.... nalbandian and DelPo? Please.... You can look at the 80's where you had a decent amount of players playing at ultra-high levels for long periods of time....

Because one of them couldn't play ultra ultra high level to dominate them all??? don't you get it? It's a circular argument from both sides. weak era strong era are both meaningless. The era is what it is neither weak nor strong. There is no proof to indicate Mac would beat Roddick. The only objective data are the achievements. This is why Mac > Roddick (because he won more slams), not because Mac is intrinsically a better player than Roddick, we don't know either way.

 

[Docalex007]

Thanks for only proving my point idiot. You ****s are not only so stupid, but so predictable.

Perhaps it was blasphemous to bring this up (considering it's our only data point for these two?).

What should I have done or said? Non-prime Federer on grass beating non-prime Sampras on grass is not worth mentioning and the result is a throwaway?

Haha, you guys make me laugh.

I love people clinging to one data point as the gospel... By pete's own admission he was gassed at that point in his career

No doubt he was jaded. Wouldn't dispute otherwise. But he still had a slam left in him which he won the following year. It's not like he was terrible!

And regarding the one data point. Yeah, it's basically useless (i'm being serious) as you'd have to get more data points to actually make out a trend. But, note the word basically. The fact remains it is one data point, and it shouldn't be a throwaway data point.

 

[BevelDevil]

Transitivity does not hold in tennis matchups.
a>b and b>c does NOT mean b>c.

That's why relying on h2h leads to confusion and endless debate.

It's like arguing about who is better: Rock, Paper or Scissors.

 

[cc0509]

Like I said Federer's main competition on hard courts and grass during his prime was Roddick, Hewitt, and a mid 30s Agassi.

Nadal was in the picture but he was not able to make non-clay finals in slams for 3-4 years after winning his first FO. I don't care what you say, but any way you slice it it just means Nadal was not strong enough on non-clay surfaces soon enough. He was not making these slam finals and the Nadal was a baby excuse is pure stupidity. As I have said before most past greats who start winning slams on one surface at a young age (younger even than Nadal) go on to win slams on other surfaces immediately! Stop using this Nadal was a baby excuse and that is why he was not making non-clay slam finals. He beat Federer on HC on Miami and other tournaments when he was 17/18 years old so if he did that why couldn't he make a HC slam final? It makes no sense.

Yet you say Nadal is great, which he is I agree, but Nadal's competiton was basically the same as Federer's from 2005 on. If you say Federer had weak competition well guess what, so did Nadal. The fact that Nadal was not good enough to make non-clay slam finals until he was 21/22 is not a valid excuse. Nadal was in that same pool of players as Federer from 2005 on.

 

[Pwned]

He played garbage talent.... Throw him in the 80's or early mid 90's and you can chop his majors in half

Prove it. You can't. You have no idea how the top 20 of one era compares to the top 20 of another. If tennis has progressed like other sports then the competition today is much tougher than decades past.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

What is most funny is the inconsistency of Federer fans. They claim since 29 year old Federer sometimes has close matches, and occasionally beats, peak Djokovic that he would dominate him in his "prime". Yet 34-35 year old Agassi (who despite his so called late blooming won only 1 slam after 31) with a bad back having prime Federer on the ropes of possible defeat twice at the U.S Open means nothing, and prime Federer would regularly crush prime Agassi still. Not to mention Federer didnt get his first win over Agassi until he was 33 (and 21 year old Federer had won Wimbledon and would win that WTF event) and even then he had to save a match point.

Well, we must remember, everything must be skewed so Federer always comes out on top (and let's not even get into his failing to win the Grand Slam, since that's a big "no-no" to mention it around here).

This place is basically Federer Palace. The bias to Federer is even beyond the two most overrated players on TW- Nalbandian and Del Potro. There is no point trying to argue anything Federer related with the ******* army (98% of this forum).

...and you will notice how quickly they forget the words of Federer himself--only a few moths ago, where he said (paraphrasing) that the reason he won so much early on was that the other guys had not yet matured (someone posted this as a TW thread a few months ago). He's admitting he had it easy for some time, so using his own words, he cannot be some GOAT, or rate his prime as some sort of wonder period when he did not have as many threats.

 

[AhmedD]

Because one of them couldn't play ultra ultra high level to dominate them all??? don't you get it? It's a circular argument from both sides. weak era strong era are both meaningless. The era is what it is neither weak nor strong. There is no proof to indicate Mac would beat Roddick. The only objective data are the achievements. This is why Mac > Roddick (because he won more slams), not because Mac is intrinsically a better player than Roddick, we don't know either way.

Give this man a cookie.

You know, I think you are actually one of the rare tennis fans on this forum, whether supporting Djok, Nadal, of Fed, that actually think rationally and acknowledge other players and give credit where credit is due. Good to see, maybe there is hope on this forum to develop and strong era of good posters instead of this weak era of mindless ****s

 

[Docalex007]

Transitivity does not hold in tennis matchups.
a>b and b>c does NOT mean b>c.

That's why relying on h2h leads to confusion and endless debate.

It's like arguing about who is better: Rock, Paper or Scissors.

Thank you. Very well put. This is absolutely true.

It discredits all the strong era, weak era theories that use H2H statistics and competitor Slam wins as a tool for determining which eras were strong, which were weak. It puts it to bed.

Also, there is a tendency to view older generation players as "iconic". This is a cognitive bias. We peer into the past and idolise the big names partly because it was so long ago. A golden-era of tennis that was partly due to the fact that the Open-Era was still youngish during these decades.

The more time passes, the more generations you have of dominating players who come and go and leave statistics behind, sometimes records. The more accumulation of these big named players you get, the more insignificant the newer names become... makes them look more average. One should think a little more critically if one is to see what I mean by this.

 

[Netspirit]

Prime Jesus is overrated. I mean, he lived in a weak era.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Nadal was in the picture but he was not able to make non-clay finals in slams for 3-4 years after winning his first FO. I don't care what you say, but any way you slice it it just means Nadal was not strong enough on non-clay surfaces soon enough. He was not making these slam finals and the Nadal was a baby excuse is pure stupidity. As I have said before most past greats who start winning slams on one surface at a young age (younger even than Nadal) go on to win slams on other surfaces immediately! Stop using this Nadal was a baby excuse and that is why he was not making non-clay slam finals. He beat Federer on HC on Miami and other tournaments when he was 17/18 years old so if he did that why couldn't he make a HC slam final? It makes no sense.

Yet you say Nadal is great, which he is I agree, but Nadal's competiton was basically the same as Federer's from 2005 on. If you say Federer had weak competition well guess what, so did Nadal. The fact that Nadal was not good enough to make non-clay slam finals until he was 21/22 is not a valid excuse. Nadal was in that same pool of players as Federer from 2005 on.

As usual your stupidity and poor reading comprehension is on full display. I never said Nadal or any of Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic had strong competition. They all had **** poor competition compared to past greats, as the field from 2002 onwards has (and continues to be to this date) the worst in history, especialy on natural surfaces like grass and clay. I said Nadal had the most of those three since he did beat Federer in 6 slam finals, but all of them had poor competition.

Also I did not refer to baby Nadal in my post, nor did I make excuses for him. This thread is also NOT an evaluation of Nadal who nobody has said is the best ever yet, but of Federer the designated TW god, so stop hiding behind Nadal since you cant argue well enough when it comes to Federer. I simply said Nadal wasnt any good on hard courts until 2008, which is obvious as he didnt even make a single hard court slam semifinal until that year. Whether he was baby Nadal or not is irrelevant to this particular topic. Nadal also only really became good on grass for the first time in 2007, the last year of Federer dominance, and according to you ****s his supposed prime (his fluke final in 2006 due to a cakewalk draw and journeyman Robert Kendrick chocking away a 3 set win aside). So as Nadal was a weak hard court player and only for a year or maybe two a good grass court player, Federers main competition on hard courts and grass (where 99% of his greatness is based upon) was Roddick, Hewitt, and mid 30s Agassi during his dominating years and **** designated prime years of 2004-2007. That is a simple and really irrefutable fact. So now your turn to stop skewing my posts and try arguing how Roddick, Hewitt, and mid 30s Agassi is tougher competition than facing many multi slam winners near their best as Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe, Borg, all did. Good luck with that.

 

[Docalex007]

Prove it. You can't. You have no idea how the top 20 of one era compares to the top 20 of another. If tennis has progressed like other sports then the competition today is much tougher than decades past.

Exactly. Spot on. How do people not get this by now???

Players today are fitter (better sports nutrition, better endurance and peak performance), players are hitting the ball harder due to advances in racquet tech and so on.

I would love to see the current Top 20 ATP pros taking on the Top 20 pros of say, 1977. Obviously if you just transported the '77 guys through time without allowing them to adapt to the newer tech + sports nutrition, they would be obliterated off the court by the current top guys. I doubt anyone would dispute this.

Of course allowing the '77 Top 20 to spend a lifetime using the newer racquet technology + a lifetime of modern-day sports training and then trying to make a prediction as to what players would be better than current players is completely infeasible. It cannot be done. It's pure speculation. It shouldn't even be attempted. 100% utterly futile.

 

[sadowsk2]

Because one of them couldn't play ultra ultra high level to dominate them all??? don't you get it? It's a circular argument from both sides. weak era strong era are both meaningless. The era is what it is neither weak nor strong. There is no proof to indicate Mac would beat Roddick. The only objective data are the achievements. This is why Mac > Roddick (because he won more slams), not because Mac is intrinsically a better player than Roddick, we don't know either way.

Obviously you don't get it. How old are you? Were you old enough to have watched those players play in their prime? Be honest now. If you watched how great Lendl was, how great Connors, Sampras etc were you'd get an appprexiation for their era. The "objective" data being their achievements is debatable... Does that mean Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer are/were better quarterbacks than Dan Marino or Fran Tarkenton because they won Super Bowls? You are right there is no proof who would beat who and it is debatable... Which brings me back to "did you see them an their competition play in their prime" (YouTube doesn't count. Sorry) and did you see the talent level of their competitors? That means more to me than soley basing everything on their numbers as numbers can be spun any way you like to make your own case.

if you read some of my historical posts on this topic I've said it before- I don't believe you can firmly claim someone the "GOAT" over a past historical era with certainty. I believe you can acknowledge a GOAT of his/her era... And If you've had the privilege to witness several eras you can argue who was greater (in my case I've said it before Sampras was the most dominant grass and HC player I've seen in my life... Borg on clay... People who argue Fed was the greatest I can respect their case (I won't agree with it) only if they saw those other eras... I never saw Laver play and his competition so I can't comment on his position in all of thus

 

[sadowsk2]

As usual your stupidity and poor reading comprehension is on full display. I never said Nadal or any of Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic had strong competition. They all had **** poor competition compared to past greats, as the field from 2002 onwards has (and continues to be to this date) the worst in history, especialy on natural surfaces like grass and clay. I said Nadal had the most of those three since he did beat Federer in 6 slam finals, but all of them had poor competition.

Also I did not refer to baby Nadal in my post, nor did I make excuses for him. This thread is also NOT an evaluation of Nadal who nobody has said is the best ever yet, but of Federer the designated TW god, so stop hiding behind Nadal since you cant argue well enough when it comes to Federer. I simply said Nadal wasnt any good on hard courts until 2008, which is obvious as he didnt even make a single hard court slam semifinal until that year. Whether he was baby Nadal or not is irrelevant to this particular topic. Nadal also only really became good on grass for the first time in 2007, the last year of Federer dominance, and according to you ****s his supposed prime (his fluke final in 2006 due to a cakewalk draw and journeyman Robert Kendrick chocking away a 3 set win aside). So as Nadal was a weak hard court player and only for a year or maybe two a good grass court player, Federers main competition on hard courts and grass (where 99% of his greatness is based upon) was Roddick, Hewitt, and mid 30s Agassi during his dominating years and **** designated prime years of 2004-2007. That is a simple and really irrefutable fact. So now your turn to stop skewing my posts and try arguing how Roddick, Hewitt, and mid 30s Agassi is tougher competition than facing many multi slam winners near their best as Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe, Borg, all did. Good luck with that.

well put- I'd argue most of these posters are 20-somethings who never saw those greats play

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Also, there is a tendency to view older generation players as "iconic". This is a cognitive bias. We peer into the past and idolise the big names partly because it was so long ago. A golden-era of tennis that was partly due to the fact that the Open-Era was still youngish during these decades.

Similarly, there is a tendency for those living in the moment to think like children--where everything new (like a brand new toy) "must" be the "best" or they cannot handle it. Its the typical generational bias favoring anything percieved as part of their time to be the "greatest" of anything, when rational minds use relevant data to reach a far different conclusion. For example, there is no generational bias to think Graf or Laver winning the Grand Slam is a supreme achievement; its not about some fanatical devotion to make a current hero into a god, but recognition of the greatest feat.

However, if Federer's is not called some GOAT of all thig s in tennis, all Hell breaks loose, as his TW fanbase becomes hyper-defensive, and denies all data--as seen in this thread.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Obviously you don't get it. How old are you? Were you old enough to have watched those players play in their prime? Be honest now. If you watched how great Lendl was, how great Connors, Sampras etc were you'd get an appprexiation for their era. The "objective" data being their achievements is debatable... Does that mean Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer are/were better quarterbacks than Dan Marino or Fran Tarkenton because they won Super Bowls? You are right there is no proof who would beat who and it is debatable... Which brings me back to "did you see them an their competition play in their prime" (YouTube doesn't count. Sorry) and did you see the talent level of their competitors? That means more to me than soley basing everything on their numbers as numbers can be spun any way you like to make your own case.

if you read some of my historical posts on this topic I've said it before- I don't believe you can firmly claim someone the "GOAT" over a past historical era with certainty. I believe you can acknowledge a GOAT of his/her era... And If you've had the privilege to witness several eras you can argue who was greater (in my case I've said it before Sampras was the most dominant grass and HC player I've seen in my life... Borg on clay... People who argue Fed was the greatest I can respect their case (I won't agree with it) only if they saw those other eras... I never saw Laver play and his competition so I can't comment on his position in all of thus

Yes actually I watched them all in their pre-prime, prime and post primes (not Youtube). I was so unhappy that Mac got married to Tatum which I think cost him potential GOAT numbers. Watching them is more subjective than the actual achievement data. The achievement data, while not perfect, is the lesser of two evils. What is great to one eyes is poor to another. Which is why this NadalAgassi poster is the most clueless on the board. Followed closely by Clarky21.

Of course GOAT declaration is flawed, but if you are going to do it regardless, and you're going to use anything at all for basing it on, all we have that is closest to objectivity are the achievements. All else is subjective meaningless blather. Weak era/ strong era is simply a euphemism for this era is strong because my favourite player played in it. Your brain tricks you into believing that somehow that era was magically better than another. So yes I'm certain you firmly believe the 80s was better in terms of competition but that belief has nothing to do with the actual truth.

 

[sadowsk2]

Well, we must remember, everything must be skewed so Federer always comes out on top (and let's not even get into his failing to win the Grand Slam, since that's a big "no-no" to mention it around here).





...and you will notice how quickly they forget the words of Federer himself--only a few moths ago, where he said (paraphrasing) that the reason he won so much early on was that the other guys had not yet matured (someone posted this as a TW thread a few months ago). He's admitting he had it easy for some time, so using his own words, he cannot be some GOAT, or rate his prime as some sort of wonder period when he did not have as many threats.

The funniest (and yet very true) post I've read in a long time.... I wonder what this forum will evolve to or gravitate to when Fed is finally gone....

 

[cc0509]

NadalAgassi;6017054]As usual your stupidity and poor reading comprehension is on full display. I never said Nadal or any of Nadal, Federer, or Djokovic had strong competition. They all had **** poor competition compared to past greats, as the field from 2002 onwards has (and continues to be to this date) the worst in history, especialy on natural surfaces like grass and clay. I said Nadal had the most of those three since he did beat Federer in 6 slam finals, but all of them had poor competition.

Coming from you that is funny!
Nadal did not have the most competition out of the three--i.e. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. Who says so? YOU? Nadal dominated on clay and had NO competition. However he was just so much better than everybody else on clay so one could say he was just so much stronger than his competition, not that the rest were so much weaker. You could argue both sides. It does not matter in the end. Your theory that Nadal beat Federer in 6 slam finals and thus had the strongest competition is purely subjective on your part and frankly very stupid. Where was Nadal before that? Bottom line was Federer was making finals of all slams on all surfaces and Nadal wasn't. I don't care if Nadal was 14 years old or was suffering from an ailment of some kind or whatever. He was not good enough off clay and he had the same competition as Federer.

So now your turn to stop skewing my posts and try arguing how Roddick, Hewitt, and mid 30s Agassi is tougher competition than facing many multi slam winners near their best as Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe, Borg, all did. Good luck with that.

How did we start comparing Federer to every other great in other eras? You are lumping all of those greats together and not talking about the competition in each era. That is cheating. I don't have the time or patience right now to go through each era and compare the players of each but I have done so before in other posts. The Borg/Connors/McEnroe era was definitely an era of superior competition. The theory that Federer's competition was the weakest is just a theory given by hardcore Nadal fans who can only argue weak era and h2h. It does not matter because at the end of the day, Federer>Nadal currently. Every record pretty much proves that. As I said I am too tired to think clearly now and argue at my best. For another time.
P.S. I think Federer would easily stand up to any of those past greats and still do as well as he did--i.e. Sampras, etc. etc.

You must like to hear yourself talk and think you are very interesting correct?
Something tells me that is the case!

 

[sadowsk2]

Yes actually I watched them all in their pre-prime, prime and post primes. I was so unhappy that Mac got married to Tatum which I think cost him potential GOAT numbers. Watching them is more subjective than the actual achievement data. The achievement data, while not perfect, is the lesser of two evils. What is great to one eyes is poor to another. Which is why this NadalAgassi poster is the most clueless on the board. Followed closely by Clarky21.

Of course GOAT declaration is flawed, but if you are going to do it regardless, and you're going to use anything at all for basing it on, all we have that is closest to objectivity are the achievements. All else is subjective meaningless blather. Weak era/ strong era is simply a euphemism for this era is strong because my favourite player played in it. Your brain tricks you into believing that somehow that era was magically better than another.

Again the numbers can be spun any way you like- ala your brain tricking you. jMac never even participated in the Aussie Open.... So naturally he would have fewer slams.... The way who gets calculated to be ranked #1 changed so over time so that is debatable... You see where I'm getting at??. You saying "The achievement data, while not perfect, is the lesser of two evils." is subjective in and of itself

 

[heftylefty]

Prime Federer was nearly untouchable. It took the best claycourter in Nadal to prevent Federer from a calendar slam. What is overrated about 16 Slams?